The LCD doesn't have 16:9 zoom in so the image on screen will be stretched to 16:10 making many games look distorted.
Not a good deal. I suggest you save up another RM250+ for an Acer H233H.

Eh? Was I seeing things? I thought I read 1680x1050! lulz!!

My bad, it is 16:9.

Acer H233H
Best of the bunch because of it's price. If you have read the past few pages, you'll know why it performs so well.

Dell S2409W
Used to be the choice for everyone, but because it is one of the earlier models that went into the 16:9 Full HD monitor market, there are quirks all around. Hardware revisions has been available for this monitor, but still doesn't fix most of its problems.

Viewsonic VX2233WM
While it has the best color range IMO among all 4, the price of this monitor really pulls me away from it.

BenQ E2200HD
Getting increasingly hard to find and very expensive as well for a 21.5 incher. Performs well, but lack of input button spoils the deal.

This post has been edited by SSJBen: Jul 14 2009, 08:57 AM

I always rate refresh rate as nothing other than market-gimmicks, also something more subjective to the person looking at the screen. 100hz, 120hz, 200hz, all look stupid to me. Makes movement on the screen really 'fake'.

So I suggest you take a look and see if your eyes like higher refresh rates or not. I'd personally always opt for lower response times.

Yea and worst is most PS3 games are v-sync enabled anyway.

Viewnet selling it at RM650 now.
Pretty much the lowest you can get retail. Unless you bulk.

Harga for H233H won't turun much if at all anymore actually.
The new models will be coming in to replace the H233H in a couple of months time. So if you still want to get it, next week's PC fair is as good as a chance you'll get.

Acer has slowed production for H233H already.

Unless you sit 3 feet away from the TV (on a 32 incher), you aren't going to see much of a difference which also means it isn't night and day. And it'd already be stupid if you are sitting 3 feet away from your TV anyways. Furthermore, majority and I mean above 98% of PS3 games aren't even in native 1920x1080 resolution anyways.

Unless you plan on watching Blu-Ray movies then it is an all different story.

Frame rates has got nothing to do with TV, but within the game itself.
Give yourself a budget of RM1.7k or so and get a decent SHARP LCD TV. Go look at some display models first before buying. After all, what looks lousy in our eyes doesn't mean it'll look bad in your eyes.

Depends on which model.
Most of their low-end and mainstream models are using S-IPS/IPS Alpha.

AOC 2432PW blows nut when it comes to text readibility, scaling and fails rather miserably on grayscale tests. Stay away.

Why is it out from your list?

I guess your back is facing your window then.
The 2343BWX is an okay alternative. But doesn't come with a HDMI input. The color accuracy is just bare average, black levels are acceptable though.

The LG isn't worth the price.
Its only a 22-inch and it is already nearly as expensive as the other 24-inchers. Colors are average, but it has a rather nasty input lag from a non-dedicated source (which in this case, consoles).

Honestly, the H233h reflection isn't a big deal since you are placing in the middle of your room is it not? Your room lights getting in the way?

In that case get the matte screen version:
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=1106567&hl=acer

HDMI version of the x233H is available in many places in Malaysia actually.
The thing is, you didn't ask?

This post has been edited by SSJBen: Aug 2 2009, 02:52 PM

Burn-in issues are the thing of the past.
You can turn on bloomberg for 24 hours now on a plasma and the burn-in of the stock-market ticker wouldn't really be there. Even if it is, you just need to turn on a white screen image for a couple of minutes.

It depends on your needs. Plasma TVs still surpasses LCDs in contrast ratio and black levels.
Great for movies, great for games too. But the power consumption of a plasma is stupid.... definitely not earth-saving.

Yea but the thing is, Plasma TVs at the range of 2.5k-3k still offers better black levels than on competing LCD models at the same price range too.

If theres no budget included, yes... LED LCD TVs are the way to go. Or if you have the room and want the absolute best, nothing beats projection.

Perhaps a subjective question, but I do think that 32" does look better than the 37" Aquos. Though the power consumption really is rather annoying....

Haha yes thats very right.
32" don't cut it for a living room by most standards today.

LCDs has generally a longer life span than Plasmas.
Thats very true indeed.

But theres a twist to this.... when an LCD light-bulb (I'm talking about non-LED LCDs here) goes dead, and once you replace it with a new one, you'll never get the same brightness and contrast you once had. For plasma, you'd still get what you once had and infact as good as it is when you first got the TV. Thats the only twist here.

Although now a days, after 5-8 years watching on the same LCD TV... people would change to an entirely new one anyways.

Contrast and color gamut.
Lower-end LCDs cannot display the contrast and color gamut of a low-end plasma even.

Do know that the concept origin of plasma technology came no other place than... CRT.