ASUS VG236H 23-inch 3D Display Review: 120Hz is the Future
by Brian Klug on August 7, 2010 2:48 AM ESTPower Consumption
The ASUS VG236H specifications stipulate power use of under 60 watts in typical circumstances. At maximum draw, we measured 47 watts.
We test display power consumption using a Kill-A-Watt EZ in line with the display power cable, and measure at maximum and minimum brightness while displaying solid white.
The VG236H finished within this 60 watt upper limit, drawing a maximum of 47 watts at maximum brightness, and 25 with the display at its lowest brightness. Granted, it’s only 23”, but still efficient results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
mino - Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - link
.. reasonable 1920x1200 ..dingetje - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link
I will immediately get one....when 1920 x 1200 models are available.A 1920 x 1080 screen is just not acceptable for me, even when it's 120hz goodness.
Looking forward to more 120hz screen reviews....thx
Taft12 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link
How long can you hold your breath? I don't think 1920x1200 is coming back on the market ever again.ZoZo - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
You may have to wait a long time.It appears that 16:10 is being abandoned.
DarkUltra - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
For now, yes but if there is a market for it it will hopefully return. The 23" 16:9 we have at works is just too wide for me; the 1920x1200 24" my father have is really much higher, it can fit an entire Windows 7 double-sized task bar and a ribbon menu more than 1080.martin5000 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link
16:9 is absolutely horrible for computers. Its so disappointing that this is the current trend.Glossy is also terrible, maybe the colours do look a bit more vibrant, but at the cost of not actually be able to see the screen unless you're in the perfect light conditions, no thanks!
medi01 - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link
I second that. Basically it's all about marketing:1) glossy screens probably look better in shops
2) X inches monitor with 4:3 ratio has 12% more pixels than 16:9 => it's cheaper to produce
Mr Perfect - Saturday, August 7, 2010 - link
I imaging that being able to put "FULL 1080P HD!" on the box doesn't hurt sales either.So, to recap, change this into a 16:10, matte finish, IPS panel.
BansheeX - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
You're both nuts. No aspect ratio inherently gives more resolution than any other. Case-in-point, 3200x1800 is a 16:9 resolution that is much higher than 1600x1200 (4:3) or 1920x1200 (16:10). The reason 1920x1080 is so common for 16:9 is mainly the result of established manufacturing processes and 1:1 scaling of HD material.Quidam67 - Sunday, August 8, 2010 - link
I genuinely don't understand why some people are showing such a strong reaction against 16:9 monitors. I must be missing the point, or is it really just the slightly different aspect ratio + slightly less pixels that has them all worked up?!?