Help me pick between these two monitors (newsflash: jcap has twins... hates both)

[jcap]

My current monitor has a shitty power circuit, so it only turns on like 1 out of every 30 tries. I'm going to repair it, but I need a monitor to replace it until then.

It's about time for an upgrade anyway, so I thought I'd just invest in a new one to carry me the next few years, instead of stealing one that's already being used elsewhere.

I've narrowed it down to two choices, which you can see side-by-side HERE ON NEWEGG (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006519%2050001315%2040000020%20600026360%2060 0026365%20600029504&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&CompareItemList=20%7C24-236-059%5E24-236-059-TS%2C24-236-052%5E24-236-052-TS).

Ignore the prices. On Amazon, they are both less than $180.

The two are identical feature-wise. Basically, the difference is that one is 0.6 inches bigger than the other, for $10 more (on Amazon). Additionally, the bigger monitor has a response time which is 5ms, opposed to the smaller monitor which is only 2ms.

I just want the right monitor. For those curious, HDMI, DVI, and D-Sub are all a "must have" on my monitor. If you want to suggest a better one that doesn't cost more than $180, then feel free to mention it. Otherwise, let me know which I should get.

[Ifafudafi]

You can barely get a cheeseburger meal for $10 these days; unless you're that constrained on cash, there's no reason to go for the smaller one imho

[jcap]

Yeah, the difference is $$$ is not a concern. It's just whether the 0.6" is actually worth it since they are both 1920x1080, and whether the response time is a factor.

[CN3089]

Get the bigger one. Hth.

[Dwood]

smaller one? I see no difference so saving $10 don't hurt.

waiting for ifaf to yell at me

[Pyong Kawaguchi]

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-MS238H-23-Inch-Wide-Monitor/dp/B002ZVCGXQ/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1284299644&sr=8-3-fkmr1
What about that? Or is it terribad for some reason? The reviews look wonderful from what I've read, and its LED :3

[jcap]

Yeah, the fact that it is LED did catch my attention earlier, except it (1) lacks a DVI port and (2) HOLY BALLS LOOK AT THE BASE OF THAT THING

[Pyong Kawaguchi]

http://www.amazon.com/ML238H-23-Inch-Ultra-Slim-Monitor-Black/dp/B003XU73KY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1284311711&sr=8-2
I might get this, it has a better base I think.

[Rook]

http://www.amazon.com/ML238H-23-Inch-Ultra-Slim-Monitor-Black/dp/B003XU73KY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1284311711&sr=8-2
I might get this, it has a better base I think.
:smith:


If I were getting one of those probably the 23'' because of 2ms. The size difference of 0.6'' wouldn't seem to be noticeable.

[Amit]

Is the difference between 2ms and 5ms really that noticeable? If not, I would go with the larger (and cheaper) monitor. Every pixel counts.

[CN3089]

Is the difference between 2ms and 5ms really that noticeable? If not, I would go with the larger (and cheaper) monitor. Every pixel counts.

They both have the same number of pixels brosef

[Amit]

They both have the same number of pixels brosef

True. I was thinking more along the lines of: every bit of workspace matters.

[AAA]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049

Best of both worlds?

I mean, it can run 75Hz, which cuts back on the noticeable jitter of 60Hz on a large LCD

2ms response time

a large 24 inch display?

To me, you can't go wrong with this..

[Warsaw]

Ugh, 16:9 ratio. If it were me, I'd grab that 25.5" ASUS with the 1920x1200 resolution. Those extra pixels are worth the $50-$60 price bump in my opinion.

[Amit]

Why do monitor manufacturers insist on adding crappy speakers to the monitor?

[Rook]

True. I was thinking more along the lines of: every bit of workspace matters.
It'd still be the same amount of workspace though.


Ugh, 16:9 ratio. If it were me, I'd grab that 25.5" ASUS with the 1920x1200 resolution. Those extra pixels are worth the $50-$60 price bump in my opinion.
16:10 eww.

[FRain]

you're retarded if you like 16:10, its a medical fact
e: no seriously studies have shown the human eye prefers wider aspect ratios

[king_nothing_]

you're retarded if you like 16:10, its a medical fact
e: no seriously studies have shown the human eye prefers wider aspect ratios
16:10 is closer to the golden ratio. So there.

It's retarded to choose a monitor with ~11% more pixels? Why, exactly? Considering the fact that 1920x1200 is the largest available resolution before the 2560x1600s and 2560x1440s which usually cost a grand or more, I'd say it's a pretty solid choice. Why exactly do you think you need a computer monitor to be exactly 1080p? For HD movies? You realize 1920x1200 monitors can display 1080p perfectly, right? And before I hear "but omg there will be black bars", you should know that the majority of HD movies aren't actually the full 1920x1080 anyway, they usually have around a 2.4:1 ratio which is 1920x800. So in most cases, the only difference between watching an HD movie on a 16:10 monitor and 16:9 monitor is the size of the black bars. Oh boy, what a dealbreaker.

Unless you're so incredibly strapped for cash that you can't afford the price bump, I'm not sure why you would want to pass up the extra pixels.

[Timo]

you're retarded if you like 16:10, its a medical fact
e: no seriously studies have shown the human eye prefers wider aspect ratios

I find the extra depth you get on a 16:10 compared to a 16:9 pretty handy when it comes to viewing pdf/webpages.

[king_nothing_]

I find the extra depth you get on a 16:10 over a 16:9 pretty handy when it comes to viewing pdf/webpages.
This.

[InnerGoat]

sell the mailbox and get a 3008wfp

well, cya

[CN3089]

16:9 owns suck it haters

[Cagerrin]

I find the extra depth you get on a 16:10 compared to a 16:9 pretty handy when it comes to viewing pdf/webpages.
Exactly. I do a lot of reading and switching from 16:9 to 8:5 was a great help. That, and Sketchup's toolbars being horizontal...

There's no reason I can think of other than price for getting 16:9 over 8:5

[Rook]

16:10 is closer to the golden ratio. So there.

It's retarded to choose a monitor with ~11% more pixels? Why, exactly? Considering the fact that 1920x1200 is the largest available resolution before the 2560x1600s and 2560x1440s which usually cost a grand or more, I'd say it's a pretty solid choice. Why exactly do you think you need a computer monitor to be exactly 1080p? For HD movies? You realize 1920x1200 monitors can display 1080p perfectly, right? And before I hear "but omg there will be black bars", you should know that the majority of HD movies aren't actually the full 1920x1080 anyway, they usually have around a 2.4:1 ratio which is 1920x800. So in most cases, the only difference between watching an HD movie on a 16:10 monitor and 16:9 monitor is the size of the black bars. Oh boy, what a dealbreaker.

Unless you're so incredibly strapped for cash that you can't afford the price bump, I'm not sure why you would want to pass up the extra pixels.

I don't know man I only mostly watch animes and those are actually in 1080p. Unrelated I got a good deal on my 1080p monitor.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

Golden Ratio with 16:10. Nuff said.

[king_nothing_]

I don't know man I only mostly watch animes and those are actually in 1080p. Unrelated I got a good deal on my 1080p monitor.
Are small black bars really that big of a deal? Does watching a 2.4:1 movie on an HDTV ruin your viewing experience? Probably not.

The 25.5" 16:10 monitor that someone mentioned earlier also has a larger pixel pitch than either of the monitors mentioned in the OP. A full 1080p video on it would have a display size of 24.9", which is noticeably larger than both of those other monitors (23" and 23.6").

[Amit]

It'd still be the same amount of workspace though.

Doesn't resizing the window count as maximizing the workspace?

[Warsaw]

You know, we haven't heard jcap's opinion on the whole thing. Honestly, he's the one buying so it's entirely up to him. No sense debating it in here. The benefit of 16:9 is lower cost but less workspace while the benefit of 16:10 is more workspace for a marginal price bump. That's all there is to it.

[Rook]

Doesn't resizing the window count as maximizing the workspace?

Don't even know what you're talking about there. 1920x1080 pixels is that many pixels no matter how big you make the screen physically.


You know, we haven't heard jcap's opinion on the whole thing. Honestly, he's the one buying so it's entirely up to him. No sense debating it in here. The benefit of 16:9 is lower cost but less workspace while the benefit of 16:10 is more workspace for a marginal price bump. That's all there is to it.

If you look on newegg they practically sell no 16:10 monitors (from reputable companies at least) but I'm not sure what the status is on other sites.

[Cojafoji]

for the love of god, before you buy them, make sure they have the right drivers for your version of windows. my asus 22" doesn't have the right drivers for win7 64, and as a result, at 1680x1050, its refresh is 59mHz.

don't forget that the 2ms response is gtg, not btb. it's roughly the same as 5ms from my understanding.

[Warsaw]

Don't even know what you're talking about there. 1920x1080 pixels is that many pixels no matter how big you make the screen physically.



If you look on newegg they practically sell no 16:10 monitors (from reputable companies at least) but I'm not sure what the status is on other sites.

Yeah, I noticed. If Newegg doesn't have much by way of 16:10, you can bet your buttons that nobody else really does either. That's the other reason to get 16:10; we don't know how much longer they'll stick around, so grab one while you can if you want one.

[jcap]

for the love of god, before you buy them, make sure they have the right drivers for your version of windows. my asus 22" doesn't have the right drivers for win7 64, and as a result, at 1680x1050, its refresh is 59mHz.

don't forget that the 2ms response is gtg, not btb. it's roughly the same as 5ms from my understanding.
Yeah, I noticed the response time was G2G, but I was wondering if they forgot to label the 5ms one as G2G.

I decided to just get the VH242H. Especially since the response times were apples to oranges, and the G2G time is different from the actual response time. Response time is also separate from input lag, and assuming that the 23" and 23.6" monitors are basically identical (they are), then there's almost no lag.

I think I'll be very happy with it. I didn't want to go for the actual 24" version just because it seems totally unnecessary to spend another $50 on something that will only give me a 0.4" bigger screen with the same resolution.