![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Monitor 1: BenQ 17 LCD 767-12
Monitor 2: BenQ 17 LCD 783
Monitor 3: Sony 23 LCD SDM-P234B
Monitor 4: HP 23 LCD L2335
Monitor 5: Sony 20 CRT F520
Originally I had the Sony F520 CRT used for both work and games. I have a few other PCs and changed these from CRTs to LCDs to save deskspace. Eventually I purchased BenQ 12ms screens for these computers. The F520 monitor has, for a CRT, excellent clarity and worked perfectly at my preferred work/desktop resolution of 1920x1440. However, the monitor was starting to show its age so, a couple of months ago after noticing the 23 Apple Cinema displays, I decided to start looking for reviews of 23 LCDs. The only place I could find any real wealth of information was in this forum.
My main criteria for the purchase were as follows:
Must have a high resolution as close to 1920x1440 as is feasible.
Must work well in lower resolutions for games.
Need the choice of how I want lower resolutions to display stretched, 1:1 etc..
No ghosting/blurring or as close to that as possible.
Warranty, quality of the product, and number of likely faulty pixels.
The panel ideally would have the facility for component input.
After reading the long post on the HP L2335 I felt that I would take a gamble and buy one, it appeared to provide close to the resolution I wanted and it was fast. At the time I was still unsure about it because no-one had compared the HP to the 12ms BenQ displays and peoples opinions on the ghosting/blurring issue differed enormously. From my own experience All current LCD monitors blur, most said that the HP blurred only slightly and some people insisted it didnt blur at all!
I have written this review from my own subjective point of view with the intention to help others make a decision on purchasing, in particular, the HP L2335 or the Sony SDM-234 23 LCD screens. I hope it helps!
Ghosting/Blurring, colour and clarity:
The BenQ 767-12 and 783 both use the Auoptronics 12ms panel. The screens are extremely fast but I had, compared to the Sony F520 noticed blurring in virtually every application. In windows; if a window is moved around the screen the black text tends to thicken. Whilst this isnt desperately important it is irritating! Considering the 12ms response time the thickening text surprised me. In games the blurring varies, examples:
Call of Duty building against a blue sky building edges ghosting is apparent although you get used to it, wall textures blur a little.
Command & Conquer Generals Scrolling around maps is a little hard on the eyes, ground texture blurs and units shimmer. This particular issue makes spotting and recognising units more difficult when you move around a map. This affect can be seen on a CRT but you really have to look very hard for it.
Doom3. Lights against dark backgrounds blur a fair amount, Colour clarity appears far, far better than CRT. This, I suspect is actually an artefact of the dithering, Doom3 is actually easier to play and brighter on the BenQs than on a CRT or the 23 panels. You cant seem to simulate the BenQ effect with a brightness or gamma increase.
The BenQ dithers colour from its pallet. In most situations this is fine although transparent windows and shadows could look better. Not great for graphic artists.
No game I have tried is as good as a CRT but you do get used to the minor blurring/ghosting.
Viewing angles. The BenQs are viewable from almost all angles but, vertically the viewing angle is poor, losing/changing colour with small head movements.
Clarity is superb on both BenQs although the 783 is a tad better than the 767 using the DVI cable (the 767 doesnt have DVI).
The HP L2335 using the LG/Philips panel:
Windows: Very, VERY minor text thickening, almost as good as my F520.
COD: A little better than the BenQ, very minor blurring almost, but not quite, unnoticeable. More apparent when turning quickly.
C&CG: Again better than the BenQs, ground blur when scrolling, units blur/shimmer, noticeable but quickly forgotten.
Doom3: Lights seem to blur more than the BenQ, colour on a par with the F520, not as good as the BenQs simply because of the dithering issue.
Colour generally is better than the BenQs, no dithering. Better in Windows than the CRT although all shades are not visible. For example grey 250,250,250 is just visible, 251,251,251 is barely visible more of an impression that its there! 252,252,252 up to 254,254,254 are shown as white. Note: I havent tested this thoroughly brightness set to about 60. On the CRT all shades were more or less visible without making any brightness changes. I guess this isnt exactly the perfect situation for graphic artists but its not too shabby either. Viewing angles, from very obtuse angles the HP isnt as good as the BenQ but from more acute angles the HP is better. The corners of the HP when viewed from dead centre are darker but you dont really notice this issue much in general use.
Clarity as good as the BenQs, much better than the CRT.
The Sony appears to be more or less identical to the HP in this area. The only real difference is that there is a slightly different default look to the colour in Windows the Sony being a little more blue imo.
Build, features and quality:
767-12 Generally quite impressed with the build, plastic seems quite dense, slightly creaky around the bezel. No faulty pixels. Built in speakers are OK. The front adjustment buttons are OK, but not great, in operation. The front power button has a cool blue LED behind it and looks good. The power button has a much better, positive, feel to it. No height adjustment, swivel or rotate, tilt mechanism feels solid. Only a Dsub input on this model. There is a gesture towards a cable tidy at the back of the monitors base, its better than nothing.
783 Better looking design imho, bezel appears to be thinner but actually isnt! Construction quality is even better, more solid. Having the buttons on the side is a nuisance. The webcam is OK. Having USB sockets is useful, their location on the side just behind the bezel means that although they are easy to get to also means that whatever you put in them is visible. The detachable speakers are OK but the monitor looks better without them. No faulty pixels. All the buttons feel quite solid. No height adjustment, swivel or rotate, tilt mechanism feels solid slight improvement over the 767. The cable tidy is quite good on this screen but only tidies the cables to the bottom of the screen itself due, I presume, to the frog foot design of the base.
HP L2335. Im on my second one. The first arrived with a starfield of faulty pixels, over 200. The base on the first had very slight scuff marks which virtually vanished with a little rubbing. The second screen arrived with a damaged base. Needless to say the two bases were swapped when the replacement arrived. Fortunately there were no faulty pixels on the second screen. Generally the base is pretty strong but a little plasticky. The monitors bezel appears to be made from relatively thin plastic and has a creaky feel to it all round. The ability to rotate the monitor to a vertical position isnt a great deal of use to me but Im sure others would appreciate it. The height adjustment is more useful to me personally and the action is quite smooth. The swivel feature is smooth, as is the tilt, its just a shame that the bezel creaks whenever you move the screen so the overall feel of the screen is simply not as good as the BenQs. Imo the monitor doesnt look quite as good as the BenQs either. The buttons make a loud click when pressed, its OK but they could sound a little better. Again I think this is an artefact of the overall bezel quality. After reading other users comments of the HP I wasnt too surprised that I had scuffs on the base and I wasnt too surprised that I initially had faulty pixels. I am generally a little disappointed with the overall quality of construction. In my opinion the monitor has a functional but not particularly stylish look to it. The monitor has component video in which I use for consoles and might use for other devices in the future, the component connectors are hidden behind a VERY plasticky door which is difficult to remove. There is no USB hub on this monitor. There is no cable tidying at all on the screen or base.
Sony SDM-234. This monitor arrived in perfect condition, the base is brushed steel and feels very solid. The bezel is solid and I personally prefer the black to the silver of the HP. The monitor has no rotate facility or height adjustment. The swivel feature operates from the brushed steel base itself and works very well. The tilt feature is smooth. The buttons are touch sensitive and light up when you press them excellent design and the button area is barely visible when not lit. The Sony logo lights up when the monitor is on, it looks great but is a little too bright from my point of view (you can turn it off from the menu). The build quality is first rate and is at least as good as the BenQ 783. The base and screen cable tidies are a little cramped but generally good. The base cover is a little bit flimsy but seems to snap back into place fine. The screen tidy is a vertically sliding panel which is pretty solidly constructed. I found no faulty pixels. There is no USB hub. No sound, there is an audio pass thru but it appears not to work! There is no component input which is a serious omission for me. There doesnt appear to be any monitor menu adjustment for how the screen will display, 1:1, stretched to fit aspect etc., when the DVI cable is used.
Conclusion:
I did have some problems getting either monitor to run exactly the way I intended, for example I initially couldnt get widescreen modes like 1600x900 to work. I have, more or less, now resolved these issues with new drivers and selecting the correct driver LCD panel configuration along with a 1:1 selection on the monitors themselves. I didnt want to have forced widescreen so that a 1280x1024 image was stretched to fit the width but had concerns that I would end up with a square box. In the end 1280x1024 maintains the correct aspect ratio and fills the screen vertically with black bars down the left and the right and that dont really bother me.
I can recommend any of these monitors to a person wanting to play game although for some reason that 23 16ms panels seem to be generally better than the 12ms BenQ panels. I wouldnt recommend either BenQ to a graphic artist but would recommend the 23 screens to most. The pros of all of these LCD screens, especially the 23 inchers, for me, far outweigh the cons. More deskspace, far better look, far better clarity, better colour (with DVI) generally. The ghosting is fairly quickly forgotten imo. The pixel issue is really annoying for me and everyone else, the manufacturers really need to remove this final obstacle although I would have to say that even the first HP starfield wasnt very noticeable on anything other than a static blue screen.
The difference in speed between the BenQ displays and the 16ms displays is something of a mystery. In particular the text thickening issue is odd. I have wondered if it might have more to do with the size of the physical pixels than the rise/fall rate.
I needed the component input facility on the HP. When I purchased the HP the Sony hadnt quite appeared on the market. Whilst I would make the same purchase again even now I would probably not purchase the HP over the Sony if I hadnt have needed component input, although I have yet to check just how well the graphics card drivers themselves will let me fiddle with aspect ratios. The construction quality, and the feel of the Sony is superior to the HP and I suppose the fact that the initial HP was faulty hasnt helped it case much!
Between the HP and the Sony, has a few features missing that I would have liked but in the end, in my opinion, it looks better than the HP, the controls are MUCH nicer and the quality is better.
Update 20-1-2005
Changed the 767-12 to the new "8ms" FP71E+
Nice screen although I preferred the design of the 767-12 really. The difference in ghosting is noticeable but not significant. 8ms STILL ghosts but only when you look for it.
After reading all the comments about the DELL 2005FPW I thought I'd better recheck for backlight issues on all the screens:
1. HP L2335 - Quite a surprise - in a dark room there's very noticable clouding/backlight issues although not as bad as some of Dell 2005 pics. Wish I'd never looked! No dead pixels. Probably won't return it since I doubt I'd get a perfect replacement and if I hadn't turned the lights out I might not have noticed the issue at all.
2. Sony 23" - No backlight issues whatsoever, no dead pixels.
3. BenQs (783 & FP71E+) neither have any dead pixels. Backlighting is better on the 71E+ but isn't poor on the 783. The 783 exibits bleeding at the top & bottom edges.
Monitor 2: BenQ 17 LCD 783
Monitor 3: Sony 23 LCD SDM-P234B
Monitor 4: HP 23 LCD L2335
Monitor 5: Sony 20 CRT F520
Originally I had the Sony F520 CRT used for both work and games. I have a few other PCs and changed these from CRTs to LCDs to save deskspace. Eventually I purchased BenQ 12ms screens for these computers. The F520 monitor has, for a CRT, excellent clarity and worked perfectly at my preferred work/desktop resolution of 1920x1440. However, the monitor was starting to show its age so, a couple of months ago after noticing the 23 Apple Cinema displays, I decided to start looking for reviews of 23 LCDs. The only place I could find any real wealth of information was in this forum.
My main criteria for the purchase were as follows:
Must have a high resolution as close to 1920x1440 as is feasible.
Must work well in lower resolutions for games.
Need the choice of how I want lower resolutions to display stretched, 1:1 etc..
No ghosting/blurring or as close to that as possible.
Warranty, quality of the product, and number of likely faulty pixels.
The panel ideally would have the facility for component input.
After reading the long post on the HP L2335 I felt that I would take a gamble and buy one, it appeared to provide close to the resolution I wanted and it was fast. At the time I was still unsure about it because no-one had compared the HP to the 12ms BenQ displays and peoples opinions on the ghosting/blurring issue differed enormously. From my own experience All current LCD monitors blur, most said that the HP blurred only slightly and some people insisted it didnt blur at all!
I have written this review from my own subjective point of view with the intention to help others make a decision on purchasing, in particular, the HP L2335 or the Sony SDM-234 23 LCD screens. I hope it helps!
Ghosting/Blurring, colour and clarity:
The BenQ 767-12 and 783 both use the Auoptronics 12ms panel. The screens are extremely fast but I had, compared to the Sony F520 noticed blurring in virtually every application. In windows; if a window is moved around the screen the black text tends to thicken. Whilst this isnt desperately important it is irritating! Considering the 12ms response time the thickening text surprised me. In games the blurring varies, examples:
Call of Duty building against a blue sky building edges ghosting is apparent although you get used to it, wall textures blur a little.
Command & Conquer Generals Scrolling around maps is a little hard on the eyes, ground texture blurs and units shimmer. This particular issue makes spotting and recognising units more difficult when you move around a map. This affect can be seen on a CRT but you really have to look very hard for it.
Doom3. Lights against dark backgrounds blur a fair amount, Colour clarity appears far, far better than CRT. This, I suspect is actually an artefact of the dithering, Doom3 is actually easier to play and brighter on the BenQs than on a CRT or the 23 panels. You cant seem to simulate the BenQ effect with a brightness or gamma increase.
The BenQ dithers colour from its pallet. In most situations this is fine although transparent windows and shadows could look better. Not great for graphic artists.
No game I have tried is as good as a CRT but you do get used to the minor blurring/ghosting.
Viewing angles. The BenQs are viewable from almost all angles but, vertically the viewing angle is poor, losing/changing colour with small head movements.
Clarity is superb on both BenQs although the 783 is a tad better than the 767 using the DVI cable (the 767 doesnt have DVI).
The HP L2335 using the LG/Philips panel:
Windows: Very, VERY minor text thickening, almost as good as my F520.
COD: A little better than the BenQ, very minor blurring almost, but not quite, unnoticeable. More apparent when turning quickly.
C&CG: Again better than the BenQs, ground blur when scrolling, units blur/shimmer, noticeable but quickly forgotten.
Doom3: Lights seem to blur more than the BenQ, colour on a par with the F520, not as good as the BenQs simply because of the dithering issue.
Colour generally is better than the BenQs, no dithering. Better in Windows than the CRT although all shades are not visible. For example grey 250,250,250 is just visible, 251,251,251 is barely visible more of an impression that its there! 252,252,252 up to 254,254,254 are shown as white. Note: I havent tested this thoroughly brightness set to about 60. On the CRT all shades were more or less visible without making any brightness changes. I guess this isnt exactly the perfect situation for graphic artists but its not too shabby either. Viewing angles, from very obtuse angles the HP isnt as good as the BenQ but from more acute angles the HP is better. The corners of the HP when viewed from dead centre are darker but you dont really notice this issue much in general use.
Clarity as good as the BenQs, much better than the CRT.
The Sony appears to be more or less identical to the HP in this area. The only real difference is that there is a slightly different default look to the colour in Windows the Sony being a little more blue imo.
Build, features and quality:
767-12 Generally quite impressed with the build, plastic seems quite dense, slightly creaky around the bezel. No faulty pixels. Built in speakers are OK. The front adjustment buttons are OK, but not great, in operation. The front power button has a cool blue LED behind it and looks good. The power button has a much better, positive, feel to it. No height adjustment, swivel or rotate, tilt mechanism feels solid. Only a Dsub input on this model. There is a gesture towards a cable tidy at the back of the monitors base, its better than nothing.
783 Better looking design imho, bezel appears to be thinner but actually isnt! Construction quality is even better, more solid. Having the buttons on the side is a nuisance. The webcam is OK. Having USB sockets is useful, their location on the side just behind the bezel means that although they are easy to get to also means that whatever you put in them is visible. The detachable speakers are OK but the monitor looks better without them. No faulty pixels. All the buttons feel quite solid. No height adjustment, swivel or rotate, tilt mechanism feels solid slight improvement over the 767. The cable tidy is quite good on this screen but only tidies the cables to the bottom of the screen itself due, I presume, to the frog foot design of the base.
HP L2335. Im on my second one. The first arrived with a starfield of faulty pixels, over 200. The base on the first had very slight scuff marks which virtually vanished with a little rubbing. The second screen arrived with a damaged base. Needless to say the two bases were swapped when the replacement arrived. Fortunately there were no faulty pixels on the second screen. Generally the base is pretty strong but a little plasticky. The monitors bezel appears to be made from relatively thin plastic and has a creaky feel to it all round. The ability to rotate the monitor to a vertical position isnt a great deal of use to me but Im sure others would appreciate it. The height adjustment is more useful to me personally and the action is quite smooth. The swivel feature is smooth, as is the tilt, its just a shame that the bezel creaks whenever you move the screen so the overall feel of the screen is simply not as good as the BenQs. Imo the monitor doesnt look quite as good as the BenQs either. The buttons make a loud click when pressed, its OK but they could sound a little better. Again I think this is an artefact of the overall bezel quality. After reading other users comments of the HP I wasnt too surprised that I had scuffs on the base and I wasnt too surprised that I initially had faulty pixels. I am generally a little disappointed with the overall quality of construction. In my opinion the monitor has a functional but not particularly stylish look to it. The monitor has component video in which I use for consoles and might use for other devices in the future, the component connectors are hidden behind a VERY plasticky door which is difficult to remove. There is no USB hub on this monitor. There is no cable tidying at all on the screen or base.
Sony SDM-234. This monitor arrived in perfect condition, the base is brushed steel and feels very solid. The bezel is solid and I personally prefer the black to the silver of the HP. The monitor has no rotate facility or height adjustment. The swivel feature operates from the brushed steel base itself and works very well. The tilt feature is smooth. The buttons are touch sensitive and light up when you press them excellent design and the button area is barely visible when not lit. The Sony logo lights up when the monitor is on, it looks great but is a little too bright from my point of view (you can turn it off from the menu). The build quality is first rate and is at least as good as the BenQ 783. The base and screen cable tidies are a little cramped but generally good. The base cover is a little bit flimsy but seems to snap back into place fine. The screen tidy is a vertically sliding panel which is pretty solidly constructed. I found no faulty pixels. There is no USB hub. No sound, there is an audio pass thru but it appears not to work! There is no component input which is a serious omission for me. There doesnt appear to be any monitor menu adjustment for how the screen will display, 1:1, stretched to fit aspect etc., when the DVI cable is used.
Conclusion:
I did have some problems getting either monitor to run exactly the way I intended, for example I initially couldnt get widescreen modes like 1600x900 to work. I have, more or less, now resolved these issues with new drivers and selecting the correct driver LCD panel configuration along with a 1:1 selection on the monitors themselves. I didnt want to have forced widescreen so that a 1280x1024 image was stretched to fit the width but had concerns that I would end up with a square box. In the end 1280x1024 maintains the correct aspect ratio and fills the screen vertically with black bars down the left and the right and that dont really bother me.
I can recommend any of these monitors to a person wanting to play game although for some reason that 23 16ms panels seem to be generally better than the 12ms BenQ panels. I wouldnt recommend either BenQ to a graphic artist but would recommend the 23 screens to most. The pros of all of these LCD screens, especially the 23 inchers, for me, far outweigh the cons. More deskspace, far better look, far better clarity, better colour (with DVI) generally. The ghosting is fairly quickly forgotten imo. The pixel issue is really annoying for me and everyone else, the manufacturers really need to remove this final obstacle although I would have to say that even the first HP starfield wasnt very noticeable on anything other than a static blue screen.
The difference in speed between the BenQ displays and the 16ms displays is something of a mystery. In particular the text thickening issue is odd. I have wondered if it might have more to do with the size of the physical pixels than the rise/fall rate.
I needed the component input facility on the HP. When I purchased the HP the Sony hadnt quite appeared on the market. Whilst I would make the same purchase again even now I would probably not purchase the HP over the Sony if I hadnt have needed component input, although I have yet to check just how well the graphics card drivers themselves will let me fiddle with aspect ratios. The construction quality, and the feel of the Sony is superior to the HP and I suppose the fact that the initial HP was faulty hasnt helped it case much!
Between the HP and the Sony, has a few features missing that I would have liked but in the end, in my opinion, it looks better than the HP, the controls are MUCH nicer and the quality is better.
Update 20-1-2005
Changed the 767-12 to the new "8ms" FP71E+
Nice screen although I preferred the design of the 767-12 really. The difference in ghosting is noticeable but not significant. 8ms STILL ghosts but only when you look for it.
After reading all the comments about the DELL 2005FPW I thought I'd better recheck for backlight issues on all the screens:
1. HP L2335 - Quite a surprise - in a dark room there's very noticable clouding/backlight issues although not as bad as some of Dell 2005 pics. Wish I'd never looked! No dead pixels. Probably won't return it since I doubt I'd get a perfect replacement and if I hadn't turned the lights out I might not have noticed the issue at all.
2. Sony 23" - No backlight issues whatsoever, no dead pixels.
3. BenQs (783 & FP71E+) neither have any dead pixels. Backlighting is better on the 71E+ but isn't poor on the 783. The 783 exibits bleeding at the top & bottom edges.
