Mid-Range to High-End Buyer's Guide, January 2006
by Jarred Walton on January 2, 2006 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Display Recommendations
I've left the displays for last, and since this is Mid-Range and above, the choices will be confined to LCDs. Your eyes have to stare at the computer screen for hours at a time (at least, if you use a computer as much as most of us at AnandTech do), so skimping on the display is a poor choice. I've always been a proponent of overspending on displays, from my first 21" CRT 10 years ago to my recent upgrade to a Dell 2405FPW. There's no such thing as having a display that's "too big" if you ask me...although, dropping a 32" LCD TV on your desk is probably getting close to proving me wrong. It's too bad that LCD TVs are mostly limited to 1366x768 or lower resolutions, as otherwise, they could be a cost-effective alternative for large computer LCDs. Most of us can only dream of owning the 30" Apple Cinema displays, unfortunately.
Mid-Range LCD Recommendation: Acer AL1914smd 19 inch 8ms LCD
Price: $293 shipped (Retail)
Other than a slight drop in price, our LCD recommendation remains with the Acer AL1914smd 19" display. There are better 19" LCDs out there, but they all cost quite a bit more. One thing that you really need to look for is actual color depth. There are many low response time LCDs that only have 6-bit color depths and use dithering to approximate 24-bit color. The result can range from satisfactory to mildly annoying, and I would sacrifice a bit in the way of response times for better colors. The Acer certainly isn't the best in terms of colors, but the documentation appears to indicate that it is a native 8-bit panel, so at least dithering won't be required, and the price is right.
If you're looking for guaranteed 8-bit panels and are willing to spend a bit more money, upgrading to a 20" LCD - 1600x1200 standard aspect ratio or 1680x1050 widescreen - would be a better choice than looking at more expensive 19" panels. The Dell 2005FPW and 2001FP are both good choices. If you don't want to buy a Dell LCD, you might look at the Samsung 204T (20" 4:3 AR) or the Philips 200W6CB/27 (20" WS) or 200P4VS/74 (20" 4:3 AR), although you can almost certainly get a Dell on sale for less money than any of those. All five of these - the Dell, Samsung, and Philips models - are 16ms displays, but response times become less important once you get below 20ms. I don't have issues with most 16ms displays when gaming, but you might want to try out a display in person before making a purchase, as some people still feel that there's too much "motion blur" when gaming.
High-End LCD Recommendation: Acer AL2416Wd 24 inch 6ms LCD
Price: $980 shipped (Retail)
The High-End display choice is really high-end, so if spending $1000 on a quality display is too much, you might want to go back and read that last paragraph again. You can get two good quality 20" LCDs for the price of a single 24" LCD, but I've always preferred a single large display. Acer gets the recommendation again, though there are quite a few reasonable alternatives. First, the good points of the Acer. You can find it for $980 online, without any need to wait for a sale. It's a 24" 1920x1200 panel, and it boasts a 6 ms pixel response time - the best of any current 23/24" LCD, though there is definitely an element of marketing in the various manufacturer response times. $1000 is a lot of money to spend on just the display, but hopefully, the display will last you at least five years, and your eyes might thank you later.
Let's look at some of the other alternatives. The Dell 2405FPW is actually better in several areas: it has S-VIDEO, Composite, Component, DVI, and VGA connections, and you can switch between the five at the press of a button. (I have mine connected to two different PCs, and I've found this feature to be very useful.) If you can find the Dell on sale, you can get it for less money than the Acer, but you might end up waiting months for the right opportunity. The HP L2335 and Philips 230W5VS are 23" LCDs that are similar in price to the Acer, give or take $50. The extra inch of display size is going to be difficult to notice, but paying more for less is questionable. Warranties on most large LCDs are 3 years from the manufacturer, though you'll want to double-check on pixel defect policies before buying most likely. Sony also has a 23" display, the SDM-P234, but at $200 more than the HP and Philips, you're just paying extra for the name.
In the end, the decision comes down to the Dell and the Acer. The Acer wasn't around when I purchased my 2405FPW, or else it would probably be sitting on my desk. Still, if you're living in an apartment or dorm room and don't have a lot of space for a TV and a computer, the Dell can multitask between the two, with 720p and 1080i/p support. For a high-end system, there is nothing as likely to inspire awe and envy as a great looking display, and the 24" LCDs are the display to have these days. A friend came over with his 7800 GTX SLI system sporting an X2 4800+ a few months ago, and upon seeing the 2405FPW connected to my "pathetic" 6800GT/3200+, he was ready to return a few parts just so that he could upgrade monitors. Four years from now, any current CPU/GPU combination is going to be outdated, but you can still continue to run a 24" LCD happily until it finally breaks down. Money well spent, if you ask me.
I've left the displays for last, and since this is Mid-Range and above, the choices will be confined to LCDs. Your eyes have to stare at the computer screen for hours at a time (at least, if you use a computer as much as most of us at AnandTech do), so skimping on the display is a poor choice. I've always been a proponent of overspending on displays, from my first 21" CRT 10 years ago to my recent upgrade to a Dell 2405FPW. There's no such thing as having a display that's "too big" if you ask me...although, dropping a 32" LCD TV on your desk is probably getting close to proving me wrong. It's too bad that LCD TVs are mostly limited to 1366x768 or lower resolutions, as otherwise, they could be a cost-effective alternative for large computer LCDs. Most of us can only dream of owning the 30" Apple Cinema displays, unfortunately.
Mid-Range LCD Recommendation: Acer AL1914smd 19 inch 8ms LCD
Price: $293 shipped (Retail)
Other than a slight drop in price, our LCD recommendation remains with the Acer AL1914smd 19" display. There are better 19" LCDs out there, but they all cost quite a bit more. One thing that you really need to look for is actual color depth. There are many low response time LCDs that only have 6-bit color depths and use dithering to approximate 24-bit color. The result can range from satisfactory to mildly annoying, and I would sacrifice a bit in the way of response times for better colors. The Acer certainly isn't the best in terms of colors, but the documentation appears to indicate that it is a native 8-bit panel, so at least dithering won't be required, and the price is right.
If you're looking for guaranteed 8-bit panels and are willing to spend a bit more money, upgrading to a 20" LCD - 1600x1200 standard aspect ratio or 1680x1050 widescreen - would be a better choice than looking at more expensive 19" panels. The Dell 2005FPW and 2001FP are both good choices. If you don't want to buy a Dell LCD, you might look at the Samsung 204T (20" 4:3 AR) or the Philips 200W6CB/27 (20" WS) or 200P4VS/74 (20" 4:3 AR), although you can almost certainly get a Dell on sale for less money than any of those. All five of these - the Dell, Samsung, and Philips models - are 16ms displays, but response times become less important once you get below 20ms. I don't have issues with most 16ms displays when gaming, but you might want to try out a display in person before making a purchase, as some people still feel that there's too much "motion blur" when gaming.
High-End LCD Recommendation: Acer AL2416Wd 24 inch 6ms LCD
Price: $980 shipped (Retail)
The High-End display choice is really high-end, so if spending $1000 on a quality display is too much, you might want to go back and read that last paragraph again. You can get two good quality 20" LCDs for the price of a single 24" LCD, but I've always preferred a single large display. Acer gets the recommendation again, though there are quite a few reasonable alternatives. First, the good points of the Acer. You can find it for $980 online, without any need to wait for a sale. It's a 24" 1920x1200 panel, and it boasts a 6 ms pixel response time - the best of any current 23/24" LCD, though there is definitely an element of marketing in the various manufacturer response times. $1000 is a lot of money to spend on just the display, but hopefully, the display will last you at least five years, and your eyes might thank you later.
Let's look at some of the other alternatives. The Dell 2405FPW is actually better in several areas: it has S-VIDEO, Composite, Component, DVI, and VGA connections, and you can switch between the five at the press of a button. (I have mine connected to two different PCs, and I've found this feature to be very useful.) If you can find the Dell on sale, you can get it for less money than the Acer, but you might end up waiting months for the right opportunity. The HP L2335 and Philips 230W5VS are 23" LCDs that are similar in price to the Acer, give or take $50. The extra inch of display size is going to be difficult to notice, but paying more for less is questionable. Warranties on most large LCDs are 3 years from the manufacturer, though you'll want to double-check on pixel defect policies before buying most likely. Sony also has a 23" display, the SDM-P234, but at $200 more than the HP and Philips, you're just paying extra for the name.
In the end, the decision comes down to the Dell and the Acer. The Acer wasn't around when I purchased my 2405FPW, or else it would probably be sitting on my desk. Still, if you're living in an apartment or dorm room and don't have a lot of space for a TV and a computer, the Dell can multitask between the two, with 720p and 1080i/p support. For a high-end system, there is nothing as likely to inspire awe and envy as a great looking display, and the 24" LCDs are the display to have these days. A friend came over with his 7800 GTX SLI system sporting an X2 4800+ a few months ago, and upon seeing the 2405FPW connected to my "pathetic" 6800GT/3200+, he was ready to return a few parts just so that he could upgrade monitors. Four years from now, any current CPU/GPU combination is going to be outdated, but you can still continue to run a 24" LCD happily until it finally breaks down. Money well spent, if you ask me.
67 Comments
View All Comments
Regs - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Right after christmas when everybody is broke.ViperV990 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
On page 4, first paragraph:"...doubling the cost of your RAM for $80-$125..." - "cost" probably should read "size" or "amount."
Regarding video cards, I believe a pair of 7800GTs would be a better recommandation than a single 7800GTX 512.
On the display side, there's a 19" widescreen 1440x900 LCD from Viewsonic for around $300, which I'd prefer over a standard 5:4 screen. The model # is VA1912w. Add a "b" for black.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I have issues with smaller widescreen displays. 1440x900 is an odd resolution, so outside of a few specific games and Windows desktop use, you end up with stretched content or you don't use all the screen. I've got my 2405 set to 1:1 stretch, so even at lower resolutions it still fills most of the screen, but running at native is obviously preferred.ViperV990 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I don't know about most games as I have only tried a couple on a widescreen (Half Life 2 and City of Heroes - both have built-in WS support), but I do believe that most newer games can be run in non-4:3 aspect ratios. I mean, even 1280x1024 isn't 4:3, and for some reason I just hate it =pJarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Regarding the 7800 GT SLI vs. 7800 GTX 512MB, while the SLI'ed cards are in general slightly faster, it's not usually by a large amount. I would rather have a single 512MB GTX than two GTs in a system. You can see http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2649...">various results in our X1800CF article, and issues like BF2, B&W2, DoD:S, etc. make me prefer single cards first. Of course, right now the GTX 512MB cards aren't in stock, so prices are messed up as well. I wouldn't actually recommend spending $600+ on a GPU to anyone but the wealthy gaming obsessed people. :)ViperV990 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Yeah, I was only looking at the fact that two GTs are "only" $600 as opposed to a GTX 512's $750. You're right to point out the SLI-specific issues and also the pricing issue due to the lack of supply. (when are you guys gonna start slamming nVidia about this like you guys do with ATI's paper launches? =p)CrimsonDeath - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Not to sound like an old timer but i've seen that "high-end" monitor and it just pales compared to the top crt from NEC on fps games. Perhaps my eyes are too sensitive but i see definite ghosting on that acer lcd.PrinceGaz - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I agree, but the good CRT monitors you refer to are becoming increasingly difficult to find new. For instance NEC/Mitsubishi have ceased production of CRT monitors, though Iiyama apparently use the excellent Diamondtron tube in some of their models so they are still available for now. In another couple of years CRT monitors will probably have vanished altogether but fortunately LCD panels should be good enough by then to replace them.lexmark - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
good article. for that complete system, $1270 isnt to shabby.PrinceGaz - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Is it really worth recommending two seperate choices (the mid-range for $41 and the high-end for $43) when the difference is just two dollars? It would be easier to just recommend an optical drive, in this case the "high-end" $43 NEC.Other than that minor quibble, a very good article which it is hard to find any real issues with.