Posted on August 18th, 2008 by David Bayon

Roll up for the TFT fire sale

When upgrading a PC, the monitor is often the one thing people keep hold of. The rationale goes that it still works perfectly well and newer screens still use the same TFT technology that’s dominated the industry in recent times. Why shell out for a new one?

I’ve just finished testing Iiyama’s latest flagship model – a 26in monster of a display with DVI, VGA and HDMI inputs and a very impressive set of 5W speakers. It’s a solid TFT, and I was expecting a reasonably attractive price given the non-adjustable stand, but I was staggered to see just how cheap it is.

A retail price of £240 (£282 inc VAT) for a huge 26in screen is simply unheard of. That’s cheaper than any 26in screen I’ve yet seen, and it also blows away many 24in models. Even the best 22in displays cost more than that, yet here’s a massive screen at a price I’d never have predicted a year ago.

It got me thinking, how cheap can you go when buying a monitor?

A quick search online reveals that you can now pick up a basic 24in screen for just £183 (£215 inc VAT). Move down to 22in and prices start at £106 (£125 inc VAT), while 20in will cost you just £85 (£100 inc VAT).

At 19in you can pick something up for £72 (£85 inc VAT), while a bog-standard widescreen 17in can now be had for just £63 (£74 inc VAT).

These eye-opening prices were all found at reputable online retailers in the UK, and all the monitors are established brands rather than generic or rebranded models. Admittedly they’re about as bare in terms of features as you can get, but for basic web browsing and work use I doubt many people actually need most of the extras on offer these days.

That 22in threshold seems to offer the best value – just £20-odd dearer than 20in, yet nearly £80 cheaper than a 24in desk-hogger.

So forget about the credit crunch. If you’re upgrading your PC soon, or just fancy a bigger TFT, there’s never been a better time to jump up a few screen sizes. Those of you squinting at your old 17in display could probably afford a far bigger upgrade than you imagined.

Tags: credit crunch, TFT

Posted in: Hardware, View from the Labs

Permalink | Trackback

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Social Bookmark this article: What is this?

3 Responses to “ Roll up for the TFT fire sale ”

David Wright Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 5:51 am
I never understood the 22″ and 26″ models. They just provide a less sharp image (bigger pixels, not out of focus) than the smaller ones. I like the 24″ LG I currently have. I looked at a couple of 26″ models when I bought it and I just couldn’t get on with them. If they had a higher resolution, I’d probably look at getting one, but at the same resolution, I don’t see any advantage.

What I wanted to say is, here only Dell seems to bundle monitors with some of their range, but most of their range, and just about every other manufacturer’s ranges, come without a display. This means that you can keep the old displays or buy the display you want. The same for speakers etc.

The PC comes with just a keyboard and mouse, usually.

Is the UK market still based around the “complete packet”?
Steve Cassidy Says:
August 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I’m schizo. I have a 30 inch HP which is 2420 by (something: I’m not at home) and I love it to bits – but I also very much like the 32-inch NEC – only 1360 by 768 – which has just arrived for my dungeon computer-room. The low resolution is discernable at such a large size – lines can show jaggies even when the hi-res picture that contains them is aliased – but it’s more relaxing for old-fogey eyes than the massive res of the HP.

One thing is for sure: widescreen monitors below 24 inches really suck for business use. I’d expect business types to start paying more for 4:3 format, hi-res screens: provided,that is, that the makers remember to keep sellig them…!
James Morrow Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 9:51 am
Hi David,

Now that two 16:9 aspect ratio high definition [HD] spatial resolution standards exist – “half” HD with 1280 by 720 pixels and “full” HD (potentially cinema quality at high enough data rates) with 1920 by 1080 pixels it is not surprising that high quality PCs are migrating to 16:10 aspect ratio 1920 by 1200 pixel monitors at sizes above 20.” Apart from providing the best quality for full HD playback, such monitors also offer a good amount of screen desktop space.

However, it is already beginning to be recognised that, even at just 24″ full HD pixels are slightly too big (i.e. the screen resolution is slightly too small). In order to maximise utility of the computer desktop, ease of HD manipulation and quality of HD playback I believe that a super high definition [SHD] monitor (3840 by 2160 pixels – well by 2400 at 16:10) makes a lot of sense for monitors of 26″ diagonal and above – although I also realise that this is probably a year or so away in terms of viable commercial technology.

As well as providing up to four times the desktop space, the spatial resolution of SHD is an integer multiple of both half and full HD (1280*3 by 720*3 and 1920*2 by 1080*2, respectively), maximising the quality of full screen (well, apart from small black bars top and bottom) playback of half and full HD material using relatively simple and artefact-free (as opposed to free artefact) spatiotemporal super-resolution techniques to upscale the material to SHD.

I won’t mention UHD at 7680 by 4320 pixels or, for that matter, 2K, 4K and 8K, except to say that 4K (strictly speaking 4096 by 2160 pixel but also, confusingly, 3840 by 2160 SHD) material will be coming to a digital cinema near you soon*…

Yours

James

* NHK (the Japanese BBC) have been demonstrating UHD recording and cinema projection (7680 by 4320 pixels at 60 frames per second – basically 8K resolution) for six years now, and have gone through several iterations of camera and projector…