I have a feature request for 70Hz test program. Specifically it should modify line timings so that it produces 720 active pixels, like text mode. The reason is that basically every LCD monitor treats the 70Hz graphic modes as 720 pixels even though they're 320/640 pixels which results in ugly uneven pixels and it makes it harder to judge smoothness of motion in the moving bars part of image because the bars change width as they move across the screen.

Alternatively, there should be moving vertical bars instead/in addition, since the vertical direction isn't subject to this sort of a problem, at least not to this extent.

Name: Benq V2410 Eco
Model: ET-0036-B, rev 00-133-BA
Year: 2010 February
Results: OK, but with weird trailing artifacts, possibly due to some overdrive mechanism
Native resolution: 1920 x 1080
Input tested: VGA

Tiido wrote on 2025-01-13, 13:08:

I have a feature request for 70Hz test program. Specifically it should modify line timings so that it produces 720 active pixels, like text mode. The reason is that basically every LCD monitor treats the 70Hz graphic modes as 720 pixels even though they're 320/640 pixels which results in ugly uneven pixels and it makes it harder to judge smoothness of motion in the moving bars part of image because the bars change width as they move across the screen.

Alternatively, there should be moving vertical bars instead/in addition, since the vertical direction isn't subject to this sort of a problem, at least not to this extent.

Ahh that's a great point - didn't even think about it since I use the CRT Terminator setup.

I think maybe the best might be to also add a vertical scrolling element, so one can eyeball using either set of movement. I'll have a look at this.

Display name: Dell 2001FP
Year: 2003
Results: Frameskip
Display native resolution: 1600x1200

Input tested: VGA D-SUB and DVI

On VGA, a single white block was consistently not displayed. On DVI, the undisplayed white block changed across time.

ahyeadude wrote on 2025-01-12, 22:40:

Bought a "for parts" Samsung 204B on ebay for cheap. Seller said it wouldn't turn on. They likely never recapped the power suppl […]
Show full quote

Bought a "for parts" Samsung 204B on ebay for cheap. Seller said it wouldn't turn on. They likely never recapped the power supply which was the first thing I had to do with my 204b to get it to work. It has a manufacture date of January 2007. So, I hoped it would have the newer revision mainboard.

The attachment newer.png is no longer available

Sure enough, it did!

The attachment newerboard.jpg is no longer available

I dropped it into my monitor, and initially it did not work. It would display with a red hue and the OSD would not function. Fortunately there are some old posts on badcaps.net that mention clearing the EEPROM which stores the settings. It involves shorting pin 5 and 6 on the A81SC EEPROM.

I cleared the EEPROM, and it works!

The attachment newerservice.png is no longer available

There is likely another EEPROM that stores the hour/change data, but I just reset those within the service menu. While I have this monitor cracked open, I ordered some new SMD caps to replace the likely aging ones on the mainboard. I'll replace those, and then will confirm I'm not getting any frameskip.

Can 100% absolutely confirm the newer version of the Samsung 204b mainboard does not frameskip at 70Hz. It is buttery smooth. Thanks Tiido!!

Name: Samsung Syncmaster 204B (1003 firmware; Genesis scaler chip)
Year: 2007 January
Results: OK
Native resolution: 1600x1200
Input tested: DVI

Name: Samsung Syncmaster 204B (1000 firmware; MST scaler chip)
Year: 2006 April
Results: Frameskip
Native resolution: 1600x1200
Input tested: DVI/VGA

Excellent ~

Wow, does that make the Samsung Syncmaster 204B 2007 model a unicorn that ticks all the boxes for retro gameplay?
[✓] 4:3 1600x1200
[✓] has DVI and VGA input
[✓] supports full 70hz
[?] how is the image quality and panel ghosting?
[?] how much input latency does the display add?

So far I've regarded the ASUS PA248QV as the best retro monitor, for:
[-] not 4:3 1600x1200...
[✓] but at least is 1920x1200 and has 4:3 mode (though it doesn't work in 4:3 for VGA input, only with CRT Terminator)
[✓] has HDMI and VGA input
[✓] supports full 70hz
[✓] fantastic image quality and no ghosting
[✓] only ~1 msecs input latency + about ~1-2 msecs of pixel switching latency

with Philips Brilliance 252B9/00 as a close second (1920x1200, 4:3 mode, though has about 10 msecs of input+pixel switching latency)

I have not tried to measure input latency (I'm not sure how I can even do it with means I have available) but it should be less than 1 frame, it certainly doesn't get in the way of any of the action games I have played on it.

Blurring is of a typical TN panel of the time, nothing great but not outright terrible either. I have seen far worse, even from modern displays.

Tiido wrote on 2025-01-18, 12:35:

I have not tried to measure input latency (I'm not sure how I can even do it with means I have available) but it should be less than 1 frame, it certainly doesn't get in the way of any of the action games I have played on it.

Blurring is of a typical TN panel of the time, nothing great but not outright terrible either. I have seen far worse, even from modern displays.

Yea the built in VGA scaler isn't great, isn't terrible. I use mine with an OSSC at 2x. The output to the 204b is typically 1280x800 which the monitor does a very nice job of scaling to 1600x1200. Very crisp pixels.

Until someone manufactures a new 4:3 panel (maybe they make a comeback?), I'll be using this.

When I talked about blurring I only meant motion blur of the LCD, and not that of the scaler as it processes the image. I don't actually use the monitor for gaming, for that I have a 20" nokia kinescope right next to it, which puts every LCD to shame on anything that concerns motion. Perhaps if I modify the backlight to strobe in specfic part of a frame, it can become better on that regard but there's little reason when perfection is already right next to it 🤣.

Modern 4:3 panel itself would be nice but just having option to control scaling and aspect ratio would already go a long way. Why is it so hard to offer a nearest neighbor scaling with margins around the image...? 🤣

Wow. I finally brought "the big one" over to my P2 computer, since it has VGA input. This thing is HUGE with DOS blasting out of it!
I was actually surprised with the result, too

Name: Dell D3218HN
Year: Aug. 2018
Results: OK
Native resolution: 1920x1080
Input tested: VGA

Major Jackyl wrote on 2025-02-07, 22:21:

Wow. I finally brought "the big one" over to my P2 computer, since it has VGA input. This thing is HUGE with DOS blasting out of […]
Show full quote

Wow. I finally brought "the big one" over to my P2 computer, since it has VGA input. This thing is HUGE with DOS blasting out of it!
I was actually surprised with the result, too

Name: Dell D3218HN
Year: Aug. 2018
Results: OK
Native resolution: 1920x1080
Input tested: VGA

That Dell looks a lot like my Acer EB321HQ
According to some unconfirmed sources, they both might be using a BOE BOEA320WU1 panel.

EDIT: even the main logic boards look similar
Acer --> Logic Board 55.T5MM6.004
Dell --> MAINBOARD 201L32BUCFTNDK000 / 320212032901000

EDIT2: the Acer does not have a forced 4:3 mode, only an "aspect" one, which means 320x200 is stretched horizontally. Does the Dell have more flexibility on that front ?

darry wrote on 2025-02-09, 05:27:

That Dell looks a lot like my Acer EB321HQ According to some unconfirmed sources, they both might be using a BOE BOEA320WU1 pane […]
Show full quote

Major Jackyl wrote on 2025-02-07, 22:21:

Wow. I finally brought "the big one" over to my P2 computer, since it has VGA input. This thing is HUGE with DOS blasting out of […]
Show full quote

Wow. I finally brought "the big one" over to my P2 computer, since it has VGA input. This thing is HUGE with DOS blasting out of it!
I was actually surprised with the result, too

Name: Dell D3218HN
Year: Aug. 2018
Results: OK
Native resolution: 1920x1080
Input tested: VGA

That Dell looks a lot like my Acer EB321HQ
According to some unconfirmed sources, they both might be using a BOE BOEA320WU1 panel.

EDIT: even the main logic boards look similar
Acer --> Logic Board 55.T5MM6.004
Dell --> MAINBOARD 201L32BUCFTNDK000 / 320212032901000

EDIT2: the Acer does not have a forced 4:3 mode, only an "aspect" one, which means 320x200 is stretched horizontally. Does the Dell have more flexibility on that front ?

The attachment monitors.png is no longer available

It indeed does. It was initially stretched, but had an "aspect ratio" setting of "auto" or "4:3", which made it look very crisp.

Tried it with both my monitors (even though I already knew how the NEC would perform).

Display name: Philips Brilliance 200P4 (from 2005?), S-IPS panel
Results: Frameskip
Native Res: 1600x1200
Input tested: VGA

Display name: NEC MultiSync LCD2070NX (from 2005?), S-IPS panel
Results: Frameskip + Tearing
Native Res: 1600x1200
Input tested: VGA

What makes the NEC so bad is that its panel runs at 59,3 Hz.

Major Jackyl wrote on 2025-02-09, 16:41:

darry wrote on 2025-02-09, 05:27:

That Dell looks a lot like my Acer EB321HQ According to some unconfirmed sources, they both might be using a BOE BOEA320WU1 pane […]
Show full quote

Major Jackyl wrote on 2025-02-07, 22:21:

Wow. I finally brought "the big one" over to my P2 computer, since it has VGA input. This thing is HUGE with DOS blasting out of […]
Show full quote

Wow. I finally brought "the big one" over to my P2 computer, since it has VGA input. This thing is HUGE with DOS blasting out of it!
I was actually surprised with the result, too

Name: Dell D3218HN
Year: Aug. 2018
Results: OK
Native resolution: 1920x1080
Input tested: VGA

That Dell looks a lot like my Acer EB321HQ
According to some unconfirmed sources, they both might be using a BOE BOEA320WU1 panel.

EDIT: even the main logic boards look similar
Acer --> Logic Board 55.T5MM6.004
Dell --> MAINBOARD 201L32BUCFTNDK000 / 320212032901000

EDIT2: the Acer does not have a forced 4:3 mode, only an "aspect" one, which means 320x200 is stretched horizontally. Does the Dell have more flexibility on that front ?

The attachment monitors.png is no longer available

It indeed does. It was initially stretched, but had an "aspect ratio" setting of "auto" or "4:3", which made it look very crisp.

I wonder if I should try sourcing a logic board for the Dell variant and do a swaparoo.

Display name: BenQ XL2730Z
Year: 2015
Results: OK
Display native resolution: 2560x1440

Input tested: VGA D-SUB

I already knew it was going to be perfect since I got this monitor back in the day specifically for compatibility with retro machines. There was a thread about it here some time ago.

This is a 27" TN panel that supports up to 144Hz and has VGA, DVI, HDMI 1.4, HDMI 2.0, and DP 1.2 inputs. DP supports FreeSync (G-Sync compatible). Another great feature is the ability to change the aspect ratio on the OSD, meaning you can display DOS modes in 4:3. It has a ton of options here: Full, Aspect, 1:1, 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, and 16:10, the ratio ones having different options for size like 17", 19", etc., but you can also change the scaling in those if you want them to stretch to the height of the display as well, and it will remember your settings.