It was only 18 months ago when we took a look at Samsung's SyncMaster 213T and declared it the best $1,000 LCD that we had seen. The (relatively) high resolution of 1600x1200, the bright backlight and sleek look put the 213T in the "Ultra-Enthusiast" pool with very few competitors. Ultra-High End has a whole new meaning now, and with reason. Since the Samsung 213T, we have seen high end displays shift toward wide screen, and support for higher resolutions and smaller pixel pitches (0.258mm versus 0.27mm). The entire industry owes Dell a slight pat on the back for their part in really pushing the price barrier.

We were a little surprised when Dell unveiled their next generation lineup last year, since it did not include a 23" display based on a SIPS panel. Instead, two of Dell's four displays went to Samsung (the UltraSharp 1905FP and the 2405FPW) and the mainstream model went to LG.Philips (the UltraSharp 2005FPW). Although the UltraSharp 1905FP and 2005FPW turned out to be phenomenal monitors and the 2405FPW is the cheapest LCD larger than 21", did Dell make the right move by ditching LG.Philips for the highest model? Apple and HP certainly think that LG.Philips LCD has the right formula with their Super IPS displays, and in past display reviews, 8-bit SIPS displays have done very well in our comparisons.

Today, we are taking a look at a display that has been available for a little while, but it's only been a few weeks since it broke the magic $1,000 barrier. The HP L2335 is actually a business display - but it just so happens to support component, composite, S-Video, signal zoom and a 16ms gray-to-gray response time. While I love working in Excel on a 23" LCD as much as the next guy, playing World of Warcraft at 1920x1200 on a low response time display doesn't get any better. Obviously, the market has changed quite a bit in 18 months. What was once top of the line barely gets recognition here on AnandTech, and the monitors that do end up on top are truly modern marvels. Does HP have the opportunity to pick up where Dell left off and capitalize on the success of previous LG.Philips panels? That's exactly what we are set to find out!

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Gatak - Sunday, July 10, 2005 - link


    You are still wrong. A TFT need 12-14bits resolution per colour channel to be able to resolve the same levels as a CRT monitor.

    The reason is simply because a TFT is linear in its response whereas a CRT is not (Gamma). The TFT must compensate for the gamma curve, which requires up to 14bits resolution (or more if you use higher gamma than 2.2).

    So, these 14 bit LCDs/TFTs are the only ones getting _CLOSE_ to CRT native colour resolution. A CRT is inherently analogue too, which means it can utilize the 10bit resolution per channel that many modern graphics cards can produce (Matrox, ATi). Remember this is 10bit is with the gamma compensation already applied. For a TFT to reach the same resolution they would need much more than 14bits!
  • Therms - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    Just wanted to add that one of the biggest games of the summer, Battlefield 2, does not properly support widescreen.

    The best it can do is basically a zoomed 4:3 image which results in a display with the top and bottom parts of the picture chopped off. This means that widescreen users actually see less than standard 4:3 screen users.
  • semo - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    is there a big problem right now with all those different aspect ratios out there?

    i hear that 16:9, 16:10 and 15:9 are pretty much the same/compatible. why all the standards in the first place anyway?
  • DragonReborn - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    Hmm...interesting. I was definitely ready to buy the way to really compare the two, huh? I game, but nothing crazy, and just want a nice big screen. Probably save the $300 and get a nvidia 7800 instead of the 6800... =)
  • Gioron - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    "Also keep in mind that a 21" Trinitron has about the same viewable area of a 19" or 20" LCD."

    Mostly true, but you need to specify whether its widescreen or not, since you lose a bit of area on a widescreen display.

    Screen area on a standard 4:3 display with a 20" viewable diagonal is 192 in^2.
    Screen area on a widescreen 16:10 display with a 20" viewable diagonal is only 180 in^2. (If I haven't managed to screw up the math...)

    If I were being pessimistic on your statement, a 19" widescreen would have a bit over 160 in^2, while a CRT with a 20" viewable diagonal would have 192 in^2. I wouldn't consider that "about the same".

    The other thing that some people need to consider is whether you'll be displaying a lot of 4:3 content, in which case you throw away annother 20% of your viewable area to black bars along the side (unless you fill it out and distort the image). Admittedly, this isn't a huge factor for computer use, since most gaming and desktop resolutions can be adjusted to be correct, but its something to consider if you know you're going to be doing a lot of picture viewing or have video sources that are fixed at 4:3.
  • Pastuch - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link

    29 - Posted on Jul 8, 2005 at 5:59 PM by svi

    But most engines stretch or clip a 4:3 picture to produce widescreen output. Source is an exception, and a big one, but you can't make a generalization like that based on a single case where widescreens are better.


    I wont be buying BF2 until they add Widescreen support. EA WAKE UP! All of the following games have official support for widescreen: Halflife 2, CS Source, World of Warcraft, Everquest 2, Far Cry, Doom 3, GTA: San Andreas PC, and I've heard Dungeon Seige 2 will be fully compatable as well.
  • KristopherKubicki - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    SilthDraeth: Icecrown Alliance. Biggest waste of money and time grumble grumble... ... er... Yeah I mean it's a fun game!

    kmmatney: Supposedly. Somehow I got suckered into an NEC NDA over a *year* ago which I may even still be bound to. NEC had some neat stuff to show me concerning LED backlit LCDs and medical-grade LCD monitors, but unfortunately NEC also has an elitist mentality that has completely barred them from competing on a retail level with anyone. 10-bit panels are not new, I actually saw my first one at *Comdex 2002*. Fortunately I just made a friend at Eizo and I will definitely be asking them for this display.


  • kmmatney - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    There are LCD panels out now that surpass CRTs in image quality and color reproduction. See the links:

    NOte the spec: 16.77 million from a palette of 1.06 billion

    Also see:

    These are the real enthusiast monitors for graphic artists.

  • MrEMan - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    Does anyone know if either HP or Dell has anything involvement at all with the design of their respective monitors?

    If they don't then I believe the credit should go to the monitor manufacturers and not the companies whose only involvement is to slap their name on the case.
  • SilthDraeth - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link

    Kris what server on WOW do you play on? I play Deathwing, a pvp server, Alliance side.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now