LG Flatron W2240S

Like the Philips 225B2C, the LG Flatron W2240S is a monitor designed for people who don't want to do anything more demanding with their computer then checking their e-mail, writing a few letters and browsing the web.

They don't need the most advanced monitor available, or the most recent graphics card for that matter.

Hardware: the bare minimum

We were expecting only the bare minimum of hardware, and we got it, with just one single VGA input.  There's nothing else—not even a pair of speakers.  That means that the W2240S gets the lowest possible score in this section.  We're really not used to giving monitors one star, but it really deserves it.

Responsiveness: too slow for gaming

Coloured   Transparent
Average ghosting over 10 frames

Once again, we weren't expecting much: the spec claims a 5 ms response time for the W2240S, so there wasn't much chance we'd see record-breaking responsiveness.  There weren't any surprises in store when we tested it out.  The monitor will suffice for office work and a handful of less demanding games, but when we tried FPS titles like Doom, Unreal or Call of Duty, we found that the display of rapid movements wasn't sharp enough to satisfy gamers.

Colours and contrast: accurate colours but below average contrast

The W2240S reproduces colours accurately:

Measured Colours

Ideal Colours Compare the LG W2240S to other LCD monitors in our Product Face-Off

Its deltaE score, the average discrepancy between the colours requested by the graphics card and those actually displayed on the screen, is 2.6; we normally expect this value to be under 3.0 before the majority of viewers are unable to spot the difference.  In reality, our test equipment still revealed a slight blue tinge.  If that's too much for you, you can download a calibration profile given that it's hard to fix with the menu.

The contrast is much less impressive.  Although the average value we've recorded across all the monitors we test is around 850:1, but the W2240S peaks at 820:1.  It's a shame, because with slightly better contrast ratio it would have got four stars instead of three.