Through the Looking Glass -- 8 Widescreen Monitors Reviewed
Trying to choose an LCD monitor from the ever-growing, ever-affordable selection available can be maddening. Our reviews of eight new panels help make sense of it all
Imagine a Wonderland where the most powerful components in existence are free for the asking. You’d have the speediest CPU on the market; two or three of the newest, most outrageous videocards; the fastest, most capacious drive available; as much top-drawer memory as your operating system of choice could address; and, of course, multiple 30-inch flat-panel displays.
Now, grow up and face life, Alice. The state of the economy is no fantasy, so you’ll probably need to make more realistic component choices. The good news on the display front is that manufacturers haven’t been sitting on their mushrooms smoking hookahs; they’ve been innovating and driving down costs to the point where 23- and 24-inch widescreen LCDs are the new sweet spot.
Before you set out on your next monitor-shopping adventure, however, make sure you have a firm understanding of the most important specifications, features, and quality and performance criteria, lest you fall prey to the industry’s Jabberwocky. Rest assured, we’ll guide you through the thicket. We’ve also dug up a number of specifications that manufacturers have taken to omitting from their published data sheets.
Even the most thorough checklist can’t reveal how a monitor will perform in the real world, so we gathered eight of the top manufacturer’s latest models and put them through a benchmark wringer. Our test bed consisted of an Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 running at 3.33GHz, an Asus P5Q3 Deluxe motherboard, and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 285 videocard. We relied on DisplayMate Multimedia with Test Photos Edition (www.displaymate.com) for diagnostic testing and analysis. And since we use our monitors for entertainment as much as anything else, we also used Fallout 3 to test gaming performance and the Blu-ray edition of Watchmen for movie performance.
Let’s head down the rabbit hole.
Spec Speak
It pays to understand the features manufacturers tout as well as the ones most don't disclose in their spec charts
Backlight
All LCD monitors require a source of illumination, with cold-cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL) being the most common (every display in this roundup uses one). White LED backlights are one alternative solution, found most commonly in mobile displays. Some high-end displays use RGB LEDs, which enable them to deliver a wider color gamut. CCFL and both types of LED backlights have drawbacks: CCFL backlights deliver a narrower color gamut, while LEDs can age at different rates, causing color and white-point shifts over time.
Color Depth
Color depth indicates the number of bits the panel uses to represent the color of one pixel. A display that uses eight bits each for the red, green, and blue channels (28) can produce 256 shades of each color for a total of 16,777,216 colors (256x256x256). Most LCD monitors based on twisted nematic (TN) technology, however, cannot transition eight bits per pixel quickly enough to compensate for fast motion, resulting in unacceptable blurring and smearing while displaying movies and games. To get around this problem, mass-market LCD panels use six bits per pixel (26) to represent the RGB color space. Since this reduces the total number of displayable colors to just 262,144 (64x64x64), many panels use frame-rate control (a dithering method) to have each pixel display a slightly different shade with each successive screen refresh. Frame-rate control can enable a six-bit panel to simulate 16,194,277 colors.
Color Gamut
Color gamut describes a subset of a defined color space that a display is capable of producing. For the purposes of this comparison, we asked each manufacturer to report its display’s color gamut as a percentage of the NTSC color space. Most of the manufacturers claimed their displays delivered 72 percent of the NTSC color space.

The triangle in the center of this chromacity diagram represents the NTSC color gamut, used to measure the color output of LCDs.
Contrast Ratio
Contrast ratio is supposed to measure the relative magnitude between the brightest (white) and darkest (black) colors the display can produce. Unfortunately, the manufacturers’ propensity for using different methodologies and unstated variables in their measurements has effectively rendered this specification meaningless. The industry has further muddied the waters by introducing entirely new variations of this measurement, such as dynamic contrast ratio. We recommend you ignore this spec when comparing LCD monitors.
Inputs
Nearly all the monitors in this roundup support the two most common digital video interfaces, DVI and HDMI (with HDCP copy protection, so you can watch Blu-ray movies at full resolution using either one). None of them, however, use the DisplayPort digital interface. In terms of analog display interfaces, every monitor has an old-school VGA port, but the Samsung P2370HD is the only monitor to also feature composite and component video inputs (useful for connecting such analog sources as VCRs and older set-top boxes and DVD players). None has an S-Video input.
Panel Type
Virtually every consumer LCD monitor uses thin-film transistor (TFT) technology these days, but it’s important to consider the subsets of that classification. Twisted nematic (TN) is the most common because it’s the easiest and least expensive to produce (all the displays in this roundup are TN panels). TN panels boast very fast response times, but are typically limited to six-bit color depth. The next two most common subsets are super in-plane switching (S-IPS, developed by Hitachi, although LG also uses it) and super patterned vertical alignment (S-PVA, jointly developed by Samsung and Sony). Both S-IPS and S-IPA panels support eight-bit color, but have much slower response times than TN panels.
Response Time
Response time measures how long it takes an LCD monitor’s pixels to transition from one state to another and is measured in milliseconds. A monitor with a low response time will display fewer motion artifacts with movies and games. In order to make apples-to-apples comparisons, we asked each manufacturer to report its display’s gray-to-gray response time, because that is the most common real-world transition.
Stand Functions
The LCD monitor manufacturers in this roundup have all but abandoned ergonomic considerations. Each display in this roundup has a stand that tilts, but only three of the eight swivel left to right and only two offer a height adjustment. NEC’s EA241WM is the only monitor we reviewed that pivots to enable you to switch between landscape and portrait modes.
![]()
QUINTIX256
November 11, 2009 at 10:48am
I don't quite understand the advantage of Grey-to-Grey timing over Black-to-White-to-Black timing.
How do you know that the manufactures are measuring from the same grey levels?
You can have your recession. I'm not participating.
![]()
RyanMM
November 11, 2009 at 9:08am
I'm really disappointed by this article. MaximumPC passed up a good opportunity to dig into these things and expose how crappy LCDs have become by their commodification. Also, it neglects to mention H-IPS, S-PVA, and S-MVA/A-MVA/P-MVA.
Almost all of these (I didn't look at every review) are crappy 6-bit TN panel at 1920x1080, and I'm sure several of them are based off the same panel. It would've been useful if on the spec-sheet for each monitor you listed the panel type and which specific panel the monitor was based on.
I suspect for a few of those you wouldn't be able to though, because manufacturers can get away with playing the panel lottery and stick consumers with anything ranging from a decent screen to something awful depending on your luck of the draw (or lack thereof).
I'll also take this time to piss and moan yet again about the continually reducing pixel density of screens and the deceptive screen sizes that result from the move to 16:9 panels from 16:10 panels. Reviews like this could point out the total screen surface area as a more accurate size measurement for comparing monitors to each other. That way people who have a 22" 16:10 LCD don't see a 23.6" 16:9 LCD and buy it thinking they're getting something noticeably bigger. It's actually smaller.
Additionally, pixel densities have been falling as these screens have been getting larger. Instead of coming up with higher resolutions for bigger monitors, a lot of screens don't break 1920 pixels wide until they hit the 30" mark. I want to see 2176x1360 and 2304x1440 as stepping stones to 2560x1600.
Dear LCD makers: Please make me a 25-27" monitor with a minimum pixel density of 108 pixels per inch (preferably in the 115 ppi range), on a S-IPS/H-IPS panel at 16:10 ratio with dynamic LED backlighting. I will buy it yesterday. Thank you.
![]()
Muerte
November 11, 2009 at 12:40pm
Yep, they were mentioned. 8 bit color slower response time. Yep right there on the last page.
![]()
merrygoround
November 11, 2009 at 8:59am
geez this article should be called 8 Widescreen Monitors Trashed. I like to know what monitors not to buy, but it would also be nice to know which ones I should buy. I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to choosing some hardware and MaximumPC has never really let me down. I usually buy things that have atleast a 9 rating. So, I was hoping this article would have a maybe a 9 and perhaps even a kickass.
![]()
JohnP
November 11, 2009 at 10:58am
I mean where is the DELL 2407 (or whatever it is these days). Notice that there has not been a monitor greater than 22" on the best of the best for a while now. For me 24" 1920 by 1200 16:10 is the sweet spot. Got to be a monitor out there somewhere...
![]()
Muerte
November 11, 2009 at 8:00am
I'll stick with my CRT's until they fail. I'm not all that interested in saving space, which is the only good reason to switch.
![]()
QUINTIX256
November 11, 2009 at 10:40am
What's your refesh rate? 60Hz? Enjoy your retina murdering ciliary muscle straining strobe light.
You can have your recession. I'm not participating.
![]()
Pball1224
November 12, 2009 at 3:12pm
I'm still using a 19in CRT... Gasp! 75Hz in case your wondering. Unfortunately it's not very "Maximum" but it's what works until I can afford a very high quality LCD that's both quite a bit larger, and can reproduce most of the sRGB color space since I do quite a bit of photo editing. For now, I just have to do a lot of zooming in and out while making edits, but at least my colors are accurate. For anyone wondering, I do calibrate about every six months, and this old CRT has been rock solid.
![]()
Muerte
November 11, 2009 at 12:38pm
Really? Thanks I didn't know I had a problem.
Oh, wait. I don't.
![]()
dag1992
November 11, 2009 at 12:56pm
The advantages of a LCD outweigh those of a CRT nowadays, the gap between deep blacks and color depth in general has been closed up. Now if this was 2004; maybe a completely different argument.
![]()
ethanajs
November 11, 2009 at 7:45am
Sceptre X24 IS the best widescreen monitor for any purpose for the best price. It has HDMI, VGA, and DVI and costed me a mere $225 after tax and shipping. With a 2ms response rate and full 1080P HD, there's no argue.
![]()
QUINTIX256
November 12, 2009 at 11:05am
There is also no tolerance for spammers who can't speak proper english.
You can have your recession. I'm not participating.
![]()
DBsantos77
November 10, 2009 at 10:20pm
So in reality there is no "great" monitor. I think I'll stick my $250 back in my pocket and stick with my 17' TFT till I see something promising.
-Santos
![]()
Pball1224
November 10, 2009 at 8:39pm
Sure NTSC is the right way to go about judging a monitor for video output for Movies, but Photography relies on percentage of RGB or sRGB coverage. Don't video games also render in the RGB color space?
MPC is usualy on top of their game, but this is one article that let me down, and is rather unusable for me.
![]()
QUINTIX256
November 10, 2009 at 8:44pm
This is discussing the color range, not the format. The input color format (YUV, RGB) is irrelevant, because it is always converted to RGB in the end.
You can have your recession. I'm not participating.
![]()
Pball1224
November 11, 2009 at 1:42pm
Maybe I am mistaken... I'm specificaly speaking about the range of color the monitor can reproduce. The article mentions percent of NTSC color reproduction but RGB is a slightly more inclusive color space, and it is that level of reproduction that I think matters more for photographers and maybe even gamers. Am I way off base? Any monitor review I've ever read in relation to photography or print layout reviews based on sRGB reproduction.
![]()
cheeseglue
November 10, 2009 at 7:15pm
This is a great introduction to the world of LCD Monitors, but on with the reviews? Did I miss something or should it have read on with the pictures?
![]()
jrocknyc
November 11, 2009 at 6:08am
And whoever did the layout/nav for this article needs to be re-trained... making us click on a monitor, then back, then the next monitor, then back... put a fuckin' "NEXT" button in their, son!















