Samsung Syncmaster 2232BW

[DHJudas]

Samsungs TN panels are utterly beautiful..

other manufacturers panels are garbage yes.


before you jump to "OMG it's a TN panel.... it'll be horrible".... how bought checking out what the leader of the LCD market may have it's sleeve in terms of quality in that specific market...


I recently got a Samsung 245B 24" TN panel with a resolution of 1920x1200 and insane responce time not to mention multi thousand contrast ratio..

what did i emediately notice about it.... it's smooth as silk and while the colors aren't as stunningly vibrant as my dell 3007fpw-hc..... they are **** good still, and zero color banding or tearing issues ... no dead pixels, no issues at all, and i'm a picky *** ******* about monitors and what i see.... i'm one of those ****** that complained about sony's trinitron apature grill "lines".... even for being a suttle thing that most people don't notice.. they drove me nutz.




One thing anyone is or SHOULD look at emediately about any lcd screen is the resolution, and to KNOW if you can handle, what you can handle... cause you could potentially end up with the best **** screen, but no way to push it meaning that you just blew away cash, and needing more to get a card powerful enough to do it.

@ 2560x1600, you pretty much NEED SLI or Crossfire, for the top end cards even... to get playable frame rates.

my x1900's are now on the verge of struggling to manage what i throw at it.... while my system is quite powerful....

[isp_of_doom]

2560x1600,

whats that? 32"?

[Daimao]

I much like the design of 2232BW, but I have three year old 19'' CRT which works perfectly, so no need for me to switch to LCD yet, maybe in a year or two when good 24-inchers reach the price of today's good 22-inchers.

And there is that widescreen issue with UT3 which gives me one more reason against the buy. But otherwise widescreen>4:3.

Edit: my CRT is more than four years old actually

[yourmom]

I bought 2 samsung 225bw's (22" wides) last year and I love them. The light bleed is minimal, the response time is fast. I guess my only complaint would be that compared to my 42" vizio LCD, the colors are kind of bland. Still, Im very happy with mine.

[sushi159]

can you honestly tell me the reaction time is ok for gaming?

Yes, I ran the UT3 Demo and it was usually at a steady 60 FPS without much action going on in HeatRay and ShangriLa.

I also heard that TN panels may have input lag that makes it even slower than the typical 16 ms response time in S-IPS panels.

I don't notice any ghosting or ****, only smooth good quality color on my screen.

[exil3]

can you honestly tell me the reaction time is ok for gaming?

Its "OK" for gaming but it still ghost when your playing in dark or lowlighting areas in a game....
Another thing i dont like about the dell2001fp and 2007WFP "Ive used both monitors"
is the back light on the lcd bleeds threw the top corners of the screen also very noticable/annoying in dark/lowlight area's. took me a while to get used to it.

[ScuzzBuster]

Ive got the Samsung SyncMaster 226bw and love it. 22 inch widescreen has just an incredibly vibrant picture with the 3000:1 contrast ratio.

Drawbacks:
your still limited to primitive refresh rates on the flat panels, but you can get used to it

not QUITE as sharp as a CRT, but they are getting pretty damned close

Samsung IMO has the sharpest best visuals of any of the flat panels I've used over the past few years...but that's limited exposure to a handful of brands. I would say that this makes the Dells I've used look like garbage, though those haven't really been high and dell flats.

No regrets AT ALL switching to the Samsung flat panel. UT3 is a sheer joy on it...as was UT2004. And NO noticable ghosting for me, even in lower light conditions, but I usually play with at least a 25 to 40 watt bulb burning somewhere in the room even if it's on the opposite side.

[Skill]

The viewing angles are fine (170 degrees both ways), but the resolution isn't optimal. 1650x1050 should be fine for anything you could possibly want, but you can get more. On a 22" it shouldn't matter, but some people will disagree (total moneybags).

[DHJudas]

Reguardless of what anyone gets... it'll always look more amazing and the quality will be that much better the higher the resolution ..

ATM as i've stated, having used 1680x1050/1920x1200/2560x1600 and various other resolution and sized monitors ranging from 17" to 30" as well as 23" to 67" HDTVs

Having 4 million pixels of pure absalute pleasure @ 2560x1600 vs 2 million pixels of semi pleasure @ 1920x1200 is a world of difference, i'd gladly stick with a 2560x1600 30" over a 32-67" 1920x1080p HDTV or 1920x1200 monitor ANY day,

Well until Dell's Display port 37" 3200x2000 or whatever it is monitor that is rumored.

[blOb]

When you start using resolutions higher than 1080p, you require a larger monitor/TV which means you would have to sit a few feet back from it. Would this not be awkward with a PC? You could no longer have the monitor and computer (keyboard/mouse) on the same desk (unless it was huge) no?

[KriLL3.8™]

Actually you don't have to sit back from a large monitor. (well not to the same extent) since monitors have a lot more dense pixels than a TV.

[DHJudas]

a 30" monitor is not horribly overside from sitting between a foot an a half to 2 feet or 3 feet at most.... for the 2560x1600 resolution.

[DHJudas]

Actually you don't have to sit back from a large monitor. (well not to the same extent) since monitors have a lot more dense pixels than a TV.

precisely,

the 30" has a much higher pixel density then any other monitor that i'm familare with..... the larger the screen the higher the resolution has to be to match the density....or beat it..