Hardware NEC MultiSync EA231WMi Review

Blinded by the marketing lights, are we?

1080p was basically forced upon the PC monitor market by the movie & TV lobbyists. I still remember the outcry of many people when it happened. You guys seem to forget pretty fast.

What a nice monitor though. Not in the market myself right now but that'd be what I'd buy.

 

Read my previous post. I certainly was never against it. I remember when 16:10 monitors were first coming out and there was a huge outcry against that move from 4:3 but people are now quick to defend 16:10. The same thing is happening in this transition to 16:9 now.

To me it seems the positives of 16:9 easily outweigh the negatives; especially in the long run with all applications when we get even higher resolution than 1080 - the next step probably being 2560x1440.

 

Agreed.

If I were going to be concerned about wanting a large vertical resolution, then I wouldn't go for a wide screen monitor in the first place. I would go for something like, maybe a 4:3 screen. Or I would turn a widescreen sideways and set the windows desktop from landscape to portrait mode.

For people who do not do much media on their PCs, the 16:10 versus 16:9 thing wouldn't bother them. In fact, most of them would probably choose 16:10 simply to gain the extra vertical pixels.

However, I do a heavy amount of media, and there is no real 16:10 standard.

For Blu-ray movies, I wouldn't want any extra black bars to add to the black bars already at the top and botton of the screen.

Also, stretching or cropping of images is a big no-no.

 

No display port???

 

It does have DisplayPort. Doesn't say if it's 1.1 or the latest 1.2 standard though.

 

Who is watching BluRays or HD MKV on a monitor like this anyway? Use a DVI-HDMI cable and watch them on your big HDTV if you have one. Way better.

Good review bit-tech.

I'm also suprised by the increase in number of 1080p monitors. This size is for TV, not monitors that should stay 1920x1200 which is more useful for using a PC and a better size when gaming.

I think the main problem when monitors first started going from 4:3 to 16:10 was that most games at the time didn't support the new resolutions if I remember correctly, which isn't a problem now these days. After using a widescreen monitor I (and I imagine most people) wouldn't go back to 4:3.

 

ok so some people it seems are bothered by black bars although i use a ps3 for BR and games and having it set pixel perfect, bars never bother me. i have a decent back lvl and a black curtain behind my monitor, cant even see em most of the time.

what does bother me however is more resolution to do 3D work, images or word processing. at the end of the day a PC is a multi purpose device and not just used for the simple tasks a TV is asked to do. also lets not forget why monitor companies are pushing 1080, its cheaper to produce.

 

16:9 and 16:10 make very little difference to me.

honestly I think it's more straight forward to get a monitor in 16:9 so you don't have to deal with black bars. If vertical pixels are that important, get a bigger monitor or run it in portrait mode. I know several programmers who run in portrait mode for staring at large swaths of code.

Personally I don't htink the extra 120 pixels make a difference especially when coming from a 1440x900 19"
Ps monitor looks awesome gonna buy 2!

 

FIXED.

 

Why does 1200-1080=20?

 

Woops. Sorry I was thinking of 1920 vs 1900 but they're both 1920 horizontally anyway so.

 

I generally have to agree with crompers on this issue.

If some people prefer 1080p on their monitor for playing games / watching films then that's obviously absolutely fine, but I think the companies are only pushing them because they're cheaper & easier to produce rather than because they offer any intrinsic benefits to us, the consumer. Clearly there's a market for both, and I personally want the extra height. To suggest that if people don't like 1080 then they should go back to 4:3 seems pretty harsh - as crompers says, most people use their PC's & monitors for a variety of tasks and 16:10 looks a pretty good split to me.

Also, 1200 vertical pixels is an approx. 11% improvement over 1080: Given the lengths some people go to to over-clock their graphics cards for a couple of extra fps, I wouldn't have said 11% was an insignificant improvement for those who want it.

I'm contemplating upgrading to a 5xxx series card soon & getting a 3rd monitor, but I still haven't really found one that grabs me yet - I just plain don't like a white monitor. I was tempted by Sifter's choice of SP2309W, but I don't know - that weird resolution...

 

FIXED

haha cheers =p

in regards to this whole issue, I thought the reason they
went to 16:9 is to standardize formats. and improve yields? that's why they killed 4:3 with lcd panels, you couldn't make as many out of a pane of glass.

I think the preference is small but will die out, it would be nice to have as few as possible "wide screen" formats to alleviate consumer confusion and help cross compatability. I've use any and all formats and don't really mind I find people tend to adjust.

ps if 16:10 1900x1200 panels are 11% bigger expect to pay 11% more.

 

Wish companies would stop making so many 1080p monitors.

If people want to watch movies in hi def why don't they use their £600+ TVs instead of sitting a foot and half away from a tiny monitor.

 

That's quite a big assumption you're making there...

 

Not everyone games so expect to see 16:10 displays go away. This has been happening for some time and has been well documented in the tech press. This has to do with industrial manufacturing. It is cheaper to make a million of one size rather than varying sizes. Down time to reset machinery costs money. TVs are setting the standards because small high def TVs are becoming commonplace. The difference between 16:10 and 16:9 are so minor few people could tell the difference. The benefit to a standardized format is reduction in costs. To nit pick a product for that difference, in my opinion, is silly. The writing has been on the wall for some time get over it there's not much you're going to be able to do about but whine.

 

HEAR HEAR!

 

I'm sorry but I have not interest in 16:9 monitors. The 120 extra pixel in vertical space makes a bigger difference for me because I browse the net alot more than watch movies on my Computer. That is why I have a 46` samsung LCD for! I will disregard any monitor I see when shopping if its 16:9 no thanks I don't care how good is it.

Also use Excel and Access heavily at work and home. I can see if your a student stuck in a dorm and its the only screen you have for games and movies but some of us do more than that on our pc's.

 

Whoever says 20 extra pixels is not good at math.

1920x1080.

1920x1200.

That's an extra 120 to the width, which is far more than just 20 pixels. This is an excellent monitor, and I do wish it was cheaper, so time to save up and find a good GPU to replace the HD4850.

 

Yes, we already cleared that one up.