19 inch wide - 1440 x 900 - Too small for gaming??

T

travbomb

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
862
If a manufacturer were to ask you if a 19 inch wide monitor would be good for your gaming purposes what would you say??

We are currently researching whether or not this would be a good monitor to create for gamers.

The main concerns at the moment are:

Is it too small?

Do most games support this resolution?

Any other major pros or cons of a 19 wide gaming monitor?

Thanks in advance for the help and this is assuming that the specs of the monitor are good enough for gaming.
 
I wouldn't buy one personally, as it would seem like a downgrade from the 1280x1024 that I'm used to. I'm looking into buying a widescreen LCD, but only 20" and up to be at least comparable to what I have now (17" LCD). I think people at least want some space tacked onto the sides of their monitor, not a shorter, wider version of what they have.

I guess there might be some budget gamers who would look into it, but it would have to be a significant savings over a 20". And with the prices of 20" WS monitors right now, that would be tough.
 
i don't think it is too small though many would probably disagree. The nice thing about 1440x900 is this is a resolution that you can easily run games at with a med - low end graphics card while the >20" screens require a med-high end card to run games well. So I think a 19"ws is a good screen for the budget gamer who wants a widescreen. Been contemplating getting one all summer long, though i might get a 2007fpw since i think my pc can handle it... i hope. But i like seeing the emergence of all these 19WS monitors. If i saw one with some nice features such as component or svideo input (for my xbox) while still haveing a fairly good response time I might grab one, cause this is why i am leaning towards the 2007. Though I do like the 940BW by samsung. Also a necessity is the 1:1 scaling, which no 19"WS have (that I have seen). I think this should be a monitor function as ATI cards cannot do this while Nvidea can.

I am prolly getting off topic but I know Travbomb works for a monitor company so i thought I would toss some ideas out also :D
 
Is someone really only going to play games on it?

Seems rather small for general usage. I would never buy one. I find 20" 16:10 kind of small and waffle about buying this size.

When not watching movies or playing games (and even playing some games like RTS). The vertical area becomes more of an issue and it would definitely be lacking in a 19" 16:10. About half an inch shorter in the vertical than a typical 17" LCD.
 
Snowdog said:
Is someone really only going to play games on it?

Seems rather small for general usage. I would never buy one. I find 20" 16:10 kind of small and waffle about buying this size.

When not watching movies or playing games (and even playing some games like RTS). The vertical area becomes more of an issue and it would definitely be lacking in a 19" 16:10. About half an inch shorter in the vertical than a typical 17" LCD.
Click to expand...

I meant gaming monitor in the same vein as the 20WMGX2 is. This monitor would be similar to that but in 19 wide.
 
I went from a 19'' CRT to a 19'' Widescreen LCD and had both setup beside each other for a while and the LCD was MUCH better for gaming. You have a much wider view in games that support widescreen (DODS and CS).
 
Addicted said:
I went from a 19'' CRT to a 19'' Widescreen LCD and had both setup beside each other for a while and the LCD was MUCH better for gaming. You have a much wider view in games that support widescreen (DODS and CS).
Click to expand...

Any issues with resolutions? And scaling?
 
For strictly gaming purposes, I would think that the 19 in would be a nice size. Since it's hard for even the high end graphics cards to run some of the most intense games (Oblivion) at a high resolution, having a 19 in would work out well.

Most the games that I end up playing are ones like Sims 2, Sim City, Pirates, or other games where a wider area would actually work out nicer than a taller area.

What would be nice is if the monitor was 19 in and supported a higher resolution. If I'm not mistaken, don't smaller laptop lcds can run at a much higher resolution than their desktop brothers?
 
For some reason 19" widescreens just don't sit well with me...the extra inch and the higher res of the 20" WS panels seems to make all the difference in the world. 19" lcd's are fine for gaming as long as the response time is good...but not a widescreen 19 incher imo.
 
When i've seen 19" widescreens i've just been struck by how TINY they are.. The resolution is fine IMHO since anybody who can pump a higher res will get a larger monitor anyway, but the scree nis to small for me!
 
leviathan814 said:
For strictly gaming purposes, I would think that the 19 in would be a nice size. Since it's hard for even the high end graphics cards to run some of the most intense games (Oblivion) at a high resolution, having a 19 in would work out well.
Click to expand...

That is what I was saying. If we could get an awesome monitor like the 20WMGX2 but in a 19 inch version I would be all over that, aslong as it priced better (which is should be due to the smaller size).

twoeyes said:
When i've seen 19" widescreens i've just been struck by how TINY they are.. The resolution is fine IMHO since anybody who can pump a higher res will get a larger monitor anyway, but the scree nis to small for me!
Click to expand...

People would not be saying this if the 19inchWS would have came out earlier especially before the 20 inch. People just get use to the norm and anything that goes against it is bad. Remember the day when a 27 inch television was big, now we have 50 inch monsters and no one would get smaller (except those who go LCD/plasma and want high resolution :D ). I think that comparison makes sense, if not, i guess i am on crack or something (long work day :( )
 
i was using a 17 inch crt and the 19 inch widesreen still felt really tiny. hell even a 20 inch widescreen is only as tall as a 17 inch lcd. i had no trouble getting any of my games to use 1440x900 with just a little work but all these 19 inch widescreens use cheaper 6-bit panels and have poor viewing angles.
 
Can someone get a side-by-side shot of a 19"W and a normal 17"? I plan on buying a 19"W soon and I'd like to see the difference...
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
Can someone get a side-by-side shot of a 19"W and a normal 17"? I plan on buying a 19"W soon and I'd like to see the difference...
Click to expand...
a 20inch widescreen lcd and a normal 17inch lcd have the same screen height.
 
If I was going to get a widescreen, it would have to be at least as tall as a normal 19 inch LCD (5:4)...if I've done the math correctly that means the screen would need to be a 24 to 25 inch widescreen (16:9).

A 24 to 25 inch widescreen (16:9) that runs at a "low resolution" of about 1600x1024 would be a very attractive buy if you ask me. You still get a big ass screen, but the performance at native resolution isn't much worse than a normal 19 inch screen (5:4) because the vertical resolution would be the same on both of them (1280x1024 vs 1600x1024).
 
Unknown-One said:
If I was going to get a widescreen, it would have to be at least as tall as a normal 19 inch LCD (5:4)...if I've done the math correctly that means the screen would need to be a 24 to 25 inch widescreen (16:9).

A 24 to 25 inch widescreen (16:9) that runs at a "low resolution" of about 1600x1024 would be a very attractive buy if you ask me. You still get a big ass screen, but the performance at native resolution isn't much worse than a normal 19 inch screen (5:4) because the vertical resolution would be the same on both of them (1280x1024 vs 1600x1024).
Click to expand...
well a 24inch widescreen lcd is just a little taller than a standard 19inch lcd. you are stuck at 1920x1200 with a 24incher so not only is the monitor expensive so is the hardware to run games at that resolution. also computer monitors are 16:10.
 
Bump - One time. Gotta submit some input to marketing by EOB. Hoping to get a little more info. Thanks for everything so far.
 
travbomb said:
Bump - One time. Gotta submit some input to marketing by EOB. Hoping to get a little more info. Thanks for everything so far.
Click to expand...

I think it is too small. But there are people on a budget who may prefer it too a standard 19" screens.

I assume this will be a TN screen with the glossy treatment. In which case don't bother with portrait mode ability. TN screens are pretty much unusable in portrait mode. Bear in mind price sensitivity of this end of the market. Thus it must be TN screen, and don't waste money on needless things like previously mentioned portrait mode. If you consider things like HDCP or Tuners, I would consider this optional and having a low cost stripped model without. We are talking the budget end of the market here.

Scaling, scaling, scaling. I don't have one, but I have heard poor reports of scaling classic games on the 20WMGX2. It must have a decent aspect fill mode. It should be possible to have old 640x480, 800x600 games vertically fill the screen while retaining correct aspect, with black bars on the side.

Beyond this. You should get an Xbox 360/PS3 and design a mode specifically to make these consoles look good. That will win you points. Again, largely a scaling issue. If not in this monitor it is something you should be definitely looking into on future ones.

Fast response, gloss screen, good scaling, competetive pricing and you have a niche here.

Not for me though. The absolute smallest screen I consider is the 20" 1680x1050 and even that not really(only consider the Dell 2007wfp for a cheap S-IPS screen). I really want 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.

Again. Quality scaling is important if you want to win here. I don't understand why there are not more robust scaling options on these monitors. Need more programmers? I am getting tired of Telecom...

I see suberb scaling as a killer feature. My ideal scaling function would allow me to dial the amount of zoom, stretch, and sharpness/filtering and save that as a custom setting, to get the most out of lower resolution material.

Given a fast responding, good viewing angle panel like the 20WMGX2, the biggest drawback compared to CRT is handling other resolutions.

For a competetive advantage. Nec needs to develop a superior scaling setup with Xbox/PS modes. Include it on everything you consider a Gaming monitor. Also having a Nec branding to identify gaming capable monitors would help consumers. Say from now on GX means Gamer Xtreme or something lame like that. Each GX has fast response, good scaling, and gloss screen.

Some things to think about it.
 
Snowdog said:
I think it is too small. But there are people on a budget who may prefer it too a standard 19" screens.

I assume this will be a TN screen with the glossy treatment. In which case don't bother with portrait mode ability. TN screens are pretty much unusable in portrait mode. Bear in mind price sensitivity of this end of the market. Thus it must be TN screen, and don't waste money on needless things like previously mentioned portrait mode. If you consider things like HDCP or Tuners, I would consider this optional and having a low cost stripped model without. We are talking the budget end of the market here.

Scaling, scaling, scaling. I don't have one, but I have heard poor reports of scaling classic games on the 20WMGX2. It must have a decent aspect fill mode. It should be possible to have old 640x480, 800x600 games vertically fill the screen while retaining correct aspect, with black bars on the side.

Beyond this. You should get an Xbox 360/PS3 and design a mode specifically to make these consoles look good. That will win you points. Again, largely a scaling issue. If not in this monitor it is something you should be definitely looking into on future ones.

Fast response, gloss screen, good scaling, competetive pricing and you have a niche here.

Not for me though. The absolute smallest screen I consider is the 20" 1680x1050 and even that not really(only consider the Dell 2007wfp for a cheap S-IPS screen). I really want 1600x1200 or 1920x1200.

Again. Quality scaling is important if you want to win here. I don't understand why there are not more robust scaling options on these monitors. Need more programmers? I am getting tired of Telecom...

I see suberb scaling as a killer feature. My ideal scaling function would allow me to dial the amount of zoom, stretch, and sharpness/filtering and save that as a custom setting, to get the most out of lower resolution material.

Given a fast responding, good viewing angle panel like the 20WMGX2, the biggest drawback compared to CRT is handling other resolutions.

For a competetive advantage. Nec needs to develop a superior scaling setup with Xbox/PS modes. Include it on everything you consider a Gaming monitor. Also having a Nec branding to identify gaming capable monitors would help consumers. Say from now on GX means Gamer Xtreme or something lame like that. Each GX has fast response, good scaling, and gloss screen.

Some things to think about it.
Click to expand...

Basically he explains it all very well, a xbox/xbox360/ps3 mode with the correct inputs would be awesome.
Except i disagree with the fact that 19"WS is too small :p
But yes if you get the same inputs as the 2007wfp (DVI, VGA, S-video, and compent) and offer good scaling, HDCP, and the quality of the 20WMGX2, I would be all over that. Can u just make it now, cause I will actually buy it now. :D
 
blazingrig said:
A 19inch widescreen is defenietly not "too small". I can however understand how some of these guys who have 21 and 24 inch monitors feel about a 19inch being too small. I remember when I first got my OC I had a a 14inch cause I had just moved in to my apartment. The day I got my 19inch Dell CRT the difference was night and day, the monitor looked like something out of a theater. However, fast foward a few monthes and the monitor looks kind of small to me now.
Click to expand...
thats your opinion. i thought it was tiny as hell and thats coming from a 17inch crt. a standard 17inch lcd felt much much bigger. he is just going to have to try one for himself to really get a feel for it. also all the 19inch widescreens use TN panels and have very poor viewing angles and color reproduction.
 
trek554 said:
also all the 19inch widescreens use TN panels and have very poor viewing angles and color reproduction.
Click to expand...

I take some exception to the viewing angle issue, which I feel is over-rated WRT TN panels and underated WRT VA panles.

After two PVA panels I have a TN panel and the primary reason was that I could not stand the poor viewing angle characteristics of the PVA panels.

In the real world sitting mostly centered on my panels. TN has MUCH better viewing angle stability in the all important horizontal direction than does PVA. TN panels have worse vieing angles in the vertical direction but that is not nearly as critical.

On color I agree that TN it is the bottom of the pack (for image editing) but it is not that far back. I definitely notice banding when running a gradient test. But it normal usage I really can't see the difference between colors in images/games vs my PVA screens. Images look just a correct and vibrant as they did on PVA, though I wouldn't use this screen as a primary image editing screen.

If you really want a good all around screen for color and viewing angles, it must be IPS IMO.
 
blazingrig said:
A 19inch widescreen is defenietly not "too small". I can however understand how some of these guys who have 21 and 24 inch monitors feel about a 19inch being too small. I remember when I first got my OC I had a a 14inch cause I had just moved in to my apartment. The day I got my 19inch Dell CRT the difference was night and day, the monitor looked like something out of a theater. However, fast foward a few monthes and the monitor looks kind of small to me now.

Also, the viewable size of my 19inch CRT is slightly bigger than a 17inch LCD. I have about a 18 inch diagonal, and the vertical and horozontal measurements are also more than a 17 inch LCD monitor. When comparing a 19inch WS to my screen using the link provided a few posts back, I did some real time measurements and realized that my CRT has a vertical (viewable) of about 274mm (10.79 inches) while a 19 inch WS lcd has a vertical of about 255mm(10.07inches). So all I lose is about 2 centimeters, and gain about 2-3 inches in Horozontal display size. That is not small to me at all as I'm not losing hardly anything compared to my 19inch CRT. The additional width outweighs the 2 cm loss.

At the end of the day it depends on what monitor your coming from also. As for the 360, 1280x720 a 16:9 resolution while the best resolution via the 360 for a 19 is 16:10, so far I've seen alot of screens and I can say that theres hardly any image disortion/stretching at all. Mayeb noticable slightly in circles, etc. But A monitor that could have a 360 mode would be great as mentioned above.
Click to expand...


I recently upgraded from a 17in CRT (at 1024x768 res) to a 17in LCD. The increase in screen area is very evident, but text size is quite small for me at the LCD's native resolution of 1280x1024. I need to wear my reading glasses for more comfortable viewing, unless I increase DPI setting to 120 (from default 96). I'm now considering getting a 19in instead, and was considering the 19in WS but after reading this thread, it seems that I wouldn't be getting any improvement in text size since the actual vertical screen dimension would actually be less than my current 17in LCD. Am I right in thinking I'm better off getting a regular 19in LCD instead?
 
idoc said:
I recently upgraded from a 17in CRT (at 1024x768 res) to a 17in LCD. The increase in screen area is very evident, but text size is quite small for me at the LCD's native resolution of 1280x1024. I need to wear my reading glasses for more comfortable viewing, unless I increase DPI setting to 120 (from default 96). I'm now considering getting a 19in instead, and was considering the 19in WS but after reading this thread, it seems that I wouldn't be getting any improvement in text size since the actual vertical screen dimension would actually be less than my current 17in LCD. Am I right in thinking I'm better off getting a regular 19in LCD instead?
Click to expand...
yes a regular 19inch is what you would need in your case. a 19inch widescreen is about the same dot pitch as a normal 17inch lcd so the text would be just as hard to read. also the damn thing is not even as tall as a normal 17inch lcd.
 
Snowdog said:
I take some exception to the viewing angle issue, which I feel is over-rated WRT TN panels and underated WRT VA panles.

After two PVA panels I have a TN panel and the primary reason was that I could not stand the poor viewing angle characteristics of the PVA panels.

In the real world sitting mostly centered on my panels. TN has MUCH better viewing angle stability in the all important horizontal direction than does PVA. TN panels have worse vieing angles in the vertical direction but that is not nearly as critical.

On color I agree that TN it is the bottom of the pack (for image editing) but it is not that far back. I definitely notice banding when running a gradient test. But it normal usage I really can't see the difference between colors in images/games vs my PVA screens. Images look just a correct and vibrant as they did on PVA, though I wouldn't use this screen as a primary image editing screen.

If you really want a good all around screen for color and viewing angles, it must be IPS IMO.
Click to expand...

You know it's funny but I don't remember when I last bought a monitor for viewing angles. I've seen you trash PVA panels quite a bit, how many monitors have you owned with PVA panels? I've got no problems with my PVA screen it has a much better viewing angle horizontally than my MVA screen. And although you might think TN is less bothersome I personally can't take a screen that has such bad vertical viewing angles, you're always adjusting your chair or the screen. And seeing the color differences in a TN panel and PVA/IPS is easy, you'll see it on any website with a gradient, Yes IPS screens are better but that doesn't mean a TN is better than a PVA, they all have specific uses at different price points. Oh and I have no trouble moving my head around to look at both of my monitors, viewing angle is great escpecially on the PVA screen. And to get back to the original topic yes 19" is just too small for a widescreen to be enjoyable, especially if you want to letterbox anything 4:3. 4:3 on my 21" widescreen is about comparable to a 17", I don't want to think about a 19".
 
Why do people buy widescreen monitors? 1) For a more immersive gaming experience or 2) for viewing movies.


1) No gamer wants a 19" widescreen, they settle for 19" widescreens. Honestly, a regular 19" screen is more immersive than a 19" widescreen.

2) No one, absolutely no one in their right mind will ever buy a 19" widescreen for viewing movies or television, who the hell wants to be forced to sit 2ft away from their screen to watch something.
 
si0dine said:
Why do people buy widescreen monitors? 1) For a more immersive gaming experience or 2) for viewing movies.


1) No gamer wants a 19" widescreen, they settle for 19" widescreens. Honestly, a regular 19" screen is more immersive than a 19" widescreen.

2) No one, absolutely no one in their right mind will ever buy a 19" widescreen for viewing movies or television, who the hell wants to be forced to sit 2ft away from their screen to watch something.
Click to expand...
wtf are you talking about? for gaming a widescreen is wonderful. you get a much more natural fov. you cant do that with a standard monitor without getting the fish-eye look. if you are just bitching about the size then I have to agree with you.
 
trek554 said:
wtf are you talking about? for gaming a widescreen is wonderful. you get a much more natural fov. you cant do that with a standard monitor without getting the fish-eye look. if you are just bitching about the size then I have to agree with you.
Click to expand...

No I said I think a 19" regular screen is more immersive to me than a 19" widescreen, obviously because the 19" widescreen is so small I can't be immersive unless your face is 6" away from the screen.
 
StaticSurge said:
You know it's funny but I don't remember when I last bought a monitor for viewing angles. I've seen you trash PVA panels quite a bit, how many monitors have you owned with PVA panels? I've got no problems with my PVA screen it has a much better viewing angle horizontally than my MVA screen. And although you might think TN is less bothersome I personally can't take a screen that has such bad vertical viewing angles, you're always adjusting your chair or the screen. And seeing the color differences in a TN panel and PVA/IPS is easy, you'll see it on any website with a gradient, Yes IPS screens are better but that doesn't mean a TN is better than a PVA, they all have specific uses at different price points. Oh and I have no trouble moving my head around to look at both of my monitors, viewing angle is great escpecially on the PVA screen.
Click to expand...

I have been quite clear. I have owned two PVA screens. Dell 2405(PVA), Dell 2007fp ( S-PVA). I thought viewing angles would be a non issue with numbers like 178 degrees viewing angles quoted on these panels. That is essentially a lie. It is at a contrast ratio of 5:1 or 10:1 at the very best. Farce. They should be measured at least 100:1 contrast. There are two exceptions that I have noted in a previous thread. New Samsung 21",24" seem to have much improved viewing angles compared to other VA panels, but you wouldn't know it from the specs since they are not accurately reported.

I now have a TN panel and the horizontal viewing angle is vastly superior to the point it is a non issue. The PVA panels were so bad it was like putting the TN in portrait mode. I probably wouldn't get a screen taller than 17" in TN, but at that height the vertical viewing angles are very managable. Horizontal viewing angles are much better. In a 19"WS or 20"WS I would definitely prefer TN to VA. Taller than this I would want IPS.
 
19" wide has slightly smaller pixels than a 19"regular, .010mm. its a very small difference but it may be noticable.
 
idoc said:
I recently upgraded from a 17in CRT (at 1024x768 res) to a 17in LCD. The increase in screen area is very evident, but text size is quite small for me at the LCD's native resolution of 1280x1024. I need to wear my reading glasses for more comfortable viewing, unless I increase DPI setting to 120 (from default 96). I'm now considering getting a 19in instead, and was considering the 19in WS but after reading this thread, it seems that I wouldn't be getting any improvement in text size since the actual vertical screen dimension would actually be less than my current 17in LCD. Am I right in thinking I'm better off getting a regular 19in LCD instead?
Click to expand...

Yeah a regular 19" is just what you need. 19" is a weird thing for 4:3's because for the most part they share 1280*1024 as there res just like the 17". So you would be using that to your advantage. You will have the same res on a bigger screen.
 
deleted

3rd, In a PC enviroment where do you find yourself sitting everyday? I sit about 3 Feet away from the screen when watching movies. I'm not going to lie on a bed or setup a sofa to watch any screen less than 27 inches. Plus No, I don't watch TV on my LCD when theres a big TV sitting in the living room. Besides my eyes arn't that good anyways.

Anyway, I have a 19inch CRT and a 19 inch widescreen LCD, If people want a comparison side by side, Ill take a small pic one day. (for those who havent seen a 19 inch WS in person) But anyways, to each and his own, these are all oppinions, they are not facts. My posts are all oppinions, as well as the guy above who says 19 inch WS are to small. It's not that serious, These are just screens here, they come in different sizes, so anyone can get as big of a screen as their money can afford them and according to their preferances, etc.
 
I just bought a 19" Samsung 940BW yesterday and I couldn't be more happy with it. I'm a casual gamer so I don't need a HUGE screen and I have limited space so a 19" was perfect for my needs. While at Best Buy, the monitor did look extremely small comapred to other monitors but I just realized that Best Buy surrounded this 19" with all of their biggest monitors. I got home and set it up and it's the perfect size.
 
What is a good cost for a 19 inch wide LCD??

Is $269.99 too high??

What do you see the higher end brands going for?

Whats the most you would pay for a 19 wide?

Thanks again for the help!
 
travbomb said:
What is a good cost for a 19 inch wide LCD??

Is $269.99 too high??

What do you see the higher end brands going for?

Whats the most you would pay for a 19 wide?

Thanks again for the help!
Click to expand...

269.99 seems like a good price (that is what the Samsung 940bw is going for) I think the LG 19" WS is 289.99 (retail price). They are both in the price range that I would think about purchasing. If it had more features I would be inclined to pay more but no more than 300 bucks. Infact just based on price alone, I may be grabbing the 940bw as it is on sale at officemax for 199 (Thanks u 60 instant rebate). So yeah, i do not think u should charge anymore than 300 dollars for a well featured 19WS.
 
travbomb said:
What is a good cost for a 19 inch wide LCD??

Is $269.99 too high??

What do you see the higher end brands going for?

Whats the most you would pay for a 19 wide?

Thanks again for the help!
Click to expand...

The Samsung 940BW is on sale at Best Buy for $199
link

edit: Best Buy advertises it as having a heigh adjustable and swivel stand, which it does not, the 940BX does
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top