I'd probably go with a higher quality monitor if you think this store doesn't really have any suitable options.
I checked the VG23AH and it says 5ms response time? I'll want something I won't reget buying, so would you suggest I just pick something else/another store?
Sorry, I know absolutely nothing about monitors, appreciate the help.
edit: also, this store does price matching so the price isn't that big of a deal. Although the monitor is 3D, does that lower performance if I don't ever plan on using 3D?
So while the site offers it for $289.99, I should be capable of getting it for $193.75 good deal?
The monitors I mentioned are good quality. They're listed in the OP, which also talks about why response times that manufacturers give are pretty much useless. I don't really get why people come here, say sorry I don't know much, when the OP is right there to explain some things :-/ For the VG23AH, the motion performance is great (with the "Trace Free" option set to 40 or 60), better than many 60Hz TN's that claim "2ms" or similar. Input lag is low too so it's really good for gaming in those aspects, though I'd argue (for myself at least) that picture quality is far more important - and it doesn't fall short there either.
Well, anyway... $193.75 sounds like a very good deal for that monitor (in the States, it's been hovering around $220-230 for a while, if that's a useful comparison). Just make sure you still have the option of exchanging it in case you get unlucky with a bad unit. I don't think price-matching would invalidate that option, and MemoryExpress is legit as far as I know.
My current monitor is a bit of a pain in the ass, and its listed as 2ms response time. When boxing my SCVs I can actually see the delay from when I click so I'm hoping to avoid that problem with whichever new monitor I buy.
So perhaps I should move up from the 20ms (5ms?) response times monitors? What would be my next best bet?
@ Wabbit, I really did read the OP I still don't really understand the purpose of response times, especially if theyre more or less useless stats.
My current monitor is a bit of a pain in the ass, and its listed as 2ms response time. When boxing my SCVs I can actually see the delay from when I click so I'm hoping to avoid that problem with whichever new monitor I buy.
So perhaps I should move up from the 20ms (5ms?) response times monitors? What would be my next best bet?
@ Wabbit, I really did read the OP I still don't really understand the purpose of response times, especially if theyre more or less useless stats.
You're still looking at response times... stop it, seriously. For one, they don't mean what you think they mean. They refer to the supposed amount of time it takes for a pixel to change state from one shade of "grey" (any non-black or white it's displaying, really) to another. Of course manufacturers lie about this, or publish best-case scenario numbers, etc. It's all supposed to reflect how good motion performance of the monitor is, but in reality the numbers they give can be ignored. We look at 3rd party reviews who do proper testing to give a better idea of what motion looks like on the monitor.
The delay sounds like high input lag (total amount of time between when you.. input an action and the monitor actually displays it). I am fairly certain that it be virtually imperceptible on the VG23AH.
Now it's true that response time has a *part* in total input lag (at least, that's how Prad measures it), but again the numbers given by manufacturers can be ignored. The bigger part to input lag is any processing time by the monitor; most consumer monitors don't have a long delay here but some do for various reasons. This one doesn't, and it would be a surprise if it did, as it's primarily marketed as a gaming monitor.
And more specifically, look at this video from the review to understand response time in practice and how motion looks depending on how well the overdrive (response time acceleration, basically) of the monitor is implemented (in this case, it's controllable, so setting it to 40 or 60 means no noticeable ghosting or reverse ghosting for the vast majority of people; trace free 100 is what many "2ms" or "3ms" TN monitors look like, with overdrive that's too aggressive)
Response time is the speed at which the pixel change, high response time results in ghosting and motion blur. Doesn't really matter for decent monitors today and Starcraft II. What you're describing is input lag which is the delay between the output from the GPU and the image being displayed on the screen.
The other option at $220 right now is the Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM. This monitor goes as low as ~$180 so it's not that good of a deal at $220.
On January 21 2013 00:24 Mackem wrote: Was thinking about buying the LG IPS234V, opinions?
LG IPS234V - matte anti-glare, VGA / DVI / HDMI, tilt-only stand, VESA mount option, slower response times, no overshooting (note: some other LG IPS has worse response, like this)
Asus VS239HR - matte anti-glare, VGA / DVI / HDMI, tilt-only and flimsy stand, VESA mount option, unknown response — probably with overshooting, so like U2312HM maybe? overdrive configuration setting locked, unlike VS239H-P available in other regions and unlike other Asus models
Dell S2340L - glossy, VGA / HDMI, tilt-only stand, no VESA mount option, unknown response but probably similar to U2312HM
Depends on what you want. All of these use LG eIPS panels and have minimal input lag.
I basically just want a monitor that will be better than my current LG W2361V. I mean I do have the money to spend £200 per monitor (I want two monitors that match haha) but if I can get a good monitor for PC/Xbox gaming, general web browsing, movie watching etc.
Any suggestions for a good 23+inch monitor for around 150-175 nothing fancy is just going to be my 2nd monitor. The biggest thing is I'm in a budget. Was looking at the Asus ve247h but had iffy reviews. Was also looking at a benq gl2450.
can somebody give me some opinions about some of these monitors: + LG IPS 236V 23" + Philips Blade 2 white 239C4QHSW 23" + SAMSUNG S24A350H 24" + LG Flatron L226WTQ-BF 22" + Dell 2311H
Basically i'm looking for a monitor to use as extension/2nd monitor for my laptop. mostly watch streams, some movies, play sc2/dota2, and do some graphics/movie editing stuff. I'm not the type of monitor fanatic who wants everything good, just a decent one will do. HDMI is not a must, although having it is a welcome addition. Additionally, i'm considering buying one of those monitor 2nd-hand locally. so pls just give me your opinion on the quality of those monitors. (pricewise, i dont think i can get any brand new monitor like those at like 140USD)
Just wanted to say that I bought 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2412M because of recommendations in this thread (and some additional research) and I'm very happy with them.
On January 25 2013 16:01 Womwomwom wrote: The best option is easily the Dell U2311H. All of those other monitors need not apply.
thx for the advice considering the lack of HDMI (which is like so popular nowadays), with your comment it means the monitor must be damn good then
Anyway, are all Dell monitors good? I'm wondering if some models below worth considering compared with the recommended U2311H: + S2409W + ST2321LF + ST2220L + 2209WA
I really have no idea about monitors at all, never buy one before
No, he was talking about the U2311H specifically. It's not amazing, but the others in the first list weren't really comparable.
S2409W — nothing special, skip ST2321LF — nothing special, skip ST2220L — nothing special, skip 2209WA — actually this one is good too, if the size and 1680x1050 (16:10) resolution are desired
I notice that these are all older models, but that's okay.
If your laptop has HDMI output, you can get a passive HDMI (F) -> DVI (M) adapter for cheap to stick on the monitor side, and use an HDMI cable, if the monitor has no HDMI input.
edit: that said, almost anything you can get is a decent upgrade over the panels in most laptops, unless it's one of certain more expensive models.
On January 26 2013 03:59 Myrmidon wrote: No, he was talking about the U2311H specifically. It's not amazing, but the others in the first list weren't really comparable.
S2409W — nothing special, skip ST2321LF — nothing special, skip ST2220L — nothing special, skip 2209WA — actually this one is good too, if the size and 1680x1050 (16:10) resolution are desired
I notice that these are all older models, but that's okay.
If your laptop has HDMI output, you can get a passive HDMI (F) -> DVI (M) adapter for cheap to stick on the monitor side, and use an HDMI cable, if the monitor has no HDMI input.
edit: that said, almost anything you can get is a decent upgrade over the panels in most laptops, unless it's one of certain more expensive models.
I think i will most probably be getting the U2311H. got a 2nd hand deal (around 1.5 years old) for 130USD. Its pretty much just for temporary use as i am currently in university and living on campus. so i just need a cheap decent one to use for the next 2.5 years. after that will upgrade to a better one.
Anyway, what and how should i test the monitor (for the 2nd hand one): like bright/dead pixel, etc?
You've got the right idea. The main thing you should do is check for bright, stuck, dead pixels/subpixels. Maybe check if the screen coating has sustained any amount of damage like deep scratches or whatnot.
That's about it, you probably won't be disappointed in it for that price anyway.
It's disappointing that most of the LG IPS monitors suck in terms of either response time, ghosting or input lag. Really like the designs of LG monitors and I'm a fan of IM but may have to look elsewhere.
EPT
I still don't really understand the purpose of response times, especially if theyre more or less useless stats. 
