Looking for a gaming monitor under $250

kllrnohj said:
Its hard to take you seriously when you can't even be bothered to read what you just linked. The NEC had a better contrast ratio, the NEC has better colors (dE doesn't paint the full picture, TNs are 6bit and IPS are 8bit - IPS will basically always have better colors), the NEC has a far more even panel, and of course viewing angles are no contest.

Input lag between the two is almost nil (33ms vs. 36ms)

And that is assuming DigitalVerses got it right. TFTCentral.co.uk puts the NEC's input lag at 20ms.

You also keep looking at the black point and claiming better blacks. Well, not necessarily. Sure, the blackest black will be blacker on the Acer than the NEC, but what about one step up? Is it distinguishable? That is something you need to know before simply claiming better blacks.
Click to expand...

Contrast difference is less than 100 between the two=neglibile to most but the black level is a big difference (0.05) especially for gaming and movies, dont try to call me out on the black level saying that isnt a big diff, you know that is BS.

I get it you do not like TN's, keep that garbage to yourself unless that OP was considering something responsive like the Dell U2410 over a TN for color work AND gaming or being retarded and sitting 10 feet to the left of their monitor and wondering why their TN looked bad.

Most people will never be able to tell the difference unless they have the panels side by side and calibrated. For gaming and movies this 200$ Acer clearly should be the better choice.

I can't take you seriously either as you have done nothing but waste my time. Some times I wonder while people even ask on here about budget monitors for gaming knowing some one is going to recommend the NEC or HP due to their viewing angle and ergonomics.
 
Is it really worth waiting for the 120Hz monitors? I can't imagine they will be in the $250-$300 range.
 
NCX said:
Contrast difference is less than 100 between the two=neglibile to most but the black level is a big difference (0.05) especially for gaming and movies, dont try to call me out on the black level saying that isnt a big diff, you know that is BS.

I get it you do not like TN's, keep that garbage to yourself unless that OP was considering something responsive like the Dell U2410 over a TN for color work AND gaming or being retarded and sitting 10 feet to the left of their monitor and wondering why their TN looked bad.

Most people will never be able to tell the difference unless they have the panels side by side and calibrated. For gaming and movies this 200$ Acer clearly should be the better choice.

I can't take you seriously either as you have done nothing but waste my time. Some times I wonder while people even ask on here about budget monitors for gaming knowing some one is going to recommend the NEC or HP due to their viewing angle and ergonomics.
Click to expand...
I've been using TN panels for years. I mentioned in my thread (gaming monitor for under $500) that I have no problems buying a TN panel.

I initially purchased a Samsung PX2370, a monitor you recommended for the OP. On digital versus, the tests seem to have similar results to the Acer which in your opinion, is superior in many aspects to the NEC. I was sure I made the right choice until I brought it home. I was extremely disappointed by the image and build quality. Blacks were poor, colour was average, and the stand was a complete joke.

For $10 more, I replaced the Sammy with the NEC. Out of the box, colours were excellent and with a bit of tweaking I was able to get an amazing black level that had great shadow detail and extremely accurate colours. Using tests on lagom.nl, I realized how much better the NEC is.

Looks like digital versus isn't the best source for an accurate review. For example, to get the PX2370 to display a good black level I had to saturate the colours quite a bit and even then, I could only see up to box 3 on the black level test and 251 on the white saturation test. On the NEC I could see every black box and up to 253 on the white saturation test while maintaining vivid and accurate colours.

The NEC has a great stand that allows a variety of adjustments resulting in a perfect viewing experience. With the PX2370, adjustments are extremely limited and I'm sure this is the same story with the Acer.

I used both for gaming on my Xbox 360. I played MW2, NHL 10, and Splinter Cell: Conviction on both monitors. There was no noticeable difference in terms of responsiveness but the difference in colour accuracy and black level is astounding. For example in Splinter Cell, many of the maps are quite dark and the screen turns black and white when you are invisible to the AI. I saw far more detail and could clearly tell that the blacks were deeper on the NEC providing a superior and more enjoyable gaming experience. Same goes for the other two games; better colours, great blacks, and no responsiveness issues.

The NEC was on sale and is regularly $50 more. Even at the regular price, the NEC is a steal. This monitor is the same league as the Dell U2410 and HP ZR24w, yet it costs half as much. That said, there is one issue that the OP needs to be aware of if he is considering this monitor. There seems to be some tinting problems and uneven backlighting on some NEC's. Mine had a strong yellow tint when using the VGA input and the backlighting was a bit uneven but I will be exchanging this for a problem free set. Just make sure the retailer you purchase from has a good return policy and you shouldn't have any problems.
 
Looks like I'm going with the NEC, does anyone have any free shipping coupon code for newegg or a site that I can get it cheaper than $309?
 
I just want an LED-backlit, 120Hz TN panel, why is this so hard to manufacture?

P.S. It should cost $300 or less :)
 
Baghdadii said:
I've been using TN panels for years. I mentioned in my thread (gaming monitor for under $500) that I have no problems buying a TN panel.

I initially purchased a Samsung PX2370, a monitor you recommended for the OP. On digital versus, the tests seem to have similar results to the Acer which in your opinion, is superior in many aspects to the NEC. I was sure I made the right choice until I brought it home. I was extremely disappointed by the image and build quality. Blacks were poor, colour was average, and the stand was a complete joke.

For $10 more, I replaced the Sammy with the NEC. Out of the box, colours were excellent and with a bit of tweaking I was able to get an amazing black level that had great shadow detail and extremely accurate colours. Using tests on lagom.nl, I realized how much better the NEC is.

Looks like digital versus isn't the best source for an accurate review. For example, to get the PX2370 to display a good black level I had to saturate the colours quite a bit and even then, I could only see up to box 3 on the black level test and 251 on the white saturation test. On the NEC I could see every black box and up to 253 on the white saturation test while maintaining vivid and accurate colours.

The NEC has a great stand that allows a variety of adjustments resulting in a perfect viewing experience. With the PX2370, adjustments are extremely limited and I'm sure this is the same story with the Acer.

I used both for gaming on my Xbox 360. I played MW2, NHL 10, and Splinter Cell: Conviction on both monitors. There was no noticeable difference in terms of responsiveness but the difference in colour accuracy and black level is astounding. For example in Splinter Cell, many of the maps are quite dark and the screen turns black and white when you are invisible to the AI. I saw far more detail and could clearly tell that the blacks were deeper on the NEC providing a superior and more enjoyable gaming experience. Same goes for the other two games; better colours, great blacks, and no responsiveness issues.

The NEC was on sale and is regularly $50 more. Even at the regular price, the NEC is a steal. This monitor is the same league as the Dell U2410 and HP ZR24w, yet it costs half as much. That said, there is one issue that the OP needs to be aware of if he is considering this monitor. There seems to be some tinting problems and uneven backlighting on some NEC's. Mine had a strong yellow tint when using the VGA input and the backlighting was a bit uneven but I will be exchanging this for a problem free set. Just make sure the retailer you purchase from has a good return policy and you shouldn't have any problems.
Click to expand...

did you even bother adjusting brightness and contrast on the PX? Samsungs come with brightness set to 100 stock, obviously the black level will be terrible as that is like 250cdm/2 brightness. Reviews state the opposite of what you are saying. The Px has better out of the box colors than the NEC, better black level and is far more responsive.

Go read FlatpanelsHD or tft central, both professional review sites that also dispute your findings on the NEC. They also measured much lower contrast ratios than DV stock and and poor colors before calibration and a disapointing 0.25 stock black level and 0.15 after calibration.

http://flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1265977876
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_ea231wmi.htm

You are totally being misleading the poor OP with your opinions which you seem to think are correct over professional reviewers. Saying it is great for gaming as well is just WRONG. The NEC is not even as good as your average 5ms TN. That is cool that you are unable to tell the diffrerence in responsiveness but stating that they are the same is FUCKING STUPID GTFO.

I give up. People will keep on posting false opinions or links to random monitors with no real information on this site and the poor people asking for help ignore those who take the time to post real information.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
did you even bother adjusting brightness and contrast on the PX? Samsungs come with brightness set to 100 stock, obviously the black level will be terrible as that is like 250cdm/2 brightness. Reviews state the opposite of what you are saying. The Px has better out of the box colors than the NEC, better black level and is far more responsive.

Go read FlatpanelsHD or tft central, both professional review sites that also dispute your findings on the NEC. They also measured much lower contrast ratios than DV stock and and poor colors before calibration and a disapointing 0.25 stock black level and 0.15 after calibration.

http://flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1265977876
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/nec_ea231wmi.htm

You are totally being misleading the poor OP with your opinions which you seem to think are correct over professional reviewers. Saying it is great for gaming as well is just WRONG. The NEC is not even as good as your average 5ms TN. That is cool that you are unable to tell the diffrerence in responsiveness but stating that they are the same is FUCKING STUPID GTFO.

I give up. People will keep on posting false opinions or links to random monitors with no real information on this site and the poor people asking for help ignore those who take the time to post real information.
Click to expand...

You have failed to read the post you responded to, and you have failed to read the two reviews that you linked to, just as you have repeatedly failed to read other links you have posted here. You have a serious problem with reading comprehension. It is neither possible nor necessary to debate with you; you destroy your credibility every time you post.
 
NCX said:
did you even bother adjusting brightness and contrast on the PX? Samsungs come with brightness set to 100 stock, obviously the black level will be terrible as that is like 250cdm/2 brightness. Reviews state the opposite of what you are saying. The Px has better out of the box colors than the NEC, better black level and is far more responsive.
Click to expand...

The PX doesn't have better colors. If you think a TN can beat an IPS in colors you are sorely mistaken. TNs are 6-bit. They can only show 262k colors. IPS are 8-bit, they can show 16.7 million colors.

As for blacks, like I tried to tell you earlier there is more to blacks than the lowest black level. The guy you quoted pointed out that with the PX he was unable to distinguish between black 1, 2, and 3 on this page: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php The DV comparison you love to post doesn't measure that. They simply report the lowest black level they achieved, not whether or not there was black crush (which it would seem there is).
 
NCX said:
You are totally being misleading the poor OP with your opinions which you seem to think are correct over professional reviewers. Saying it is great for gaming as well is just WRONG. The NEC is not even as good as your average 5ms TN. That is cool that you are unable to tell the diffrerence in responsiveness but stating that they are the same is FUCKING STUPID GTFO.
Click to expand...
You're the one constantly misleading people. You keep telling people to read reviews, some of which contradict what you're saying. How about using your damn eyes?

You claim viewing angles don't matter, but then you talk about colors and contrast, both of which are affected by viewing angles even if you're sitting in front of the monitor. Measurements don't take viewing angles into account. Just because a TN monitor measures better doesn't mean it will look better. A TN monitor with accurate colors can look significantly worse than an IPS monitor with slightly inaccurate colors. The reverse can also be true if the TN monitor has the gamma fudged to look better. If a TN monitor happened to measure exactly the same as an IPS monitor, the TN monitor will appear more washed out due to the viewing angles. This includes black depth as well.

Also, according to the reviews you linked, the differences in contrast are negligible. The contrast is about the same, and the NEC can easily reach 0.10 cd/m² if you lower the brightness. Don't even bring up the IPS glow because TN panels glow just as badly. On IPS panels, only black washes out, mostly towards the corners. On TN panels, the black washes out along with the colors, washing out the bottom half of the screen. Only PVA panels have significantly better contrast, but even PVA suffers from a bit of washout. The only LCD technology I've seen that doesn't wash out is IPS with the A-TW filter, which isn't being used anymore for some odd reason. That helps contrast visually, not measurably. It would have been nice to have on the NEC.

As for response times, there's no doubt that a 2 ms TN panel has better gray-to-gray response times than an IPS panel without overdrive, but the difference isn't as big as you seem to think it is. In other threads, you claimed the Samsung F2380 has better motion performance than the NEC EA231WMi, when it's obvious you've never seen the EA231WMi or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense. The EA231WMi doesn't have any color transitions that exceed 24 ms, while the F2380 has a whole group of transitions that exceed 50 ms, which you've tried to downplay by claiming calibration will reduce the ghosting. The EA231WMi doesn't have that kind of ghosting at all. Also, even 5 ms TN panels have transitions that exceed 24 ms, although gray-to-gray response times are inherently better.

You also said this about the F2380:
NCX said:
As an owner, I can say once calibrated motion blur is hardly noticeable paired next to a 120hz 2233rz except in extremely high contrast areas.
Click to expand...
Considering the EA231WMi actually has better motion performance, then by your definition, the motion blur on the EA231WMi is hardly noticeable compared to a 120 Hz TN panel. I wouldn't go that far. There's definitely a bit of motion blur, but it's not that bad compared to other LCD monitors, and it's definitely better than the F2380.

You also never took into account that the EA231WMi can do 83 Hz, while you're recommending 60 Hz TN monitors.

Sometimes I wonder if "professional" reviewers even have eyes because they rely too much on measurements instead of visually comparing a known reference. There are so many factors that simple measurements don't take into account. Viewing angles affect colors and contrast. Response times will vary depending on what colors are changing. Overdrive can have overshoot artifacts. Even colorimeters are not accurate. They are good for gamma calibration but white point can be off.

The main point is: measurements don't tell the whole story. Use your eyes.
 
Last edited:
There is no rage funnier than nerd rage.

Seriously though...just calm the hell down. It's a monitor. It doesn't have nearly enough importance to necessitate resorting to douchebagism. Shake hands, "walk away", and call it even.
 
Well I'm still torn between these monitors

NEC MultiSync EA231WMi
Acer H243HX
Samsung SyncMaster PX2370
ASUS VH236H

The NEC and Acer are my top two picks so far and I'm leaning towards the NEC, maybe it would help if I was a little more clear with my needs.

I game a lot, FPS, RPG, pretty much any new good game. I watch movies/TV shows usually in normal def, though I do watch many things in 720p/1080p.

I don't think I have a super eye for minor details so if I can save a few bucks on a monitor with colors slightly off, that I probably wouldn't notice, I won't mind...even though I'm still considering the NEC.

Also I'll be honest, my Samsung 914v looks pretty good and I really don't notice any color degradation when I look at the screen from the side, although I never look at it from extreme angles.
 
I'm in the same boat. My HH-281 is not doing so well with my xbox 360, looking for something to use for consoles.
 
No rage here. Just pointing out that measurements don't always tell the whole story because they don't take into account important factors like viewing angles, which affect colors and contrast. This is one of those things where you need to see for yourself with your own eyes, but retail stores usually only have TN monitors.

It basically comes down to response times because that's the main advantage TN panels have. How important are response times to you? Response times only affect motion clarity. They don't have a significant impact on lag. I care more about lag, which is not a problem on the NEC. Most people that try IPS monitors say they will never go back to a TN monitor, but for some people, response times are such a high priority that they would rather have a TN monitor.

My recommendation is if you really care about response times, then get a 120 Hz TN monitor. Otherwise, get the NEC.
 
I was always one of those guys who rolled his eyes when a "IPS nazi" would come into a thread blabbing about how superior they are... Until I purchased my first IPS panel last week. I spend about 1/2 my time playing FPS and the other 1/2 doing everyday tasks. The single greatest thing about them are their viewing angles. There was nothing more annoying than leaning back in your chair while watching a movie only to lose all color and contrast on my TN panels.

One thing I will say is dont always be so reliant on "professional" reviews. You never know when a cherry picked monitor is getting sent to said reviewer for that perfect evaluation. I have always found real world experience to be the better indicator of what a product does.
 
Riddleofsteel said:
I'd buy the NEC except I need HDMI and I wonder how the input lag is.
Click to expand...

The NEC has pretty low input lag, and you can get $10 HDMI->DVI adapters. Its the same video signal, so it doesn't really matter which one you use.
 
vitalym said:
So is the response time of 14ms on the NEC really not bad for FPS's?
Click to expand...
Input lag and Response Time are two separate things.


From Wikipedia:

Input Lag: "..refers to latency, or lag measured by the difference between the time a signal is input into a display and the time it is shown by the display."
Response Time: "Response time is the amount of time a pixel in an LCD monitor takes to go from black to white and back to black again."
 
vitalym said:
So is the response time of 14ms on the NEC really not bad for FPS's?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the 14ms response time is measured by NEC as black to white whereas the 2-5ms response times are measured as gray to gray. The NEC has about a 5ms gray to gray response time according to various reviews.

But as the person above me pointed out, I was talking about input lag (what you originally asked). That 14ms is response time, something completely different :)
 
Alright, well as I've never really looked into high end monitors before I've never paid attention to either of the lags.

I'm not sure I fully understand to which features response time and input lag applies to. From how I understand it is the input lag is the video card telling the monitor to show a certain graphic and the response time is how fast the monitor can change from the previous graphic to the new one...is this correct?

With the 14ms the response time, would I notice any lagging in graphics on fast paced FPSs?
 
Not sure what the specs are regarding lag on this monitor but I picked up the HP 2509M from Amazon for like 268 shipped. Its a 25" monitor (with DVI, HDMI & VGA) and so far its been stunning for me since I was running dual 19 inch monitors that were about 5 years old.
 
Input lag is basically how long it takes from when you move your mouse to when it shows up on the screen. A high input lag makes you feel disconnected from the game.

Response time is how long it takes the pixels to change color. A high response time leads to ghosting. Once the response time is low enough that you don't see any ghosting, a lower response time isn't going to appear to do anything.
 
Is 14ms considered 'high'? Also, I was going to use a console with the monitor, so the DVI-HDMI cable is cool but wouldn't help me.
 
Alright guys, after reading and reading and reading through this forum and other reviews I think I'm going with the Nec. I just got a new job so I thought I would reward myself with a really nice monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top