Product comparison · 2 pos monitors

iggual MTL15CP POS monitor vs iiyama T1931SR-B6 POS monitor

Add a product
  • 13specifications compared
  • 9differ
  • 4identical
  • 22known for one product only

Key differences

The iiyama T1931SR-B6 POS monitor has 9 ms more response time than the iggual MTL15CP POS monitor (14 ms vs 5 ms). The iiyama T1931SR-B6 POS monitor has 8° more viewing angle, horizontal than the iggual MTL15CP POS monitor (178° vs 170°). The iiyama T1931SR-B6 POS monitor has 18° more viewing angle, vertical than the iggual MTL15CP POS monitor (178° vs 160°). Display diagonal: 39.6 cm (15.6") on the iggual MTL15CP POS monitor, 48.3 cm (19") on the iiyama T1931SR-B6 POS monitor. Display resolution: 1600 x 900 pixels on the iggual MTL15CP POS monitor, 1280 x 1024 pixels on the iiyama T1931SR-B6 POS monitor.

  • Display diagonal
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:39.6 cm (15.6")
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:48.3 cm (19")
  • Display resolution
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:1600 x 900 pixels
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:1280 x 1024 pixels
  • HD type
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:HD+
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:SXGA
  • Touchscreen type
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:Resistive
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:Multi-user
  • Native aspect ratio
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:16:9
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:5:4
  • Panel type
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:TFT-LCD
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:IPS
  • Response time
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:5 ms
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:14 ms
  • Viewing angle, horizontal
    • MTL15CP POS monitor:170°
    • T1931SR-B6 POS monitor:178°

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only (on)
Comparison of MTL15CP, T1931SR-B6
35 specifications
Display9 differ
Display diagonalDiffers39.6 cm (15.6")48.3 cm (19")
Display resolutionDiffers1600 x 900 pixels1280 x 1024 pixels
HD typeDiffersHD+SXGA
Touchscreen typeDiffersResistiveMulti-user
Native aspect ratioDiffers16:95:4
Native refresh rateKnown for one75 HzUnknown — not stated by the source
Number of coloursKnown for one16.78 million coloursUnknown — not stated by the source
Panel typeDiffersTFT-LCDIPS
Response timeDiffers5 ms14 ms
Viewing angle, horizontalDiffers170°178°
Viewing angle, verticalDiffers160°178°
Pixel pitchKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the source0.293 x 0.293 mm
Featuresidentical
Windows operating systems supportedKnown for oneWindows 10, Windows 11, Windows 7, Windows 8Unknown — not stated by the source
Ports & interfacesidentical
InterfaceKnown for oneVGA (D-Sub) + HDMI + USB 2.0Unknown — not stated by the source
USB 2.0 ports quantityKnown for one1Unknown — not stated by the source
Poweridentical
Power source typeKnown for oneDCUnknown — not stated by the source
PowerKnown for one35 WUnknown — not stated by the source
Power consumption (standby)Known for one0.1 WUnknown — not stated by the source
AC adapter frequencyKnown for one50/60 HzUnknown — not stated by the source
AC adapter input voltageKnown for one100 - 240 VUnknown — not stated by the source
AC adapter output currentKnown for one4 AUnknown — not stated by the source
AC adapter output voltageKnown for one12 VUnknown — not stated by the source
Energy consumption per 1000 hoursKnown for one9 kWhUnknown — not stated by the source
Energy efficiency class (HDR)Known for oneDUnknown — not stated by the source
Energy efficiency class (SDR)Known for oneDUnknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensionsidentical
DepthKnown for one33 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
HeightKnown for one239 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
WeightKnown for one5 kgUnknown — not stated by the source
WidthKnown for one375 mmUnknown — not stated by the source
Operational conditionsidentical
Operating temperature (T-T)Known for one0 - 50 °CUnknown — not stated by the source
Certificatesidentical
CertificationKnown for oneUnknown — not stated by the sourceCE, EAC, RoHS, ErP, WEEE, cULus, VCCI, REACH, UKCA

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 pos monitor comparisons

All pos monitor comparisons