Why SONY G400 costs more than E400?

[Dentaku]

I've read all the specs and I see that the G400 has a higher max refresh rate than the E400 and the G400 has 2 inputs but that seems to be the only difference.

Why would anyone pay more for the G400?

Is the quality of the CRTs in the G series better than the E series?

Is it really worth $100 more?

[ayoub_ibrahim]

caveat emptor!

[Grego]

I can't say anything clever about Sony monitors, but I will say this, I also considered buying the Sony g400, but instead I bought the LG Flatron 795FT plus, it was cheaper, has image quality at least equal to Sony, and my monitor also has a built-in usb hub. I can only recommend this monitor, it is just great!!!

------------------
System:
Asus A7V rev. 1.01b
AMD Thunderbird 800@800
SBLive retail with liveware 3.0
Matrox g400 MAX
LG Flatron 795FT 17# monitor
IBM 13.5 GB 7200 hdd
Pioneer 103-s dvdrom
Win98 2nd edition
directx 7.0a
128mb pc133 cas2 Memory Card Technology

[Wombat]

Yes, the best screens get put in the G series. Also, there are a lot more controls for geometry and temperature. I have a 420GS at home, and some G400's at work. The G400's are nicer.

[pchoi]

The Sony G400's tend to be more for the office/"professional" environment as they offer more features and ability to tweak. I used to work with some at the office and I liked them so much I bought a E400 at home. Strictly speaking, that's the entire difference, Sony markets the G400 for the office user, the E400 for the home user. However, I'm just a coder and I don't do graphics work, I don't need to twiddle with the settings at all, I just want a big screen that can handle high resolutions to display all my code with razor sharp clarity. The E400 or the G400 will handle both.