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)
POST A COMMENT

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • xann - Monday, January 14, 2008 - link

    it is like:
    640*480 1 :1
    800*600 1,25 :1,25
    1024*768 1,6 :1,6
    1152*864 1,8 :1,8
    1280*1024 2 :2,13

    1600*1200 2,5 :2,5

    1440*900 2,25 :1,87
    1680*1050 2,625 :2,1875
    1920*1200 3 :2,5
    2560*1600 4 :3,33333

    wide screen resolutions are not one on one.
    i look for 19" LCD with res 1600*1200

    Reply
  • xann - Monday, January 14, 2008 - link

    it is like:
    640*480 1 :1
    800*600 1,25 :1,25
    1024*768 1,6 :1,6
    1152*864 1,8 :1,8
    1280*1024 2 :2,13

    1600*1200 2,5 :2,5


    1440*900 2,25 :1,87
    1680*1050 2,625 :2,1875
    1920*1200 3 :2,5
    2560*1600 4 :3,33333
    Reply
  • Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link

    One of the main reasons I think PVA is in a completely different league regarding response time compared to TN/IPS, is this guide by X-Bit Labs.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd...
    Reply
  • Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link

    The tips at the start were great though, and pointed out several important things I'd have overlooked otherwise. Reply
  • Cay - Friday, December 17, 2004 - link

    This review wasn't very useful to me, frankly. It contains too much subjective talk, and barely any data. I miss the following:

    .) For each panel, clearly state the technology used (TN, M/PVA, IPS), as well as if it's 8 or 6 bit. This gives more meaningful information than all the manufacturer specs.

    .) Screen photographs of select, demanding images taken under the same conditions. Here, I want to see how each image looks like on EACH screen, not just 3 samples total.

    Printer reviews do this well. You can dedicate one HTML page for each test image (eg 1 for the Max Payne scene, 1 for the Morrowind pic), and put the results from different monitors right below each other. This would allow me to directly compare how still images look like. At the end of the image block, you can put your comments.

    With well-chosen test images, this might give a pretty complete idea of how good a monitor's still image/color quality/contrast is.

    .) A meaningful measurement of response time.
    When you claim to "not notice any difference" between a PVA and a TN panel, I have to conclude that the Anandtech crew is much less sensitive to response time than most people. That's great for you, but bad for me - I'm not getting any response time information.

    Build a device to measure all gray-black or grey-grey response times. Tom's Hardware and X-Bit have some you can use for inspiration.

    Just including this measurement does not mean that you have to emphasize its importance. You can put it in a section together with your subjective response time interpretation.
    Reply
  • 610 - Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - link

    Is the NuTech L921G currently available in the US?

    The article says that the review unit was not store-bought, but doesn't specify how it was obtained. I've found only one site anywhere that claims to sell it, and it's not listed in any of the usual price-comparison sites (like PriceScan, for example).
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 13, 2004 - link

    ecove:

    I believe all of the monitors you mentioned use the same AUO panel. Performance will be very similar.

    Hope that helps,

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • ecove - Thursday, December 9, 2004 - link

    I've noticed in researching 19" LCDs that there are a number of models from various manufacturers (eg Princeton LCD19D, CTX S962A/G, Advueu ADV190DT) that all share what appear to be identical specs to the Nu and Viewsonic models reviewed here. Is it a safe assumption that these monitors all share the same panel and have essentially the same performance? Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    That sample blue image on the penultimate page really made me worry about the LCD I'm using to view it here because it looked terribly dithered! Fortunately I realised the image you showed there was actually a 256-colour GIF (?!) of the image you should have used.
    Reply
  • R3MF - Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - link

    @ #69 -
    agreed, i would like to see what the Dell 1905FP is like too.........

    @ #87 -
    yes, the Dell 1905FP is rated at 20ms, and while it may not be best for games like UT2k4, but what about games like Mafia and Rome: TW where twitch gaming is irrelevant?

    REMF
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now