Comments Locked

98 Comments

Back to Article

  • ComputerGuy2006 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Who cares?

    A decade ago I was using 1920x1440, and this states "1920x1080 full high definition" likes it a good thing? Took a decade to lose 360 pixels?

    Why is anand now plagued with all these stupid products and articles. I miss the old days when new post on anand meant something exiting, not some lame spam post 4 times out of 5.
  • spathotan - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Quit whining. News flash; not every product on the market is designed for YOU. Resolution is relative to the size of the screen, that's all that matters. Who cares you say? How about who cares what resolution monitor you were using a decade ago, its a moot point.
  • kmmatney - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I take it yuo've never used a 1920 x 1200 display before. I have both 1080p and a 1920 x 1200 monitors within a few feet of each other. The 1080p size sucks in comparision - its as simple as that.
  • yh125d - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    It's completely a matter of opinion - its as simple as that. Just because *you* prefer 1920x1200 for your computer doesn't mean everyone does or it is a superior size. I have used both for a long time and I prefer 1920x1080, even though it means less vertical lines. To each his own.
  • vol7ron - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    You all are lucky. I'm still on a pair of 22s each at 1680x1050. I don't mind this resolution at all, though a little wider would be nicer when using the snap feature in Win7.
  • Justin Time - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I also find 22" 1680x1050 a perfect size.

    I can actually read the text on the screen, and 16:9 video fits while allowing for the chrome of most browsers, Windows Taskbar etc.
  • softdrinkviking - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I agree. It's okay to state a preference, but you shouldn't act like the whole world agrees with you. The whole world does not agree with you, no matter who you are, about what is "better." I suppose some folks think if they just ignore that fact, then it will no longer be true. I think they usually called "fanatics."
  • Whole World - Thursday, November 24, 2011 - link

    I do agree with him!
  • DarkUltra - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - link

    What exactly do you prefer for less vertical resolution? With more vertical space you can tile more windows on your desktop and still have them work OK. Some programs these days are a bit big and bloated requiring a lot of vertical space. Windows 7 with its double-sized task bar and these new ribbon menus also prefer the extra space.

    If you are going to have such a wide monitor on your desktop, why not get some extra vertical space? It seems all the monitor manufacturers marketing departements all have agreed that FullHD is > 1920x1200 on computer use, but most people actually prefer the extra 120 pixels.
  • orthancstone - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    This is the same slippery slope that hard drive manufacturers used to justify fooling the public with respect to what a GB is in terms of actual bytes. By forcing all new products to the "new standard" and letting the marketing do the work to convince the public "it's not what you think!" (aka "FullHD! 1080p!" speak with respect to these monitors), we end up with inferior products with little to no recourse to change things back to what they should be.
  • Assimilator87 - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    spath, I think you completely missed the point. He's not saying everyone has to use super high resolution monitors and he's not trying to convert everyone to CRTs. He's lamenting that after a decade in computing advances, which is absolutely forever in this industry, we've made almost ZERO gains in resolution and in fact, have gone backwards.CRTs maxed out at 2048x1536, but now, the marketing geniuses are touting 1080p like it's the end all be all utopia of resolution and it's just a bunch of bullshit. I don't understand why, if they can make a 15" 1080p monitor, they can't make a 30" 4k res one.
  • softdrinkviking - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Hopefully, someone in a marketing department will spot the massive profits to made in developing a uber high res monitor that only a handful of enthusiasts and professionals will buy.
    I wonder what a windows desktop would look like in a 3840x2400 30" monitor? Would you be able to scale the text and icons to a usable size or would they have to enable special support for it?
  • DarkUltra - Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - link

    Yes, look at iphone 4 and its "retina display" as they call it. Text is really nice at 144DPI, and Windows XP, vista and 7 have a scaling feature. Many laptops have a very high resoluiton relative to their size, and many people prefer to scale things up there too.

    30" 2340x2400 is a bit much, but the higher the DPI is on a LCD monitor, the prettier it will scale up older games.
  • B3an - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Yeah i agree.

    Not enough info either, pretty much just a press release.
    And the info that is here isn't really useful... who cares what the dynamic contrast is, that's useless and got nothing to do with the real contrast ratio. And what type of panel do the displays use?
  • Spivonious - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    For $200, it has to be TN panels. Why do people place thinness over picture quality?
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    i don't know.

    i'm waiting for the monitor game to be stepped up...give me a reason to go "holy fuck i have to get that monitor" because these days i couldn't name the best one.
  • vol7ron - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I still want the OLEDs presented in CES2010. 6mm thin - that's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

    If only OLEDs had a better life expectancy.
  • softdrinkviking - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    You said it yourself, they only cost ~200. The vast majority of people won't pay twice that for an ips panel.
  • Zoomer - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    I'm seriouisly considering the hp zr24w, s-ips 24", 1920*1200. $330 at macmall.

    Yes, 16:9 res is useless. Even more so when swivelling the diosplay.
  • kmmatney - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    The vertical resolution does suck, but it's still good to hear about new products. I'm holding onto my Soyo 1920 x 1200 MVA 24" monitor as long as I can.

    I bought an NEC 23" e-IPS display, which I thought would replace my Soyo, but the 1080p resolution really killed it. Even the IPS display wasn't enough to replace the 120 pixels and taller screen of my old LCD, so I relegated the NEC to my backup computer. It's a nice display - just not a great form factor, especually after you've already used a 1920 x 1200 LCD.
  • sfryman - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Apples and oranges. Do you also believe a Prius is technologically inferior to a 1970s muscle car because it has less hp?

    The monitor you had a decade ago was significantly heavier, thicker, expensive and used more energy. Consumers are driving the technology with their purchase decisions, and most consumers today would choose a relatively inexpensive ultra-slim LED monitor over one of those CRT behemoths any day of the week (myself included). Sorry if you don't fit into the norm, but that's the way it is.

    On the other hand, I agree that this "article" is lacking much real substance. But I hope Anand is working on a real review as well.
  • Pneumothorax - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    RE: wow, full hd by sfryman on Tuesday, October 05, 2010
    Apples and oranges. Do you also believe a Prius is technologically inferior to a 1970s muscle car because it has less hp?

    The monitor you had a decade ago was significantly heavier, thicker, expensive and used more energy. Consumers are driving the technology with their purchase decisions, and most consumers today would choose a relatively inexpensive ultra-slim LED monitor over one of those CRT behemoths any day of the week (myself included). Sorry if you don't fit into the norm, but that's the way it is.

    I'd take a muscle car over a pries anyway as many of us value performance over economy. Also, he was not lamenting over crts, but rather the superior 16:10 display over the cheap 16:9 factor that belongs on hdtvs only. One of the reasons why I buy apple MacBooks is their continued use of a proper LCD. Once the inevitably jump ship to 16:9. I'll be looking for another manufacturer.
  • sprockkets - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    LOL, I'd take ANY car today vs. a 1970s "muscle" car, as even a V6 Camry will outrun it!
  • Lonyo - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    This is the sort of thing DailyTech was created for.
    The new product releases and PR statements.
    Anandtech was supposed to be for proper articles and reviews. Seems like especially recently, there has been the normal article and review content, but now we get product release notifications as well, without real substance. That should either be split off (again) or just left to Dailytech IMO.
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    agree 100%.

    i go to techpowerup.com for freaking news releases of new products.

    anandtech for my tech reviews and articles explaining the shit i don't know.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Absolutely correct.
  • Mumrik - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I actually agree.
    These random press releases kinda confuse me on an in-depth site like Anandtech.
  • sakanade - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    cry moar
  • bsanborn - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    And your 1920x1440 has LED backlight and a 2ms response time with a 12,000,000:1 contrast ratio? Just because it doesn't have the same amount of pixels, doesn't mean it's not better.
  • Mumrik - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    CRTs had better response time, colors AND contrast actually. Picture quality was never the argument for LCDs and I think it's fair that the guy is disappointed with the lack of progress in pixel density.
  • sprockkets - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    A decade ago we didn't have any LCDs at any resolution, WTF are you rambling about?

    Lucky anyone had a 21" CRT at 1600x1200.
  • nshoe - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Perhaps you should check your facts - LCD monitors were competitive with CRTs back in 1997 (and have been in use for a lot longer).

    I personally have a 1600x1200 LCD that I purchased 7 years ago... so perhaps we should ask WTF you are rambling about.
  • DPOverLord - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    That is not true I have an Iiyama 22" Pro 512 and I used to have the Pro 510 it has a max resolution 2048 x 1536
  • misterjohnnyt - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I completely agree with CGuy06. Especially with 1920x1200 monitors becomming more affordable, releasing anything in these sizes at only 1080p is just pathetic and nothing to be proud of.
  • Hrel - Monday, October 11, 2010 - link

    eh, I kinda agree. Anand really needs to create a label system in the RSS feed so I know which articles are these short little blips and which articles are full reviews of interesting things and which articles are in depth looks at the inner workings of a thing. The difference between this, a laptop review and an in depth look at the cell processor, for instance.
  • linky1 - Monday, December 6, 2010 - link

    I actually just got one of these; an upgrade from my smaller samsung. I like the design and the quality plus it was only like $229 shipped from amazon so I feel like it was a good buy. http://amzn.to/icRRT9
  • Soldier1969 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    All these new 1080p monitors are cheap and weak. Stupid decision leaving behind 1920 x 1200 res. But its all ok because I graduated to 2560 x1600 Super IPS panelwith over a billion colors thats 30 inches at 1600p so screw those cheap TN panels people can have them. I want to see a 30 inch LED less than a inch thick 2560 x 1600 res then I'll be impressed!
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I want to see a 120hz 27" monitor that weights under 20 pounds and has matte finish and full LED array lighting with local dimming.

    used to be PC displays were the best.
  • misterjohnnyt - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Man, I wish had $1200+ just lying around to get one of those!
  • Goty - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I'm a fan of my current Gateway FHD monitor with the exception of some backlight bleed, so I might give the 24" model a look if the panels aren't complete junk.
  • Roland00 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    8 bit panels are 256*256*256=16,777,216 colors
    6 bit panels are 064*064*064=00,262,144 colors

    Or are they 6 bit panels with dithering to replicate 8 bit color?
  • MyrddinE - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    How much did that 30", 2560x1600 Super IPS panel cost you? Let me guess... a bit more than $250, right? A 2ms HD monitor with LED backlighting for only $250 is news. Anand also discusses other budget electronics for people who want to get as much for their limited buck as they can.

    Now, the fact that the article is light on details? That's a valid reason to knock 'em. I'd prefer if they didn't cover products until they had their hands on them, or at least some reason to cover it more than just because the company announced it.
  • Soldier1969 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Im knocking the res not gateway. I came from a 4 year old 24" 1920 x 1200 panel that was perfect. I had a 24" panel long before most people what Im knocking is these continued weak releases of 1080 panels over and over regardless if they are LED or not,1ms or not. Might as well sell them at Walmart because thats what these are worthy of. and so 1080 TN panels = FAIL
  • AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    No, a 2ms full HD LED monitor for $250 is certainly not any bit of news whatsoever. How about $200, or skip the LED for $150: http://tinyurl.com/23z2c84
  • Nihility - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    "All three models support a huge 12,000,000:1 (presumably dynamic) contrast ratio "

    If anything, I'd presume it to be complete bulls**t.
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    yes, i think it's time for the industry to go to a standard test of contrast ratio. these bullshit numbers mean nothing.
  • asmoma - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Why have anandtech started to publish press releases? We have other sites for that.
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    yes we do. hope anand reads our comments
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I definitely do and take them all to heart. We're still playing with the right approach to augmenting our reviews with targeted, useful news so your feedback absolutely helps and is very appreciated.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • Anubis - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    1920*1080
    so much fail
  • EnzoFX - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I think what the general consensus is that 1080p monitors in general are not for us power users, heh. A perfectly valid argument, these monitors would have to offer something much more to impress the average anandtech reader, and that's without even getting into color quality/panel type, etc.
  • TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Full HD, 1080p is so yesterday. It looks like marketing drones badly need new slogans, so let me do homework for them.

    1. Start counting pixels, something digital camera world having for a decade already. Why do we still have puny 2 megapixel displays?

    2. "Optimized for a web" means a dispaly that have a sane ratio, not ridiculous shortscreen 16:9.

  • DoofusAmericanus - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Let's see: 1920x1080x24(bits per pixel)x500(Hz) = ~25 Gbps

    Even HDMI 1.3 maxes out at ~10 Gbps, say nothing of DVI. As for VGA, pushing that much signal you'd best hope for world's best cable quality, and have the world's shortest cable...

    And even if you somehow managed to feed this beast's bandwidth demand, what the heck do you need a 2 ms refresh for??? The human visual system can't perceive anything faster than about 30 ms anyway... (Maybe it would help your monitor look better on video? But how many people need that??)

    This is nothing but gratuitous and pointless technological overkill.
  • Roland00 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    The 2ms doesn't tell you how many hertz or frames or seconds the monitor is capable of. All it tells you is that once it processed the signal it takes 2ms for the monitor to change a grey pixel to another grey pixel.

    A better way to call it is image delay after input is processed.

    Note this information doesn't tell you black to white and back to black (which takes longer due to not having monitor overdrive), nor does it tell you how long it takes to process the image. Knowing the grey to grey latency is useless you should want to know the total system latency.
  • Revdarian - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    The human visual system can see faster than 30ms(33fps).

    What you are spouting off is a missconception taken from motion pictures, in which people forget that you have blurred images due to the shutter speed, and that blur helps the brain connect the static images in a seemingly fluid way.

    That also doesn't take into account high contrast images for example grab an old crt, open a blank word document, see it at 60hz, 75, 85... you will notice the different, your brain does too, and it was the main cause for eyestrain, that simple test should tell you that your 30ms number was wrong.
  • wicko - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    You've got your numbers swapped. 33ms is 30fps, not the other way around.
  • 8steve8 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    there is a reason i visit anandtech instead of engadget, and thats because anandtech usually has quality and interesting articles. They do not normally publish random PR from uninteresting products.

    this , is one of the least interesting product launches in awhile, 21-24" 1080p tn displays, yes they use LED, but there are probably 20 other lcd's of this size and resolution that also do....
    heck, a year ago i bought a LG w2486L that is 24" LED 1080p display.

    FILTER
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    lol...you on the money man.
  • El_Capitan - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I don't know what you guys are talking about. I've been wanting to upgrade my triple 28" 1920 x 1200 monitors to some triple 24" 1920 x 1080 monitors for a while now, and Anand's article got me salivating for an upgrade.

    All you haters can hate, and stick with your 4 year old outdated 30" 2560 x 1600 screens.
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    sarcasm?
  • Revdarian - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Sarcasm or he wants smaller pixels.

    I've seen some cases like that, /shrugs.
  • LancerVI - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    This is a lot of nerd rage over a mini-article.

    ....and I am a power user and I use a 24 in 1080p panel

    1080p works fine for me. If you are into graphic design, CAD, video editing, fine, pay for your pixels; but a $250 LED LCD is good news, though I agree, the article is light on details and I would prefer a proper review. However gentlemen, Take it easy.

    Lancer VI
  • Minion4Hire - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    The real problem here is that manufacturers are trying to lower their own costs while offering an inferior product with more aggressive/ridiculous marketing. Lowering the overall resolution of a given panel size really doesn't offer any sort of improvement for any consumer segment. A $250 24" 16:10 panel really shouldn't be a difficult thing to find or an unreasonable thing to expect.

    Personally, I have a 24" 1920x1200 Dell IPS panel. I'm not into graphic design, CAD, etc... but I DO want a high quality panel, and I also like being able to rotate my screen on occasion; a shorter, wider screen would NOT improve said rotated experience in the least. If anything I would prefer a 16:11 aspect ratio. Width has a finite level of usefulness.

    And yes, a review and not a product plug would be preferable.
  • Visual - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Sorry but "pay for your pixels" isn't quite the case, though.
    In cases when when both resolutions were made with the same type of panel (usually TN unfortunately), they used to cost the same. The reason for the common misconception that 1920x1200 screens are more expensive is that most of them were made with better panel types, not crappy TN.
    Manufacturers really aren't saving up much by going for 1080 rows. They chose to do it because of the masses of clueless idiots that just need to hear the magic marketing speak "FullHD" and don't care for much else. Those are people that will look at the black bars on a 1200 pixel monitor and say "this is bad, the monitor is not as wide as it should be", and then are happily accepting a shorter monitor with the illusion that it's wider.

    Anyone with a real clue will appreciate 1200 pixels more, there are many benefits to it. Even for movies, its better to have the extra space for a player GUI that doesn't hide parts of the movie, or for subtitle area. For everyday computer use you can fit more icons, more text, etc. For gaming, especially on a range of older titles, having the perfectly fitting 4:3 resolution 1600x1200 is a good bonus too. On a 1080p display, you'll generally have to go with crap like 1280x1024, which btw is 5:4, if the game requires a 4:3, and then either have it scaled to 1080 rows or have black bars not just at the sides but at top and bottom as well - either way is quite terrible. Yes, 1440x1080 is a perfect fit in that case, but it wasn't ever a commonly used resolution and so isn't an option in a lot of games.
    Basically, it comes down to "more is better" really.
  • TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Amen. I'm not sure where Hollywood made more damage: forcing down this ridiculous 2.31:1 aspect ratio (which eventually gave rise to 16:10 "compromise"), or spreading that silly global warming myth.
  • silat - Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - link

    Geezus really? Global warming myth?
    Cod the repubes have finally done it.
    They have lowered the IQ's of the common CON.
    That con will vote against their own best interests everytime Faux tells them to. :)
  • agent2099 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    At this price it must be a TN panel. This should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article in my opinion.
  • odin607 - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    got me @ neat design+led

    lost me @ 1920x1080 full high definition resolution in 16:9 aspect ratio

    =(
  • kawatwo - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Looks like good bang for the buck. 1080P is fine for gaming and web browsing. I have a 24 inch 19x12 FHD that has been amazing. Viewing angles could be slightly better but other than that I love it. I do wish GW would do a 120HZ 19x12 edition however as an update to the old FHD 24 with the height and rotation etc for another 100 bucks.
  • effingee - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    Two years ago, $250 bought me a 19" Samsung @ 1440x900. Now, even with inflation, it can buy me a 24" @ 1920x1080. Looks like an improvement to me.

    In this price range, they're also catering to people like myself who use it as a TV as well as a monitor.
  • Makaveli - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - link

    I'm on dual 22's 16:10 monitors.

    And it saddens me seeing all these gimped monitors.

    I will not touch 16:9 monitor but my choices are so limited if I ever decide to move off my current models.

    Lord why have you forsaken us with these POS 16:9 screens, why must the sheep ruin everything!

    For the love of all that is holy I have a HDTV I don't care to watch movies on my computer screen!
  • LancerVI - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Sheep???

    That's an unusual comment. Because I'm happy with a 1080p panel??? That's why it's called preferences. You buy what you like, I buy what I like??

    I make six figures a year and I don't feel a need to update my monitor every year so I can have a nerd rage, e-peen fight......

    Sheep?? A sheep is someone who succumbs to marketing and believes that what he has is no longer useful and that he has to go out and buy the latest and greatest.

    Baaaaaaa.....how's that for sheep..

    Lancer VI
  • Makaveli - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    lol lancer took that one a tad personal!

    Also what relevance does your salary have to do with the topic?

    If you ask me that is a E-peen statement.

    Also for the tech savy crowd no one replaces their monitor on a yearly basis. Even the E-peen nerds you speak of are smart enough to save their pennies and go all out on the 30` dell or 24` ips panel. Why because they know that a monitor tends to out last all of your components.

    And sheep are the uniformed that just follow marketing hype. And don't know that you are getting less screen for the money with a 16:9 display.

    If you are fine with it that's cool but some of us know better and prefer not to get the short end of the stick.

    Baaa right back at ya :)
  • SandmanWN - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Lancer went on a sheep rage...
  • LancerVI - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    maybe you're right.

    Lancer VI
  • Revdarian - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Blame the TV//Movie industry for making 1080p the standard, not the consumers.
  • dingetje - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    "All three come with 1920x1080 resolution..."

    FAIL....I'm not buying your crappy 1080 pixels screen Gateway....it's 1200 pixels for me, or Gateway can take the highway
  • SunLord - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    ls this just another cheap pos edge lit LED backlight of an actual led grid backlight that looks awesome?

    I personally would love to a see a eIPS or similar panel with useable viewing angels with led back lighting in a 1080p 23" format and a 1920x1200 24" format starting around $400. I don't get the interest in TN panels and the magical crack induced contract ratios outside of the low price.
  • Ninjahedge - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Well......

    I have to agree with the "WTH is up with 1080p res on these things??!?"

    I am not buying this monitor to watch blue-ray disks. I am buying it for 2 things, work and play. The two Dell 2001 screens at 1600x1200 resolution pretty much kick butt at desktop real estate, and I have been looking at the 30" replacements, but they still have not come down below $1000 (unless you find some sort of FatWallet multi-combo "Quick use it before they discover their mistake" deals).

    I would not mind having a bar on top and bottom if that would also mean a few things:

    More room for independent subtitling (which is usually betterthan the stuff that they include on your disk).
    More room for your DESKTOP.
    More area for game-play

    The other thing people have been saying is true. Maybe AnandTech needs to have a seperate area for spidered press releases? Make the main page thnigs you guys write and review, and a side-bar or "Releases" page that would detail new products that you have not been able to get more than a "This is what it is" from the Mfr.......
  • Chudilo - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    This is not news.
    This is a commercial statement.
    There is no info about the actual panel used in this display.
    Please remove the article, for the sake of your integrity!
  • artie222 - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    The great snow job here is not that they are trying to pass off 16x9 monitors as if they are top of the line, but that they have us arguing that 16x10 is the best option. For those of us who use our computers for work, vertical size really matters, since we are generally trying to read text designed to be on a portrait-oriented piece of page, and 16x10 isn't nearly as good as non-widescreen 4:3 for that purpose.

    However, once upon a time, somebody figured out that you could make much cheaper panels (i.e. fewer pixels) with the same diagonal by going widescreen. Unless you use your computer primarily for watching widescreen movies (and most of us have actual TVs for that), this is all just a marketing gimmick to keep the "longer diagonal = better" crowd happy at cheap prices.

    Don't even get me started on the ridiculously high dot-pitch we have to put up with since panels have gotten so big on low resolution. The clarity on my old 20" 1600x1200 monitor is infinitely better than my new 27" 1920x1200. Our video cards can handle it, make it happen manufacturers!
  • AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    4:3 is especially crucial for small screens, where vertical is already limited, like on laptops. Whichever company starts making 4:3 laptops again will sell a boat load.
  • sinPiEqualsZero - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I know Anandtech is trying to grow, but the results are occasionally disappointing. Articles such as this one are essentially marketing pieces and contain no redeeming information. If you're wondering why people are accusing Anandtech of accepting money (which I do not believe, by the way), look no farther than this article. I actually registered to show my disappointment, and I hope that we can either cut down on the fluff pieces or make a "Press Release" section.

    /rant over
  • Makaveli - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I think a Press Release section is a good idea.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    Thank you for registering and posting. I've often toyed with the idea of a press release section, do you have any feedback on how you'd like to see those posts appear on the front page though? Would they appear at all or would it be something you simply have to know about to find?

    As always, your feedback is welcomed and appreciated :)

    Take care,
    Anand
  • Bamfkya - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    A side bar on the left side would be cool. Kind of like the Dailytech sidebar, but more awesome cause it's Anandtech.

    I'm interested in these press releases, but not on the same level as Anandtech reviews.
  • sinPiEqualsZero - Saturday, October 9, 2010 - link

    Thanks for your reply, Anand. From a practical standpoint, I'm not sure where a Press Release section would go, since the home page is already pretty busy. Perhaps the "Dailytech" section could be modified to have "Dailytech," "Press Release," and "Twitter" tabs all in the same frame or some such.

    I'm no expert on web design, but if you ever decide to go for such a section, I have faith in your creativity. :)

    All the best!
  • GunsAblazin - Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - link

    I think 1080p monitors has just hit a sweet spot with its price range for consumers and it's the resolution for most HD video. Maybe people just don't like seeing the black space above and below a movie.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    No, most movies are not 16:9. They're 1.85 or 2.59, which means you will still get black bars with these POS monitors.
  • sulu1977 - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    HDMI interface? What's up with that? I thought HDMI was being replaced by ethernet. Where are all the ethernet monitors?
  • The_AC - Thursday, October 7, 2010 - link

    I'm planning on buying a 24", 1920x1200, PVA or IPS, standard-gamut monitor after Christmas. This should be one of the most common monitors out there, but it's really hard to find. My choices are basically a used Dell 2407wfp off ebay, or a new Dell u2410 (whch has wide gamut, but can be set in a standard gamut mode (but this adds 10ms of response time)).

    Mostly due to consumers who are too lazy to look up moniter-ralated terms in wikipedia (the average user thinks wide gamut is a good thing, or thinks that >3000:1 contrast ratios are physically possible), the current monitor market is abysmal.
  • fnord123 - Friday, October 8, 2010 - link

    I have a Dell 20" monitor that is 1600x1200. I paid something like $400 for it around 2004 from Dell.com.

    I have a LG 24" widescreen monitor, it is 1920x1200. I paid about $249 for it in 2008 at Fry's electronics.

    There is no way I will buy any monitor which reduces my resolution. I don't care if it is LED-backlit, has a tilt/swivel, USB3 hub built in, etc. The primary function of a monitor is to display stuff - and if a monitor from 2010 cannot do that at at least as high a resolution as my older monitors, then I am sticking with my older monitors. Too bad too, because I'd like to get a LED backlit monitor.

    To the monitor manufacturers: You are leaving money on the table by ignoring those of us who want higher resolutions. I am very vocal to everyone I know to avoid all "1080p" monitors, letting them know it is an inferior product and a marketing gimmick.

    To Anand: Please provide more reviews for monitors that have higher vertical resolution than 1080p, which is a 2000-2002-level LCD resolution.
  • Wolfpup - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - link

    Okay, so presumably it's TN, and IPS would make it truly perfect, BUT still it's competitive with Dell's G2410H (I think that's the model), but adds an HDMI port on top of the VGA and DVI, making it preferable.

    But I feel like there must be a catch...can Acer make solid monitors? I have no idea. The Dells are matte, and look fantastic for TN panels (though I wish Dell would offer their high end one with LED lighting).
  • slypher10 - Sunday, October 24, 2010 - link

    Hey and if its now too much to ask, can u give an heads up when these are at retailers...
  • x0rg - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - link

    Good to see LED monitors but TN panels suck.
  • tomoyo - Thursday, December 9, 2010 - link

    When I saw the headline, my first hope was to actually have something non-tn-film and non-16:9. Nope both fears realized as usual. All the LCD plants have given up on any semblance of quality. At least we're finally getting LED backlights, but in tradeoff, we lose all 4:3 and 16:10, we lose almost all the non-tn-film. We lose good ergonomic stands. We lose wide viewing angels. Thanks for nothing guys.
  • derppy - Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - link

    I'm totally with all the people who don't want monitors with lower resolution. I got a 24" display about two years ago and all of them were 1920x1200. Now I'm looking for a better monitor of same size (30" is still waaaay too expensive), but all I see is 16:9 monitors with less pixels. Feels like technology took a step backwards in the last two years.

    I'm afraid it has something to do with the rise and marketing of full-hd televisions. People think that "full-hd 1080p" means quality and the people running the companies know that.

    I actually know a few people who would more likely buy a monitor that states "FULL-HD" than "2560x1600", even if they cost the same.

    Someone already suggested that we start speaking about megapixels, rather than resolution. I couldn't agree more.

    Customers should compare 2.0 megapixel, 2.3 megapixel and 4.0 megapixel monitors. Then they would probably understand that the monitor next to fancy "full-hd" display actually has two times the pixels.
  • GilardiLDG - Friday, December 5, 2014 - link

    US Residents Who Bought Gateway 30" XHD3000 Monitors Can Receive $195 From a Settlement! http://tinyurl.com/meoxzue

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now