Well my old 17inch CRT is going out of date so im after a new LCD. My budget is pretty cheap (350$) so not looking for such a "flash" one. Im only looking for a 17inch one. I have no idea about whats better and whats not so a little help would be great I have had a look at these ones but have no idea whats better...

LG L1717S-SN
BENQ FP73G
Samsung 740BB

Thanks!

Samsung or Benq ftw

BenQ makes good budget LCDs, which seems to be what you are after. I have some points to make:

* Firstly, ignore the LG as it does not support DVI at all.

* The FP73G does not come with a DVI cable unfortunately, despite supporting DVI. Specs are fine for the price.

* The FP71G+s costs about the same and does come with the cable, but has slightly lower specs (response time, contrast).

* The BenQs have a 7-day 0-dead-pixel warranty, whereas Samsung has 3 years!

* I'm not sure why you're only after 17", but I should probably just mention that you could well pick up a 19" FP91G+ well under your budget, for $315-ish. This also does not come with a DVI cable.

Although I use a highend Viewsonic LCD as my main panel, I've owned a FP71G+s and FP91G+, and I can say that they are very good value for money in the $300 range. Sure the specs might not be that great, but you get what you pay for.

last edited by parabol at 19:40:35 19/Jun/06

Cheers parabol for the info

Also .. the BenQ screens sit very low on the desk. Place a textbook under them and you'll be fine.

Again, you can't really complain at that price :)

dude dude dude
do not get a 17 hey
get a 19 i tell you
i had a 17 crt at home. now i have a 19crt. its much bigger.

i use two different machines at work, one with a 17lcd and one with a 19lcd.

I hate the smallness of the 17, love the largeness of the 19.

19” Benq FP91G+ 8ms DVI --- $315 from MSY Morningside/Slacks Creek

Why waste money on a 17 when for like $25 more you can get a 19


ps parabol knows the score

last edited by Mr Hardware at 19:55:13 19/Jun/06

Point taken you converted me to 19

Whats average cost of DVI cable?

Decided to go with the FP91G+ Thanks for all the help.

Whats average cost of DVI cable?

Well, there are cheap ones and expensive ones. I'm not sure what real-world quality difference there really is, but it seems like you might be able to pick some up for around $15. Just make sure you get the right type.

Here are some stores that stock them ...

http://staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=DVI%20cable

Anyway, I tested my FP91G+ with both an analog and DVI cable, and I honestly can't tell the difference between the two since it's a low-end panel. On my other high-end LCD I can tell the difference though, but I think for the FP91G+ you should be right without a DVI cable. The only downside with an analog cable is that sometimes (maybe 5% of the time), the screen jiggles for a second when you turn on the LCD. No biggie.

(Edit: added quote)

last edited by parabol at 03:57:16 20/Jun/06

While we're at it then parabol, what Viewsonic do you have? and what ones would you recommend? I've read reviews galore and a lot of them say contrast is no biggy, pixel density is a biggy, etc; and then some say the exact opposite...

While we're at it then parabol, what Viewsonic do you have?

19" VP930B ($700):

http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~boldajis/images/vp930b.jpghttp://homepage.powerup.com.au/~boldajis/images/vp930b2.jpg

The image on the right shows off its adjustability :P

* 8-bit colour (or so they claim)
* 170 degree viewing angle (at CR>=10)
* Contrast of 1000:1
* Dual input (DVI/VGA + VGA)
* Fully adjustable (swivel, height, tilt, rotate to portrait)
* Very thin border

The viewing angle on this screen as f***ing unbelievable. No contrast or colour distortions in the corners like you see on low and mid-end LCDs like the FP91G+ and Samsung 940B.

and what ones would you recommend?

Basically any Viewsonic LCDs in the 'Professional' series (prefix 'VP') are good as they have very high specs and pretty much blow all $300-500 range LCDs out of the water.

http://www.viewsonic.com.au/products/lcd/vp/index.htm

I've read reviews galore and a lot of them say contrast is no biggy, pixel density is a biggy, etc; and then some say the exact opposite...

In my opinion (after using -heaps- of LCDs over the last few months), I find that viewing angle is one of the biggest factors. I'm not talking about looking at the monitor from the side or over someone's shoulder. Even if you're directly in front of the LCD, the corners and sides of the panel are at an angle to your eye.

Hence with crappy viewing angle LCDs, the corners and sides are at a slightly different contrast and colour compared to the centre of the screen. For example, on a white background you'd often see a slight yellow colour around the edges but the centre is white.

Screens with a viewing angle of 170 degrees or higher are very good and you'll notice the difference between them and lower-viewing-angle screens. I'm talking 170 degrees at a contrast ratio of 10:1. In other words, if you are directly in front of a pixel, the contrast ratio should be what the specs say (eg 1000:1), but if you are at an angle of 170/2 = 85 degrees, the contrast drops to 10:1, much darker.

Unfortunately, there is no standard as to what angle to give for what contrast ratio. Hence you'll see specs that say 160 degrees @ contrast >= 5, while others you'll see 160 @ CR >= 10. The one with 10 is a much better panel. If you extrapolate the first panel from CR of 5 to 10, you'd find it's actually closer to 140 degrees @ CR >= 10. I hope that makes sense.

So you can basically tell cheap monitors if they either don't give a contrast ratio (say 5:1 or 10:1) with their viewing angle, or if they try to inflate their angle by giving a CR of 5:1 reading.

Secondly, don't overlook adjustability of the LCD. The FP91G+ is only adjustable in the tilt sense and sits very low on the desk. You can't swivel it, rotate it or anything or raise it.

last edited by parabol at 17:28:24 20/Jun/06

In terms of 6-bit and 8-bit colour, I ran Call of Duty 2 on two of my PCs on a 6 and 8-bit screen and honestly could not tell the difference. If you're a graphics designer or have high-quality wallpaper, you'll notice the difference, but for gaming and everyday use it's really not noticeable.

You'll usually find that high viewing-angle and 8-bit colour go hand in hand. If you get a screen with a good viewing angle, chances are it's an 8-bit panel.

Parabol, you rock at providing info. Love it so much. Although I would like to pick your brain one more time; the resolution of the 930B is 1280x1024 which is plain old stupid as it's not a widescreen res or even a 4:3 res. How much of a difference would it make having game and desktop resolutions of 1280x960 on the monitor, would it be horrifically noticable?

if you run stuff at a resolution other than native the panel will have to do some funky s*** to make it fit and it does indeed look like poo. I have a 930BF and cs runs just fine at 1280x1024 on my crappy old ti4200.

I'd take a screenshot but yeah, wouldn't work :p
http://home.iprimus.com.au/whoop/1280x960.jpg
http://home.iprimus.com.au/whoop/1280x1024.jpg

as you can see from the 1280x960 image the text has some "extra" bits at the bottom. There's other little bits here & there that also make the text look crap but it doesn't really show up.

last edited by whoop at 19:10:09 20/Jun/06

the resolution of the 930B is 1280x1024 which is plain old stupid as it's not a widescreen res or even a 4:3 res. How much of a difference would it make having game and desktop resolutions of 1280x960 on the monitor, would it be horrifically noticable?

1280x1024 is the standard resolution for 17" and 19" LCDs (5:4 ratio).

It's nothing specific to the VP930B. Most modern games support this resolution. Many older games can be adapted with a simple config fix. It's actually harder to get widescreen support than 1280x1024 support :)

I can say that it looks s***house running a non-native resolution. Sure higher-end monitors can scale the resolution better than a low-end one, but it still looks s***.

Just run native-res. I honestly can't see any reason not to.

Holy crap whoop, that's a huge difference in quality. I had no idea it would be that noticable :S Cheers for the effort to post the pics.

The only real reason I would have wanted to run a non-native res would be for desktop backgrounds, most of them come in 4:3 ratios and to fit them on the screen would require the creation of black bands on the left and right of the screen :(

No biggy, just a cosmetic issue.

and to fit them on the screen would require the creation of black bands on the left and right of the screen :(

You mean at the top & bottom, not the sides? Anyway .. if you just do "Center" for wallpaper, it will insert the blacks automatically (as long as you set the background colour to black) without requiring you to re-edit your images.

I tend to like letter-boxing on the top and bottom .. gives images a more important and widescreen look. Plus, there is plenty of 1280x1024 wallpaper around:

http://www.vladstudio.com/wallpapers/
http://vizzzion.org/?id=wallpapers
http://www.robgray.com/grayoutdoors/wallpaper/index.htm