New monitors, new resolutions

Paul Anderson7 said:Hey there.

I'm looking to pick up a new monitor—honestly, I don't have a clue what I'm doing—so if anyone could drop some advice, I'd appreciate it.

Basically, I want something around 22'' with a price tag near $400. It’s mostly for casual stuff—browsing the web, watching movies (nothing fancy, just standard DivX files; I'm not some high-end cinephile, just want things to look decent), and the occasional game, though that's super rare, so you can pretty much ignore gaming requirements. That's about it—not a huge list of demands, but I figured I'd ask before pulling the trigger since I'm totally out of the loop on this.

The last thing I bought was an old Dell 19 Monitor, and it’s definitely ready for retirement. I just want to make sure whatever I get isn't a downgrade from my current setup.

I've done a little digging, but the selection is overwhelming. Here are two examples I stumbled upon—let me know if they're alright, or if there's something better out there.

http://www.amazon.com/lg-w2240t-pn-lcd-22-

http://www.amazon.com/acer-fullhd-lcd-23-

Oh, almost forgot—my PC is actually pretty beefy, so I don't need to worry about whether the graphics card can handle high resolutions or anything like that. 😉

Look, at this price point, the word "better" becomes pretty subjective. Honestly, your best bet is to head down to a Best Buy or something and see the picture quality with your own eyes. That Acer should probably have a nicer image than the LG, though it only has one basic VGA connector—which is kind of a pain. You should check which ports you actually need, and if things like height adjustment or tilt matter to you.

Looking for some advice from the pros here🙂
So, I've been using this Dell SyncMaster that tops out at 1280 x 1024. It’s a 19"
It was probably set to 60 Hertz, and honestly, it worked fine for me.
I'm happy with it because it doesn't strain my eyes, which is really the only thing that matters to me.🙂
But now I've picked up a Samsung P2270 HD—a 21.5" LCD HDTV that goes up to 1920 x 1080.
Since it can double as a monitor, should I stick with the old one or switch to the new one? Just to be clear, all monitors seem fine to me; my only concern is eye strain during my usual two hours of daily work.
What’s actually considered an ideal setting for work and eye comfort? Specifically regarding resolution and Hertz.
I heard that 100 Hertz might be best—is that okay?
The thing is, this new one only lets me go up to 75 Hz. If I try to push it higher, it gives me warnings saying these are "modes that this monitor cannot display correctly" and could "damage hardware." Obviously, I don't want to fry my equipment.
What would be the best move for someone like me who isn't a gamer and just uses a computer for basic stuff?
I'd really appreciate any input.😁

rowdycyclist4 said:I could really use some advice from the pros here🙂
So, I've got this Dell SyncMaster that tops out at 1280 x 1024 resolution. It's a 19"
I think it's been set to 60 Hertz this whole time and it's been fine by me.
I'm pretty happy with it and it doesn't strain my eyes, which is honestly the only thing I care about.🙂
Now, I just picked up this Samsung P2270 HD—it's a 21.5" LCD HDTV with a max resolution of 1920 x 1080.
Since it can double as a monitor, should I stick with the old one or switch to the new one? Just to be clear, all monitors seem fine to me as long as they don't wreck my eyes while I'm working on it for maybe two hours a day.
What's actually considered a good setting for work and eye comfort? Like, what should I aim for regarding resolution and Hertz?
I heard that 100 Hertz would be ideal, is that actually okay?
I'm a little worried because this new one only lets me go up to 75 Hz easily; if I try anything higher, it says "modes that this monitor cannot display correctly" and warns it could "damage hardware." Obviously, I don't want to fry my gear.
What would be the best move for someone like me who isn't a gamer and just uses a computer for basic stuff?
I'd really appreciate any help!😁

Anything under 65 Hz is going to mess with your eyes. Anything above 65 Hz is totally safe. If people are still rocking those old CRT monitors with decent refresh rates and their vision is fine, then 75 Hz for a few hours of work is perfectly alright. That's just my take. But hey, you know how it goes—there's an old saying that there are as many opinions as there are people, so someone is always going to disagree with you. That's just life.

Thanks for the info, I really appreciate any advice I can get.
👍
For me, switching from a CRT to an LCD made a massive difference; it’s so much easier on my eyes now.

So you're worried about working two hours a day?
I'm sitting in front of my computer at least 6 hours a day on average—sometimes hitting 8 to 10... and I've got one of those lower-end Samsung Monitor models with a resolution higher than Full HD, and I haven't had a single issue...

🙂

p.s. I'm not saying your eyesight won't change, but who cares? In a few years, eye surgeries will be even cheaper anyway 👍

Look at you, Mr. Genius 👏
Anyway, my actual question was about the best way to set up the resolution and refresh rate. I can see you're already halfway out the door, but hey, what's done is done.
I’d really appreciate some advice from anyone who actually knows the answer to these questions.🙂
Thanks

redeagle42 said:Anything under 65 Hz is basically an eye strain nightmare—it's just bad for you. Anything north of 65 Hz? Totally fine. If people are still getting by on those ancient CRT monitors with their old refresh rates, then 75Hz for a few hours of work is perfectly acceptable. That’s just my take, anyway. And look, I know there's that old American saying about how "there's no accounting for taste"—or more accurately, that you can get a different opinion from every single person you meet—so I'm sure someone's going to jump in here to tell me I'm wrong. So be it...

Don't even bother comparing CRT and LCD refresh rates because they aren't even playing the same game—they have zero in common. An LCD is a progressive display, which means it doesn't actually have a "refresh rate" in the traditional sense; the image is drawn across the entire screen at once, unlike a CRT. What people usually mean when they talk about refresh rates on an LCD is actually V-Sync, which is tied to the input power frequency—which, in the US, is 60 Hz (hence why that's the default setting on most LCD screens). When you try to crank up that "refresh rate," you're essentially disabling V-Sync, which is almost certainly going to lead to screen tearing, flickering, and all sorts of visual mess. Honestly, the more important factor is response time—the actual duration it takes for every pixel to update. For example, if the response time is 5 ms, that means the screen can fully redraw itself 200 times in one second (1000/5), which would be the functional equivalent of a 200 Hz refresh rate on an old CRT monitor.

What’s the deal with people saying it's better to just leave a monitor at 60 Hz instead of bumping it up to 75?
Sure, maybe it's easier on the hardware, but what about my eyes?
I don't get why my Dell UltraSharp lets me crank it up to 100 Hz, while this other screen—basically a TV/monitor hybrid—won't let me touch it.😢
I guess it's because one is a pure monitor and the other has those TV components built in.

You're totally missing the main point here. With an LCD, the pixels don't actually turn OFF like they did on those old CRT monitors, so you aren't getting that flicker that really drains your eyes. Honestly, your eyes are gonna get tired regardless if you're staring at an LCD with a refresh rate of 1, 60, or 1500Hz.

Benjamin King2 said:The real deal is the response time—you know, how long it actually takes for all those pixels to cycle through. Like, if you've got a 5 ms response time, that means the screen can refresh itself 200 times in a single second (1000/5), which would basically feel like hitting a 200 Hz refresh rate on an old-school CRT monitor.

Alright, look, most LCDs out there are sitting right at a 5 ms response time anyway. From what I've seen, pretty much everything from Apple is hovering right around that 5ms mark.🙂

rowdycyclist4 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around why this Dell UltraSharp won't let me crank it up to 100 Hz—it’s driving me absolutely nuts.

Look, that’s just the signal frequency the graphics card is capable of pumping out—it doesn't mean your monitor can actually handle it. If you go ahead and try to force that refresh rate change, you’ll likely just stare at a black screen with some annoying pop-up message like "Not Optimum Mode - Recommended Mode" staring back at you.
It’s probably something like 1440 x 900 at 60 Hz—or whatever standard resolution you're stuck with.

Aaa, I see what you mean now.
Thanks for the heads-up🙂

What's your take on this?

I've got this review right here—it’s a pretty solid monitor if you're looking to get your money's worth.

Does anyone have any recommendations for a monitor under $300? I’d prefer an Apple, but I guess it's not a dealbreaker if there's something better out there.

I actually own this thing and I’m honestly stoked with the picture quality—it’s solid. The only real catch is that it’s stuck on its stand, so you can't mess with the height or tilt if you want to, but honestly, that doesn't really bother me. There’s zero lag, the colors are punchy, the contrast is great... plus, the OSD settings are handled through these touch buttons instead of physical ones. It might feel a little finicky at first while you're getting used to the interface, but you can tweak every single option via software using AutoTune.

Benjamin King2, or honestly anyone else hanging out here: what’s your take on this monitor? -> HP Monitor

I've got two quick things on my mind:
1. What is the actual contrast ratio on this thing? Is it actually decent for daily use?
2. Does anyone know if there's a better deal out there for this kind of money? ($500)

Look, if you aren't planning on gaming and don't actually care about having an HDMI port, I’d honestly point you toward this instead—though they totally botched the title and listed it as a different size, it's actually a 23" screen:

You can check out the full review right here: http://www.digitalversus.com/lg-flat..._10778_35.html

Thanks, Benjamin King2.

I'm looking at this mainly for gaming and catching movies. So, would it be a smarter move to just grab that HP Monitor instead?
(The previous link seems to be dead, so here's a fresh one: http://www.bestbuy.com/p/HP-Monitor/27320/

EDIT: Or, Benjamin King2, if you were in my shoes and had $0.50, which monitor would you personally pick out for gaming and movies?

I’d grab this one—fast response times, great colors, and decent contrast:

Best Buy has a killer price on this right now; usually, this specific model goes for way more.

There's also this similar model—it’s got better contrast, though the color reproduction isn't quite as sharp as the first one:

If you're gaming, don't even bother looking at anything that doesn't claim a 2 ms response time. In the real world, it might actually be slower than advertised, and if you end up with a 5 ms monitor, you're going to deal with some annoying ghosting.