A Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor - 7 Models Reviewed
by Kristopher Kubicki on November 30, 2004 12:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
BenQ FP931
BenQ monitors are not something that we had a lot of opportunity to review in the past, but we picked up a sample a few weeks ago to include in today's roundup. There are a few similar Acer models to the BenQ that we are looking at today, but that should come as no surprise to those who know BenQ's history.
BenQ's FP931 doesn't bring much to the table as far as looks go, but it's under the hood that is of more interest to us. This is one of the few 19" monitors that we can buy through retail channels with 16ms response times, so we are extremely excited to see how the FP931 performs in a head-to-head competition for gaming.
| BenQ FP931 | |
| LCD | 19" SXGA LCD (Active Matrix) pixel pitch: 0.294mm Anti-glare coating |
| Scanning Frequency | Horizontal: 57-82kHz Vertical: 60-77Hz |
| Response Time | 16ms (Typical) |
| Contrast Ratio | 450:1 (Typical) |
| Compatibility | 1280 x 1024 (Native) |
| Brightness | 250 cd/m2 |
| Viewing Angle | 130 / 130 (Horizontal / Vertical) |
| Power | Working: 40W |
| Warranty | 3 years parts and labor |
| Interface | DVI 15-pin D-sub |
BenQ's FP931 is based on a TN 6-bit LCD panel. While it is advertised as a 16.2M color display, each pixel can only display 262,000 hues; the other 16M hues are "simulated" using dithering techniques. Over the last few months, AUO and BenQ have built a very strong dependence on each other, so we were very excited to see them working together on the FP931 display. In fact, our experience with the FP931 was very similar to our first impressions of the AUO-based Hitachi CML174. Aside from the obvious difference in size, these two monitors are very similar in performance and specifications. We already expect problems with rich color, but we may see better performance while gaming.
The rest of the BenQ design is very straightforward with no frills. The stand can be adjusted moderately with only a basic on-screen display. On one hand, the FP931 is a bargain around $430, but on the other hand, the problems with the 6-bit LCD panel have us worried.
BenQ advertises 7 dead pixels or 3 within 1 square inch for a return, and supersedes most vendors' return policies anyway. Of course, you could follow our advice and test the LCD before you even walk out of the store.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Interesting, let me look into this. My 2001FP is A00 as well and i've had mine for over a year now. (No problems though).Do you know how much of a delay there is?
Kristopher
Cat - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
My boss's is A00. I'm assuming mine is as well, since I bought it a few days after he did. This was about a month and a half ago.KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Angry Kid: We couldnt get a VP912B in time for the roundup. I am working on doing an individual review on that one though.Cat: On the back of your monitor near the serial it should say the REV number, like A01 or A00. Can you tell me which number it says on all those monitors?
Kristopher
blackmetalegg - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
And what's the color depth for the VP912b? It's not mentioned anywhere on Viewsonic's website and google didn't turn up anything. I'm torn between VP912b(supposed 8-bit panel) and FP937S(6-bit)...KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Ensign: Fixed.Kristopher
KingofFah - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
#19, I have no clue when it comes to LCDs, so thanks for giving me that information. How many images are drawn on an LCD in a second (if they even do that at a fixed rate, i dont know)?If there is no refresh rate given, I assume that the response time could be equated to the gaming performance of the monitor. In that case I'd want the fastest possible response times, and I do not think that the price would justify it. I think image quality, speed, and clarity go to a CRT. Size, power usage, and eye care seem to be the concern for LCDs. I've got plenty of space, don't use the computer that often, and don't care about power usage.
Araemo - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Is the NuTech L921G an 8 bit or 6 bit panel? it doesn't say in the specs.How about the Planar PE191M? or the Samsung SyncMaster 193P?
I'm not trying to nitpick guys, but I've been burnt by missing specs before ("Well, the review didn't mention it, so it must not be a problem..."), so I don't want to simply assume they're 8-bit when you didn't mention them(Since that wasn't stated in the intro)
Angry Kid - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Agree with many of the others - why were none of the more recent, more high-end 19" LCDs tested?It would've been nice to see the ViewSonic VP912B FEATURED IN THE NOVEMBER GAMER BUYER'S GUIDE included.
=/
garfieldonline - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I have been working with order people, and I can say many of them prefer their resolution around 1024x768. I may be wrong, but as for LCD monitors, if they are not running at their optimal resolution, the screen tends to look a bit blur. This is not a problem with CRT monitor, things are sharp as long as the resolution is within the limit.Araemo - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
"It's the same friggin reason why people buy a 50" TV instead of a small 20""I doubt it, since most people I know buy a 50" so they can sit 20 feet away and still pick out the super-model's pimples. But not many computer users sit 20 feet back from their monitors(Or even signifigantly further back with bigger screens)