Product comparison · 2 monitors

Philips 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor vs Philips 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor

Add a product
  • 97specifications compared
  • 32differ
  • 65identical
  • 6known for one product only

Key differences

  • Display diagonal
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:49.5 cm (19.5")
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:54.6 cm (21.5")
  • Display resolution
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:1600 x 900 pixels
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:1920 x 1080 pixels
  • HD type
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:HD+
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:Full HD
  • Supported graphics resolutions
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:1600 x 900
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:1920 x 1080 (HD 1080)
  • Pixel pitch
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:0.26 x 0.26 mm
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:0.248 x 0.248 mm
  • Viewable size, horizontal
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:43.4 cm
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:47.7 cm
  • Viewable size, vertical
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:23.6 cm
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:26.8 cm
  • Display diagonal (metric)
    • 203V5LHSB2/70 computer monitor:49.5 cm
    • 223V5LSB2/70 computer monitor:54.6 cm

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of 203V5LHSB2/70, 223V5LSB2/70
103 specifications
Display9 differ
Display diagonalDiffers49.5 cm (19.5")54.6 cm (21.5")
Display resolutionDiffers1600 x 900 pixels1920 x 1080 pixels
HD typeDiffersHD+Full HD
Supported graphics resolutionsDiffers1600 x 9001920 x 1080 (HD 1080)
Supported video modesKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source1080p
Contrast ratio (dynamic)Known for oneUnknown — not stated by the source10000000:1
Maximum refresh rateKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source60 Hz
Pixel pitchDiffers0.26 x 0.26 mm0.248 x 0.248 mm
Viewable size, horizontalDiffers43.4 cm47.7 cm
Viewable size, verticalDiffers23.6 cm26.8 cm
Display diagonal (metric)Differs49.5 cm54.6 cm
Display panel sizeDiffers19.5 inch / 49.5 cm21.5 inch / 54.6 cm
Performanceidentical
Component video syncKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceSeparate Sync
Ergonomics2 differ
Tilt angle rangeDiffers-3 - 10°-5 - 20°
LED indicatorsDiffersPowerOperation, Stand-by
Power1 differ
Power consumption (typical)Differs17.69 W15.3 W
Power consumption (max)Known for one18.46 WUnknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions9 differ
Dimensions (W x D x H) with standDiffers465 x 345 x 170 mm503 x 376 x 213 mm
Width (with stand)Differs465 mm503 mm
Depth (with stand)Differs170 mm213 mm
Height (with stand)Differs345 mm376 mm
Weight (with stand)Differs2.33 kg2.61 kg
Width (without stand)Differs465 mm503 mm
Depth (without stand)Differs48 mm50 mm
Height (without stand)Differs285 mm316 mm
Weight (without stand)Differs2.03 kg2.35 kg
Packaging data5 differ
Package dimensions (WxDxH)Differs503 x 350 x 109 mm555 x 414 x 107 mm
Package widthDiffers503 mm555 mm
Package depthDiffers109 mm107 mm
Package heightDiffers350 mm414 mm
Package weightDiffers3.23 kg3.87 kg
Other features6 differ
Audio systemKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceBSMI, CE Mark, FCC Class B, GOST, PSB, SASO, SEMKO, TUV/ISO9241-307, cETLus, WEEE
Effective viewing areaDiffers433.9 x 236.3 mm476.64 x 268.11 mm
Monitor sync input signalDiffersSeparate Sync; Sync on GreenSeparate Sync
Signal inputDiffersVGA (Analog ); HDMI (digital, HDCP)VGA (Analog )
CertificationDiffersRoHS, CE Mark, FCC Class B, CU, SEMKO, cETLus, TUV/ISO9241-307, SASO, EPA, CB, PSB, KUCAS, TBS, CoCRoHS, BSMI, CE Mark, FCC Class B, GOST, PSB, SASO, SEMKO, TUV/ISO9241-307, cETLus, WEEE
Regulatory ApprovalsDiffersCE Mark; FCC Class B; CU; SEMKO; cETLus; TUV/ISO9241-307; SASO; EPA; CB; PSB; KUCAS; TBS; CoCBSMI; CE Mark; FCC Class B; GOST; PSB; SASO; SEMKO; TUV/ISO9241-307; cETLus; WEEE
User controlsDiffersPower On/OffAuto/Down; 4:3 Wide/Up; Brightness/Back; Menu/OK; Power On/Off

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More monitor comparisons

All monitor comparisons