What should I Buy? 2405, 2005, ...

CodE-E · Post by **CodE-E** » 17 Feb 2006, 12:53

I really wouldn't suggest getting a monitor with a native resolution of 1920*whatever, because the next uberengines like the Unreal 3 engine, and games like Quake Wars, probably won't run very well at that on most systems. If you're not rich and can't afford to by the hottest CPUs/GPUs on the market every year, then go for a 1680*1050 monitor, such as the Dell 2005FPW.

Post by **BongoTrumman** » 17 Feb 2006, 14:13

CodE-E, you can always lower the res, a lot of monitors do a really good upscaling. I would still prefer my 23" monitor because I have a big workspace and movies are bigger. Even if you lower the resolution the games looks really big and more of a feeling you are there in oposed to a smaller screen. IÃ‚Â´m happy with my monitor and when a game comes that my system canÃ‚Â´t handle in native res I will just lower the res. Just because some games will not run in high res I donÃ‚Â´t think someone should by a smaller screen and miss out on other good stuff they might want.

Post by **BongoTrumman** » 18 Feb 2006, 21:06

Marty take a look here. Maherie has been kind and giving us all some new info.

BigTex71 · Post by **BigTex71** » 19 Feb 2006, 09:04

Now, the stench of faul play follows to the LTM240M1 panel as the 2405FPW uses. Its marketed as a panel with a contrast of 1000:1 and brightness of 500. This I found earlier. The domain (WESTECH ELECTRONIC Corporation)has expired, so its probably a matter of time before its removed from google cache... Extremetech also measured the screen at below 700:1(612:1), so they took 700:1 and 400 cdm2 and sold it as 1000:1 500 cdm2. Did they also do a little response time trick as last time? It looks like it from Toms Hardware's tests.

These are only tip of the iceberg IMO. Every time I check Samsung Datasheet vs. "salessheet" the numbers have been decorated a bit...

Ghosting only matters if you see it or if it disturbes your gameplay. Of course, for some it matters when showing off screen also. Still, I feel that its a bit blown up.

What I feel matters, is that companies and reviewers should be a bit more honest about their numbers and experiences. Granted that reviewers need their extra income and companies don't do charity, there should still be more standards and laws to protect consumers from being screwed by manufacturers "decoration" of specs.

In the spirit of the Olympic Games, I have one message to manufacturers: "STOP FEEDING YOUR SPECS WITH STEROIDS!" :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again, I have to say that this stuff mirrors the Home Theater front projector realm. ALL front projectors claim to be xxx lumens and xxx:1 contrast ratio... yet no one has EVER met these specs when testing them. I don't know how they get away with claiming these specs (just like some of the monitor specs), but it is just 'known' that every product spec is over-rated. Although there is one company who gives a more realistic spec (Infocus brand) and they get lots of word-of-mouth advertising because of this. I think people like it when they are not intentionally being lied to.

Maybe some of the companies making these monitors will come around and give a more realistic spec (or show a "best" spec and a "real-world" spec.) Honesty goes a long way in the HT (home theater) forums.

Post by **Tamlin** » 19 Feb 2006, 13:05

Again, I have to say that this stuff mirrors the Home Theater front projector realm. ALL front projectors claim to be xxx lumens and xxx:1 contrast ratio... yet no one has EVER met these specs when testing them. I don't know how they get away with claiming these specs (just like some of the monitor specs), but it is just 'known' that every product spec is over-rated. Although there is one company who gives a more realistic spec (Infocus brand) and they get lots of word-of-mouth advertising because of this. I think people like it when they are not intentionally being lied to.

Maybe some of the companies making these monitors will come around and give a more realistic spec (or show a "best" spec and a "real-world" spec.) Honesty goes a long way in the HT (home theater) forums.

I don't know much about projectors, so I can't comment that much. I'll just have to take your word for it at this point. :) How they get away with it is probably the same as in the LCD world: A lack of standards.

In the LCD world however, what is listed is based upon the manufacturers measurements. In the datasheets, you can usually see how they have measured and what results they came to. Then they advertice the results from their own tests. Then companies like Dell/HP/Apple/Benq etc. puts together a screen where they use the specs from the LCD panel manufacturer.

While other manufacturers uses the results from their own tests, Samsung goes a bit further and decorate the numbers afterwards as shown above. Samsung tests the panel as 700:1/400 cdm2 and then they advertise it as 1000:1/500 cdm2, while other manufacturers would have used the initial test numbers 700:1/400 cdm2. There is a MAJOR difference here, don't you think? I feel they are trying to "screw" the consumers with their approach! :(

Lets make a little comparison to show my point even stronger. The panel of my very own screen, the HP f2304 (and also the HP L2335) is LM230W02(pdf). From the Datasheet, the measurements are as following:

Typical contrast = 500:1, typical brightness = 250 cdm2,

Response times:
Typical/average BtW (Tr 8,5/Tf 7,5) = 16 ms (Maximum Tr and Tf is 15ms, which means in worst case scenario it will take 15 ms to change into a shade of black).
Typical/average GtG = 12 ms, Maximum GtG = 18 ms (which means in worst case scenario, it will take 18 ms to change colors).

As you might have noticed, the OPTIMAL haven't even been listed. Only typical and worst case/maximum.

They sell this panel with the typical measurements, 16 ms BtW, 12 ms GtG, 500:1 and 250 cdm2. If they would have used the Samsung model of sales, it would have been: 11 ms BtW, 7 ms GtG, 800:1 and 350 cdm2... ;)

So, how did Extremetech measure this panel? Granted that they had the old revision of the panel (there are even 2 manuals as mentioned before), they reviewed it as a HDTV, not a monitor and the clouding issues are not that common on the f2304 and the L2335. :P

Average contrast was measured as 466.2:1, ranging from 526:1 down to 421:1, due to a panel with obvious backlighting problems. Extremetech review. Still, with an uneven backlighting, it performed as the Datasheet said it would. :)

Even if it hadn't, there would still be no mismatch as with Samsung between their own measurement and what they sell it as! :)

Do you see the differences? :)

Post by **skipclarke** » 19 Feb 2006, 14:17

BigTex71

& don't get me going on Monster cables or "THX approved" interconnects or cable ratings :evil: :evil:

BigTex71 · Post by **BigTex71** » 20 Feb 2006, 05:26

BigTex71

& don't get me going on Monster cables or "THX approved" interconnects or cable ratings :evil: :evil:

Now you didn't go out and buy those $10,000 speaker cables did you?!
:lol:

Post by **skipclarke** » 25 Feb 2006, 05:11

Absolutley I did

NOT buy them :lol:

Post by **BongoTrumman** » 25 Feb 2006, 05:25

Hehe Doug :lol:

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 25 Feb 2006, 14:44

Funny, but waay too much blank space... ;)

Post by **skipclarke** » 25 Feb 2006, 18:02

Intended/needed blank space for the scroll down requirement so the actual "punch line" is not visible :lol:

I would have done it the scroll sideways way, but WS's hate to have to do that (pet peeve) & i didn't want to risk getting hit with the ...
||
||
/

BAN HAMMER :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

marty · Post by **marty** » 03 Mar 2006, 20:43

thanks for the input. Now that the pricde has gone down, I am more inclined toward the 2405. I still don't have enough, though, for either.

ThaDr · Post by **ThaDr** » 06 Mar 2006, 17:29

The only downside of the 2405, aside from price, is that running games at its native resolution would probably require a quad-SLi rig for the latest games.

I have the 2005, and I'm extremely happy with it. Now, I just have to hope Oblivion supports 1680x1050...

neoWidescreen · Post by **neoWidescreen** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:27

The only downside of the 2405, aside from price, is that running games at its native resolution would probably require a quad-SLi rig for the latest games.

I have the 2005, and I'm extremely happy with it. Now, I just have to hope Oblivion supports 1680x1050...

Ummm..... not really. I have a 6800GT and many recent games work fine at 1900x1200, and even 1680x1050 looks good. The 2405 resizes good. A 7800GT with a decent CPU will run latest games fine.

Post by **Tamlin** » 08 Mar 2006, 09:45

From what I have read, the 2405fpw resizes good. This is true. But, the newer games are more and more demanding as he said, so he'd probably run most of the new games at 1680x1050 or lower. 4" extra workspace and a 1920x1200 resolution is good, but a bit waste if he is going to use 1680x1050 most of the time. I also doubt that the future games will become less demanding. Wouldn't it be better to have a monitor with great PQ at 20" then?

marty · Post by **marty** » 13 Mar 2006, 00:57

update: I recalculated my cash supply and I have about $635. By the time the 2407 comes out, I should have ~$720. If I get a few babysitting/computer jobs, I can have a 2407wfp in no time (depending on the price). Else I will have to settle for a 2405fpw.

marty · Post by **marty** » 09 Apr 2006, 21:04

I now have the money for the 2405 and I will order it today. w00t! Finally! I've been saving since January.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 09 Apr 2006, 21:14

Congrats, mate. :)

Hope the screen is everything you want - mine was. :D

Drop a review in the User Reviews section, too. ;)

marty · Post by **marty** » 09 Apr 2006, 21:15

actually, I plan to write a full review for OverclockersClub.com, where I am a news editor. I will definitely post at least a link to that one here.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 09 Apr 2006, 21:19

That's cool, too...

Might be popping over there anyway in the future... ;)

*counts pennies for an Opteron 170...* :lol:

Widescreen Gaming Forum