1900x1200 vs 1900x1080

R

Rogue71

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
1,311
ive been using the LG L246WP-BN for about 2 yrs now. its 1900x1200 and i love the space.

ive been looking for some side-by-side comparisons between a 1900x1200 and a 1900x1080 lcd, specifically the dell lcds. ( u2410, p2310h)

im planning an eyefinity setup very soon, but im unsure of my budget just yet, so im trying to get this out of the way now so i dont impulse buy and regret it.


ideally its pretty obvious id rather have the u2410, but if they arent on sale when i have the cash they will no doubt be out of my pricerange.

the p2310h is half the price of the u2410.

right now i have 2 LG L246WP-BN 24" 1900x1200 lcds, but they are mismatched for colour and brightness as they are both refurbs,so im leary of using them in an eyefinity setup,and because they both broke down within 2 years im not putting too much trust in them anymore. but if worse comes to worse and the 1900x1080 sucks too bad in comparison i'll just buy one u2410 if im short on cash and use the 2 existing screens and suffer through till i can get the other 2 u2410 lcds which could be god knows when.

id appreciate any insight. if anyone has pictures comparing the 2 sizes that would be great. from basic measurements its alot to be loosing, but ive never seen the side-by-side comparisons.
 
Having used both 1920x1200 and 1080p on a regular basis, unless you absolutely crave vertical space (think spreadsheets and other documents), then the 1080p screen will be fine. For content consumption, I think the 16:9 ratio is ideal since it eliminates the black bars that you'd get on a 16:10 display.
 
albovin said:
Most of the movies have 2.4:1 ratio, some have 1.85:1. So you have black bars on both 16x10 and 16x9.
Click to expand...

+1. 1920 rules, hands down, 1080 is a lame attempt by the LCD industry sell an inferior product to increase their profit margins. 16x9 is a TV standard, for pete's sake, so unless you are watching a bunch of TV shows on your computer, there's no reason to pick 16x9 over 16x10 (apart from cost, I suppose - the industry switched to 16x9 at the lower end completely so 16x10 is mostly limited to medium to high end)
 
TehQuick said:
+1. 1920 rules, hands down, 1080 is a lame attempt by the LCD industry sell an inferior product to increase their profit margins. 16x9 is a TV standard, for pete's sake, so unless you are watching a bunch of TV shows on your computer, there's no reason to pick 16x9 over 16x10 (apart from cost, I suppose - the industry switched to 16x9 at the lower end completely so 16x10 is mostly limited to medium to high end)
Click to expand...
for working and general use on the pc then yes 1920x1200 is better. some of us dont care about those other 120 lines though and would rather have the wider view for games. I have a 16:10 and a 16:9 monitor and that xtra little bit on the sides is welcome to me. thanks to consoles, basically all modern games are designed with a 16:9 in mind.
 
Skakruk said:
If you are a gamer like me who still appreciates a lot of older titles, 1920x1200 is the way to go. Some older games don't support widescreen aspect ratios - be it 16:9 or 16:10 - so the 1200 vertical pixels allows you to 1:1 pixel map them at 4:3 1600x1200. With 1920x1080, your best 1:1 option for non-widescreen games is 1280x1024 - that's quite a bit smaller and wont even fit your vertical size fully.
Click to expand...
well really if a game is old enough to not support widescreen then I dont mind running 1280x960. the graphics arent sharp enough in games that old to even make the game look much worse anyway. considering basically every game made in the last 5 or 6 years supports or can be forced to support 16:9 then I think that is more important then trying to run a few very old games at 1600x1200.
 
TehQuick said:
+1. 1920 rules, hands down, 1080 is a lame attempt by the LCD industry sell an inferior product to increase their profit margins. 16x9 is a TV standard, for pete's sake, so unless you are watching a bunch of TV shows on your computer, there's no reason to pick 16x9 over 16x10 (apart from cost, I suppose - the industry switched to 16x9 at the lower end completely so 16x10 is mostly limited to medium to high end)
Click to expand...

+1
They really should keep TV resolutions and monitor resolutions separate.

Anyhow, 16:10 is better suited for computer tasks and for games. Many games are still made with 4:3 in mind and then are adopted for other ratios. Thus, 16:9 ratio is most of the time, visually worse. For example, in most RTS, that have controls at the bottom, those controls take so much space on a 16:9 that you can see only very narrow strip of the actual field.

Also, I'm a whore to attention to detail regarding pixels so I need to see as much as I can. It doesn't make sense to suddenly change from 1680x1050 to a 1920x1080. Uh, only a 30 pixels change from a vertical standpoint? Not to mention, every respectable 30-inch is 2560x1600, which is once again, 16:10.
 
Last edited:
450 said:
Having used both 1920x1200 and 1080p on a regular basis, unless you absolutely crave vertical space (think spreadsheets and other documents), then the 1080p screen will be fine. For content consumption, I think the 16:9 ratio is ideal since it eliminates the black bars that you'd get on a 16:10 display.
Click to expand...

That's assuming all movies are 16:9, which they are not.

The more popular aspect ratios are 2.35:1 and 2.4:1, but there are probably around a dozen different aspect ratios movies can be filmed at.
 
As a owner of both 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratio monitor, I definitely prefer 16:10.

The only reason why I own a 16:9 monitor (Asus VK246H) is because it is connected to my HTPC and used as either as a 'clone' or 'extended' monitor in conjunction with my 16:9 HDTV.
 
cannondale06 said:
for working and general use on the pc then yes 1920x1200 is better. some of us dont care about those other 120 lines though and would rather have the wider view for games. I have a 16:10 and a 16:9 monitor and that xtra little bit on the sides is welcome to me. thanks to consoles, basically all modern games are designed with a 16:9 in mind.
Click to expand...

Misconceptions rule! :p
 
So what's the best option for a 24" 1920 x 1200? I know the entry level LCDs are all being converted to 16:9, but I'm looking for a decent 16:10 24" for ~$300. Does this exist anymore?
 
yeah it still exists, just gotta look for it

owning a 16:9 2048x1152 and a pair of 16:10's (2560x1600 and 1440x900, respectively), I couldn't care less when it comes to games, all three do fine, for desktop use, not really an issue either, windows resize, I don't run every single thing fullscreen, pretty worthless on a >2MP display

essentially, the aspect ratio doesn't matter a whole helluva lot, and the argument mostly boils down to: more resolution is a good thing
1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080, why? because its more pixels

as far as movies go, couldn't tell you, I prefer my Wega FD
 
Frankly, I'd get the highest resolution I could afford. If I see a 1920 x 1080 and a 1920 x 1200 monitor and I can afford to buy either, I'd obviously get the 1920 x 1200. There's no point in getting a LOWER resolution if you can afford to get a higher one.

On the other hand, 1920 x 1200 monitors are getting more expensive and harder to find. So the possibility of seeing a 1080p and 1200p monitor at nearly the same price is extremely low. Basically, it all depends on your price range.
 
I prefer 1920x1200 over 1920x1080 because:

- It's a pc monitor... I spend my time on it browsing internet, working, playing... so a little more vertical does help.

- I play strategy/rpg games which often have thick ui bars along the bottom/top of the screen, and vertical space already seems a bit cramped (I often find myself frantically scrolling vertically, and rarely horizontally)

- I currently have a 22" 1680x1050, so upgrading to a 23"/24" 1920x1080 seems kinda lame. Just wider

I know a lot of people prefer 16:9 to avoid black bars for movies, but I watched a movie on a 16:9 monitor the other day and there were thick black bars top/bottom. Are movies being made ultra ultra wide now?? Seems a bit silly
 
obobski said:
owning a 16:9 2048x1152 and a pair of 16:10's (2560x1600 and 1440x900, respectively), I couldn't care less when it comes to games, all three do fine, for desktop use, not really an issue either, windows resize, I don't run every single thing fullscreen, pretty worthless on a >2MP display
Click to expand...

There's a reason why this thread is titled "1900x1200 vs 1900x1080": your experience with higher-res monitors have no bearing on the discussion.
 
mejobloggs said:
I know a lot of people prefer 16:9 to avoid black bars for movies, but I watched a movie on a 16:9 monitor the other day and there were thick black bars top/bottom. Are movies being made ultra ultra wide now?? Seems a bit silly
Click to expand...

Obviously, you didn't notice post #13. Only HDTV uses 16x9, 99% of the movies have completely different aspect ratio.
 
TehQuick said:
There's a reason why this thread is titled "1900x1200 vs 1900x1080": your experience with higher-res monitors have no bearing on the discussion.
Click to expand...

actually, given that the discussion quickly deteriorated into yet another 16:9 vs 16:10 flame-war, I think it does, as I'm providing some experiential information regarding potential pitfalls of either, King of Heros went on to say mostly the same thing (and I agree with him/her), higher resolution is a good choice, the aspect ratio itself doesn't mean much

your flame however contributes nothing to the discussion :rolleyes:
 
thanks for all the replies. i know that i WANT the 1900x1200. my problem may be that i wont be able to afford the triple set next month. so i was interested in knowing how big of a difference it would be going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. this is NOT for viewing movies so i couldnt give a flying fart how they look. this is for gaming and internet use.( 3 screens o porn lolz) im putting together an eyefinity setup. therefore i may be limited to my choice of monitors due to the displayport crap. im not getting into the converters as none of them is 100% working right they all have issues. i just want my setup o work properly. is there anyone that has gone from a single 24"1920x1200 to using 3x 23" 1900x1080 monitors in eyefinity? cost is the major factor here. if i have the cash its the u2410 no questions. but i want to know whether or not i would regret jumping down a bit in size to have the eyefinity setup on 3 identical screens if i have to. if it would be too much of a loss then i might just forget about the eyefinity thing altogether, but im all pumped to get this setup going if i can.
 
Rogue71 said:
thanks for all the replies. i know that i WANT the 1900x1200. my problem may be that i wont be able to afford the triple set next month. so i was interested in knowing how big of a difference it would be going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. this is NOT for viewing movies so i couldnt give a flying fart how they look. this is for gaming and internet use.( 3 screens o porn lolz) im putting together an eyefinity setup. therefore i may be limited to my choice of monitors due to the displayport crap. im not getting into the converters as none of them is 100% working right they all have issues. i just want my setup o work properly. is there anyone that has gone from a single 24"1920x1200 to using 3x 23" 1900x1080 monitors in eyefinity? cost is the major factor here. if i have the cash its the u2410 no questions. but i want to know whether or not i would regret jumping down a bit in size to have the eyefinity setup on 3 identical screens if i have to. if it would be too much of a loss then i might just forget about the eyefinity thing altogether, but im all pumped to get this setup going if i can.
Click to expand...

1920x1200 and 1920x1080* :)

given that this is just for desktop usage and gaming, doesn't matter either way, games look just fine on 16:9 or 16:10 (as I said earlier), because the system could care less what its rendering into; a few titles will get touchy with 16:9 resolutions (i.e you might have to add it in to a conf file, or select "16:10" to access 1920x1080), really old stuff thats fixed to a 4:3 res like 800x600 would have issues either way, your graphics card can probably handle the scaling by itself (my 4870X2 does, 5870 better)

honestly if cash is an issue, I'd get a trio of 2048x1152 23" monitors, you get more pixels than either 1920x solution, cost is about the same (~$200/ea), not a bad deal overall (like these: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7641)

for general application usage, you aren't gonna likely fullscreen anything on either setup, so its just more space to play window-tetris, the 48:9 or 48:10 desktop you'll have will be equally ridiculous (think about it, its either going to be 5760x1080, 5760x1200, or 6144x1152, if any of those isn't enough work space for you, I really don't know what to say, as thats >6MP no matter what you pick)
 
My problem is finding monitors in this range with DisplayPort. For now, I've settled on the Dell P2310H's (1920x1080) because I can get more bang for my buck. I'm getting ready to completely rework my system(s) and am looking at running a lot of displays. The difference in price must be justifiable. For example, one part of the config I'm playing with is 3x30" landscape vs. 5x24" portrait vs. 5x23" portrait. Here's the breakdown:

Pixels / Screen | Total Pixels | Cost / 10k Pixels
23" | 2,073,600 | 10,368,000 | $0.96
24" | 2,304,000 | 11,520,000 | $2.17
30" | 4,096,000 | 20,480,000 | $2.06

I'd rather have the 30s. But I can't quite justify spending $4,200 on them vs. $1,000 on the 23s. If I could ever find the 30s in the Dell outlet, it might make the decision a little more difficult.
 
billy.blue said:
My problem is finding monitors in this range with DisplayPort. For now, I've settled on the Dell P2310H's (1920x1080) because I can get more bang for my buck. I'm getting ready to completely rework my system(s) and am looking at running a lot of displays. The difference in price must be justifiable. For example, one part of the config I'm playing with is 3x30" landscape vs. 5x24" portrait vs. 5x23" portrait. Here's the breakdown:

Pixels / Screen | Total Pixels | Cost / 10k Pixels
23" | 2,073,600 | 10,368,000 | $0.96
24" | 2,304,000 | 11,520,000 | $2.17
30" | 4,096,000 | 20,480,000 | $2.06

I'd rather have the 30s. But I can't quite justify spending $4,200 on them vs. $1,000 on the 23s. If I could ever find the 30s in the Dell outlet, it might make the decision a little more difficult.
Click to expand...

you might want to make your own thread, if you're asking for advice
otherwise I'm not really sure what you're asking about

as far as DP, Dell has a 22 or 23" with DP, 2209 iirc, a few other monitors have the feature as well, just look around, they aren't terribly common, but a few options exist
plenty at the 24"+ size range

also, for your table, thats assuming how many of each monitor? five? and what resolution per monitor?
 
obobski said:
1920x1200 and 1920x1080* :)

given that this is just for desktop usage and gaming, doesn't matter either way, games look just fine on 16:9 or 16:10 (as I said earlier), because the system could care less what its rendering into; a few titles will get touchy with 16:9 resolutions (i.e you might have to add it in to a conf file, or select "16:10" to access 1920x1080), really old stuff thats fixed to a 4:3 res like 800x600 would have issues either way, your graphics card can probably handle the scaling by itself (my 4870X2 does, 5870 better)

honestly if cash is an issue, I'd get a trio of 2048x1152 23" monitors, you get more pixels than either 1920x solution, cost is about the same (~$200/ea), not a bad deal overall (like these: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7641)

for general application usage, you aren't gonna likely fullscreen anything on either setup, so its just more space to play window-tetris, the 48:9 or 48:10 desktop you'll have will be equally ridiculous (think about it, its either going to be 5760x1080, 5760x1200, or 6144x1152, if any of those isn't enough work space for you, I really don't know what to say, as thats >6MP no matter what you pick)
Click to expand...

my question has nothing to do with whether or not the games will support the resolutions. i know these issues. if old games dont work i simply wouldnt play them. im not spending a crapload of money to play 10 yr old games or watch movies. this is not a simple matter of pixels. its about screen size and usability. i know for a fact that there is a difference between using a 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 simply becuase there is a size difference. what im asking is how much of a difference. how noticable is it. i need this advice coming from gamers who use these setups, not theoretical assumptions...i could do that myself. the last thing you fail to understand even though i posted it is that this 3 lcd setup is for EYEFINITY, which requires at least one monitor to have displayport. the availablity of displyport lcds is slim, which is why im focussing on the dell screens. the 23" 1920x1080 is half the cost of the 24" 1920x1200. i just want some opinions from users that have had experience gaming with both sizes, preferably with an eyefinity setup if possible so i can make the best decision i can when the time comes. im hearing alot of people buying the 23" screens for eyefinity simply because of the cost. im just wanting to know if these users are disappointed at all with the stepdown in screen size even going with a 3 lcd eyefinty setup.
 
billy.blue said:
My problem is finding monitors in this range with DisplayPort. For now, I've settled on the Dell P2310H's (1920x1080) because I can get more bang for my buck. I'm getting ready to completely rework my system(s) and am looking at running a lot of displays. The difference in price must be justifiable. For example, one part of the config I'm playing with is 3x30" landscape vs. 5x24" portrait vs. 5x23" portrait. Here's the breakdown:

Pixels / Screen | Total Pixels | Cost / 10k Pixels
23" | 2,073,600 | 10,368,000 | $0.96
24" | 2,304,000 | 11,520,000 | $2.17
30" | 4,096,000 | 20,480,000 | $2.06

I'd rather have the 30s. But I can't quite justify spending $4,200 on them vs. $1,000 on the 23s. If I could ever find the 30s in the Dell outlet, it might make the decision a little more difficult.
Click to expand...

i hear ya. i could never afford 3 30s, but the 24s maybe. hopefully. but because ive been using a 24" 1920x1200 for 2 years im not sure about the drop in size if i went with the 23s. my thinking is that it would be paritally made up for because of the 3 screen setup giving you more immersion.
 
Rogue71 said:
my question has nothing to do with whether or not the games will support the resolutions. i know these issues. if old games dont work i simply wouldnt play them. im not spending a crapload of money to play 10 yr old games or watch movies. this is not a simple matter of pixels. its about screen size and usability. i know for a fact that there is a difference between using a 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 simply becuase there is a size difference. what im asking is how much of a difference. how noticable is it. i need this advice coming from gamers who use these setups, not theoretical assumptions...i could do that myself. the last thing you fail to understand even though i posted it is that this 3 lcd setup is for EYEFINITY, which requires at least one monitor to have displayport. the availablity of displyport lcds is slim, which is why im focussing on the dell screens. the 23" 1920x1080 is half the cost of the 24" 1920x1200. i just want some opinions from users that have had experience gaming with both sizes, preferably with an eyefinity setup if possible so i can make the best decision i can when the time comes. im hearing alot of people buying the 23" screens for eyefinity simply because of the cost. im just wanting to know if these users are disappointed at all with the stepdown in screen size even going with a 3 lcd eyefinty setup.
Click to expand...

Rogue71 said:
i hear ya. i could never afford 3 30s, but the 24s maybe. hopefully. but because ive been using a 24" 1920x1200 for 2 years im not sure about the drop in size if i went with the 23s. my thinking is that it would be paritally made up for because of the 3 screen setup giving you more immersion.
Click to expand...

you state that this "isn't a matter of pixels its about screen size and usability", honestly I'll tell you this much: you're getting too worked up over something fairly trivial

you state that you unequivocally know there is a difference, if so, what is it?

honestly, there is no difference that you will notice here, any game you're likely to play (seeing as how obviously anything old is below you) will have 16:9 or 16:10 output modes, natively, which means it will render to the correct aspect ratio

any desktop application you're likely to use really couldn't care less, you've got >1024x768, so you've met those requirements, as I said, unless you insist on full-screen for every application, its just a matter of window tetris across 6MP, whats so hard to get about that? (really, with 6MP of space, and you're whining about "usability", c'mon...)

as far as the screen size gripe, you realize you aren't actually changing the resolution enough to make a difference aside from increased pixel density, and you aren't actually changing the size enough to make a difference aside from a bit shorter standing monitor (so basically it'll look sharper, use less power, etc)

really, you're making this a lot harder than it is, but if you need to blow hot air until you get a mountain of subjective fuzzies to validate any choice you make, thats your choice, but if that is what you'd like to do, let me know, so I don't have to keep wasting my time trying to help you (and I really am trying)
 
obobski said:
you state that this "isn't a matter of pixels its about screen size and usability", honestly I'll tell you this much: you're getting too worked up over something fairly trivial

you state that you unequivocally know there is a difference, if so, what is it?

honestly, there is no difference that you will notice here, any game you're likely to play (seeing as how obviously anything old is below you) will have 16:9 or 16:10 output modes, natively, which means it will render to the correct aspect ratio

any desktop application you're likely to use really couldn't care less, you've got >1024x768, so you've met those requirements, as I said, unless you insist on full-screen for every application, its just a matter of window tetris across 6MP, whats so hard to get about that? (really, with 6MP of space, and you're whining about "usability", c'mon...)

as far as the screen size gripe, you realize you aren't actually changing the resolution enough to make a difference aside from increased pixel density, and you aren't actually changing the size enough to make a difference aside from a bit shorter standing monitor (so basically it'll look sharper, use less power, etc)

really, you're making this a lot harder than it is, but if you need to blow hot air until you get a mountain of subjective fuzzies to validate any choice you make, thats your choice, but if that is what you'd like to do, let me know, so I don't have to keep wasting my time trying to help you (and I really am trying)
Click to expand...

well you seem to be telling me that there is almost no difference at all between the two sized screens......thats like saying thers no difference between a 22" and a 24" lcd. thats just ridiculous.im just talking about screen size here NOT resolution. i have both of those sizes and there is a big difference. the 1920x1080 is a good one to 2 inches shorter, which may affect gaming immersion. this is a major investment hardware wise, so id prefer to do it once. as i said before, i know the games can support the resolutions of both monitors, my question was addressed to people who have actually used both sizes in a gaming environment ( not tetris....ugh) this is all about the comparison of the screen sizes and how it affects the EYEFINTY immersion of the games vs the cost of the screens. btw no one twisted your arm to comment. but thanks just the same.
 
Can you people stop being mongloids and acting like the only monitors that exist are 22-24 inches? o_O

Yes, 23-24 inch 16:9 is a little small in the vertical, but it's not if you buy a larger panel. 27inch 16:9 is great for gaming.
 
ebolamonkey001 said:
Can you people stop being mongloids and acting like the only monitors that exist are 22-24 inches? o_O

Yes, 23-24 inch 16:9 is a little small in the vertical, but it's not if you buy a larger panel. 27inch 16:9 is great for gaming.
Click to expand...

yea well if i was just buying 1 screen i would defintely be buying a 27 or a 30", but im buying 3 and even 27" would ramp the cost up to insane for me. but i guess if u read any of my posts you would know that....
 
After having many different monitors, both 16:9 and 16:10 I will always go with the greater resolution. No matter what people are saying resolution is where the money is and the rest is just marketing crap. Good luck.
 
Rogue71 said:
well you seem to be telling me that there is almost no difference at all between the two sized screens......thats like saying thers no difference between a 22" and a 24" lcd. thats just ridiculous.im just talking about screen size here NOT resolution. i have both of those sizes and there is a big difference. the 1920x1080 is a good one to 2 inches shorter, which may affect gaming immersion. this is a major investment hardware wise, so id prefer to do it once. as i said before, i know the games can support the resolutions of both monitors, my question was addressed to people who have actually used both sizes in a gaming environment ( not tetris....ugh) this is all about the comparison of the screen sizes and how it affects the EYEFINTY immersion of the games vs the cost of the screens. btw no one twisted your arm to comment. but thanks just the same.
Click to expand...

now you're comparing apples to oranges mate
a 22" LCD is usually considerably lower resolution, we're talking about (I kid you not) a single inch of diagonal space with the SAME resolution (why does this not make sense to you?)

for the third (and now final time), there is no difference here, resolution does not denote physical size, and vice versa, it is not this dramatic, end of the world difference either, it is 1 diagonal inch smaller, as in 16:9 23" is:
20.05" x 11.27"
and 16:10 24" is:
20.35" x 12.72"

as in .3" x 1.4" of difference in size
if they're both 1080p, you will see the exact same thing on both of them, the 23" is just ~600 pixels/sqinch denser, and even less difference (20.05" x 11.27" vs 20.92" x 11.76")

you still refuse to accept any notion of math or another user providing you with their experience and knowledge, you've somehow taken my input to mean that I think you're going to play tetris on the machine, and somehow the notion of screen resolution still isn't reaching you, so go ahead, get foamy over a few tenths of an inch and a misunderstanding of what you've read vs what you think you've read

as an aside, you do realize that 26-28" 1200p monitors are about the same price as the 23-24" monitors you've been considering, and seeing as how resolution doesn't seem to matter, just screen size, you might want to consider that (and an active DP adapter, depending on the monitor you pick)

if you're really inable to make sense of the math or logic used here, I really don't know what to tell you




runnin17 said:
After having many different monitors, both 16:9 and 16:10 I will always go with the greater resolution. No matter what people are saying resolution is where the money is and the rest is just marketing crap. Good luck.
Click to expand...

exactly!
and to add to this, not just higher resolution, but higher density (in other words, if given the choice between a 27" 2560x1440 or a 27" 1920x1200, I'd take the aforementioned)
 
Cool Vibrations said:
+1
They really should keep TV resolutions and monitor resolutions separate.

Anyhow, 16:10 is better suited for computer tasks and for games. Many games are still made with 4:3 in mind and then are adopted for other ratios. Thus, 16:9 ratio is most of the time, visually worse. For example, in most RTS, that have controls at the bottom, those controls take so much space on a 16:9 that you can see only very narrow strip of the actual field.

Also, I'm a whore to attention to detail regarding pixels so I need to see as much as I can. It doesn't make sense to suddenly change from 1680x1050 to a 1920x1080. Uh, only a 30 pixels change from a vertical standpoint? Not to mention, every respectable 30-inch is 2560x1600, which is once again, 16:10.
Click to expand...

ummm NO....16x9 is the best resolution for console gaming. a 16x10 monitor would either stretch the picture or put black bars on the top and bottom. I dont know why but everyone on hardforum seems to think when people say they need a monitor for "gaming" it means PC lol. One of the main reasons more and more monitors are 16x9 (besides being cheaper to make) is for people to game on consoles with them. PC gaming is dying out and is almost DEAD.
 
Freekshow22 said:
ummm NO....16x9 is the best resolution for console gaming. a 16x10 monitor would either stretch the picture or put black bars on the top and bottom. I dont know why but everyone on hardforum seems to think when people say they need a monitor for "gaming" it means PC lol. One of the main reasons more and more monitors are 16x9 (besides being cheaper to make) is for people to game on consoles with them. PC gaming is dying out and is almost DEAD.
Click to expand...

QFT, sadly
 
Rogue71 said:
yea well if i was just buying 1 screen i would defintely be buying a 27 or a 30", but im buying 3 and even 27" would ramp the cost up to insane for me. but i guess if u read any of my posts you would know that....
Click to expand...

I consider people that buy 3 monitors for simultaneous use in gaming to be the psychotic fringe area and not really worth consideration in a mainstream monitor topic lol.
 
I made a compromise with my 23" 1080p... a brand new / high quality 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor would have been atleast $500 and I got this for $300...

So a loss of 120 vertical pixels, and slightly smaller screen worth the $200 savings? Fuck yea.

If I had the money I'd just get 3 x 30"... haha... but I don't have money... :)
 
King of Heroes said:
http://store.steampowered.com/news/3390/

Only 25 million users. Damn, PC gaming really is on its last legs!
Click to expand...
well i hate to break it to you but 25 million worldwide users on Steam is a not as many people as you think. that 25 million probably covers almost every pc gamer there is since almost every person would have had to gotten Steam account by now. I mean what pc gamer doesnt own at least one Valve title and/or has not bought a game through Steam at some time?

really of those people many are casual gamers, people that only bought a couple games and some users with multiple accounts. heck my parents have an account there for one casusal game. the reality of it is that is not a lot of people worldwide when you break it down.

sometimes 90% or more of games sales goes to consoles so again the reality is that pc gaming is a very small market. really if it wasnt for Valve, pc gaming would be an even smaller market so I am glad they exist and I personally like Steam quite a bit.
 
Someone above me had mentioned that a 1920x1080 display is wider then a 1920x1200 monitor... ::facepalm::

Look at it this way. Take 2 1920mm x 1200mm pieces of cardboard. Cut the top and bottom off one of them till you get a 16x9 ratio. They are still both the identical width..... common sense people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top