HP L2335: Low Response Time and High Resolution LCDby Kristopher Kubicki on July 8, 2005 7:00 AM EST
- Posted in
Subjective AnalysisFor this portion of the benchmark, we will pit the HP L2335 display against monitors that we have looked at recently in the same size category. This is a subjective test that relies on our overall experience with the monitor after several hours of casual and thorough use. We also use test patterns and guidelines from the VESA FPDM 2.0 to rate each unit as fairly as possible.
Here is generally how we rate a category:
5 - Outstanding; we have not seen anything to date that could rival our impression of this monitor's performance.
4 - Good, but room for improvement. There are units on the market that perform better.
3 - Average; this monitor performs well enough to maintain the status quo, but does not excel.
2 - Improvement needed; this monitor performs poorly in performance of this category.
1 - Unacceptable; this product does not pass even basic performance requirements.
|DisplayMate / CheckScreen / VESA FPDM 2.0|
|HP L2335||Dell 2001FP||Dell 2005FPW||Apple Cinema 20"||Samsung 213T|
|Intensity Range Check||5||5||5||4.5||5|
|Black Level Adjustment||4.5||4.5||4.5||4.5||5|
|Wide Angle Viewing||4.5||3||5||5||5|
|Defocusing, Blooming, Halos||5||5||5||5||5|
|Screen Uniformity and Color Purity||5||4.5||5||5||4|
|Dark Screen Glare Test||4.5||4.5||4.5||4.5||4.5|
|16 Color Intensity Levels||4||4.5||4||4.5||4.5|
|Motion Blur, Black + White||4||3.5||4||4||-|
|Motion Blur, Gaming||4||3||4||4||-|
*Note: the streaking/ghosting mentioned in this portion of the analysis refers to streaking and ghosting as interference, not as a byproduct of poor response time.
Notes from the LabEven though the HP L2335 scored very well in this analysis, there is some room for improvement. The market has progressed so much since the unveiling of the Samsung 213T that outstanding intensity range in early 2004 is just accepted as the standard today in 2005. We just looked at the Dell 2005FPW and the Apple Cinema display, so those benchmarks are the most relevant of the bunch in our analysis. Even thought the differences are getting more subtle from display to display, there are a few obvious points that we can make. When we had the Samsung 213T in our lab, we did not include motion blur testing at the time, which is why those marks are left out from the table. Comparing the two displays for gaming is an easy task, however. The Samsung 213T uses a considerably slower PVA panel compared to the other four displays featured in the table, all of which use 16ms LG.Philips LCD panels.
Our biggest compliment to the L2335 was the screen uniformity. Often, larger LCD displays (20" and higher) start to have more trouble keeping the backlighting consistent. This was not a problem for the L2335 even when the screen was completely black. Although color replication was very good, there is also some room for improvement here too. Our intensity levels were a little weak at times, although this was generally in the mid tones and not in the extremes as our measured contrast ratio tests on the previous pages have shown. Had this display gone on the market in 2003, we probably wouldn't have even mentioned anything, but as LCDs mature, so must our criticism.
Gaming on the L2335 was spectacular, but once we were past the 1920x1200 resolution, we started to analyze the tell tale problems of all LCD panels. Motion blur is evident in our tests, and there really is no advantage compared to a display like the Dell 2005FPW. We suspect that the response time is probably better than that of the Dell 2405FPW, since SIPS panels (like the one used in the HP L2335) generally outperform PVA panels here.
We should note that running large resolutions on this display in analog mode is extremely painful. At 1920x1200, it didn't take much interference for us to generate artifacts all along the edges of the signal, even when using one of our own high quality cables.
Another Special Note about GamingWe took some flak during our last review when we mentioned that support for 1680x1050 on games was not as prevalent as it could be. We might have overstated a bit as most new games since 2004 generally have support for 16:10 resolutions including 1680x1050. A colleague of mine, Skip Clarke writes:
While there have been notable exceptions in recent releases (including WC3, Pirates!, Rollercoaster Tycoon 3, and SW: KOTOR2), most new games support widescreen resolutions either natively or through easy hacks/tweaks. Recent major releases with native widescreen include: COH, WOW, EQ2, Guild Wars, HL2, GTA3:VC, Doom3, Sims2 (though a hack is needed for any res above 1600x1200), Warhammer 40k:DOW, UTk4. Recent releases that are hackable include America's Army, Battle for Middle Earth, COD, MOH, XIII, Painkiller, Rise of Nations, Elder Scrolls 3, Splinter Cell, C&C: Generals, and StarWars: Republic Commando.Skip has me outclassed here, so feel free to check out his website at http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/ for more details and patches!
In addition, some "old school" favorites such as the original Command & Conquer series (including RA, RA2, and Tiberian Sun), RTA2, Homeworld, Mehcwarrior 4, Doom I & II, Quake 2, Dungeon Keeper 2, and Max Payne support widescreen either natively or by hack. And, we host patches (created by forum members) to hack Sim City 4, SW:KOTOR, DAOC (pre-Catacombs, as Catacombs added widescreen), Myst: Uru, Tiger Woods PGS Tour 2004, and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.