HOT - Samsung 2343BWX 23" 2048x1152 $179.99 MIR + PC + FS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting size, too, fellas. Most I've seen are either 22" or 24"..............
 
It's just above WUXGA in horizontal resolution but just under in vertical resolution.

Dot pitch should be pretty good for that many pixels in 23" frame, though.
 
TN panel. Fast response time.
The colors are good and not washed out though.

The pixel density is only matched by the smaller 2560x1600 screens.
Super crisp images.
 
Mr. K6 said:
Maybe for TV's or other media display devices, but not for desktop use monitors. I much prefer 16:10.
Click to expand...

They have almost fully dropped 16:10 now and are going full 16:9 check out newegg, 16:10 is shrinking daily.

16:9 is the standard, 16:10 is going away. Google it for more results of companies announcing this statement.
 
123Lanoix said:
better than the 2209wa dell deal ? that monitor is legendary
Click to expand...

the 2209wa is an e-IPS panel, this is a TN panel.

This has better pixel density and faster response time than the 2209wa, but the 2209wa will have better color and viewing angles.

It really depends on what you want.

I think the real kicker is that this screen is LARGER, and CHEAPER.
 
Vashypooh said:
They have almost fully dropped 16:10 now and are going full 16:9 check out newegg, 16:10 is shrinking daily.

16:9 is the standard, 16:10 is going away. Google it for more results of companies announcing this statement.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing "standard" with "popular." The 16:9 standard has been around for awhile, long before LCD's became mainstream. Anyway, your assessment is very much jumping the gun. There are still many more 16:10 monitors available on Newegg than there are 16:9. 16:10 was the original standard for computer monitors because it allowed full display of 16:9 media with enough space for controls/toolbars (useful for imaging/editing/production). The 16:9 standard will artificially become more popular over the next few years just because companies will phase out 16:10 panels due to 16:9 panels being cheaper and easier to make. And sorry about getting off-topic, but a bump's a bump for this awesome deal :D.
 
Mr. K6 said:
I think you're confusing "standard" with "popular." The 16:9 standard has been around for awhile, long before LCD's became mainstream. Anyway, your assessment is very much jumping the gun. There are still many more 16:10 monitors available on Newegg than there are 16:9. 16:10 was the original standard for computer monitors because it allowed full display of 16:9 media with enough space for controls/toolbars (useful for imaging/editing/production). The 16:9 standard will artificially become more popular over the next few years just because companies will phase out 16:10 panels due to 16:9 panels being cheaper and easier to make. And sorry about getting off-topic, but a bump's a bump for this awesome deal :D.
Click to expand...

16:10 was never really an official standard. It is just what they decided to produce because there was a lack of an official standard. As for Newegg having more 16:10 vs 16:9, its not by that much, and the number continues to shrink constantly.
 
Vashypooh said:
16:10 was never really an official standard. It is just what they decided to produce because there was a lack of an official standard. As for Newegg having more 16:10 vs 16:9, its not by that much, and the number continues to shrink constantly.
Click to expand...

Either way, it sucks.
 
Vashypooh said:
They have almost fully dropped 16:10 now and are going full 16:9 check out newegg, 16:10 is shrinking daily.

16:9 is the standard, 16:10 is going away. Google it for more results of companies announcing this statement.
Click to expand...

+1 for this.
 
With the cost of larger panels coming down in price, manufacturers are slowly phasing out 16:10 panels to simplify/unify production lines. Eventually LCD production for TVs and PCs will be one in the same.
 
16:10 is wide enough already. I hate these 16:9 monitors. I don't watch TV all the time on my PC all the time, now do I?
 
blisstik said:
16:10 is wide enough already. I hate these 16:9 monitors. I don't watch TV all the time on my PC all the time, now do I?
Click to expand...

What do you do on your PC? game? If so 16:9 is a better aspect ratio for gaming cause you see more.
 
i thought the 16:10 standard was that way because it was cheaper to make them then the 16:9 size.. it was some manufacturing problem with the materials they could get at the time. now that lcd technology is cheap, they can affordably make the 16:9 standard that is virtually everywhere. at least, thats what i always thought.
 
Vashypooh said:
16:10 was never really an official standard. It is just what they decided to produce because there was a lack of an official standard. As for Newegg having more 16:10 vs 16:9, its not by that much, and the number continues to shrink constantly.
Click to expand...
Yes, there was never a 16:10 standard. However it did develop out of a necessity though to work with media of the 16:9 image standard.
blisstik said:
16:10 is wide enough already. I hate these 16:9 monitors. I don't watch TV all the time on my PC all the time, now do I?
Click to expand...
More or less my sentiments.
Dion said:
What do you do on your PC? game? If so 16:9 is a better aspect ratio for gaming cause you see more.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It's too claustrophobic and you'll get Z-axis-owned (unless the game supports true widescreen, many don't).
krupted said:
i thought the 16:10 standard was that way because it was cheaper to make them then the 16:9 size.. it was some manufacturing problem with the materials they could get at the time. now that lcd technology is cheap, they can affordably make the 16:9 standard that is virtually everywhere. at least, thats what i always thought.
Click to expand...
Other way around. Manufacturers are finding cheaper and easier ways to make LCD's, and making them 16:9 is one of them. For a given screen size, 16:10 only has ~7% less real estate than a 4:3 aspect monitor of the same size, while a 16:9 has ~12% less real estate. Add that up over tens of thousands of screens produced and you'll save a huge chunk of change. It sucks, but that's business.
 
Mr. K6 said:
Not at all. It's too claustrophobic and you'll get Z-axis-owned (unless the game supports true widescreen, many don't).
Click to expand...

Well we are talking about games that have wide screen support. This is just a fact. 16:9 = wider view. Which means you see more. Maybe you dont like it cause it makes you claustrophobic dont see how thats possible since its a bigger area. But the fact remains you see more.

http://mysite.verizon.net/dion250/16.9.with.16.10.overlay.jpg

the red line is where the 16:10 aspect ratio ends and the 16:9 adds an inch on each side.
 
Dion said:
Well we are talking about games that have wide screen support. This is just a fact. 16:9 = wider view. Which means you see more. Maybe you dont like it cause it makes you claustrophobic dont see how thats possible since its a bigger area. But the fact remains you see more.

http://mysite.verizon.net/dion250/16.9.with.16.10.overlay.jpg

the red line is where the 16:10 aspect ratio ends and the 16:9 adds an inch on each side.
Click to expand...
No crap, that's why one is 16:10 and 16:9, that wasn't my point. My point is that many games still don't support true wide screen, and it sucks to play them on wider and wider screens. In the end, the loss of screen real estate still sucks.
 
holy smokes who cares if its 16 10 or 16 9???

As long as it's not 4 3 who cares???
 
Mr. K6 said:
No crap, that's why one is 16:10 and 16:9, that wasn't my point. My point is that many games still don't support true wide screen, and it sucks to play them on wider and wider screens. In the end, the loss of screen real estate still sucks.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean TRUE wide screen.
 
Dion said:
What exactly do you mean TRUE wide screen.
Click to expand...

i'm guessing that the game doesn't natively support widescreen, so the game will be either stretched to fit the widescreen, or have black bars on the sides...

though most newer games should have widescreen support... it's the older games that have problems
 
Dion said:
What exactly do you mean TRUE wide screen.
Click to expand...
paperwastage said:
i'm guessing that the game doesn't natively support widescreen, so the game will be either stretched to fit the widescreen, or have black bars on the sides...

though most newer games should have widescreen support... it's the older games that have problems
Click to expand...
It's more aimed at "pseudo-widescreen." In order to get the correct aspect ratio, sometimes game developers will cut the vertical segments of a 4:3 image to get a widescreen ratio rather than expand the horizontal segments. The result is a claustrophobic view.
 
What 16:9 sucks for is editing documents. 1/2 of the screen pretty much goes to waste.
 
Mr. K6 said:
It's more aimed at "pseudo-widescreen." In order to get the correct aspect ratio, sometimes game developers will cut the vertical segments of a 4:3 image to get a widescreen ratio rather than expand the horizontal segments. The result is a claustrophobic view.
Click to expand...

oh i think i know what games you're referring to.. Bioshock and Farcry 2 are big examples of that. although i think they were patched.
 
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1447312

This is a better monitor 22" e-IPS for $208.00
Darker blacks.
Better viewing angles.
Better color gamet.
Faster response.
0 input lag.
Its not a TN panel.
1680x1050 rez means you can actually play at max settings and get 60+ FPS and not have a slide show.

This is for hijacking my thread with your crap. Have a nice day.
 
mullet said:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1447312

This is a better monitor 22" e-IPS for $208.00
Darker blacks.
Better viewing angles.
Better color gamet.
Faster response.
0 input lag.
Its not a TN panel.
1680x1050 rez means you can actually play at max settings and get 60+ FPS and not have a slide show.

This is for hijacking my thread with your crap. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of what you just said is not true.
Darker Blacks - not true, this screen has a higher contrast ratio
Better viewing angles - listed specs are the same
Faster response - once again, not true. yours is 5ms g2g this is 5ms b2w and 2ms g2g.
2048x1152 res means sharper images and if you have a good gpu fps doesn't matter anyway.

Nobody hijacked your thread. You're just sore you bought an inferior screen.
 
Zoson said:
Actually, a lot of what you just said is not true.
Darker Blacks - not true, this screen has a higher contrast ratio
Better viewing angles - listed specs are the same
Faster response - once again, not true. yours is 5ms g2g this is 5ms b2w and 2ms g2g.
2048x1152 res means sharper images and if you have a good gpu fps doesn't matter anyway.

Nobody hijacked your thread. You're just sore you bought an inferior screen.
Click to expand...
the only things this monitor has over the 2209WA, is the resolution and response time... it all comes down to what you want/need, quality or quantity.
 
Hulk said:
holy smokes who cares if its 16 10 or 16 9???

As long as it's not 4 3 who cares???
Click to expand...


Just ordered two, I finally have 2 matching duallies. had to order and ship one, and told my brother to order me one so i'd get both Rebates. $20bucks is $20 bucks

It's crazy how much Big LCD's have dropped through the years. I still have my first big LCD. a dell fp2001 20.1" 4x3 It only looks good at it's native resolution. 1600x1200 16ms response And only does 16bit color!!!
I bought it in 2001. It was terrible for gaming, couldnt find the snipers. Why do i still have it. After using 2 dell coupons i got it for $1465, without coupons it was $1699. I still use it for a 2nd display. I was using a 21 inch sony CRT back then paid $950 for it in 1999 !!! Im still trying to get my money's worthout of both of them!!
I've had a lot of monitors since. and LCD's have improved 1000%, but still i use my 21" CRT sony for my gaming rig. 0ms response, and everything seems smoother gaming.

You younger guys dont know how good you got it now.Price wise!! You had to make your own waterblocks, cases had one fan, you had to break out the dremel. when i first came to this site. Cranking your celeron 300 up to 450-600mhz to outdo the $700 new Pentium 3 slot 1's was the big thing. And people knew what the "OCP" stood for

Anyway im way off topic now. Great deal ZOSON thanks. Havn't checked this deal's site or been on here in a year. I use to live on here and the deals site.
 
Dion said:
What do you do on your PC? game? If so 16:9 is a better aspect ratio for gaming cause you see more.
Click to expand...

are you sure about that???

how would you see more at 1920 x 1080? 1920 x 1200 (16x10) you'll see more. do the math.
 
tricky0502 said:
are you sure about that???

how would you see more at 1920 x 1080? 1920 x 1200 (16x10) you'll see more. do the math.
Click to expand...

I cant believe people on [H] still think this is true lol.

edit: also look at my picture above it shows you the difference in aspect ratios.. NOT resolutions. 16:9 is an aspect ratio.. not a resolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top