BARGAIN - OcUK 24" with DVI (*VA Panel) for £179.99+VAT (This Week Only Deal!!)
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
@james.miller
Will all graphics cards cause this ? as i've seen a fluttering line on other monitors at the edges of the black bars and it's quite annoying when watching a dvd.
Will all graphics cards cause this ? as i've seen a fluttering line on other monitors at the edges of the black bars and it's quite annoying when watching a dvd.
Soldato
Hi, I'm well aware 1920x1200 gives a higher desktop resolution over 1680x1050, its kind of obvious. I took this into consideration and explained I went for the 22" due to a higher dot pitch size. For that reason, if I desperately wanted 1920x1200 I would be looking at 26"-28" screen sizes. I also don't disagree that the DGM is good for gaming, but I still believe the Samsung has the edge (however little) in that department (until of course someone says different in a side-by-side review).
Last edited:
Soldato
.... pondering... pondering... what to do... should I... shouldnt I...
I DONT KNOOOOOOOOOW
Can we get really high res pics of the screen? I would like to see typical IE/Firefox text on webpages.
Something like this? Anyone know where i can upload Hi Res pics?
Right here is my opinion of the heated Samsung SM2232BW vs OcUK L2442W (or similar) debate which seems to be going on. This is totally impartial, I do not own either, but I've tested enough screens to hopefully be able to give an overview of the pros and cons of each:
-----------------------------------------
Response Time - the Samsung features a 2ms G2G Samsung TN Film panel, with overdrive being used to offer some very top end responsiveness both on paper and in practice. The SM226BW is highly regarded, and the SM2232BW is using the same Samsung panel as that did. A very good panel in terms of responsiveness, and about as fast as you will find in today's market. The OcUK L2442W features a 6ms G2G rated VA panel, again using RTC. My suspicions are that this is a P-MVA panel from AU Optronics panel (as used in the BenQ FP241W). Even if it is a Samsung S-PVA panel (as used in the Dell 2407WFP) then it is still very comparable in terms of responsiveness anyway to the AUO P-MVA panel. Both are 6ms G2G rated, but more importanlty, in practice, the observed responsiveness is very similar. You can compare this with the images as reviewed at BeHardware / Hardware.fr / DigitalVersus here.
Anyway, regardless of whether it's a Samsung S-PVA or AUO P-MVA, both are very comparable in real terms to one another. It's debatable as to whether you'd notice much real difference in practice between these and the 2ms TN Film panel in the Samsung SM2232BW. However, the Samsung is a little faster in tests. You can see Xbitlab's response time testing of the 226BW here and see that it is pretty top notch. While Xbitlabs haven't reviewed the FP241W (most likely panel match), Tom's Hardware have, and you can see their response time measurements here. Anyway, I digress. Both are good, but the edge would go to the Samsung SM2232BW here. Whether it is an issue is another thing, but that depends on the user....
Neither screen offers hardware level aspect ratio control, or 1:1 pixel mapping, but it should be possible on both screens via software (e.g. Nvidia control panel - maybe some users can confirm here?)
-----------------------------------------
Contrast ratio - the contrast ratio of 3000:1 listed for the Samsung SM2232BW is dynamic, the real static contrast ratio is 1000:1, which is the same on paper as the L2442W. In practice, for a TN Film panel, the SM2232BW performs pretty admirably in this regard, with a recorded contrast ratio of 946:1 in Behardware's tests (S panel in the SM226BW used for reference). If you compare this with the recorded contrast ratio's in their tests of the likely panel matches (BenQ FP241W and Dell 2407WFP) it is actually a little better:
So despite being TN Film, the SM2232BW could well offer the slight edge here in contrast ratio. With it's dynamic contrast ratio, it might offer some further improvements in videos as well (since that's really the only proper use for the tech imo). Having said all that, the contrast ratio on the L2442W should still be very good, and it's pretty hard really to spot a difference in practice when the figures are this high and this close, once you have the screens set to a sensible luminance level.
-----------------------------------------
Colour Accuracy and Depth - Firstly, despite the figures being both listed as 16.7 million colours, the Samsung SM2232BW only offers a true 6-bit colour depth, with FRC technology being used to boost the colour palette from 262k colours, to 16.7 million or thereabouts. The *VA panel of the L2442W on the other hand features a true 8-bit colour depth. In practice, if you consider modern FRC algorithms, you probably would never spot any real difference anyway, it's just something to be wary of, and something some people like to mention
Colour accuracy is a tough one to compare since this really does vary from one screen to another, and is not entirely dependent on the panel used, but more on how the screen is set up out of the factory. You can't really rely on the IPS > VA > TN Film rule here which some people like to use for colour accuracy. Both are perfectly capable of some good colour accuracy if you can calibrate them properly, and nowadays even TN Film can offer good performance here. Hard to say which would offer better colour accuracy out of the box though. Whether people set them up to their tastes manually, or use a calibrator, both should be quite similar in terms of accuracyWhere the colour capabilities will vary is related to......
-----------------------------------------
Viewing angles - this is where TN Film suffers. The VA panel of the L2442W is superior here. This can influence nearly all uses, including colour work, gaming, movies and just general use. For many, TN Film is still perfectly adequate, but imo, 22" is the limit of where you can use it comfortably without viewing angle variations really becoming a noticeable distraction when using the screen.
-----------------------------------------
Resolution and Screen size - Obviously the edge goes to the L2442W here as has already been said. It's 2" bigger, but more importantly, the resolution is higher. Imo, the 1920 x 1200 res is a really nice (and noticeably quite good) upgrade, and really allows better side by side working and more desktop real estate. The pixel pitch is slightly tigther, and again, imo, this is better, a little sharper and improves text clarity a bit. Again, this is down to personal preference, but i personally find the text size and pixel pitch a little bit too large on 19" and 22" models as compared with 17" and 20" which share the same res, but on a smaller screen.
The 1200 pixel vertical resolution allows for full 1080 HD content to be displayed too, but without the need to be scaled by the monitor because the res of a 1680 x 1050 screen is not quiet enough. For gaming, the extra resolution of the 24" model is there for if / when you have aq powerful enough GFX card. Imo, it's better to have too high a res than not enough to allow for future expansion, and so it is probably better to have a 1920 x 1200 res from the outset. you should be able to use aspect ratio control at a software level anyway, and so if you wanted to, you could run at 1680 x 1050 and use 1:1 pixel mapping to put borders around the screen. It would be like having a 22" screen within a 24" model
Obviously, you can let the screen interpolate the image up anyway to fill the screen, and on modern displays, the quality of this tends to be very good anyway. Seems the user comments here suggest it is of good standard.james.miller said:
Don't forget the 1:1 pixel mapping is also used to control aspect ratio if you're viewing a 4:3 or 5:4 source....so it's just as important at 22" as well really, it's just useful on WS format monitors.
-----------------------------------------
Features and Design - Neither offer much in the way of ergonomic adjustments, only a tilt function. The design of the SM2232BW is nicer i think, and i'm sure most ppl feel the same there. The speakers on the L2442W may be good for some people, may be off-putting to others, again down to personal taste. The apparent lack of HDCP on the L2442W throws in problems for any encrypted content, whereas the SM2232BW features it over DVI interface. I'd say the Samsung wins here, but then we already know it is a more premium design than the DGM model. Note that build quality and materials are likely to be better on the Samsung as well.
So there's my opinion of the two models. Both have their pros and cons, and i guess both would suit different user needs. If it were ME, I think I would get the L2442W as I prefer the larger screen size and resolution, and find the viewing angles of TN Film to be an unwanted distraction. That's only for me though, and considering my personal everyday uses.
=====================================
Barba Gann said:
For you, I would say the VA panel of the L2442W would be more suited. Viewing angles would be a problem if you're viewing the screen from any angle really below a central view on a TN Film panel...the contrast shift is obvious on TN Film in that instance. For movies, the extra size, and wider viewing angles of the L2442W would be better imo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 10,993
Cheers baddass, as said in my little contribution, 8bit panel is better than 6 bit, sorted.
that's probably the one bit I would say doesn't matter! in practice, unless you were running them side by side i'd say you'd be verty hard pressed to notice much, if any real difference. 6ms G2G VA panels are pretty responsive really.
Soldato
how does the samsung produce 16.7m colours, is it spacial dithering like my dell? because that sticks out like a sore thumb lol
the biggest difference when look at these forums it is that the blues are now a single solid block of colour and not two alternating shades of blue. im talking about the body of each post - the lighter blue is clearly two different shades on my dell. ive spoken and taken pics of this before on these forums. let me dig them up...
the biggest difference when look at these forums it is that the blues are now a single solid block of colour and not two alternating shades of blue. im talking about the body of each post - the lighter blue is clearly two different shades on my dell. ive spoken and taken pics of this before on these forums. let me dig them up...
Last edited:
Soldato
Great post baddass.
Soldato
2nded.
Of course with no outright winner, the debate goes on....
.... and on and on and on and ariston.
Soldato
there's only one winner depending on what you want. that wasnt what any of us were disagreeing with
could somebody with the samsung run the color gradiant test http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/6bit_8bit.htm and take a photo of it?
could somebody with the samsung run the color gradiant test http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/6bit_8bit.htm and take a photo of it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,489
Ok guys, I have £250 sitting here for a new monitor.
Do I get this or not?
*will order before half 3 if its a resounding yes*
I have no monitor atm and it will be powered by a X1900XTX and eventually a HD 3870...
Yes???
Do I get this or not?
*will order before half 3 if its a resounding yes*
I have no monitor atm and it will be powered by a X1900XTX and eventually a HD 3870...
Yes???
Soldato
I think it's quite obvious the DGM wins, Your getting more for your money, More desktop real estate, a *VA panel and Badass said "If it were ME, I think I would get the L2442W" and Badass knows his monitors
Last edited:
Soldato
Yeah personal preference does come into it a lot. I would say though if you tally up all the pros/cons and weight each one accordingly, the DGM would be out in front.
Didn't someone post some photos earlier in this thread showing a gradient test (can't remember for which monitor) and there was a problem with the photos not actually showing what the person saw? If this is the case, then you can't really use photos for comparison or is this 100% dependant on camera quality?
Didn't someone post some photos earlier in this thread showing a gradient test (can't remember for which monitor) and there was a problem with the photos not actually showing what the person saw? If this is the case, then you can't really use photos for comparison or is this 100% dependant on camera quality?