Final Thoughts

When we first started this analysis, we felt a little confident that the budget monitors in this comparison did not stand much chance against some of the other units among the group. On the contrary, we were very impressed to see the ~$400 units performing better than the more expensive units in our roundup. The low response time of the BenQ P931 played less of a role in our comparisons than we had anticipated, and sacrificing an 8-bit LCD panel for a 6-bit one probably hurt the monitor more than it should have in our comparative report card.

Our Samsung 193P won our hearts in almost every benchmark - colors were great, the design is awesome and we noticed no motion blur. Unfortunately, that amazing performance comes with a $700 price tag - you could almost get two NuTech L921Gs for that price! In fact, the ViewSonic Q190MB and identical twin NuTech L921G performed splendid in today's roundup. The price point is certainly there, and our analysis on the last few pages proved performance just at or slightly below that of the Samsung 193P in applications. For a low cost, no frills 19" solution, NuTech and ViewSonic monitors are hard to beat.

However, don't go away from this article with just the knowledge that the ViewSonic Q190MB and the NuTech L921G are good buys. Recall the steps that we laid out at the beginning of this article on how to buy a good LCD. To sum things up, remember the basics about monitor shopping - don't blindly trust all the specifications on the box and see the unit before you buy it.

Subjective Analysis (continued)
Comments Locked

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 :P
  • Filibuster - 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?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now