1920 x 1200 v. 1366 x 768.

O

OsageCowboy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
139
Considering getting the HP LC2600N as my PC monitor, and, especially for playing games. My question is simply, how drastic is the difference between running the PC at 1920 x 1200 and running it at 1366 x 768. Is anyone able to post a pic that demonstrates the difference between these two resolutions?

As far as gaming goes, does a 1366 x 768 optimized resolution using Powerstrip get the job done just fine, or is it lacking? I'll be running a 7900gtx through the HP lcd. Give me your thoughts.
 
well, i'm just looking for a solution that will give me tv capability, but at the same time be very capable of playing games in great definition. i'd like to see some comparative screens. it's either the 2407fpw or the hp lc2600n.
 
How about the Westinghouse 37 inch? 1080p and it has been down to $1200 in January. A newer model is out so you may be able to get it for cheap. 1080p is great for both a tv and computer monitor.
 
alexheinz said:
How about the Westinghouse 37 inch? 1080p and it has been down to $1200 in January. A newer model is out so you may be able to get it for cheap. 1080p is great for both a tv and computer monitor.
Click to expand...

No, the existing model is 1080i. The newer model is 1080p.
 
1366x768 != blurry. Youll just have less screen real estate. Also due to the 768 vertical res you might have to crank the AA up a bit in your games, but overall that wont matter as theyll still run insanely better at 1366 x 768 4x AA than 1920x1200 0x AA, unless you have a x1900xtx crossfire array or something.
 
I would wait for HD to really pick up before buying a 1920x1080 monitor. We don't know what HDCP UDI stuff is gonna pop up I think.

I would go with a 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 display and wait for HD to release :)
 
clayton4115 said:
well what do you want, sharp crisp images or blurry stuff?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that lower rez would only be blurry if you were displaying it on a higher-native rez monitor.
 
did you like the difference between 800x600 - 1280x720? if so youll love 1080p, i try not to settle for anything less on my 23"acd apart from fear which does run a little choppy at 1080p on a single xtx otherwise most games i play at 1080p with 4xaa and 16xaf.......looks beautiful....but youll always be buying the top end graphics card to maintain that res
 
FW900! I use 1920*1200, 1680*1050, even an oddball 1440*900. All 16:10 though. Rock!

Btw, that weird res is often an oddball thing on 720p displays as the true native. I've yet to see something meant to primarily be a computer monitor with that res.
 
If you're thinking about running at a lower resolution than the native res of the monitor, the image will look ok really only if you keep the aspect ratio the same. For example, a monitor with a native res of 1920x1200(16:10 aspect ratio) can run an image at say 1280x800(16:10 aspect ratio) with little to no distortion. As long as the aspect ratio is the same, you're pretty much good. Doing this for games is a great way to boost peformance.
 
For computer use, I wouldn't go bigger than 23-24 inches for a 1,920 x1200/1080 screen. The westies are great fro games and movies, but the pixel pitch is way too big for general computer usage.
 
Are 1280x720 HD broadcasts inherently blurry because of their low-res? Of course not.

It comes down to source. You might seriously miss the screen real estate with RTS or strategy games..FPS games with high AA will look pretty good at 1366x768.

Of course all things being equal, 1920x1200 is going to be better than 1366x768. However things aren't equal. A Sharp LCD panel like in the HP probably soundly beats the 2407fpw on black level, screen uniformity, and possibly even real world response time, if you believe extrapolating from other Sharp LCD reviews is valid. Check avsforum.com HP threads for Sharp sourcing, hometheatermag.com Sharp LCD review for black level, and Debguru review for lab tests on the Sharp 12ms rating. Sharp seems to keep it's rated response time near the max of the transition time while I'd guess Dell is quoting the minimum.

Also, as mentioned above you need to make sure you can play the games you want at 1920x1200 to actually get the resolution benefit. This may mean buying pretty much two of every new flagship card if you want to play current games with all the eye candy.

I'm in the same boat, but am waiting for the HP LC3260N with it's 6ms rated response time, which hopefully will be released in a week or two. What I'm doing is taking my CRT, running it as 1024x768 with high AA and trying to imagine what it would look like widescreen. So far it seems like an okay solution for FPS, but I need to do some playing on Civ4, etc.

Another caveat with the TV route is to make sure the model you're looking at can do 1:1 mapping. I've read of good results with this on avsforum for last year's Sharps, but I don't remember seeing a 26" mention.
 
Do you watch 720p a foot in front of your face though?

I have a 26inch 1366x768 LCD that I will use as my monitor. If everything is really big I will adjust sizes and maybe get a 2007fpw. I think size is mostly user preference, I would advise testing both resolutions. Take your laptop to Fry's along with a DVI cable and ask to hook it up to different TVs and monitors.
 
yoshi9784 said:
If you're thinking about running at a lower resolution than the native res of the monitor, the image will look ok really only if you keep the aspect ratio the same. For example, a monitor with a native res of 1920x1200(16:10 aspect ratio) can run an image at say 1280x800(16:10 aspect ratio) with little to no distortion. As long as the aspect ratio is the same, you're pretty much good. Doing this for games is a great way to boost peformance.
Click to expand...


I don't think this is right info. Running it at the right aspect ratio just makes sure that you don't have distorted pictures that are a little too tall or too wide.

The only way you can run an lcd at a lower resolution is if the lower resolution is in a nice ratio such as 1:2 or 1:3. So if you had 1920x1200 as a native resolution, if you want to make absolutely sure that you don't run into the half pixel problem, the 1:2 ratio lower resolution would be 960x600 if you want to keep the same sharpness.
 
alexheinz said:
Do you watch 720p a foot in front of your face though?
Click to expand...

No and I don't think the OP mentioned a requirement of viewing from a foot. Distance versus screen size becomes important here. If you sit a foot from a 26", then the 1368x768 becomes far worse, not due to resolution alone, but because on just about any digital display screendoor will becomes a huge problem at that viewing angle.

I do tend to have a wider viewing angle than most, certainly far closer than the THX recommendation. I sit 8' from an 80" 720p DLP pj and ~1.5' from a 2005FPW. Viewing angle can be calculated here .

Something like how much resolution difference will bug someone is very subjective, so I'd recommend the OP try to simulate it as best he can (CRT, etc.). Something like screendoor can be seen by trying out some displays in a B&M. Or maybe get a salesmen to hook up your display of interest to a computer to see for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top