A Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor - 7 Models Reviewed
by Kristopher Kubicki on November 30, 2004 12:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
BenQ FP931
BenQ monitors are not something that we had a lot of opportunity to review in the past, but we picked up a sample a few weeks ago to include in today's roundup. There are a few similar Acer models to the BenQ that we are looking at today, but that should come as no surprise to those who know BenQ's history.
BenQ's FP931 doesn't bring much to the table as far as looks go, but it's under the hood that is of more interest to us. This is one of the few 19" monitors that we can buy through retail channels with 16ms response times, so we are extremely excited to see how the FP931 performs in a head-to-head competition for gaming.
| BenQ FP931 | |
| LCD | 19" SXGA LCD (Active Matrix) pixel pitch: 0.294mm Anti-glare coating |
| Scanning Frequency | Horizontal: 57-82kHz Vertical: 60-77Hz |
| Response Time | 16ms (Typical) |
| Contrast Ratio | 450:1 (Typical) |
| Compatibility | 1280 x 1024 (Native) |
| Brightness | 250 cd/m2 |
| Viewing Angle | 130 / 130 (Horizontal / Vertical) |
| Power | Working: 40W |
| Warranty | 3 years parts and labor |
| Interface | DVI 15-pin D-sub |
BenQ's FP931 is based on a TN 6-bit LCD panel. While it is advertised as a 16.2M color display, each pixel can only display 262,000 hues; the other 16M hues are "simulated" using dithering techniques. Over the last few months, AUO and BenQ have built a very strong dependence on each other, so we were very excited to see them working together on the FP931 display. In fact, our experience with the FP931 was very similar to our first impressions of the AUO-based Hitachi CML174. Aside from the obvious difference in size, these two monitors are very similar in performance and specifications. We already expect problems with rich color, but we may see better performance while gaming.
The rest of the BenQ design is very straightforward with no frills. The stand can be adjusted moderately with only a basic on-screen display. On one hand, the FP931 is a bargain around $430, but on the other hand, the problems with the 6-bit LCD panel have us worried.
BenQ advertises 7 dead pixels or 3 within 1 square inch for a return, and supersedes most vendors' return policies anyway. Of course, you could follow our advice and test the LCD before you even walk out of the store.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Kristopher, could you comment on the perceived lag that I've felt on three different 2001FPs? There's no ghosting, but the delay between moving the mouse and having an update on the screen is horrible. DVI-I and D-SUB, different video cards, systems, the works, they all have it.I don't see this on the other LCDs here at work. I know there was a Slashdot post about this a while back, and some have said it's caused by bad batches, but three of them having the same problem? I don't know if I should send my personal 2001FP back ...
InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone >explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if >the resolution is the same (ignoring that the >dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20"
InuYasha - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same >viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" >LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" >CRTs.">angle = area in this case?
>Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and >some not so well...
a 19" LCD is measured EXACTLY 19"image display size, but a 19" CRT is usually like 18" or 17.x", the 19" is usally the glass size, not the actual image size for CRTs
sonicDivx - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Umm, yeah what up with that? Why can't someone explain the reason to get a 19" versus a 17" if the resolution is the same (ignoring that the dot pitch is bigger thus easier to see).Also why not list the settings you used for each monitor to attain the results you got (during subjective tests). This way we could set the LCD to your spec and go from there. Where is the Samsung 912N in review, its a common LCD out there?
>HelToupee
>viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
>
>angle = area in this case?
HelToupee - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
In the second paragraph on the first page:"Recall that 19" LCDs have roughly the same viewing area as 21" CRT monitors, and that 17" LCDs have about the same viewing ANGLE as 19" CRTs."
angle = area in this case?
Some stories get edited well on anandtech, and some not so well...
IHYLN - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I'm no english major but "more are better" "less are better" in some of the graphs made me wonder.nastyemu25 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I agree, let's see a Sony HS-94P/B with x-black technology review!ocyl - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Should have dropped Benq's colour scores to 2 (or 1, even) for its decision to use a 6-bit panel instead of a True Colour (8-bit) one :PFilibuster - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
>I think there have to be gamers here, and I do not think LCDs are there yet when it comes to refresh rates; it would have been nice to see the refresh rates on the monitors at 1024, 1280, and 1600.LCD displays don't have a refresh rate at any resolution. There is no flicker to be worried about.
Ensign - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
In the Intro, it says, "A reasonably cheap, new 21" CRT runs for about $350; a reasonably cheap, new 21" LCD runs for about $330." I'm guessing that was supposed to say 17" or 19" LCD?