Samsung 930b

1280x1024 5:4 TN, 8ms rise+fall response time. Officially supports 60Hz and 75Hz input. ~2005 monitor.
I've opened 2 of these. An earlier unit had a Samsung LTM190EX-L01 panel, a later one had an AU Optronics M190EN04. The unit used in this test has the AU Optronics panel, but I don't think that makes any difference for this test. Both should behave the same.
According to the datasheets, the Samsung LTM190EX-L01 panel supports VSync from 50-75Hz. The AU Optronics M190EN04 supports 56.25-77Hz (maybe the max has a tolerance from 75-77Hz, not sure I'm reading that part correctly). So the lower end of the range differs between panels, but that doesn't mean the video interface board will allow those rates.
I noticed that the 2 panels have very different specs for the rise and fall response times, one is faster at rising and the other faster at falling, but both add up to 8ms rise+fall as advertised for the monitor.

Side note: Even though both of these panels were used in Samsung 930B monitors, they have very different pinouts and are not compatible. I smoked something on the Samsung paneled unit when it's backlight died, and I swapped a panel that had the same pinout as the AU Optronics. After looking at the panel datasheets it's clear that was a mistake.

Samsung 930b with AU Optronics M190EN04 panel
Tested with Geforce2 MX AGP card.
This monitor stretches everything to 5:4.

When I originally ran this test, I noted some flickering of the screen in some modes. I've left those notes but I don't think the flickering is actually a monitor issue. I believe it's caused by "PC Players Benchmark" being a performance benchmark which doesn't use Vsync. This results in flickering, how much will vary with the speed of the system used. On another monitor where I saw the same issue, the flickering was gone when I ran real games.

BIOS: 5:4

DOS Command prompt: 5:4

DOS 320 x 200 game: 5:4 stretched, stable for first 1-2mins, then picture starts jumping occasionally.

DOS 640 x 400 game: 5:4 stretched, flickers occasionally, probably caused by lack of vsync in this test.

DOS 640 x 480 game: 5:4 stretched, after a few mins I did see a very rare flicker, it took some patience to catch it

DOS 800 x 600 game: 5:4 stretched, very rare flicker as with 640x480

DOS 1024 x 768 game: 5:4 stretched, stable

DOS 1280 x 1024 game: 5:4 native, stable

DOS 1600 x 200 game: 5:4 stretched, stable. Scales down to native res. OSD reports 1600x1200 but pops up the "non optimal resolution" warning. Lower modes didn't produce that warning.

Windows 640 x 480: 5:4 stretched

Windows 800 x 600: 5:4 stretched

Windows 1024 x 768: 5:4 stretched

Windows 1280 x 960: 5:4 stretched

Windows 1280 x 1024: 5:4 native

Windows: 1600 x 1200: not selectable (haven't figured out how to force it in Win98SE, but monitor should scale to native res as above. Have had this happen in a linux GUI, pretty sure it was stretched 5:4 like everything else)

Text vertical scrolling: 5:4, smooth scrolling

Dell 1801FP

1280x1024 5:4 IPS

Tested with nVidia GT430 VGA output
This monitor stretches most things to 5:4, but 320x200 appeared to be 4:3

[edit: I recorded some flickering issues below. I now suspect these are not monitor issues. I saw the same thing in an earlier entry for the Lenovo L220x, and those issues went away when I tested that monitor with a slower system. It's likely the same applies here.]

BIOS graphical splash screen: 5:4
BIOS setup menu: letterboxed 4:3

DOS Command prompt: didn't pay close attention, think it was 5:4

DOS 320 x 200 game: 4:3 letterboxed - there was some black space above and below the text in PCPBench, so appears it was 4:3. Screen jumps every few seconds.

DOS 640 x 400 game: 5:4 stretched, severe flicker producing horizontal bars. But as with previous entries I'm not really sure whether these are monitor issues or caused by lack of vsync in PCPBench.

DOS 640 x 480 game: 5:4 stretched, severe flicker producing horizontal bars

DOS 800 x 600 game: 5:4 stretched, less flicker but still bad

DOS 1024 x 768 game: 5:4 stretched, static noise at top and bottom. Image is consistent (no bars or jumps) but still has high speed flicker. Might be lack of vsync.

DOS 1280 x 1024 game: 5:4 native, stable

DOS 1600 x 200 game: 5:4 stretched, stable. Scales to native res, there is no warning popup.

Windows 640 x 480: not selectable

Windows 800 x 600: 5:4 stretched, stable

Windows 1024 x 768: 5:4 stretched, stable

Windows 1280 x 960: 5:4 stretched, stable

Windows 1280 x 1024: native res

Windows: 1600 x 1200: not selectable. Don't know how to force it, but monitor should scale to native res as above.

Text vertical scrolling: 5:4, surprisingly smooth but has slight stutters. Prob 70->60Hz conversion.

dr_st wrote:

Common DOS resolutions are not 4:3. Both 320x200 and 720x400 are widescreen resolutions. But old CRTs were 4:3, and so they distorted these resolutions to have non-square pixels. And because everyone knew that to be the case, they adjusted the characters and pictures to compensate for that.

I remember one weird case: Red Alert. DOS version of the game runs in 320x200. In Windows version, there are two available resolutions: 640x400 and 640x480. In 320x200 and 640x400 when stretched to 4:3 everything is distorted (more tall than it should be), and when you select 640x480 the game is still rendered in 640x400, then letterboxed to 640x480. And circles become actually circles.

It seems that the intended aspect ratio of the game was actually 16:10.

Samsung 943SWX
18.5" 16:9 1360x768 TN
response time advertised as 5ms

Overall result:
Suitable for 4:3 usage, particularly with 1024x768 mode. Can replace a 15" 1024x768.
Has a front panel button for stretched vs unstretched display. The options are "wide" and "auto". "Auto" will crop the sides to maintain proper dimensions. To toggle between "auto" and "wide", you just need to tap that button twice to switch modes (once to bring up the menu, again to change the setting).
If the source resolution is not 1024x768 then the "auto" mode will still be subject to fractional scaling. There is no 1:1 mode.

The cropped 4:3 area of the screen is 1024x768 and is just barely larger than a 15" 4:3 LCD. It's close enough to a 15" 1024x768 that you could match it up with them and make the world's smallest triple monitor rig, if that's your thing.

Below was tested in "auto" mode with the VGA input from a Geforce2 MX socket 7 machine.

BIOS: 4:3
DOS Command prompt: 4:3
DOS 320 x 200 game: 4:3
DOS 640 x 400 game: 4:3
DOS 640 x 480 game: 4:3
DOS 800 x 600 game: 4:3
DOS 1024 x 768 game: 4:3 - 1:1 pixel mapping in this mode

DOS 1280 x 1024 game: 4:3 - displays this without complaint, but text clarity suffers
DOS 1600 x 200 game: 4:3 - displays but pops up a warning message, have to hit a button to clear it. Text is fuzzy.

Text vertical scrolling: 4:3 and smooth

Windows 640 x 480: 4:3
Windows 800 x 600: 4:3
Windows 1024 x 768: 4:3
Windows 1280 x 1024: not offered
Windows: 1600 x 1200: not offered

Windows: 1280 x 768: - cropped with 1:1 pixel mapping. Not sure why this mode was offered, but with monitor size set to "auto", it will display with the appropriate amount of cropping at each side.
Windows: 1360 x 768: - 16:9 native

Philips 240B7QPJEB

Very similar to u2412m but with some key differences:
5ms grey to grey (8ms for u2412m - not that i notice the difference)
HDMI port instead of DVI
Very thin bezels
Flicker free
Build in speakers
USB 3.0 support with quick charge
Better height adjustment range
In addition to 16:10 and 4:3 modes, it also supports 16:9 and 1:1 which i personally find very useful. Auto not supported on either.
It has a power sensor that detects if a person is in front of the monitor and turns off the back light if there is no one there

s0ren wrote:

Philips 240B7QPJEB

Thanks. In your experience, how does 320x200 look?

On my current 1080p screen, with Rage128 or Trio3D, when playing 320x200 games my monitor receives a 640x350 signal and the bottom is cropped (and auto adjust does not help).

OTOH with a GeForce 2 MX when playing 320x200 games it receives a 720x400 signal that gets displayed correctly but with a 16:9 aspect ratio (the screen is fully used). In the LCD menu I've set the aspect ratio to original, which provides 4:3 at 640x480, 800x600 and above, but 720x400 remains stretched.

So I'd really like to know if your monitor, or any other recent 1920x1200 LCD that can still be bought new, can restrict itself to 1600x1200, so that 320x200 games stay in 4:3.

I don't believe any modern monitors are able to show the 320x200 format correctly, as the graphics cards always seem to translate the signal into something else, normally 720x400.

And then I don't really think there'd be much stretching on an 16:9 LCD(where pixels are not elongated etc vs old CRTs), as 720x400 = roughly 16:9 already.
(720x400 = 720:400 = 1,8, and 16:9 = 1,78, quite close in aspect 'value')

Now, transfer that 720x400 to a real 4:3 LCD monitor (factor = only 1,33), and THEN you will see the (opposite of) streching, heh... 😀

But this is just my personal opinon, and perhaps I have totally gotten the tech side of it wrong, so who knows...

PS: not sure if I misunderstand you, but if your monitor has a native 1920x1200, it is really 16:10, and not 16:9, which makes my previous statements less useful... Though you state it is a 1080p monitor, so.

If 1920x1200 is the goal, there is this Dell U2412M (native 1920x1200) - still produced(?) and widely available as brand new, which has VGA and option for forced 4:3, 5:4, and of course 16:10. Only 'problem' IMHO is that it has NO 75hz options, compared to their other monitors with VGA... :\

Thanks bestemor. You are correct, my current screen is 1080p. I was pondering acquiring a 1920x1200 screen with the capability to force a 4:3 aspect ratio to get a picture that's closer to a real CRT. Also I'd like to have a LCD that can handle the 640x350 outputted (instead of 720x400) by the Trio3D and older ATi cards when a DOS program switches to 320x200.

Do you have experience setting a 1920x1200 monitor in 4:3 mode? Does it provide the same experience you would get from a real 1600x1200 monitor (compressing 720x400 to fit it in 4:3 as a CRT would)?

Also is 75hz for those other DELL monitors the maximum accepted vertical refresh rate or the real LCD refresh rate? As I understand, most LCDs refresh at 60hz but some could accept a faster refresh rate and simply drop excess frames.

Most LCDs accept 75Hz and drop excess frames, but some can actually output 75Hz, e.g., the DELL 2209WA.

Right. I've just bought the 240B7QPJEB and I'll give 4:3 a try. In the worst case I'll just return it and get a refund.

dr_st wrote:

Most LCDs accept 75Hz and drop excess frames, but some can actually output 75Hz, e.g., the DELL 2209WA.

Is there any way to easily tell which ones can do that, before purchasing ?
And, funny you should mention the 2209WA... that is the exact one I had before I switched to the U2412M. Also I assumed that if the specs/manual said 75hz for some resolutions, they would actually show all the frames.

Still, even if it just 'accepts' the setting, it is better than a black screen in DOS when the darn VGA card for some reason outputs 71.43hz (!)...

cde- wrote:

...Do you have experience setting a 1920x1200 monitor in 4:3 mode? Does it provide the same experience you would get from a real 1600x1200 monitor (compressing 720x400 to fit it in 4:3 as a CRT would)?

As far as I know, a CRT would look different, at least the older ones, depending on the intended pixel ratio.
https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Aspect_ratio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio

The pixel aspect ratio support is also required to display, without distortion, legacy digital images from computer standards and video-games what existed in the 80s. In that generation, square pixels were too expensive to produce, so machines and video cards like the SNES, CGA, EGA, Hercules, C64, MSX, PC-88, X68000 etc had non-square pixels.

In my very personal opinion, 720x400 looks 'best' on a 16:9 monitor though, while chosing the 'full' option(not 4:3). Though that is based on a rather limited amount of testing, so your milage might vary...

Also is 75hz for those other DELL monitors the maximum accepted vertical refresh rate or the real LCD refresh rate? As I understand, most LCDs refresh at 60hz but some could accept a faster refresh rate and simply drop excess frames.

I really do not know. I hoped/assumed it was the REAL rate, but perhaps someone with more tech knowledge could chip in on this topic... ?

What is a good LED display to use with a SS7 Mobo and Voodoo-3 AGP card and DOS ?
To play DOS games.

Intel486dx33 wrote:

What is a good LED display to use with a SS7 Mobo and Voodoo-3 AGP card and DOS ?
To play DOS games.

The 240B7QPJEB does an ok job at 4:3 aspect ratio although I dislike the fact than for example 800x600 is not simply doubled but some sharpening / contrasting is applied to the image and can't be disabled. After reading a bunch of manuals I suspect most if not all modern monitors do this when dealing when scaling a non-native resolution.

All 1920x1200 LCDs I found have IPS panels, and I believe those panels internally cannot go faster than 60 Hz, so frames in fast scrolling 70 Hz DOS games will be dropped. I suppose TN panels do a better job at this so you might want to look into it.

Lastly the 240B7QPJEB has really disappointing black levels, very gray-ish. I suspect it's a common problem with IPS (my current monitor is AMVA and has great blacks). So maybe look for a TN panel with a sufficiently high resolution so scaling is not so noticeable. One example is the AGON AG241QX. The manual mentions it offers a 4:3 ratio option but there is 0 guarantee 720x400 is converted to 4:3. For example on my current monitor 640x480, 800x600 is 4:3 but 720x400 (and thus 320x200) is stretch to the full 1920x1080 panel size.

Havent been here for some months.

The 240B7QPJEB supports 75Hz, but I have only tried it a couple of times. Not sure if it can do 70?. I think the black levels are similar (or perhaps even a little better) compared to the Dell u2412m which i also have. The "lack" of a non-filtered scaling option is indeed annoying, but I have never seen any LCD monitor that supports such thing though. There is however a 1:1 scale option but obviously the image area becomes quite small. You can also force 4:3 so maybe 720x400 works?

Like theres a framemeister for retro consoles (like composite, scart and RGB), I really hope for a similarly elaborate VGA upscaler device!

Thanks s0ren, and I'd really like to have too a nice upscaler that would provide pixel-perfect upscaling, with no attempt at blurring the output.

By the way, I tried another monitor, this time the iiyama XU2395WSU-B1 (the XUB2495WSU-B1 would be equivalent but with adjustable height).

It is much worse than the 240B7QPJEB. 720x400 is not supported at all, and I should have been warned by the fact that the manual does not contain this resolution.

Furthermore the amount of blurring applied when upscaling is frankly excessive (and is not configurable), 800x600 looks horrible. Do not buy this screen.

I stopped using CRT's a while back, were just taking up too much room, and with age all had blur issues or similar. For this reason, I just use an HP E190i, it's a 19" IPS 5:4 Aspect Monitor, absolutely gorgeous color reproduction, really makes older games look amazing. I wish HP has a 17" version, but 19 is good. Specs are:

19" IPS Panel
5:4 Aspect Ratio
SXGA (1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz)
1000:1 static; 3000000:1 dynamic
8 ms gray to gray

It's amazing not only that 5:4 19" screens are making a comeback, but now they actually use high quality panels. Years ago you were lucky to get a VA, and 99% of them were TN.

dave343 wrote:

I stopped using CRT's a while back, were just taking up too much room, and with age all had blur issues or similar. For this rea […]
Show full quote

I stopped using CRT's a while back, were just taking up too much room, and with age all had blur issues or similar. For this reason, I just use an HP E190i, it's a 19" IPS 5:4 Aspect Monitor, absolutely gorgeous color reproduction, really makes older games look amazing. I wish HP has a 17" version, but 19 is good. Specs are:

19" IPS Panel
5:4 Aspect Ratio
SXGA (1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz)
1000:1 static; 3000000:1 dynamic
8 ms gray to gray

Does that have 4:3 scaling mode or does it just stretch 1024x768 and other 4:3 resolutions to full screen? The pdf manual I downloaded from HP didn't say anything about its settings.

I can't say for the E190i, but I have just bought the AOC 19" I960SRDA (1280x1024) and it always stretches the input to full. However this isn't much of an issue as the image looks good. It has no problem handling 640x350 and 720x400 up to 75 Hz, so no problem with BIOS and 320x200 games. The only issue I have with it is some slight light bleeding at the bottom right. I suspect the picture quality of the E190i is better, OTOH this display has speakers and is lighter. Overall it's a good display.

EDIT: as mentioned in my further post, the E190i is indeed a better choice if you don't need speakers due to a better quality panel with less light bleeding.