1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 prices?

T

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,611
why do 19x12 cost so much more then 19x10? is 19x12 that much better?
 
1920x1080 are aimed at the low-cost consumer segment, so the manufacturers try to save as much money as they could. 1920x1200 are not only larger, but generally should have more options and better electronics. But what raises the average price of 16:10 monitors is that many of them are mid-range (PVA/MVA) and hi-end monitors (IPS panels).
 
tricky0502 said:
why do 19x12 cost so much more then 19x10? is 19x12 that much better?
Click to expand...

The 1920x1200 has 230,400 more pixels than the 1920x1080. You are getting an extra 120 lines of vertical resolution. IMO that is well worth any price difference for me, but then again I'm a designer and can really take advantage of the extra room when using things like Adobe's Creative Suite. If you are just watching movies, playing games and browsing the internet, it might not matter so much to you.
 
Not sure if I'm right or not.

PC games and such = 1920x1200

Watching movies and console gaming = 1920x1080

I say go for 1920x1200 so you can do both.
 
DTN107 said:
Not sure if I'm right or not.

PC games and such = 1920x1200

Watching movies and console gaming = 1920x1080

I say go for 1920x1200 so you can do both.
Click to expand...

PC games run perfectly fine in 1920x1080.
 
If you are used to the vertical space of a 4:3 monitor, then 16:9 gives up too much height. I'm not even thrilled with 16:10. YMMV.
 
Valnar said:
If you are used to the vertical space of a 4:3 monitor, then 16:9 gives up too much height.
Click to expand...
More like gaining height, physical and pixel wise, if you're using an ancient 4:3 monitor and upgrading to a 24" 1080p LCD (1600x1200 being the exception).
 
j3ff86 said:
More like gaining height, physical and pixel wise, if you're using an ancient 4:3 monitor and upgrading to a 24" 1080p LCD (1600x1200 being the exception).
Click to expand...

No, I pretty much meant exactly what I said. Who said ancient 4:3 monitor? A 22" 4:3 monitor vs a 22" 16:9 monitor will have far more vertical height in respect to aspect ratio.
 
j3ff86 said:
More like gaining height, physical and pixel wise, if you're using an ancient 4:3 monitor and upgrading to a 24" 1080p LCD (1600x1200 being the exception).
Click to expand...

im using 16x12 now. i feel the need to go widescreen.
 
Are both made from the same glass?
If not, is the 1920x1080 made from glass that is produced for TV's?
If so, this could account for some price difference.
 
I'm using a 32" 1920x1080 IPS screen panel for general web browsing vs. a 1920x1200 30" because the print size is easier to read. I like to sit back 4" from the screen without squinting to read text. I'm using the same display for gaming because I'm able to use a single vid card (ATI 4890) to get good framerates playing Crysis at native res with high detail in-game settings. An added benefit is that it makes a wonderful extra TV-- I only have to change the input to immediately receive over the air HD TV chanels.

I've owned and still own many types of LCD panels, and would never purchase anything other than IPS for home/entertainment purposes. The decision of resolution comes next, and that is more of a personal preference related to your primarily uses. You pay more for the 1920x1200 res simply because it is not yet mainstream monitor size as is the 1680x1050 monitor or mainstream TV size as the 1920x1080 has become. The increase in price has nothing to do with the extra pixels.
 
Not 100% accurate, measured with a yard stick according to the gentleman that provided me with the measurements. The VW246H measurements seem to be close if not right on.

LCD screen size measurements:

Asus VW266H 25.5 Inch (16:10) 1920x1200 newegg price 329.99 less $30 rebate = $299.99
Viewable screen size 13 9/16" x 21 3/4"

Asus VW246H 24 Inch (16:9) 1920x1080 newegg price $229.99
Viewable screen size 11 13/16" x 21 1/16"

I just bought a VW246H from zipzoomfly under the sale price of $205 (up to $217.99 now). The VW246H does what I need it to do, it is a TN panel. Suits my needs. I will be picking up another monitor to replace my other 21" Dell P1130 CRT but will be waiting to see what the 4th of July weekend prices are. I am definitely having trouble deciding if the extra cost of the VW266H is worth it for my needs. I do not want to go any narrower so a 24" or smaller 1920x1200 is out of the question. Largest monitor I could look at locally was a 23.6, don't recall if it was 16:10 or 16:9. Coming from the 21" CRT monitors I lost about 3/16" vertically and gained about 5" horizontally. I am thinking that the YPbPr Ports on the VW266H might come in handy down the road.
 
Last edited:
I have a Dell S2209W (1920x1080) and I am pretty pleased with the quality of the screen itself. I even sold my Samsung 22" (1680x1050) to get another one.

They are real cheap too if you get them on sale. I bought both at $150 and $140 respectively.
 
1920x1200 displays don't always cost more than 1920x1080 displays... When I bought my Samsung 2443BWX display at Costco for $200 they had several other newer 16:9 22-24" displays that were priced anywhere in the $220-$350 range. I guess the 2443BWX might've been discounted because it's an older model, but geez, it's not that old and I'd rather have it over any of the 16:9 displays regardless. Now if you're talking about displays using different technologies (TN vs IPS etc) then that's a whole other ball of wax and whatever price differences exist have more to do with that than the screen aspect ratios.

Anyway, 16:10 is just a marketing gimmick if you ask me, with the vast majority of movies you'll still have black bars anyway, and besides college students who watches movies on their computer display constantly anyway? What's the point of having less screen real estate otherwise?
 
The Vizio VMM26F201 25.5" 1920x1200 sells at Costco online for $349.99 plus tax. The Sceptre 207071 24" 1920x1200 sells for $199 plus tax. I am thinking that a 24" 1920x1200 would be too small horizontally for my needs. Unfortunately the largest monitor in my area at both of the local Costco stores was 23.6", same as OfficeMax, Staples, Best Buy and Office Depot. For size alone Costco online has the HannsG HG-281DPB 1920x1200 for $299.99 plus $24.99 S/H plus sales tax. The HannsG did not seem to be too well liked according to youtube videos (no 1.1 pixel mapping plus other minuses).

The 24" 1920x1080 VW246H is only approx 5/8" narrower and 1 3/4" shorter than the 25.5" 1920x1200 VW266H, again I am talking viewable screen size.

Just seems like one would lose too much width with a 24" 1920x1200 over a 24" 1920x1080 to me. Would be nice if the manufacturers gave us the actual screen measurements, at least it would for me.

Anyone have any viewable screen measurements of a 24" 1920x1200?
 
Last edited:
My 24" Samsung 2443BWX (16:10 / 1920x1200) is 20.5" horizontally (viewable screen area)... I'm not sure what you're going on about though, horizontally you'll be able to have the same amount of screen elements present in a 1920x1080 screen vs a 1920x1200 screen, they're both 1920 pixels wide after all. If you're just trying to get an approximation of how small/large text may look that's what dot pitch measurements are for no?
 
Impulse said:
Anyway, 16:10 is just a marketing gimmick if you ask me, with the vast majority of movies you'll still have black bars anyway, and besides college students who watches movies on their computer display constantly anyway? What's the point of having less screen real estate otherwise?
Click to expand...

I watch TV and movies everyday on my computer, even though I am only 58 years old my college days are far behind me. I do not understand why someone always goes on about some kind of marketing gimmick in most threads about the differences. Most threads I have read your statement that 16:9 is a gimmick rather than 16:10 so you probably just screwed up writing your post. 16:9 seems adequate for my needs but the largest screen I have seen for sale locally is a 23.6". IMHO if 16:9 were not adequate for most people then 16:9 would be disappearing in the market place. Most people can easily get by with a TN panel.

I am taking into consideration watching movies and TV laying on my bed 5 to 6 feet away. I choose not to have a separate TV in my bedroom so I am compromising in order to keep a dual monitor setup. The 24" VW246H seems to fit my needs but I am considering the 25.5 VH266H to replace my other Dell P1130. I am trying to figure out if the extra cost of the 25.5" VW266H is worth it over the 24" VW246H. The best scenario would be to be able to compare them all in person but unfortunately no one in my area carries anything larger than a 23.6". I doubt if I could tell the difference between 0.258 mm and 0.287 mm Pixel Pitch/Dot Pitch from 6 feet away but I can appreciate the difference that a little larger amount of real estate adds. Black bars are of no concern to me at all , I've been ignoring them for years with ease. If I was only using it mainly for a computer monitor a 24" 1920x1200 would probably be my preference.

I think everyone should consider both 16:9 and 16:10 and weigh the differences of their own needs and uses. I do not assume that either 16:9 or 16x10 will suit the needs/wants of everyone anymore than I think a one size fits all T-Shirt fits everyone.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I made a typo, I meant that 16:9 aspect ratios seem like a gimmick to me... Just so they can claim "full HD resolution/support/whatever!" on the box. You'll have to forgive my stereotype, but I still think it's a gimmick regardless of how much TV you or anyone else watches on their display. The vast majority of people don't use them as a primary display for that, and while a lot of TV content might be 16:9 these days, most movies aren't, so you're catering to like half the content anyway.

What's the point of 16:9 if not to conform to the TV/movie aspect ratio and eliminate/mitigate the black bars? There's no other upside compared to 16:10, AFAIK, maybe I'm missing something blatantly obvious. You're just loosing screen real estate in Windows compared to 16:10 displays. /shrug

Frankly I would think most of the TN panels you're comparing would make horrible TV displays anyway, at 'least for watching them as you intend to do, from the bed probably from across the room or 'least farther than you typically sit from them... Unless your posture in bed happens to place you at exactly the same eye line as you maintain when you work/game on the computer, chances are poor vertical viewing angles of a TN panel are gonna bother you... 'Least it'd bother me, wouldn't it look either washed out or overly saturated?

I can't lean back very far on my computer chair before that particular deficiency of all TN panels becomes very evident, horizontal viewing angles are a lot more tolerant tho. When I'm watching Hulu on my computer (something I do rarely, most of the time I hook up the netbook to the HDTV) I'd rather watch it on my CRT as it looks better from any angle/distance than my 24" LCD.
 
Last edited:
Impulse said:
What's the point of 16:9 if not to conform to the TV/movie aspect ratio and eliminate/mitigate the black bars? There's no other upside compared to 16:10
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If you don't watch movies on your monitor most of the time, I cannot see why anyone would want a 16:9 monitor. What's next?... a monitor in 2.76:1 (16 x 5.79) format to accommodate the movie Ben-Hur without black bars?
 
I use my computer as my TV as well. I also like the clarity of this display because of the really high resolution compared to other 22" displays. I haven't seen another 22" display with 1920x1080 so the resolution is a plus for me (which is usually not the case...). My old 22" was a 1680x1050 so this was a good bump.
 
Believe it or not, 16:9 is not the work of the evil one. 16:9 suits my needs for both a monitor and video even though you disagree. No one should write off either without checking both out, hopefully side by side, before they choose. No point in losing a few dollars if whichever format costs less if it meets someones needs. The Asus VW246H I received looks great after tweaking. I lay on my side and look at the monitor with video running. Yes it loses some of the brightness but it works just fine for me watching TV in the dark. Looks fine watching in a small window in the corner of the screen too. YMMV If you need 16:10 or just think you do by all means that is what you should get. Stay tuned for "Are mormons Christian?". I am not sure which side I will argue.
 
Last edited:
But my vertical axis field of vision is smaller than my horizontal axis field of vision by enough of a margin so a 1920x1080 seems to adequately suit my needs. Still have not decided if I will go with a 1920x1200 25.5" or another 1920x1080 24" for my second monitor but I am certain that this thread has not influenced me much. Does seem to make me lean towards another 16:9 though. Many 16:10 promoters just seem way too certain of their superiority. Definitely not a black and white issue for me.
 
Last edited:
16:9 is the better aspect ratio for video because humans have a wider horizontal peripheral vision than vertical. However, that's generally not what you do when you use a PC. Extra height is useful for websites and documents if nothing else.

If it was the case that the normal 16:10 24" monitors were 1728x1080 (less width than 1920x1080) rather than 1920x1200 (more height than 1920x1080), then there'd be no reason to get them.
 
If vertical resolution wasn't important, why make widescreen monitors that swivel to portrait format. Why don't we just print all documents in landscape format? The answer is because it's easier to read shorter lines up and down than long lines across.

16:9 monitors are only "better" for video (and that's debatable), not necessarily every other task.
 
Everything is debatable. Still have not seen any posts that convince me one format or the other will or will not suit my personal needs/wants. 16:10 fanboys! LOL
 
Either is good. I have 16:9 right now and games look great on it. This question is like asking someone whats their favorite food. Everyone has their own preferences.
 
My Acer 23" 1920x1080 looks quite a bit better than the 24" 1920x1200 panels I had (Samsung, HannsG, HP). I am not sure what it is (lower dot pitch maybe?), but the picture is a lot sharper. Graphics just look better.
 
flylow said:
Believe it or not, 16:9 is not the work of the evil one. 16:9 suits my needs for both a monitor and video even though you disagree. No one should write off either without checking both out, hopefully side by side, before they choose. No point in losing a few dollars if whichever format costs less if it meets someones needs. The Asus VW246H I received looks great after tweaking. I lay on my side and look at the monitor with video running. Yes it loses some of the brightness but it works just fine for me watching TV in the dark. Looks fine watching in a small window in the corner of the screen too. YMMV If you need 16:10 or just think you do by all means that is what you should get. Stay tuned for "Are mormons Christian?". I am not sure which side I will argue.
Click to expand...

I never said it's the devil, I just don't see the upside and you haven't shared why you prefer it either. The only possible reason I can conceive for a 16:9 aspect ratio is the black bars / TV relationship (and the marketing possibilities / tie-ins), and you said that's not part of the appeal for you at all, so what is? I'm genuinely curious, because I don't see any other benefit. As far as I see you're just losing workspace and even resolution/depth in games. /shrug What are you gaining with a 16:9 aspect ratio? :confused:
 
Once again I agree with Impulse. Everybody has to remember, just because "they" make it in 16:9 format doesn't mean it actually has some scientific reasoning behind it. 50 years ago they didn't make 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 movies because they knew something about human vision, they literally pulled it out of their ass.

If a 16:9 monitor was in front of me, I could easily see over and under it, wasting a portion of my "vision space" so to speak. 4:3 doesn't do that, and 16:10 (only because it tends to be bigger all around) doesn't do that as much. The wider the screen, the more I have to go out of my way to see it all. I don't have to move my head at all looking at a 4:3 screen.

Maybe other people are different, but a 16:9 monitor, and even a 16:10 to some extent forces me to look around more with my eyes or by moving my head. My favorite factoid I found on the Internet is
"Reading text formatted for wide page is painful. Reader's eye follows a long line, then have to return all the way back along the same line in order to correctly find the beginning of the next line."
Click to expand...
Despite what scientists these days say about field of vision, they have to be mistaken on this.... or... they simply meant 16:9 was better suited for screens much further away - like movies. I know of no study that suggests a persons field of vision is approximately 16:9 when the monitor is 2' away from your face.

It's obvious the only reason manufacturers are putting out 16:9 monitors is for marketing purposes and to say they are "hi def". They want to ride on the coattails of HDTV.

And once again, the usual disclaimer. This isn't meant to offend any 16:9 lovers in this thread, only to point out that I doubt there is any serious evidence that points out it is truly better. But everybody is welcome to their preference.

my 2 pesos.
 
I've yet to really see a 16:9 monitor of good quality that many 16:10 monitors have been doing these past years, it could just be that 16:9 monitors are new or that it's marketed at the "cheap" sector of the market, which seems to be the case more and more.
 
I am more than likely going to buy a second monitor over the 4th of July weekend. I have narrowed my choices down to either a VW266H or a VW246H. 16:9 has a little more horizontal, 16:10 has a little more vertical. I am happy that 16:10 meets your needs/wants. For my needs/wants neither format is a deal breaker so a second VW246H remains on my shortlist. If I decide to spend more money I will probably go with the VW266H 16:10. If both formats fill someones needs/wants the final choice is theirs. If anyone needs/wants 16:10 then that is what they should buy. I apologize if I offended any 16:10 fanboys.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top