22": LG L227WT, 1680x1050 (16:10)

forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2049206&enterthread=y

supposedly, that monitor has little to no input lag.

edit: nevermind, another site says it has some input-lag

www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=...&ph=12

why is 226bw not listed? 'Cause that's my vote

probably hard to find new.

why that resolution when you can get 22" with 1920x1200 res...

yea. the pixel pitch for 1680x1050 on a 22 inch is kind of low, but it's pretty common. 1920x1200 is more rare and a lot more expensive. you'd have to go to a 24 inch to get a good deal for 1920 and still wind up with the same dot pitch. oh well.

I'm happy enough with 1680 on my 2253BW, which is quite good (and is supposedly the successor to the 226BW). beats the pants off of my 4:3 VX922 which finally suffered its inevitable ViewSonic death, at least.

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/re...l220x.html
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1267220

price is around ~500$ so i think its the best monitor in that range. it's even with good S-PVA panel (ignoring the TN-panel crap.)

Why do LCDs follow retarded nonstandard resolution patterns?
They're either 5:4 or 16:10 instead of 4:3 and 16:9. I just fail to comprehend.

higher resolution is always better =)

aspect ratio != resolution

i chose 2232BW

xDD

Why exactly 22" with 1680x1050?

The BenQ G2400W is a 24" with 1920x1200 and it's very cheap. I'm using one right now, and I'm quite happy with it. Works well for gaming as well (Warsow, Q3, Trackmanian Nations Forever). Got two friends who has it as well, and they're happy also.

Actually, it looks like a better buy than what I was going to buy. Thanks for the suggestion, even if not aimed at me. :D

http://www.lge.com/products/model/detail/w2252tq_1_6.jhtml

or

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/spe...PEJSFV/XAA

I am looking at either one of these. I would prefer that it can do its max res at 75hz. I know the samsung cant, but does anyone know if the lg can at the same max resolution?

Shot <3

oh and if there is any other reason why you think which is better, please share im a newbie to lcd :>

You wont get real 75hz.

We found the following:
- 2 didn´t support 75 Hz and we would have a black or unstable image.
- 2 said that they supported 75 Hz, but when we measured the time between images we realised that they were in fact at 60 Hz.
- Finally, the last two really ran at 75 Hz…partially. In fact the monitors really displayed four images and then skipped the fifth. The sixth one was displayed normally. When we looked at the results, we realised that this skipped 5th image was to resynchronise the monitor at 60Hz. In fact, it really displayed 4 images in 67 ms whether it was at 60 or 75 Hz.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-5/1rst...rglow.html

hmm interesting, thanks