AOC i2353Ph - IPS for a nice, low price
by Chris Heinonen on January 30, 2012 12:40 AM ESTeIPS: A Viable Budget Alternative to TN
I was quite pleased to see that IPS monitors are coming way down in price to where I can recommend them even to friends that are very budget conscious on their displays. I’ve been using a Dell FPW2005 IPS display for years now (and no longer want to recall how much I paid for it when it came out), but it has been a pleasure to work on since I got it. That you can now buy a display with higher resolution, lower lag, and more power efficient backlighting for less than half the price is a very good direction for displays.
In terms of performance, the AOC comes down right in the middle of the road. The lag is a little bit too high for hard core gamers, though I found it to be acceptable for casual gaming myself. The color gamut is also probably too limited for people that need it for editing photos professionally, as it can’t quite encompass the full sRGB colorspace, though the average and median Delta E values were more than acceptable. However, as a general purpose monitor for doing work I found the AOC to do a very good job of that. The matte screen means you won’t be dealing with reflections in a lit room, but you will be limited on adjustments due to the design of the stand.
For the price (currently $190 shipped online as I write this), the AOC is a good deal in my book. Users with specialized needs will want to look elsewhere, but those who are just after an affordable, well performing, general use monitor (or a secondary display) should go ahead and give it a look. It won't rival the color quality of the high-end displays, but it's definitely a step up from many inexpensive TN-based LCDs. If you've been looking for a good alternative to TN that won't break the bank, eIPS is the current best option.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
cheinonen - Monday, January 30, 2012 - link
There are 120Hz TN displays available now, and we recently reviewed one from Samsung which you can find. With gaming, I found the 120Hz refresh to be really nice and make a noticeable difference in how smooth the image was compared to 60Hz. There are no IPS panels available that do 120Hz that I know of, but since you can get 120Hz HDTVs that use IPS panels (they don't accept 120Hz signals, but can display 720p60 frame packed, which is basically 120Hz by a different name) I'd hope that desktop displays using this aren't far away.Do people think that 1 frame of lag is the acceptable cut-off point then? Since there are displays that can do 10ms or less, I tend to think that we should aim for > 0.5 frames of lag as an ideal, but that's also harder to find. I play some games, but I'm not good at FPS games anymore, so my saying that I found 1 frame of lag acceptable is much different than someone who is actually good finding that acceptable.
vailr - Monday, January 30, 2012 - link
What about OLED monitors? I heard that OLED TV's were seen at CES in Las Vegas a few weeks ago, but nothing mentioned about OLED PC monitors.jesh462 - Monday, January 30, 2012 - link
If you get a higher quality panel (Dell/NEC) display port lets you reach over 80hz refresh rates with some tweaks. It's not 120hz. It's also not a dirty TN panel.As for OLED, I believe it's a lost cause for desktop/laptop monitors. Manufacturers are already switching to Quantom Dot technology for production *this year*.
annnonymouscoward - Monday, January 30, 2012 - link
> Do people think that 1 frame of lag is the acceptable cut-off point then?I'm extremely sensitive to lag--so much that I'm turned off from every Droid phone I've ever used. And I've owned a 3007WFP-HC for years, which averages 11.5ms of lag according to digitalversus. I've never perceived lag on it, and I play FPS. I'd never buy a monitor with 30ms lag. The general public can't notice 50ms lag.
I find 60Hz to be the huge limiting factor in FPS's, since getting an update every 16.7ms isn't enough information when trying to target on the fly.
I think there's a sizable market for premium new displays, if some company would have the sense to make them. Instead, all we get is crap. They take monitor tech we've had for 6 years, reduce 3", make it 16:9, and maybe even glossy. There has been virtually zero improvement to the 30" IPS models that came out 6 years ago. I want a 36", X-IPS, WUVDIQXGA, with a polarizer filer, 80Hz minimum. No more 16:9 60Hz garbage.
jaydee - Monday, January 30, 2012 - link
If they could have squeezed in a DisplayPort and 1920x1200 res for just 20-30 more, this would be a great deal IMO. It's a good deal as it is, I was hoping for just a little bit more.CZroe - Monday, January 30, 2012 - link
Shouldn't the freakin' size be in the title, synopsis, or the first paragraph of the article?!TerdFerguson - Monday, January 30, 2012 - link
Great review. Thanks for the info.jleach1 - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link
I've been ogling IPS displays for years, but always walked away with one thing in mind...sticker shock!Can you Anandtech staff and the readers recommend an IPS display for the budget-conscious? I understand they're going to be more expensive than their run-of-the-mill partners, but I'm speaking in relative terms.
It wouldn't be for professional use, but rather gaming and video goodness!
Preferably something between 23-25 inches.
Thanks!
J
sviola - Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - link
Hey Chris,Can you guys get in touch with LG and do a review of their new 120Hz IPS monitors due to market this February. The series are the DM92 (27") and the DM82 (23").
Many Thanks
cheinonen - Wednesday, February 1, 2012 - link
These aren't 120 Hz IPS displays. They use circular polarization, much like the Viewsonic monitor we recently reviewed, so each eye gets a 1920x540 image when running at 60Hz. If they were 120Hz we would certainly be interested, but it looks to be a passive 3D display, albeit with IPS instead of TN.