Samsung 23" Monitor 2048 x 1152 5ms £133.96 Delivered @ more computers - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
A great monitor for just £133.96 Delivered. The Samsung monitor has higher resolution than the normal 1920x1080 - 14% more pixels. Despite being VGA only, the image is still pixel perfect and AnyDVD HD will allow you to watch all those HD movies without HDCP.

Why its better than the Cdiscount Samsung 23" monitor deal? This is cheaper in real money terms - the other gives store credit cashback, useless if you only want to buy a monitor. Secondly, this has higher resolution therefore a sharper picture.

Monitor 23ins
Screen Type: 16.7 million Colours
Brightness: 300cd/m2
View Angle: 170° (Horizontal - Max) x 160° (Vertical - Max)
Contrast Ratio: 1,000:1 (Static) 20,000:1 (Dynamic)
Response time: 5ms
Display Type: LCD Display
Case Colour: Black
Wall Mount: VESA 100mm
Dimensions: 54.5cm (W) x 22.8cm (D) x 40.9cm (H) - Weight 5.4kg

Overview
Technical Description: Samsung SM2343NW 23" LCD Widescreen 2048x1152 Resolution 300cd/m2 Brightness 5msec Response Time 1000:1 Contrast Ratio TCO03 VGA Swivel Tilt VESA 100mm 3 Year Onsite Warranty - Black - LS23MYYKBB (Monitors LCD 20 and Above)

SAMSUNG has created a range of monitors which allows users greater freedom and flexibility to create their optimum working environment. Elegant and slim, with superior technical specifications and outstanding features, this monitor promotes productivity and provides empowerment. With the SAMSUNG SyncMaster SM2343NW, it's not hard to imagine. The monitor adjust its brightness and gamma of each frame and optimises the contrast between frames. The monitor supports fast response time to reduce blurring images.
More From more computers:

All Comments

(64) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
no dvi though. still voted hot.
#2
zurich
no dvi though. still voted hot.

Thanks for the heat! VGA only shouldn't matter anyway, it is just as sharp
#3
hot hot hot
#4
Was this not on yesterday on Cdiscount or something???

149.99 with 15% back to your account?
#5
DireEmblem
Was this not on yesterday on Cdiscount or something???

149.99 with 15% back to your account?


"Why its better than the Cdiscount Samsung 23" monitor deal? This is cheaper in real money terms - the other gives store credit cashback, useless if you only want to buy a monitor. Secondly, this has higher resolution therefore a sharper picture." - as in the OP

Its a different monitor, this being higher resolution and secondly, yeh its 15% back to your account so it still costs you £149.99. Also, that offer is now expired anyway. Personally thought this was a better deal and hence ordered this yesterday, should be with me tomorrow
#6
why doesn't any website quote the refresh rate? if this is 60Hz then i strongly recommend u don't buy it!
#7
Jelly Bean
why doesn't any website quote the refresh rate? if this is 60Hz then i strongly recommend u don't buy it!


Why?
#8
Refresh rates are important on CRTs, not so on LCDs
#9
Just to give a little info, 60hz is ample for a LCD. You don't get flicker like you do on a CRT due to the digital display rather than analogue.

60hz means the image updates 60 times per second. The human eye cannot detect higher than 30 frames per second. Even movies are only 24 frames per second.

For games, the figure to look at is the response rate in ms. This is 5ms, which is pretty low. You can get down to 2ms but honestly 5ms is low, even by todays standards.
#10
the difference of 15Hz is hugely noticeable! i wouldnt say this if i didnt know what i was talking about hmm
anyway, most tv's are about 120Hz so now u can see why these screens are so cheap!
#11
It's not noticeable on a LCD, eyes cannot detect the difference as I said. If you can see the difference, your monitor cannot display 60hz properly or the video card driver is duffed.

Anyway, think what you want - anyone who wants to know just do a google search.
#12
ive tried more than one monitor on various pc's, i can assure u i wouldn't even bother commenting about refresh rate otherwise. Clearly ur not aware of the difference, infact monitors with 250Hz will be out soon enough, if the human eye cannot detect the difference, why make them? :S
#13
Refresh rates were important on old style monitors -- which were an electron beam scanning across the screen, and lighting up phosphorescent dots. The faster the scanning (in Hz) the less flicker and more solid the screen.

In the LCD displays, it's just the pixels being switched on and off-- the refresh rate is irrelevant. If you care about gaming, it's the response time you need to be concerned about -- and 5ms is good.
#14
I thought HDCP only applied to digital connections anyway (i.e. DVI, HDMI)? So you don't need to get around it with just a VGA connection...
#15
Fur
I thought HDCP only applied to digital connections anyway (i.e. DVI, HDMI)? So you don't need to get around it with just a VGA connection...


As far as i'm aware, the blu rays have the ability to only send a dvd quality signal through vga or none at all, and hdcp is required for dvi/hdmi. Therefore the use of the program would allow you to watch over a vga cable. I can't be 100% sure though, I've not tried it myself however should the issue occur, its easy to get round it.
#16
Jelly Bean
http://www.rage3d.com/board/archive/index.php?t-33687573.html

for anyones information, dont go by this idiot.. the above website has comments made by users of 60Hz screens, 75Hz, 85Hz, 100Hz..

General census..60Hz gives u headaches as although its not noticeable, it actually makes a difference!


Look at the date, its 2003 - they are all using CRT monitors. Read the whole thread! It says
All of this applies only to CRT monitors and not LCD monitors, of course


The bottom line is this affects CRT monitors, not LCD
#17
#18
It's not about me being happy. I understand you may be able to see the difference however every forum ive looked at so far (including the one you said) have stated that refresh rates only apply to CRTs. The response rate is whats important.
#19
i apologise for my error with the first website, but i know my info by seeing for myself.. 100Hz was the future back in 2007. but now its reality and that is why 60Hz monitors are so cheap, infact, most offices use these and as a result their workers eyes suffer. But for the gamer, its worse because we can see it straight away! try using itunes visualiser..fast graphics... and turn the lights off.. this is a good way to see for your self if u have a 60Hz monitor ;)
#20
Jelly Bean
i apologise for my error with the first website, but i know my info by seeing for myself.. 100Hz was the future back in 2007. but now its reality and that is why 60Hz monitors are so cheap, infact, most offices use these and as a result their workers eyes suffer. But for the gamer, its worse because we can see it straight away! try using itunes visualiser..fast graphics... and turn the lights off.. this is a good way to see for your self if u have a 60Hz monitor ;)


I really do understand what your saying! Sorry if any of my posts have been directed against you just trying to find the truth,

LCDs should not hurt your eyes due to refresh rates as LCDs do not scan and update the display causing flickering. CRTs on the other hand have a scanning electron beam, LCDs have individual pixels which light up or even stay constantly lit during frame updates.

Also, from reading a few forms, a lot of people seem to be saying that about 90% of monitors only do 60Hz. Even those which say they do 75Hz drop one in six frames to display only 60hz. Don't know how true this is though.

Good luck finding a true 75Hz monitor!
#21
i agree with your CRT arguement, but the flickering is very much apparent on LCD's but not to the naked eye in day light though, it takes turning ur lights off to see this, explains why everyone gets headaches hmmm.

most of the new dell HD monitors are true 75Hz or higher but i guess i'll have to wait for them to become somewhat cheaper :(
XPS customers used to complain so much about 60Hz that i think dell gave up with them haha
#22
Jelly Bean
the flickering is very much apparent on LCD's but not to the naked eye in day light though, it takes turning ur lights off to see this, explains why everyone gets headaches hmmm.

EVERYONE gets headaches! I must be the exception to the rule then. I think you are confusing this with CRTs when 60Hz did have a noticeable flicker for many or most people.
#23
Agharta
EVERYONE gets headaches! I must be the exception to the rule then. I think you are confusing this with CRTs when 60Hz did have a noticeable flicker for many or most people.


Seriously ..try this:

Load itunes...show visualiser...go full screen, turn ur lights off so ur room is pitch black.

60Hz will show flickering as it tries to refresh.

Also try this with a high demanding game
#24
Jelly Bean
Seriously ..try this:

Load itunes...show visualiser...go full screen, turn ur lights off so ur room is pitch black.

60Hz will show flickering as it tries to refresh.


I've just done this and can honestly say there is no difference. I used to play games and was always concerned about the response rate, not refresh rate.

Congrats on your next post being 100 :-D Make it a good one!
#25
jazzy639
60hz means the image updates 60 times per second. The human eye cannot detect higher than 30 frames per second. Even movies are only 24 frames per second.
The eye (or at least in some circumstances with highly trained eyes) can detect the difference between 13,000 FPS.

Movies are shot in 24 FPS and then blurred to look smoother because it's the cheapest way of making it look fluid - more frames help in PC games where the action is sharp rather than blurry. Plus if you watch any new film in the cinema (i.e. the opening of Quantom of Solace) with a high-action 24 FPS sequence it will look jerky AND blurry and overall-terrible.

The 30 FPS thing is a huge myth.
Jelly Bean
why doesn't any website quote the refresh rate? if this is 60Hz then i strongly recommend u don't buy it!
Good luck finding many non-60 Hz TFT's
#26
60Hz is, I'm afraid normal for monitors such as these. Response times are, on the whole far, far more important for many people when considering these.

Sometimes, it's not even a limitation of the LCD panel though. Consider the maximum throughput of DVI: Single Link is 3.96 Gbit/s, and Dual Link is 7.92 Gbit/s.

Translating into real world terms, it can support the following resolutions:
(Single) WUXGA 1920 × 1200 @ 60 Hz
(Dual) WQXGA (2560 × 1600) @ 60 Hz

Now this particular example is obviously applicable solely to DVI, but it goes some way to explaining why you wouldn't be able to increase the signal rate (you'd have to reduce the resolution to compensate). This is why huge resolution monitors such as the Dell 3008WFP use dual link DVI (which you won't always find on a budget graphics card).

I can't comment on the picture quality of this particular monitor, but when reaching this kind of resolution on any VGA connection over 60Hz+, I would be wary of any fuzziness etc.

Having TVs with 120Hz (there are now some with 600Hz!) is all well and good, but in order to achieve an actual improvment, it has to be implemented well! All too often, I've seen TVs with 100Hz+ processing, that make the picture noticeable worse because shimmering, or a halo effect has been introduced as a direct result of this.

Unfortunately Jelly Bean, a lot of what you say is much more relevant to older, CRT technology. I'm not saying that it's all irrelevant - it's not, but please don't shoot other people down, especially by quoting 6 year old comments relating to CRTs, or quoting TV reviews, where 100Hz is becoming more commonplace!
#27
jazzy639
LCDs should not hurt your eyes due to refresh rates as LCDs do not scan and update the display causing flickering. CRTs on the other hand have a scanning electron beam, LCDs have individual pixels which light up or even stay constantly lit during frame updates.


+1

I'll hold my peace now, as this isn't perhaps the correct forum for a particularly in-depth technical discussion on the subject. I just didn't anyone to be put off what may turn out to be a perfectly good monitor for entirely the wrong reasons. There may be perfectly good reasons to avoid this (the lack of DVI bothers me somewhat, but again, I've seen some monitors display high resolutions absolutely wonderfully through VGA, whilst others look dire), but the monitors refresh rate should definitely not be one of them.
#28
Jelly Bean

anyway, most tv's are about 120Hz so now u can see why these screens are so cheap!


No they aren't.

Jelly Bean
Seriously ..try this:

Load itunes...show visualiser...go full screen, turn ur lights off so ur room is pitch black.

60Hz will show flickering as it tries to refresh.

Also try this with a high demanding game


There is no flickering; flicker is inherently a result of how a CRT monitor works, because each pixel is being updated regularly. On an LCD display, the pixels don't get refreshed, so there should be no flicker. If there is, it's probably indicative of a problem with the backlight.

Jelly Bean
explains why everyone gets headaches hmmm.

most of the new dell HD monitors are true 75Hz or higher but i guess i'll have to wait for them to become somewhat cheaper :(
XPS customers used to complain so much about 60Hz that i think dell gave up with them haha


Headache/eyestrain was common with budget CRT monitors running at poor refresh rates, it shouldn't occur with LCDs unless they're not properly set-up. Running at non-native resolution is more likely to cause eyestrain than refresh rates.

As for the Dell comment, I've looked on the Dell website and there's nothing about any of their displays being 75Hz. I highly doubt they received any complaints about an issue which virtually nobody can perceive.
#29
Is this a TV? I thought it was a VGA monitor.
#30
TheVoice;4660692
No they aren't.



There is no flickering; flicker is inherently a result of how a CRT monitor works, because each pixel is being updated regularly. On an LCD display, the pixels don't get refreshed, so there should be no flicker. If there is, it's probably indicative of a problem with the backlight.



Headache/eyestrain was common with budget CRT monitors running at poor refresh rates, it shouldn't occur with LCDs unless they're not properly set-up. Running at non-native resolution is more likely to cause eyestrain than refresh rates.

As for the Dell comment, I've looked on the Dell website and there's nothing about any of their displays being 75Hz. I highly doubt they received any complaints about an issue which virtually nobody can perceive.



xxxxxxxxxxx

look at this website...
http://pages.samsung.com/us/hd/innov_120hz.html

they even explain the problem i was initially talking about regarding 60Hz!!!! seriously, i wonder if these idiots r working for the company that sell this just to get rid of them!!

LCD TV's dont run at 120Hz? oh well i beg ur pardon.. fool!!! :p
#31
Jelly Bean
Load itunes...show visualiser...go full screen, turn ur lights off so ur room is pitch black. 60Hz will show flickering as it tries to refresh.


Jelly Bean
look at this website...
http://pages.samsung.com/us/hd/innov_120hz.html
they even explain the problem i was initially talking about regarding 60Hz!!!! seriously,
LCD TV's dont run at 120Hz? oh well i beg ur pardon.. fool!!! :p

The Samsung website talks about combating motion blur which is not the same thing as flickering. Motion blur relates to video footage whereas flickering affects even static images which is why CRT’s with a low refresh rate caused problems even in office environment where video wasn’t played.
I think your choice of the word flickering is confusing the issue.
#32
TheVoice
No they aren't.



There is no flickering; flicker is inherently a result of how a CRT monitor works, because each pixel is being updated regularly. On an LCD display, the pixels don't get refreshed, so there should be no flicker. If there is, it's probably indicative of a problem with the backlight.



Headache/eyestrain was common with budget CRT monitors running at poor refresh rates, it shouldn't occur with LCDs unless they're not properly set-up. Running at non-native resolution is more likely to cause eyestrain than refresh rates.

As for the Dell comment, I've looked on the Dell website and there's nothing about any of their displays being 75Hz. I highly doubt they received any complaints about an issue which virtually nobody can perceive.



Most accurate summing up post on this thread yet.
#33
I have the DVI version of this monitor, its stunning, nothing else I have seen comes close. Taking into account the SLIGHT loss of VGA, this is still a good price, although it has been this price on ebuyer for a while.
#34
jazzy639
Just to give a little info, 60hz is ample for a LCD. You don't get flicker like you do on a CRT due to the digital display rather than analogue.

60hz means the image updates 60 times per second. The human eye cannot detect higher than 30 frames per second. Even movies are only 24 frames per second.

For games, the figure to look at is the response rate in ms. This is 5ms, which is pretty low. You can get down to 2ms but honestly 5ms is low, even by todays standards.


I agree with the response time being low but this only minimises motion blur, and does tend to be high (2-5ms) on PC monitors.

However, I'd have to disagree with the 60hz thing. I have my 1080p LCD TV as a second monitor on my PC, next to a puny Samsung Syncmaster monitor BUT my monitor runs at 75hz output, and my LCD TV at only 60hz (it has no 100hz mode) and when moving things around in a desktop environment it looks noticably cleaner and smoother on my monitor running at 75hz, but as you say 60hz is more than ample for using a display as a TV.

Regardless this a good offer, the SyncMasters are good monitors, and MoreComputers are a good online retailer (as I have placed many orders with them before) so hot.
#35
Are personal attacks allowed on here then? Jelly bean you seem very aggressive, are you really getting this worked up on a thread about monitor refresh rates? I hope coming out calling people liars and idiots isn't tolerated here.

Oh, and MOST monitors are 60 hz, find me the specifications of some current 22,23,24" models and their refresh rates if you want to disprove your point.
#36
Jelly Bean
Seriously ..try this:

Load itunes...show visualiser...go full screen, turn ur lights off so ur room is pitch black.

60Hz will show flickering as it tries to refresh.

Also try this with a high demanding game


I believe what you are referring to is screen tearing. This is due to your graphics buffer not updating fast enough and half rendered frames being sent to your monitor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_tearing
Try turning V-synch on so that only full rendered frames are sent out. This will reduce your FPS but it should look better.

Increasing your refresh rate would also reduce this as the chances of a frame being rendered half way through an update would be decreased as you are displaying more frames.

This was not really a problem on a CRT as the image is drawn a line at a time anyway.

More explanation here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_synchronization
#37
I can see noticable blurring between 60Hz screens and higer rated Hz screens.

Please read: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/100120-hz-lcd-why-should-you-take-a-look-2007042354.htm

I don't intend to spend more money to get a higer rated Hz screen though, it's not worth gettin upset about. But there IS A DIFFERENCE between lower and higer Hz rated LCDs.
#38
Jelly Bean
Seriously ..try this:

Load itunes...show visualiser...go full screen, turn ur lights off so ur room is pitch black.

60Hz will show flickering as it tries to refresh.

Also try this with a high demanding game


You mean you've got a **** graphics card.

Retard.
#39
Also try this with a high demanding game
... I don't see why a high demanding game will make any difference to your monitor performance ... Just sounds like your graphics card is struggling at times.
#40
for the record:

LCD images do flicker. This is based on the backlight (remember, LCDs use a seperate light to provide illumination from the light which creates the image), and is commonly a fluorescant tube, at about 200Hz.

Refresh rate of an LCD display does not significantly affect the image - it is effectively a nominal value, as it very rarely actually operates at that speed - it is a constant image, and doesn't get redrawn 60 times each second.

The headaches from old CRTs are mainly to do with the way in which the image is refreshed, not the speed - the vertical scan causes strain as your eye tries to deal with a constantly scrolling image. for example, film is far more comfortable at lower refresh rates (48 or 72 Hz) because it is a single image, rather than being drawn from the top down.

Film is not 24 Hz, and refresh rate is not the same as frame rate. Film runs at 24 frames per second, however each frame is exposed 2 or 3 times, resulting in a refresh rate of 48 or 72 Hz (i.e. the backlight fires either 48 or 72 times each second). This is completely unlike LCD technology which has a constant backlight and a moving image.

The human eye cannot see at 13,000 Hz or whatever the figure that was quoted - the nerve fibres at the back of the eye are reckoned to send signals at around 250 Hz, varying from person to person. Even if the optic cells on the retina could pick up 13000 images each second, the rate at which the info is transferred to the brain is the fastest you could see images.

If you are having trouble with visable flickering on your LCD screen, it is almost certainly either a backlight problem, or a graphics card problem.

The thing which concerns me on this screen is the unusual resolution - larger than 1080p, so you can either watch with a black border, or upscale by like, 1% and have extra pixels in there every now and again. i just don't see the point - if i want 16x9, i'd get 1920x1080 resolution, as that will play back 1080p videos most accurately, or if i wanted 16x10 i'd get a 1920x1200 monitor. almost as much area, and still the correct number of horizontal pixels to display the video correctly.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!