Pre-AM2 Mid-Range Buyers' Guide, May 2006
by Jarred Walton on May 9, 2006 6:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Display Recommendations
We used about one fourth of the total budget on the motherboard and processor recommendations, and we're willing to use another fourth of the budget on a good quality display. I've said it in the past: I'm done with CRT recommendations. It's not that LCDs are perfect, but CRTs pretty much target the budget market exclusively these days, not mention their size disadvantage. We wish it was possible to get a 1920x1200 LCD with a 100 Hz refresh rate, for example, but unfortunately such a resolution is not part of the DVI spec.I also encourage people to overspend on displays if at all possible; a good display can easily outlast the rest of your system, and you're going to be staring at it every day that you use your computer. We've recommended 19 inch LCDs in the past for the midrange sector, but prices are at the point where we can now fit a 20 inch widescreen display into the $1500 midrange budget. Naturally, if you don't want to spend $325, you can skip out on the 20 inch widescreen displays, but we feel the extra $75 is money well spent.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Display Recommendation: BenQ 20 inch 8ms Widescreen LCD FP202W
Price: $325 shipped (Retail)
BenQ's latest LCD offering has a great price, and it's a reasonable quality display as well. 16.7 million colors (no dithering), DVI and VGA connections, 8ms response times (gray-to-gray/GTG), and a native 1680x1050 resolution. You get all of that for a price of $325 - and Newegg even has a $40 mail-in rebate if you hurry. There's no pivot mode (does anyone actually use portrait mode with widescreen displays?), and a slightly more important negative point is that there's no height adjustment on the stand. The display also feels a bit flimsy, but we would still take it over a sturdier display that costs $100 more.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Display Alternative: Acer 24 inch 6ms Widescreen LCD AL2416Wd
Price: $735 shipped (Retail)
This is the one alternative that we're explicitly listing. A 20 inch widescreen display is nice, but a 24 inch widescreen display is better! 6ms GTG response times, 16.7 million colors, and a native 1920x1200 resolution. It doesn't get much better than this, at least in the world of the LCDs. In order to keep the price down, Acer doesn't have as many options as some of the other 24 inch displays, but you probably won't miss most of the features. Integrated flash memory reader? Component inputs? The Dell 2405FPW has those, but it also costs more money - even if you can find it on sale. Subjectively, some people will prefer the look and features of the 2405FPW, but it's hard to argue with an extra couple hundred dollars in your pocket.
If you're looking for cheaper display options, check out the 19 inch standard aspect ratio LCDs. The Acer AL1951B ($257), BenQ FP93GX, and BenQ FP91G+ ($220) are some of our top picks, and all three have the requisite DVI connection. Of those, picking a "best" LCD is a matter of compromises. If you're after lower response times, the BenQ "2ms" FP93GX should deliver, though image quality may be compromised in the pursuit of response times on such panels.
For example, the Acer says it has 16.7 million colors while the BenQ displays only list 16.2 million colors with dithering. Dithering isn't the end of the world, but it can affect image quality, so if you do any form of image editing you might want a better display. Whether or not you can see the dithering depends on the individual, the display, as well as how the monitor is being used. Try looking at some color charts showing all 256 shades of red, green, and blue, and see if you can spot the transitions. Using those charts on several 8-bit LCDs, only the green clearly shows individual color transitions, and the 6-bit panel looked about the same.
| Display Alternatives | |
| BenQ 19 inch 2ms FP93GX | 260 |
| Acer 19 inch 6ms AL1951B | 257 |
| BenQ 19 inch 8ms FP91G+ | 210 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
jonp - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Just to note, Asus P5LD2, PCB version 2.01G, BIOS version 1207 supports the Core 2 Duo (Conroe) processors!http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx">http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx
jiulemoigt - Saturday, May 13, 2006 - link
I really have wonder somedays if reviewers even understand their target audience anymore. My favorite statement in the entire article "CRTs pretty much target the budget market exclusively these days", this has to have been in ignorence, I can understand they weigh too much and take up too much space, but if your suggesting that displays which have higher resolutions and refresh rates being cheaper makes them budget market, I'd love to be the guy that sells you hardware. Most LCD are inferior exspecailly at the prices you talking about, at four hundred dollars you can get a professional crt which will display at 2048x1536 at 75Hz or 1920x1200 at 85Hz.So instead of recomending a cheap LCD with questionible quality you might want to point out those CRT displays you personaly dislike as an option for people on a budget to get the best options possible as not everyone can afford the nice LCDs likeone that cost more than the whole system price.
As to the DVI standard the standard is not the problem the hardware is dell's 30 LCD could probably handle the bandwidth, most CRTs can handle more but most LCD
can not even hit 1920x1200 at 60Hz and those that do rarely hit the 75Hz DVI standard.
JarredWalton - Sunday, May 14, 2006 - link
As one example, let's check out Newegg.http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Subm...">Here are the 20 inch or larger CRTs
Both models (yes, there are exactly 2 models currently carried by Newegg) have a maximum resolution of 1600x1200, and the maximum refresh rate at that resolution of 75 Hz. Both are invar shadow mask tubes, which means they are targeting a budget rather than quality. Aperture grille monitors were always better, in my opinion, and they certainly cost more to make.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Subm...">What about 19 inch CRTs?
The seven options there aren't any better than what was listed above. One of those displays might actually have an aperture grille tube, but I doubt it. In the past, I used to recommend the NEC FE991SB, which does indeed have an aperture grille tube. I bought one about 18 months ago for $250. That model is no longer available (unless you can get a refurbished display or you find one that has been sitting on the shelf for a couple years), and the newer FE992SB is once again an invar shadow mask tube.
I have stated this on several occasions in the past, but CRTs are pretty much at a dead and now. If anyone is trying to make newer, better models, I don't know who they are. When I say CRTs are a budget option, what I mean is that you can't get new CRTs that are as good as the top models from three or four years ago. They represent one of the few components in computers that has actually gotten worse in the past two years. It's not that they can't manufacture better displays, but they feel that the market has moved to LCDs, and so any CRTs that they make are looking to cut costs more than anything else.
I'm sure you can go out and find refurbished displays that are still very good, provided you want to deal with the large size. However, our buyer's guides make a point of recommending hardware that you can easily purchase, and we have never listed used/refurbished products. That's not to say he used to/refurbished is bad, but availability is very sketchy. I hope that explains my statement that CRTs are budget options these days.
Regards,
Jarred Walton
Hardware Editor
AnandTech.com
johnsonx - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
and I thought I was the only one who tossed that in at the end of a list; I even work it into casual converstation, how about you?
Powered by AMD - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
QUOTE:"Plenty of people are still running old socket 478, 462, and 754 systems, and they're perfectly happy with the level of performance and they have. The latest and greatest computer games almost certainly wouldn't run on those older systems without drastically reducing the graphics quality, but if you don't play games you probably won't care about or notice the "missing" performance"
I disagree. With my X800 XT and my Athlon XP 2300Mhz (real frequency), I can play everything at 1024x768, Im missing better resolutions and maybe AA in some titles, but no more than that. I dont "drastically" reduce visual quality, and I play smooth. When I start to see a Mayor change about smoothness, I ll buy a new PC. Meanwhile, Im done.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I'm thinking specifically about F.E.A.R. and Oblivion. Running at anything less than 1280x1024 qualifies as a pretty major cut in graphical quality, at least in my opinion. Note that I'm not talking about all games here, just the "latest and greatest" -- meaning the most graphically intense. (And no, I don't think graphics makes a game much better. I think I will put that portion" to make that clear.)Belldandy - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Good ideas presented. A HTPC guide with respects to HDCP, or at least something about DRM ie DVI-HDCP or some workaround where HD content can be displayed at native resolution at 1080p would be good. Also Home theater reciever audio hookup (with quality recommendations) would be helpful. Also case selection, noise, heat are potential problems that break a HT setup.chinna - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
We really need one good guide for HTPC soon. There are lot of people interested in building quite HTPCs now-a-days. Hooked to 32/37 LCD these are wonderful. But hardly find any good articles about it. There were few on tomshardware, but those were really a joke.I would like to see a good article on how to put together a nice HTPC system with reasonable budget, preferably with HD TV Tuner( not a gamers PC) and proper remote.
toyota - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
whats the point in having a monitor that the 7600gt is going to struggle with? good luck playing any modern games at the native resolution. i think if your are interested in gaming on this level of computer you should stick with a 19 inch lcd. of course you could always spend a little more and get the 7900gt or x1800xt.MNOB07 - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I like the guide a lot, but I agree. I would not recommend the 7600GT for a system costing ~$1500, instead I would go for the 7900GT. On the other hand the 7600GT won't be a bad choice if your going to be an early adopter of the best DX10 card when it comes out anyway and are trying to save money.