OcUK 24" vs Samsung 22"

jubei · 1 Jan 2008 at 22:06

Hopefully ordering my new rig tomorrow guys and need a monitor with it to replace my aging 19" hyundai. This rig is primarily for gaming so response times are important, however i have never really noticed ghosting on this tft i already have and it has a 16ms response time so cant see it being much of a problem.

Would you recommend one of the samsung 22" models or a 24" OcUK? the samsungs i know look a lot nicer and ahve the faster response time. However the 24" from ocuk is only like £50 more and seems to be pretty popular, this will also affect what card i buy as have currently specced the GTX but guess could save and get a GT if buying the 22"?

Whats generally recommended for gaming, and how does the OcUK one look in the flesh? hate the thought of some ugly thing sat on desk, you can never tell from the pics online tho.

jubei · 2 Jan 2008 at 10:45

Anyone seen the 2 monitors in action and able to give an opinion on the image quality in games from the 2 monitors? The samsung seems to have a higher contrast ratio, does that show up in games?

Also does the ocuk monitor handle the lower res 1650 or wateva the general 22" res is for games? as i like to have decent framerates in my fps games and cant imagine self getting a good framerate at 1920 res tho for desktop use that would be lovely.

I also only sit like 2 feet? away from my monitor if that, average lookin desk. Would the 24" be too big?

Sorry for all the questions but i want this ordered for delivery tomorrow

jubei · 2 Jan 2008 at 11:41

Reading the reviews of both of the monitors, the samsung 226bw and the ocuk and it would seem a lot of people are talking about motion blur for hardened fps gamers on the ocuk, not seen a single indication of that on the samsung...

How bad is it as i am an avid quake player and motion blur would truly suck. Though i dont notice any on my old hyundai so i have either gotten used to it or its just not there in *** first place.

Samsung also 'looks' very nice too, however the panel and size of the ocuk one keep me wanting it. Anyone used both by any chance and can give me some input? wanna get this stuff ordered.

Dancer · 2 Jan 2008 at 11:47

I'm looking to buy one of these too (Samsung SM-226BW 22" VS OcUK Value L2442W 24").

I've read through pretty much all 69 pages(!!) of the " BARGAIN - OcUK 24..." thread and it seems like a very good buy, with a low risk of backlight problems and dead pixels (the other niggles don't bother me).

I have a top-of-the-range 5 year old 22" CRT at the moment. I've loved it, but it is huge and the last few months it occasionally starts to give out a very annoying high frequency noise. The poor thing must be very tired and it's time to salute and retire it.

I'm not too bothered if I get a 22" or 24", but I do want a monitor that is crystal clear for gaming and LOTS of reading (e-books and web text). I never play/read in the dark.

So which monitor should I choose for the sharpest, most amazing and eye-friendly picture quality? Feel free to suggest other models too ofc!

Thank you in advance.

Dancer · 2 Jan 2008 at 11:49

jubei said:
Reading the reviews of both of the monitors, the samsung 226bw and the ocuk and it would seem a lot of people are talking about motion blur for hardened fps gamers on the ocuk, not seen a single indication of that on the samsung...

Really? I just read through most of the OcUK 24" thread and from what I read there was no motion blur at all? Can you give me a link to those posts? Cheers.

jubei · 2 Jan 2008 at 12:58

Dancer said:
Really? I just read through most of the OcUK 24" thread and from what I read there was no motion blur at all? Can you give me a link to those posts? Cheers.

Click on the monitor in the shop page and then the reviews tab there i was talking about sorry. Quite a few on there state 'and only slight ghosting' etc. But ghosting is ghosting.

I will also be looking to buy another of the same monitor within a couple of months to go dual screen if that makes any difference to which i should buy.

Any input appreciated please guys, itchy order finger :|

Dancer · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:19

jubei said:
Click on the monitor in the shop page and then the reviews tab there i was talking about sorry. Quite a few on there state 'and only slight ghosting' etc. But ghosting is ghosting.

Checked the review tab for the OcUk 24: "no noticable ghosting or lag", "1920x1200 with no hint of ghosting whatsoever", "viewing angles are incredible, like a CRT, and there is no ghosting/blur", etc. No one says anything about slight ghosting, maybe you are getting it mixed up with another monitor. The only problem I've read about with the OcUK is a somwhat wobbly stand, an occasional backlight problem and a sometimes a few dead pixels. Nothing unusual for any LCD and there seems to be more happy customers than problems. (No ghosting problems reported for the samsung either in the reviews)

I would rather have an amazing 22" than an ok 24", but from my research so far it's not clear if visual quality would be better on the 22" or the 24". I'd be happy to pay almost as much for a 22" as for the 24" if the image quality was superior, but if they are about the same then I of course will get the 24". I stare at my monitor every day for much of the day, it has to be very good!

Obviously a 24" will be more demanding on your graphic card than a 22", but from the OcUK thread it seems the 24" handles lower resolutions fairly well. Dual screen gaming is very demanding and because you'll want to run the 24" at a higher resolution, you'll probably have a lower fps with the larger monitor. It all depends on your graphics card, etc.

jubei · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:28

Dancer said:
Checked the review tab for the OcUk 24: "no noticable ghosting or lag", "1920x1200 with no hint of ghosting whatsoever", "viewing angles are incredible, like a CRT, and there is no ghosting/blur", etc. No one says anything about slight ghosting, maybe you are getting it mixed up with another monitor. The only problem I've read about with the OcUK is a somwhat wobbly stand, an occasional backlight problem and a sometimes a few dead pixels. Nothing unusual for any LCD and there seems to be more happy customers than problems. (No ghosting problems reported for the samsung either in the reviews)

I would rather have an amazing 22" than an ok 24", but from my research so far it's not clear if visual quality would be better on the 22" or the 24". I'd be happy to pay almost as much for a 22" as for the 24" if the image quality was superior, but if they are about the same then I of course will get the 24". I stare at my monitor every day for much of the day, it has to be very good!

Obviously a 24" will be more demanding on your graphic card than a 22", but from the OcUK thread it seems the 24" handles lower resolutions fairly well. Dual screen gaming is very demanding and because you'll want to run the 24" at a higher resolution, you'll probably have a lower fps with the larger monitor. It all depends on your graphics card, etc.

'Great value for money, had one stuck pixel on mine, and slight blur in fast games such as quake. Other than that I cant fault it, brilliant for everything else, at an incredible price.'

'
It also delivers in the gaming department (I'm a hardened FPS player :-)

) with very little input lag.'

tbh i aint here to nit pick tho just looking for advice, and a little lag isnt gonna bother me as i dont really notice it all that much on my 19" anyway.

I will not be dual screen gaming, the dual screens are so i can do my programming/graphics design easier, also would be nice to keep outlook/msn/random other program open on one screen whilst i play wow on the other etc. Ordering whole new rig today so will get either the 8800GT or 8800GTX to go with this, trying to talk myself into getting the GT to save some cash....but think GTX would prolly perform a lot better at native resolutions.

jubei · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:29

Just to add, i think i am pretty much decided on the OcUK monitor, bigger monitor with a better panel for around £50 more seems like a bit of a bargain.

bobert50 · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:49

Well they're both similar panels.

If your an avid quaker, what are you doing on a standard 19" tft?

Tbh theres no debate, the 226bw would be far more responsive if you play first person shooters and it'd be noticably so, even if it might be more fun to play other types of games on a bigger screen. I've had most of the monitors now and i find myself back on CRT for fps games as even the 226bw didn't cut it for me, but it was clearly by far the best lcd i've tried on them.

ademcg · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:52

Bear in mind there are 2 distinct technologies here.

22" Samsungs TN film, poor viewing angles but lighting fast 2ms response time.
Pebble sufferes from backlight bleed (some more than others, I RMA'd Mine). Some screens produce poor colour reproduction, which can't be improved upon even with extensive calibration.
The 226BW seems to suffer less wityh respect to backlight bleed, but the panel lottery has tainted this.

24" OCUK VA based panel, great viewing angles, no motion blurr from what I observed.
Poor backlight uniformity (my reason for RMA) and dubious quality control as you can see from the thread, you either get a cracking screen or a duff one.

The old addage applies,...you pays ya money, you takes your chance !

I have had both in the last 3 months and still searching for my ideal 22" or 24" gaming partner.

Superficial · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:54

There is absolutely NO ghosting on my OcUK 24 Inch. And believe me I have looked.

As for the above comment above that you can get a cracking screen or a duff one - this most certainly applies to every single LCD monitor avaialble and certainly applies to Samsung monitors esp the 226BW which has had much worse complaints despite an entire 69 page critical analysis on the OcUK.

However I'm no Zealot and to prove it and will say this - My chief concern is with the warranty registration system on the OcUK DGM 24" - very unprofessional so i just hope nothing goes wrong but saying that I have never retirned anything to Digimate so everything may be fine.

bobert50 · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:56

Superficial said:
There is absolutely NO ghosting on my OcUK 24 Inch. And believe me I have looked.

Thing is, my gf would say the same thing. Most of the my friends would too. My gf can't even see ghosting on the 2470wfp which is sooooooo obvious...%""J%IOQWAFAS anyway...

Its still obvious to me though after years and years on a good CRT.

It may not be ghosting as such but there will be some sort of lag / tearing that sucks if its the sort of thing your susceptible to.

james.miller · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:56

of course there is, its inevitable. wiggle your mouse around and tell me you cant see 4 or 5 of them. that's ghosting right there. however, it is very minimal in gaming on the screen. but with some fast paced action you do get some texture blurring and and fuzzy lines. In all honesty though, they are still very good.

bobert50 · 2 Jan 2008 at 13:59

If i was going for a mess-about on an fps game, it'd be fine.

However, if i was trying to play remotely well...it'd drive me mad

jubei · 2 Jan 2008 at 14:01

james.miller said:
of course there is, its inevitable. wiggle your mouse around and tell me you cant see 4 or 5 of them. that's ghosting right there. however, it is very minimal in gaming on the screen. but with some fast paced action you do get some texture blurring and and fuzzy lines. In all honesty though, they are still very good.

Which would you recommend for me james, considering i will be looking to play some ut3 until quake zero comes around? Also play a lot of WoW these days as my g/f has gotten into that too so its a game we can enjoy together, expect that would look pretty sweet at 1900 res

But you have seen and tried both, if you had to settle for one of them for general use including games which would you pick?

Also should i still be looking at a GTX regardless of which monitor i get or one of the new GT/GTS cards?

bobert50 · 2 Jan 2008 at 14:05

Difference between 1920x1200 over 24" compared to 1680x1050 over 22" isn't groundbreaking tbh. Also 1680x1050 will be a LOT easier to run on future games based on the crysis engine etc.

Its just so obvious to me that for anything fps related, the sammy 2ms would be the better option..

Superficial · 2 Jan 2008 at 14:07

james.miller said:
of course there is, its inevitable. wiggle your mouse around and tell me you cant see 4 or 5 of them. that's ghosting right there. however, it is very minimal in gaming on the screen. but with some fast paced action you do get some texture blurring and and fuzzy lines. In all honesty though, they are still very good.

mate if i wiggle my mouse fast i get that on my Mitsu Diamond plus 92 CRT. This is not ghosting per se as its couples with the draw rate on the graphics card.

I have been playing COD 4 for days - there is no ghosting - whats more to the pooint - no one has complained about ghosting in 69 pages.

I have also started gaming at 1680 * 1050 as my poor 7800GT hates 1920 * 1200 and it looks great in games but you can notice it on the desktop though.

helmutcheese · 2 Jan 2008 at 14:07

James Miller put up a High Res photo of his OCUK 24" in a dark room, the Black Screen showed no backlight bleed or therefore uneveness, infact I was very impressed it was Totally Pitch Black not Midnight Grey

james.miller · 2 Jan 2008 at 14:10

i dont agree. the difference going form a 22" to a 24" is pretty major. obviously a bigger screen, and a higher resolution (~30% large screen area). the 24" screen have a smaller dot pitch, meaning everything is sharper.

i would only ever recommend a 24" over a 22".