StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So I was planning to buy a 24 inch monitor for my desktop (possibly a Samsung T240),
but I heard some positive things about Samsung P2370, which is only 23 inch, and thought that maybe I should take that.

Question is - what's the real difference between 23 and 24 inch? Do you ever feel it?


That said, I'm open to any other suggestions - tips on choosing a monitor, or whatever else you feel might be useful in my situation.

One inch doesn't seem like that much of a difference. How much is the price difference? If the 24" is more expensive I'd say go with the 23". If the cost is negligible, then . . .uh, go with whichever one looks nicer?

It means the screen is an inch bigger diagonally.

Ryan Thunder wrote:It means the screen is an inch bigger diagonally.

You seriously think I don't know that?

One inch doesn't seem like that much of a difference

The thing is, that I heard that this lonely inch does make a difference - you can feel it.
That's why I asked if anybody here had any similar experience - do you really feel that inch...

MagnusTheReD wrote: The thing is, that I heard that this lonely inch does make a difference - you can feel it.
That's why I asked if anybody here had any similar experience - do you really feel that inch...

Are you sure they were talking about monitors and not their penis?

The extra inch will make a noticeable difference. However I'll note it's not a 100$ or move difference, but more like a 50$ difference. I use a 25.5 myself so I'm kinda spoiled in that regard.

Check native res too. That's a size where panels might be 16xx or 19xx, so be sure your video card can push the pixels. One extra inch + 20% fps drop = not worth a hundred bucks.

A quick google search revealed the following information for each monitor:

Samsung P2370

Diagonal size: 23"
Native resolution: 1920x1080
Brightness: 250 cd/m²
Contrast Ratio: DC 50,000:1 (1000:1) (typ)
Response time: 2 ms (GTG)
Viewing Angle (Horizontal / Vertical): 170º / 160º (CR > 10)

Additionally, it has one DVI connector, and other sources indicate that the monitor uses a TN panel, which are typically associated with excellent response time and lower cost, but poorer angles of viewing and color reproduction.


Samsung T240

Screen Size: 24" Wide
Resolution: 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA)
Brightness: 300 cd/m²
Contrast Ratio: DC 20000:1 (1000:1) (Typ.)
Response time: 5 ms
Viewing Angle(Horizontal/Vertical): 160º/160º (CR>10)

This monitor has three input connectors (VGA, DVI, and HDMI), has a bit larger resolution (1200 vertical pixels vs the 23"'s 1080 vertical pixels), and also uses a TN panel (although the claimed contrast does not appear to be quite as good.)


Typically it's a good idea to check specifications on different monitors beyond just the diagonal size of the monitor; manufacturers often offer multiple models of monitor at the same size point, each with its own feature set and price.

I don't mind the TN panels on Samsung monitors; the angle is still fine for computer use and the response is good (although sometimes poor bright-to-dark).

Mr Bean wrote:The extra inch will make a noticeable difference. However I'll note it's not a 100$ or move difference, but more like a 50$ difference. I use a 25.5 myself so I'm kinda spoiled in that regard.

I see, thanks.

So how works the 25.5 inch desktop works for you? Not too big?
Cause I thought about investing some extra buck to buy a 26-inch one, but I figured it would be far too big for a desktop.

Stark wrote:Check native res too. That's a size where panels might be 16xx or 19xx, so be sure your video card can push the pixels. One extra inch + 20% fps drop = not worth a hundred bucks.

Oh, that's actually a good idea, thanks.
The monitor I'm looking into has a native res of 1920x1080, whereas my card (9500GT) has "Maximum Digital Resolution" of 2560x1600, and "Maximum VGA Resolution" of 2048x1536.
Now, I'm not sure what's the difference between digital and VGA resolution, but the VGA one seems to be pushing it - do you think it might be a problem?

Well, U235 actually looking them up shows that the pix difference isn't really significant. But I meant being conscious of perhaps having to increase the res you run everything in and the impact that has on performance.

Well the best way to reply is this way I think. Two pictures taken by my none to high quality blackberry built in camera with some quick re-sizing.

First a size comparison.


The one on the left is an Asus VW 266H ($300 on newegg) which is just the basic VK266H with a extra inputs (Component, Dsub, HDMI, VGA and DVI) , the one on the right is an old Sony 17-incher I bought way back when also for 300$.


My setup right now


I re-used the Sony as a extra monitor to put my music player in when I'm playing online games or talking online(Empty team speak window up there). The Asus is of course 25.5 and it's at 1920x1200 and you think it's too big for monitor display but as you can see at this size it works out fine. Most icons are an inch tall at that resolution on this size screen.
OAN you can pick these up for as little as 230$ some places there's a basic model with just VGA, DVI and HDMI and without the camera for 230$. I've used it for almost a year now and they ended production so they are getting hard to find. But this much re-estate at this cost is hard to beat.

Depending on what you're planning on using the monitor for the pixel pitch can make a difference, when I last went looking for a monitor I was given two options one 22" the other 26" yet with the same native pixel resolution, this means the larger monitor will have larger (and therefore more noticeable) pixels. Potentially not an issue for you but can be annoying in some graphics work.

MagnusTheReD wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:It means the screen is an inch bigger diagonally.

You seriously think I don't know that?

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence. I just know a shitload of people who never thought about it.

I definitely prefer the 16:10 ratio 1920x1200 than the 16:9 ratio 1920x1080 for a monitor. My laptop is 1920x1080 and I miss being able to put the video controls on the screen when viewing videos and 16:9 is a bit too wide for single window use in many situations. I think all the 23" panels are 1920x1080, that's the biggest reason that keeps me away from 23" LCDs. Focus on the panel performance and price, really.

Since I watch movies a lot on my monitor, I prefer the 16:9 ratio (I have a 24". I like it big since I like a big tv screen when I watch shows/movies). Having the 16:9 ratio lets you use the entire available screen space instead of having the "black bars" on the top and bottom of the screen when watching a widescreen format video.

I have found that the bigger the screen, the better for video games, as long as you don't go overboard where you can't see the whole screen at once. For me, the upper limit of comfort is about 26". However, my budget only allowed for a 24" monitor, and I was quite happy with it. (I got a BenQ E2420HD for under $300. Last I saw it was closer to the low-200s.).

Uraniun235 wrote:A quick google search revealed the following information for each monitor:

Thanks for that, man, but I looked it up before making this thread - besides the screen height, it didn't look like that much of a difference to me, hence the dillema.

Stark wrote:Well, U235 actually looking them up shows that the pix difference isn't really significant. But I meant being conscious of perhaps having to increase the res you run everything in and the impact that has on performance.

I see what you mean.

Mr Bean wrote: First a size comparison.
...the one on the right is an old Sony 17-incher I bought way back when also for 300$.

Actually, I used the headphones in your pic for size reference - and that's one big screen you got there!

Thanks for those pics, man - now that I see it, I'm starting to think that 26 would be too big, for me, anyway.

The_Saint wrote:Depending on what you're planning on using the monitor for the pixel pitch can make a difference, when I last went looking for a monitor I was given two options one 22" the other 26" yet with the same native pixel resolution, this means the larger monitor will have larger (and therefore more noticeable) pixels. Potentially not an issue for you but can be annoying in some graphics work.

I honestly don't know how it didn't occur to me, but it's a pretty good point - now I really see no merit in getting a wider screen with the same native res...

Ryan Thunder wrote:I just know a shitload of people who never thought about it.

Dude, that's some fucked-up shit, you know that?

Ypoknons wrote:I definitely prefer the 16:10 ratio 1920x1200 than the 16:9 ratio 1920x1080 for a monitor. My laptop is 1920x1080 and I miss being able to put the video controls on the screen when viewing videos and 16:9 is a bit too wide for single window use in many situations.

I'm mostly gonna use mine for gaming - how does that work for you in that res?

Focus on the panel performance and price, really.

Alright, thanks for the advice, man - that makes sense.

Deniz wrote:However, my budget only allowed for a 24" monitor, and I was quite happy with it.

What's the approximate distance of the screen from your face right now (or was when you were using that 24")?

MagnusTheReD wrote:

The_Saint wrote:Depending on what you're planning on using the monitor for the pixel pitch can make a difference, when I last went looking for a monitor I was given two options one 22" the other 26" yet with the same native pixel resolution, this means the larger monitor will have larger (and therefore more noticeable) pixels. Potentially not an issue for you but can be annoying in some graphics work.

I honestly don't know how it didn't occur to me, but it's a pretty good point - now I really see no merit in getting a wider screen with the same native res...

Pixel Pitch is not really a problem for most gaming or movie watching, it only causes issues for the neurotic and those requiring on screen image precision.

(I probably fall in the former more than my odd jobs require the latter, in my case I have a BenQ 21.5" running at 1920x1080 as my primary alongside several other lesser monitors)

I'm fine with anything 90 to 110 ppi ... The 130ppi on my 1080 16" Dell laptop is a bit too much, I scale everything up (imperfect, but worth it for that RGB LED screen). 1920x1080 is fine for gaming as long as your video card can drive the game at full resolution, otherwise you'll have to scale down all the way to 720. With 16:10 you probably get a lot more scaling down options like 1440x900... Again, I'm probably nitpicking. But the P2370 isn't the best performing monitor (see Trusted Reviews), it's more power efficent and adequate than exceptional in image quality.

Looking at the specs posted by Uraniun, I'd go for the 24" model since it's significantly brighter. The contrast ratio doesn't matter anyway since you'll never get more than 1000:1 in anything resembling a realistic viewing situation. To get the claimed ratios you'll need a completely dark room and pure white plus pure black test patterns.

Stark wrote:I don't mind the TN panels on Samsung monitors; the angle is still fine for computer use and the response is good (although sometimes poor bright-to-dark).

Eww, TN panels IPS is the only way to fly.

phongn wrote:Eww, TN panels IPS is the only way to fly.

It doesn't really matter unless you're doing critical image editing, in which case CRTs are the way to go.
Vacuum tubes rule!

aerius wrote:

phongn wrote:Eww, TN panels IPS is the only way to fly.

It doesn't really matter unless you're doing critical image editing, in which case CRTs are the way to go.
Vacuum tubes rule!

High-end LCDs now exceed CRT quality (greater color gamut, etc.) but they cost a small fortune

As for tubes, my present job uses PMTs but I hate dealing with them. Give me photodiodes!

phongn wrote:Eww, TN panels IPS is the only way to fly.

No love for PVA blacks? It's not that IPS is bad, just that PVA is a bit better...

phongn wrote:

Stark wrote:I don't mind the TN panels on Samsung monitors; the angle is still fine for computer use and the response is good (although sometimes poor bright-to-dark).

Eww, TN panels IPS is the only way to fly.

I used to feel the same way, but the price difference is now totally insane between TN and IPS panels. Seriously it's like a 50% difference.

The best way to justify an IPS panel is to get a 30" monitor which are all still IPS panels anyway.