Samsung SyncMaster 215TW - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 7th Jul 2006, 13:36

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...r_215tw/1.html

Spacecowboy92 · 7th Jul 2006, 14:18

I like the way you can just plug in difrent devices so easily.

DXR_13KE · 7th Jul 2006, 14:48

the only thing i would take out of this screen would be the speakers, it would cost a little less i think and be a little more thin.

teamtd11 · 7th Jul 2006, 14:58

yea. i have no idea why they put speakers in pc monitors. especially ones like this. if people are going to spend this much on a monitor. then they are going to have some good quality surround sound speakers

Tim S · 7th Jul 2006, 15:03

personally, I don't think it is a big issue - the speakers are very small and don't interfere with the overall looks too much, IMHO.

orb · 7th Jul 2006, 15:21

Still a little bit short of 1080i resolution?

Veles · 7th Jul 2006, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S

personally, I don't think it is a big issue - the speakers are very small and don't interfere with the overall looks too much, IMHO.

Thats very true they are well sized and placed for monitor speakers, my old monitor added about 4" to each side to accomodate speakers I never used. Also, when you put a 21" screen on your desk, you loose quite a bit of room to put the speakers, so it can be a problem on a large desk.

That being said I do agree that this screen would've been better off without them, someone who pays this much for a monitor would have at least a half decent set of 2.1 speakers, which would be far superior to the puny things you get on monitors.

Have to say I really like Samsung screens, from the specs they always seem to be a bit better than the competitors in thier price range, especially with the contrast ratio. My SM913N has the best contrast ratio and brightness of all the screens I found in it's price bracket.

The fact it supports multiple connections AND HDCP is fantastic, add to that it being a very adjustable screen it's a big winner for me. Also great that it comes in black too

But...if I'm gonna spend £450 on a monitor, I may as well add on £200ish and buy one of those lurvley 24" Dells (although you do need a bit more umph to play games at that resolution

)

Da Dego · 7th Jul 2006, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veles

But...if I'm gonna spend £450 on a monitor, I may as well add on £200ish and buy one of those lurvley 24" Dells (although you do need a bit more umph to play games at that resolution

)

That's the problem...You can't just spend another 200 quid to go up a monitor without going up a graphics card, too. One of the difficulties I found in my last upgrade...I still use a good old philips 15" LCD from back in 2000. Works great, nice color...but only 1024x768 resolution. Spend too much on the card, no purpose because the monitor can't display it. But buy a new monitor, need a bigger/better card. Ugh.

choupolo · 7th Jul 2006, 21:15

I was looking for just a monitor like this. 1680x1050 is ideal for my needs (ie not having to go overboard on graphics cards) and the component should be good to hook up a 360 (although I'm still not sure how it will look).

My other option is to go for a Viewsonic 2025wm without the component and extra inch, and just use the 360 via VGA. It is a hundred odd pounds less after all.

HDCP might be a problem in the long run however...

Firehed · 8th Jul 2006, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by orb

Still a little bit short of 1080i resolution?

It's 1080p on desktop LCDs, but that's true of anything in it's size range. Notebooks are just unfair that way.

I've found that a 6800GT copes moderately well with this resolution, while I really needed my 7900GT to move to the 1920x1200 of the 24" screens comfortably. As the card is reasonably priced and fairly popular, it'll be an excellent counterpart for the 20/21" screens and should have no problems coping with the 1680x1050. Depends on the game of course, though I find myself working in 2d mode mostly nowadays so it hardly matters.

Good news in that sense is that you only need to change monitors... like... never, whereas you need a new GPU for the latest games every six months now.

Oclocker · 8th Jul 2006, 20:45

This is a monitor that seems way overpriced for something that is hardly any better than a 17" 93 quid tft in that its only got a few pixels more height - and when large web pages are wearing out the scroll wheel an extra 200 approx pixels comes in handy - I think PCs and widescreens are mismatched for general pc use. Films may benefit but most PC work don't get a benefit ..

Tim S · 8th Jul 2006, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oclocker

This is a monitor that seems way overpriced for something that is hardly any better than a 17" 93 quid tft in that its only got a few pixels more height - and when large web pages are wearing out the scroll wheel an extra 200 approx pixels comes in handy - I think PCs and widescreens are mismatched for general pc use. Films may benefit but most PC work don't get a benefit ..

Have you used a widescreen monitor in Photoshop? I've personally found massive gains in that area, along with the benefits in gaming, too.

Oclocker · 9th Jul 2006, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S

Have you used a widescreen monitor in Photoshop? I've personally found massive gains in that area, along with the benefits in gaming, too.

Well mrs uses Photoshop more than I and she has the widest of widescreens (30" dell)..

/pedantic on
But images like the one on the right are more height oriented..
/pedantic off

of course web browsers can do the 90 degree flip

zoot2boot · 9th Jul 2006, 04:14

think half the reason samsung monitors often have ugly bases is because they do include the extra adjustability of the screen. it's all very well to make a slim little stand if all it's going to be doing is tilting but when it's rotating, tilting, moving up and down, pivoting etc. there's just no getting away from physics. people 'd get cranky if their swish new monitor was falling on its face the whole time.

Tim S · 9th Jul 2006, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoot2boot

think half the reason samsung monitors often have ugly bases is because they do include the extra adjustability of the screen. it's all very well to make a slim little stand if all it's going to be doing is tilting but when it's rotating, tilting, moving up and down, pivoting etc. there's just no getting away from physics. people 'd get cranky if their swish new monitor was falling on its face the whole time.

My point is that Dell manages to do it without any issues, so why can't Samsung?

Oclocker · 9th Jul 2006, 11:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S

My point is that Dell manages to do it without any issues, so why can't Samsung?

Ahh Dell

that minded me ..

Take the two 20" dells - one is 1680 by 1080 (IIRC)
other is 1600 by 1200 so extra 105600 pixels - admitedly not a lot, but having used both resolutions for intensive PC use (not gaming I admit) - I am convinced "widescreen" is popular because so many users have their first experience of hi-res displays using one and are comparing say 1280 by 1024 to 1680 by 1080, So therefore think 4:3 is Carp & WS is miles better - I wonder if someone was given both to try (after using a 17" display) which would be preferred, the one which does play films better or the one with extra desktop real estate?

Anyway drivers could easily be tweaked to display 1600 by 900 on a 4:3 display so say power DVD can auto switch a film into true widescreen rather than the 16:10.29/16/10 that WS tfts are in reality.

Tim S · 9th Jul 2006, 12:45

As mentioned in the review, 1680x1050 isn't my personal preference and I prefer using a 1920x1200 screen. However, with the costs associated with a 1920x1200 screen (better graphics card(s) if you want to game at native, increased cost of the screen) are often not very attractive. If you want to game at widescreen without breaking the bank, 1680x1050 is a nice compromise to make, IMO. I see it as an upgrade from a 1280x1024 monitor, not a replacement for a 1600x1200 monitor - the replacement for 1600x1200 is 1920x1200.

I find Photoshop much easier to use on a widescreen monitor because, even with all of the toolbars down the sides, there is still a decent area in the middle of the screen where you can work. With a 4:3 (or 5:4) monitor, I find myself not being able to work on the same image at the same zoom with the toolbars open and I end up with lots of dead space.

Noni · 9th Jul 2006, 15:10

This is a great monitor and the extra inch apparently adds a nice size.

Drexial · 10th Jul 2006, 06:14

i own this one, i chose it over the viewsonic 20.1 inch wide screen of the same resolution. one of the reason that the speakers are built in is ecause of the video inputs. if you hook up a DVD player or a camcorder or somthing, you wouldnt get any sound through the monitor. the fac that it has picture in picture is interesting. but a feature that will probly go unused. the rotation is amazing on this for PDF files, you can get a page and a half on there no problem.

the one defect in this, im hoping it has been resolved already, havent heard any complaints since it first came out. but there was a red line that would srout up about 2-5 weeks into using it. i bought one of the early models and it hapened tto me, so i brought it back for a new one, its alittle early to tell if its going to be an issue again.

as far as price goes, the samsung monitors usualy go for $300 for a 17" monitor, this one is sider and a smig taller and $500, but with alot better spcs and more options. if you really feel you need the extra desk top space (virtualy) then its amazing. i got it for video/audio work, and it doesnt do so bad for immersive gaming either. its not so much a better monitor stratigicly for gaming, but it will get you into the game more. i didnt have an NEC to compare it to, but i definetly liked it better than the viewsonic.

timmehtimmeh · 10th Jul 2006, 07:12

I don't see the point in "upgrading" to a 1650x1050 from a 19" 1280x1024 display - it's not a big enough jump in screen estate and doesn't warrant the extra cash for the display. For the same money you could just buy a second 19" for sub £200 and run 2 displays at 2560x1024.

Fair enough if your running a CRT or 17" and below tft's at 1024*768 and you fancy an upgrade. Else just wait for a 1920x1200 display to become cheaper or buy a Dell 2407.

On the topic of speakers on a display - keep them seperate please.

7th Jul 2006, 13:36	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Samsung SyncMaster 215TW http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...r_215tw/1.html __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

7th Jul 2006, 14:18	#2
Spacecowboy92 Gettin' Lazy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Winchester, UK Posts: 757	I like the way you can just plug in difrent devices so easily. __________________

7th Jul 2006, 14:48	#3
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,485	the only thing i would take out of this screen would be the speakers, it would cost a little less i think and be a little more thin. __________________ RENEGADE X CONTEST! <---- CLICK if you want to win a free Command & Conquer 4 beta key!

7th Jul 2006, 14:58	#4
teamtd11 I am a Dremel Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Saltburn-By-The-Sea Posts: 1,654	yea. i have no idea why they put speakers in pc monitors. especially ones like this. if people are going to spend this much on a monitor. then they are going to have some good quality surround sound speakers __________________ Main: AMD X2 3ghz, x1900xt, DFI NF590SLI, 4gb pc2-8500 [Watercooled] Retro: AMD Barton 2ghz, 9600xt, 512mb pc-2700 Animal Crossing: LGTTC - 2492-7863-6464 Member of CK Appreciation Society Group

7th Jul 2006, 15:03	#5
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	personally, I don't think it is a big issue - the speakers are very small and don't interfere with the overall looks too much, IMHO. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

7th Jul 2006, 15:21	#6
orb satisfying. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: In a box. Posts: 1,102	Still a little bit short of 1080i resolution? __________________ [ ADDICT ]

7th Jul 2006, 21:15	#9
choupolo Minimodder Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leeds,UK Posts: 39	I was looking for just a monitor like this. 1680x1050 is ideal for my needs (ie not having to go overboard on graphics cards) and the component should be good to hook up a 360 (although I'm still not sure how it will look). My other option is to go for a Viewsonic 2025wm without the component and extra inch, and just use the 360 via VGA. It is a hundred odd pounds less after all. HDCP might be a problem in the long run however... Last edited by choupolo; 7th Jul 2006 at 21:21.

8th Jul 2006, 20:45	#11
Oclocker I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: N E Scotland Posts: 3,120	This is a monitor that seems way overpriced for something that is hardly any better than a 17" 93 quid tft in that its only got a few pixels more height - and when large web pages are wearing out the scroll wheel an extra 200 approx pixels comes in handy - I think PCs and widescreens are mismatched for general pc use. Films may benefit but most PC work don't get a benefit .. __________________ e-mail njc123@gmail.com msn same

9th Jul 2006, 04:14	#14
zoot2boot Multimodder Join Date: May 2006 Location: aus Posts: 75	think half the reason samsung monitors often have ugly bases is because they do include the extra adjustability of the screen. it's all very well to make a slim little stand if all it's going to be doing is tilting but when it's rotating, tilting, moving up and down, pivoting etc. there's just no getting away from physics. people 'd get cranky if their swish new monitor was falling on its face the whole time.

9th Jul 2006, 12:45	#17
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	As mentioned in the review, 1680x1050 isn't my personal preference and I prefer using a 1920x1200 screen. However, with the costs associated with a 1920x1200 screen (better graphics card(s) if you want to game at native, increased cost of the screen) are often not very attractive. If you want to game at widescreen without breaking the bank, 1680x1050 is a nice compromise to make, IMO. I see it as an upgrade from a 1280x1024 monitor, not a replacement for a 1600x1200 monitor - the replacement for 1600x1200 is 1920x1200. I find Photoshop much easier to use on a widescreen monitor because, even with all of the toolbars down the sides, there is still a decent area in the middle of the screen where you can work. With a 4:3 (or 5:4) monitor, I find myself not being able to work on the same image at the same zoom with the toolbars open and I end up with lots of dead space. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

9th Jul 2006, 15:10	#18
Noni Supermodder Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: East London Posts: 424	This is a great monitor and the extra inch apparently adds a nice size.

10th Jul 2006, 06:14	#19
Drexial Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 297	i own this one, i chose it over the viewsonic 20.1 inch wide screen of the same resolution. one of the reason that the speakers are built in is ecause of the video inputs. if you hook up a DVD player or a camcorder or somthing, you wouldnt get any sound through the monitor. the fac that it has picture in picture is interesting. but a feature that will probly go unused. the rotation is amazing on this for PDF files, you can get a page and a half on there no problem. the one defect in this, im hoping it has been resolved already, havent heard any complaints since it first came out. but there was a red line that would srout up about 2-5 weeks into using it. i bought one of the early models and it hapened tto me, so i brought it back for a new one, its alittle early to tell if its going to be an issue again. as far as price goes, the samsung monitors usualy go for $300 for a 17" monitor, this one is sider and a smig taller and $500, but with alot better spcs and more options. if you really feel you need the extra desk top space (virtualy) then its amazing. i got it for video/audio work, and it doesnt do so bad for immersive gaming either. its not so much a better monitor stratigicly for gaming, but it will get you into the game more. i didnt have an NEC to compare it to, but i definetly liked it better than the viewsonic.

10th Jul 2006, 07:12	#20
timmehtimmeh Multimodder Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 84	I don't see the point in "upgrading" to a 1650x1050 from a 19" 1280x1024 display - it's not a big enough jump in screen estate and doesn't warrant the extra cash for the display. For the same money you could just buy a second 19" for sub £200 and run 2 displays at 2560x1024. Fair enough if your running a CRT or 17" and below tft's at 1024*768 and you fancy an upgrade. Else just wait for a 1920x1200 display to become cheaper or buy a Dell 2407. On the topic of speakers on a display - keep them seperate please.