Samsung's LED-backlit P2370L LCD monitor looks good for $399

Comically enough, Samsung didn't even bother telling us the panel size of its P2370L, but we'll go out on a limb and assume it's 23-inches diagonally based on the cryptic model name. The latest member of Sammy's Touch of Color family sports a LED backlight, a depth of just 0.65-inches, 2,000,000:1 contrast ratio, two-millisecond response time, DVI input, 1080p native resolution, a swivel stand and "Starlight" touch controls. If in fact we're looking at a 23-inch LED-backlit LCD for just $399, we'd say it's quite the bargain -- particularly when compared to Apple's 24-incher (which runs $899). Guess we'll find out when it ships later this quarter.

[Via SlipperyBrick]

[Asmordean @ Jan 13th 2009 10:48PM]

The Apple display uses an IPS panel. That one there is probably a cheapo TN.

IPS and PVA LCDs are hard to find and expensive. The 24" S-PVA I have at worked cost $600 and the IPS version was $985. The TN version was $275.

[NienorGT @ Jan 13th 2009 11:05PM]

I agree, comparing a TN monitor to a IPS is like comparing a Civic to a BMW.
Sure this monitor is good, but the Apple one is a Professional grade.
Not counting that it have built-in a 90W MacBook/Pro charger....

[John @ Jan 13th 2009 11:21PM]

Professional grade with a glossy panel. Of course.

[CraigJ @ Jan 13th 2009 11:41PM]

People here keep saying that professionals don't like glossy. I know a couple of professionals that make their living doing graphic art, and they prefer the glossy monitors. They, and I, used CRTs for years before LCD panels were available, and those are made from glass and pretty reflective. I do a lot of output to print, and I find the color on the glossy display to be more in line with what comes out of the printer than the matte LCD.

[Saad Rabia @ Jan 13th 2009 11:43PM]

Well, if it is $899 then it is definitely professional. What is there not understand?

[Saad Rabia @ Jan 13th 2009 11:48PM]

CraigJ, you finding the color on the glossy display to be more in line with what comes out of the printer than the matte LCD, is a great proof on how professional you and your friends are, I mean really, why would you adjust your color settings in the monitor and OS? Just buy a glossy screen and magic will rain upon you all.

God help you all.

[CraigJ @ Jan 14th 2009 12:06AM]

You must be a real "professional" I am not a professional graphic artist, but I run the adobe color management stuff, and when I print a photo it looks more like what is displayed on the glossy monitor than the matte monitor, so sue me. And yes I have a couple of real life friends that do stuff like this professionally. I understand that we are supposed to bow before your superior knowledge, but in my personal, real world experience, there are some professionals that prefer glossy displays. Of course most of them were probably doing graphic design before you were born.

God help you stuffing your ego in the same building with your head.

[Saad Rabia @ Jan 14th 2009 12:24AM]

CraigJ, I hope that your "real life" "old friends" enjoy the glossiness, if you guys can't figure out how to adjust your monitor's settings to make it look like the printed outcome, then there is some serious problems right here.

Opps, wait a second, the Apple LED monitor has no buttons to adjust the screen? Only software adjustments? No point to go on because all other competition have built in settings' adjustment by default.

God help you all. lol

[Bogdan @ Jan 14th 2009 8:13AM]

@ Saad

"Well, if it is $899 then it is definitely professional. What is there not understand?" - sarcasm when you dont have a clue looks kind of bad.

The panel in the Apple display is capable of 8bit color depth while the TN panel (used in this $399 Samsung) is only capable of 6 bit. This doesnt seem much on paper, but in real life it is 100 times more important then very low response times or dynamic contrast and other marketing bullshit. With 8 bit you wont see gradient banding or shitty blacks.

[Sad Rabid @ Jan 14th 2009 9:09AM]

Yes I can fiddle with my monitor's settings all day, because it's made by Microsoft and it's giving me a beautiful experience. I only wish they could put Windows 7 and my beloved Internet Explorer inside the monitor, so I could have two Microsoft operating systems running at the same time, and that would give me a huge amount of pleasure. And if the monitor had a dedicated keyboard I could change the settings with it and if the keyboard also had a little screen I could make it display a picture of Steve Ballmer, because he gives me a beautiful experience every time I think about him.

[CosterMonger @ Jan 14th 2009 11:29AM]

@Sad Rabid
well said, Microsoft Evangelist make me sick to my stomach, make me like alternatives to Microsoft products better

[BananaBoat @ Jan 14th 2009 1:47PM]

People like to bash TN panels, but they fail to realize that TN panels have made gaming a reality on LCD panels for a lot of us. I loved the color on my old 20" IPS from Dell, but the response times were garbage. The color on a TN is fine, as long as you aren't a professional artist that depends on having things print exactly the way that you see them on your monitor (in this regard...glossy panels aren't the best)

All of that having been said, Asmor is right. You can't really compare a professional IPS monitor to a TN, especially in price (considering that IPS's are much more expensive to make). I'd still rather have the TN though, I'm sure it would work well enough for the photo editing and 3D modeling that I do, while still allowing me to play games without getting a headache.

[MacFan @ Jan 13th 2009 10:51PM]

Is it a matte display?

[projekt84 @ Jan 13th 2009 10:52PM]

TN have best response times, however.

[happygomac @ Jan 13th 2009 10:53PM]

apple has hd!

[npChaos @ Jan 13th 2009 11:57PM]

So does this!

[Scott @ Jan 13th 2009 10:55PM]

Having LED and a TN panel seems counterintuitive, doesn't it? LED brings out better contrast and colors, TN provides only 6-bits of color

[John @ Jan 13th 2009 11:06PM]

saying 6 bits is a tad misleading since it makes it sound like it only supports the impossibly low 64 colors.

[CraigJ @ Jan 13th 2009 11:43PM]

6-bit is the industry standard terminology, as in 6 bits per channel.

[John @ Jan 14th 2009 2:12AM]

no one tells CS majors anything :(

[Hamidxa @ Jan 13th 2009 11:02PM]

Apple still overcharges like nobody's business, but then again, most Mac fans either don't care or simply don't know any better.

You can get a high quality, 24" SIPS panel for hundreds less than what Apple charges for their 23" Cinema Display

Just look up the:
HP LP2475w

[Steve @ Jan 13th 2009 11:19PM]

We don't care.

[Hamidxa @ Jan 13th 2009 11:33PM]

It was a rhetorical point I was making....but still, wrong answer.

[CraigJ @ Jan 13th 2009 11:45PM]

that has a fluorescent back light, not LED. Just saying...

[Hamidxa @ Jan 14th 2009 12:11AM]

Sorry Craig, try again.

Im referring to the even smaller and yet still more expensive (than the HP LP2475w) Apple 23" Cinema Display, which is also a non-LED IPS panel.

Why does Apple insist on selling it, a panel that they obviously don't manufacture (likely an LG unit) for HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS more than the HP LP2475w for example, when it is not only smaller, but arguably an inferior IPS panel at that, based on a number of sources who have spent time with both panels.

Like I said, it's a rhetorical point Im making, and you don't have to answer it.

We all know it as the Apple tax, but to be less euphemistic, it's usually because Apple fans are ignorant, i.e. oblivious, of other items on the market if they don't don pictures of fruits on them.

[André @ Jan 14th 2009 5:36AM]

This may come as a surprise but there is no 23" Apple Cinema Display anymore. It was discontinued with the introduction of the 24" LED Apple Cinema Display ;)

[Aaron @ Jan 14th 2009 6:33AM]

since the 23 reached 'end of life' they dropped drastically in price. It will be interesting to see what will happen to the 20 and 30 if Apple redesigns them as well.

[blair harrington @ Jan 13th 2009 11:04PM]

As expensive as IPS panels are, the HP LP2475w is $574.00 at Provantage and an IPS panel. And matte to boot.

[CraigJ @ Jan 13th 2009 11:47PM]

And as pointed out above, that is not LED back lit. Add that and that monitor would probably be in the $700 range. The Apple would still be more expensive, but at least compare like technologies - the LED back lighting does make a noticeable difference.

[crescentdavid @ Jan 14th 2009 12:04AM]

Not when you're talking about print. And if you're talking about anything else, S-IPS is an unnecessary luxury. ROI is based on both cost and appropriate use of technology.

[blair harrington @ Jan 13th 2009 11:05PM]

Great minds think alike Hamidxa.

[Hamidxa @ Jan 13th 2009 11:09PM]

Indeed my friend, indeed ;)

[a ham sandwich @ Jan 13th 2009 11:09PM]

that is HAWT. really HAWT. and for $399?! its so good, something sounds fishy...

[Steve @ Jan 13th 2009 11:17PM]

Yea, it's fishy too... that's what everyone's been discussing.

[CosterMonger @ Jan 14th 2009 12:16PM]

well this monitor is designed with games and multimedia in mind, good for motion.

[Nick @ Jan 13th 2009 11:10PM]

ooo that looks sleek! and i love the pricing!

[schmitt @ Jan 13th 2009 11:11PM]

go die

[LauraJune @ Jan 13th 2009 11:20PM]

Laters.

[blair harrington @ Jan 13th 2009 11:22PM]

might as well throw this into the discussion: are ips panel monitors worth the money if all you use your computer for is the casual stuff? (web surfing, email, itunes, m.word, etc). what about video editing? does that beef up the reason to upgrade to ips? i hate my tn panel and would like to get the HP LP2475w down the road, but sometimes i wonder if it's worth shelling the cash (i.e will i notice the difference?). right now i do the casual stuff i listed but there is a very good chance i'll start video editing starting next month.

figured this was a good question to ask for a lot of people's sake. it's amazing how few people even know the difference between tn, va, and ips.

[vvtopkar @ Jan 13th 2009 11:40PM]

If you're doing things like extremely refined color correction, it would be great, however, for standard applications, even more in depth video editing and FX editing, there is no need for an IPS, a TN would probably suffice, at least, that is my experience.

[CraigJ @ Jan 13th 2009 11:56PM]

The biggest difference that most people notice is that unless you view the TN panel straight on, the colors get all wonky due to the method used to create a perceived millions of colors from 6-bit channels. IPS panels have accurate color over a much larger viewing angle. When you have a 24" monitor the viewing angle issues can be apparent even if you are directly in front of the monitor. Having said that, and better quality TN panel is probably fine for most applications other than professional photo editing.

[crescentdavid @ Jan 14th 2009 12:00AM]

The UGRA test determines whether or not a monitor is suitable for use in digital pre-printing/soft proofing processes. This is called a UDACT certification test. It certainly can be an S-IPS or an S-PVA monitor. In other words, most every middle-range monitor being made today could potentially pass the UDACT certification test. Many of the Dell's for example (not all), are S-PVA monitors and pass the certifcation test, making them appropriate for digital pre-printing/soft proofing processes.

Almost all of these computers would have to have their brightness dialed way down in order to do this. The flavor of current monitors, epitomized by the iMac, are way, way too bright to even begin to approximate useful printing correspondence. However, with calibration (and they ALL need calibration), many monitors can be used for printing.

What most users seem to prefer, however, are monitors that are bright and color saturated, and the extended gamut S-PVA's do that quite well. Add a glossy screen and most users are in heaven :).

[Hamidxa @ Jan 14th 2009 12:02AM]

The difference between a TN and IPS panel are huge, like a night and day difference.

Anyone who tells you otherwise either has poor eyesight or has yet to experience a true IPS panel, and as such, ignorance is bliss in their cases.

However, you will immediately notice the differences.
Color reproduction on IPS panels are top notch.
Viewing angles are infinitely better. You can view them from virtually any angle and the image consistency and quality will remain the same.
Most TN's require that you not so much as move your eyes off-center if you want anywhere near the level of consistency that an IPS provides at nearly all but the most extreme of angles.

Speaking of color reproduction, there is virtually no dithering on IPS panels, whereas even the best of TN panels and dithering algorithms will still produce very noticable banding on TN's.
http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/Colour_banding_example01.png
that link illustrates dithering, and TN panels will generally tend to look like the middle-part of the image whereas IPS panels deal with banding (virtually nonexistent) as with the right-side of the image

Think about it:

TN panels are 6 bit and thus can only reproduce 6 bits per channel, and therefore that equates to:
(2^6)^3 (for RGB, not counting alpha) = (64)^3 == 262,144 colors

Any TN panel manufacturer that quotes a figure such as 16.2 Million or 16.7 Million colors is lying through their asses, as it is physically impossible to display more colors than the panel is capable of generating.
This is where dithering comes into play, as a software algorithm tries to estimate what colors it needs to emulate and where..which most often results in poor and inaccurate approximations, and yields banding.

IPS (and PVA) panels on the other hand are capable of displaying the "full" 16.7 million color spectrum (I say "full" because there are literally infinite shades/variations/colors in the world, but 16.7 is the sweet spot still).
They are thusly coined: "8 bit display"

With respect to RGB on an IPS/PVA panel:
(2^8)^3 = 256^3 = 16.7 Million colors.

A HUGE difference that is, by a factor of 64

Yes, that's right.
IPS (and PVA) panels can output 64 TIMES as many colors as TN panels.

So once again, viewing angles, color reproduction, lack of banding, all make IPS panels (and PVAs to a slightly lesser degree) highly sought after as monitors.

Once you go IPS/PVA you never go back to TN.

[a_p77 @ Jan 14th 2009 3:06AM]

Hamidxa: Il have to agree with you. The Difference is amazing. My father is a semi-professional photographer and needed an new monitor, so I went researching. I finally found a Lenovo 22" http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/17/lenovo-launches-22-inch-wuxga-thinkvision-l220x/
The difference between this and his old benQ 20" TN was huge. The Lenovo is 1920X1200 and a S-PVA panel. If you have the money for a VA or IPS panel, dont think twice about spending more money.

[Mile @ Jan 14th 2009 7:32AM]

For some, yes. For others, no. I could go on, but that about sums it up.

[Randy @ Jan 14th 2009 10:20AM]

Like with any general use products. Most people don't know or don't care about the differences. The proposition of whether or not to spend more on a monitor basically comes down to what looks good to *you* and your eyes. Someone may see monitor w/ a 800:1 contrast ratio and think it looks great, while someone else may balk and move on.

Myself for example, I will spend a little more for a better monitor simply because If I have to stare at this thing day in and day out, I want it to look good. I notice when my monitor is not setup optimally.

[Bradley @ Jan 14th 2009 12:12AM]

Eh, LED is nice but I'll take one in a 24" 1600X1200 with HDMI and YPbPr please.

[npChaos @ Jan 14th 2009 12:18AM]

Why would you want a 24" with HDMI and component in 4:3?

[Bradley @ Jan 14th 2009 12:28AM]

My XH-A1 outputs with component so I need that input. I take my monitor out in the field to check the video coming off the camera. Dell monitors have HDMI and component so technically it exists but it might be a pipe dream on a Samsung.

[alexfromop @ Jan 14th 2009 12:13AM]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it's 2370-inches diagonally based on the cryptic model name.