1920 x 1200 and 1920 x 1080 for pc gaming?

N

Nvidia101

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
1,194
getting a 24". which resolutions is better for pc gaming? 1920 x 1200 or 1920 x 1080?
 
pcgamer420 gave you the exact answer. For PC buy 1920x1200 monitor. On these you can easily display also the HD content (1920x1080). At least with the most monitors, some are flawed :-/
 
I prefer 1920x1200 (16:10). Maybe that's because I've gotten used to it. I don't really like 16:9 monitors because they seem to short vertically and too long horizontally.
 
Should be fine either way.. I can't comment on the panel quality since I don't know .. though one thing I noticed last night playing Mirror's Edge, if I'm in a 16:10 mode the game decides to give me those awesome black letter box bars at top and bottom. Sucks. This is rare though.. I've only seen this on one other game. Can't remember which though.
 
Nvidia101 said:
if i where to get the 16:9 monitor would it still be good for gaming?
Click to expand...

You seem to had already decided taking 16:9 monitor, so why are you asking?

MrkXCeL said:
Should be fine either way.. I can't comment on the panel quality since I don't know .. though one thing I noticed last night playing Mirror's Edge, if I'm in a 16:10 mode the game decides to give me those awesome black letter box bars at top and bottom. Sucks. This is rare though.. I've only seen this on one other game. Can't remember which though.
Click to expand...

You have the black stripes, so what? You have plenty of space around the monitor itself.
Imagine playing a game not suporting 1920x1080 on 16:9 monitor... you would have to choose 1680x1050. So you have both stipes and black bars on sides.
 
I used both, and I kinda value the extra 120 horizontal pixels. Might not seem like much, but its pretty big.
 
Overall it just depends on your preference. I have both 16:10 and 16:9 LCD monitors and to tell you the truth, I prefer 16:10 since it has an extra 120 rows of pixels (1920 x 1200) which is great for gaming and surfing since you don't need to scroll down as often.

A 16:9 monitor will give you a little better gaming performance because it will have about 10% less pixels to push. Are you gonna miss those "extra pixels" on a 16:10? That can only be answered by you.

As for watching widescreen movies on a 16:10 monitor, who cares about the black bars on top and bottom? Some may complain about backlight bleeding, but you know what? Just buy a better quality monitor to minimize it. Speaking about quality all current generation 16:9 monitors are based on TN panels. While good enough for most people, I prefer PVA and IPS panels.
 
It looks like the PC industry is moving towards 16:9 monitors.

If you don't mind some black barring (at that resolution each bar is 1920*16 pixels... tiny really) then I recommend a 16:10 monitor. That ensures that, if you do happen to find a game that supports 16:9 but not 16:10, you won't have to worry about compatibility issues. You can't go wrong either way though. I actually can't think of anything that doesn't support 16:9 in addition to 16:10. I just like the extra 32 pixels of vertical desktop space!

I think the push towards 16:9 is a result of more and more people using PC monitors with standalone devices (PS3, Xbox360, Blu-Ray players). 16:10 monitors that don't support 1:1 pixel mapping or aspect ratio scaling stretch the 16:9 images to fill the entire screen, resulting in distortion. If the aspect ratio of the monitor matches the aspect ratio of the outputted image that problem doesn't exist.

Aspect ratio issues aren't a problem for PCs, since the graphics card can manage 1:1 pixel mapping and aspect ratio scaling. This is why only a handful of monitors (usually on the higher end) support these features.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe that 16:9 is closer to the aspect ratio of the human eye. I recall reading somewhere that the aspect ratio per eye is 1.66:1... however each eye provides slightly more detail on its strong side, for a stereo aspect ratio of 1.75:1. 16:9 is roughly 1.78:1, whereas 16:10 is obviously 1.6:1
 
I like 16:10 better because vertical space is more valuable than horizontal in general computing. However many games a wider viewing angle is preferred (racing sims where you are in cockpit view, more vertical space just means you see more of the interior instead of more of the track).

However, you'll have less issues with a 16:9 monitor if you plan on using it with a PS3 or movies/TV in general.

I'm not sure what the situation is where you live, but out here for the most part, 1920x1080 monitors are a decent amount cheaper than the same sized 1920x1200 monitor, so for that reason I'd get a 16:9 monitor. But that's based on price more than anything. Most PC games that support 16:10 also support 16:9, so its no big deal either way.
 
noobman said:
It looks like the PC industry is moving towards 16:9 monitors.

If you don't mind some black barring (at that resolution each bar is 1920*16 pixels... tiny really) then I recommend a 16:10 monitor. That ensures that, if you do happen to find a game that supports 16:9 but not 16:10, you won't have to worry about compatibility issues. You can't go wrong either way though. I actually can't think of anything that doesn't support 16:9 in addition to 16:10. I just like the extra 32 pixels of vertical desktop space!

I think the push towards 16:9 is a result of more and more people using PC monitors with standalone devices (PS3, Xbox360, Blu-Ray players). 16:10 monitors that don't support 1:1 pixel mapping or aspect ratio scaling stretch the 16:9 images to fill the entire screen, resulting in distortion. If the aspect ratio of the monitor matches the aspect ratio of the outputted image that problem doesn't exist.

Aspect ratio issues aren't a problem for PCs, since the graphics card can manage 1:1 pixel mapping and aspect ratio scaling. This is why only a handful of monitors (usually on the higher end) support these features.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe that 16:9 is closer to the aspect ratio of the human eye. I recall reading somewhere that the aspect ratio per eye is 1.66:1... however each eye provides slightly more detail on its strong side, for a stereo aspect ratio of 1.75:1. 16:9 is roughly 1.78:1, whereas 16:10 is obviously 1.6:1
Click to expand...

The push toward 16:9 monitors is so that panel makers can get more individual panels from a large sheet, thus increase margins and profitability. It's got nothing to do with convergence (properly designed monitors can handle that, meaning that ones that can't are just poorly made) some mythical 'eye ratio' or benefit to the consumer.
 
purely with respect to resolution, i prefer 16:9 because games that do support it are giving me higher field of view. Although i have heard of games that actually do the opposite; instead of giving you more horizonal field of view they leave it the same and cut the vertical (i believe stalker did this, not sure if it still does)

Honestly though, they're so close that i would forget about it and instead look at the overal quality and price of the unit.
 
Madman0 said:
The push toward 16:9 monitors is so that panel makers can get more individual panels from a large sheet, thus increase margins and profitability. It's got nothing to do with convergence (properly designed monitors can handle that, meaning that ones that can't are just poorly made) some mythical 'eye ratio' or benefit to the consumer.
Click to expand...

You say its not to benefit the consumer, that may be true, but most 16:9 displays are cheap compared to their 16:10 counterparts, which I see as a benefit to the consumer.
 
Madman0 said:
The push toward 16:9 monitors is so that panel makers can get more individual panels from a large sheet, thus increase margins and profitability.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks.

Tudz said:
You say its not to benefit the consumer, that may be true, but most 16:9 displays are cheap compared to their 16:10 counterparts, which I see as a benefit to the consumer.
Click to expand...
Well, there's less screen real-estate at a comparable size. A 24" 16:10 LCD monitor (1920*1200) is comparable to a 23" 16:9 LCD monitor (1920*1080).

When the average consumer looks at a monitor they look at inches. It would be hard to try selling a 23" screen at an equal or higher price than a 24" unless your marketing department came up with some brilliant, useless feature.
 
noobman said:
Good to know, thanks.


Well, there's less screen real-estate at a comparable size. A 24" 16:10 LCD monitor (1920*1200) is comparable to a 23" 16:9 LCD monitor (1920*1080).
.
Click to expand...

I think you have that backwards ( I'm not doing the actual math, just logic seems wrong). It should be 23" 16:10 is comparable to a 24" 16:9 in terms of total area. You need a larger diagonal from a 16:9 to have same surface area as 16:10.

edit: wait, after reading tudz post below, i think we're referring to different things, nevermind.
 
Last edited:
noobman said:
Well, there's less screen real-estate at a comparable size. A 24" 16:10 LCD monitor (1920*1200) is comparable to a 23" 16:9 LCD monitor (1920*1080).

When the average consumer looks at a monitor they look at inches. It would be hard to try selling a 23" screen at an equal or higher price than a 24" unless your marketing department came up with some brilliant, useless feature.
Click to expand...

That is true too, you are paying for what you get really. You're getting less, they're making less and they're charging you less for it. In terms of surface area at least. If you actually watch 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen you are getting less than if you were watching it on a 16:9 screen (surface area wise, given the same diagonal), but assuming whatever you are watching fills the screen, the 16:9 has less area.

Maths wise, given they are both 24" across the diagonal,
16:9 = 246 square inches
16:10 = 259 square inches

So you are paying less and getting less area. Unless of course you value horizontal viewing size more than actual surface area, in which case you are getting more horizontal viewing area for less money.

Is surface area were the main thing, everyone would want square screens, because a square maximises your viewing area. Actually, no, a circle! :p

EDIT: My point there being its not like the manufacturers are trying to trick customers, well, maybe they are, but you are still just getting what you paid for at the end of the day. They are passing on the lower manufacturing costs to customers.
 
Last edited:
Given the same price and size, I would vote for 16:10. However, for the same price as a 24-26" non-TN 16:10 monitor, you can get a 32" 1080P TV that is 69% larger than a 24" 16:10 monitor. So, it really depends on what size you want and how much you want to spend. Personally, I'm leaning toward the 32" TV, because no non-TN computer monitor can come close to that size for the price.
 
kalrith said:
Given the same price and size, I would vote for 16:10. However, for the same price as a 24-26" non-TN 16:10 monitor, you can get a 32" 1080P TV that is 69% larger than a 24" 16:10 monitor. So, it really depends on what size you want and how much you want to spend. Personally, I'm leaning toward the 32" TV, because no non-TN computer monitor can come close to that size for the price.
Click to expand...

Buying a 32" inch TV means issues like text clarity, brightness, unfavorable image processing etc. etc..

The 24-26" monitor still has a higher resolution and thats all that matters. Just position the monitor closer than you would have with the TV and you can pretend it's a 32" TV, only with higher resolution.
 
brumwald said:
Buying a 32" inch TV means issues like text clarity, brightness, unfavorable image processing etc. etc..

The 24-26" monitor still has a higher resolution and thats all that matters. Just position the monitor closer than you would have with the TV and you can pretend it's a 32" TV, only with higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Not all 32" TVs have those issues. You have to shop around to find one that does no processing to the PC signal and does 1:1 pixel mapping, then the above problems are non-existent.

brumwald said:
The 24-26" monitor still has a higher resolution and thats all that matters.
Click to expand...

You say that higher resolution is all that matters as if that's a fact. That is your opinion and not one that's shared by everyone.

brumwald said:
Just position the monitor closer than you would have with the TV and you can pretend it's a 32" TV, only with higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Why even buy a 24" monitor then? Save some money and get a 19" monitor, just be sure to sit 1 foot from it so it looks really big :D
 
kalrith said:
Not all 32" TVs have those issues. You have to shop around to find one that does no processing to the PC signal and does 1:1 pixel mapping, then the above problems are non-existent.
Click to expand...

Well, it's hard enough to find even a monitor with decent backlight brightness - I can't imagine that being easier with TVs. But yes, you can find decent TVs for monitor use however the resolution is horrendous and the ergonomics are awful, my opinion of course.

kalrith said:
You say that higher resolution is all that matters as if that's a fact. That is your opinion and not one that's shared by everyone.
Click to expand...

True, but everyone else is wrong ;)

kalrith said:
Why even buy a 24" monitor then? Save some money and get a 19" monitor, just be sure to sit 1 foot from it so it looks really big :D
Click to expand...

Good luck finding a 19" with 1920x1200 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top