22" vs. 24" - please hear me out

I

IvanI

n00b
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
27
I think it's time for me to get a new monitor.
but I have a dilemma: 24" or 22".
I summed up the pros and cons of each choice:

22"
+ able to play today's games on 1680x1050 (native) with my 8800GTS G92 512MB
+ bigger than my current 17" LCD :)
+ takes less space than 24, consumes less power, cheaper than 24"
- the best thing about it regarding games is also the worst: it's not HD (1920x1080)

24
+ Full HD
+ huge workspace
- big, heating, power?
- inability to play games on native 1920x1080 resolution.

The problem is that I just don't know how games "look" when not played on native resolution when it comes to such huge resolutions (1920 vs 1680)

Other than games I do various stuff on it, amateur photo editing, web design, etc.

For 24" I have a pretty good idea what monitor would I pick, but for 22" I don't have a clue (I don't want Lenovo L220x).
What is the best allround 22" 1680x1050 monitor out there? with S-PVA or even maybe S-IPS (although I think that's not good for gaming...)

Can you help me out guys? Let's really discuss this so that other people in my situation can benefit from this.
 
As for 22" LCDs, there are only 2 with S-PVA panel and none with IPS based panel (as far as I know). The other S-PVA is Eizo S2231W, which should have an input lag of 20ms (according to this graph http://www.svethardware.cz/sh/media...a/Body/0.8A3C?OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif ) and rise delay of less than 10ms. I'd guess that this makes it sufficiently good for normal gaming (given that Dell and HP 24-inches have sometimes even 40-50ms).

The strange thing about that Eizo is that the backlight has 100Hz frequency, when other LCDs usually have it's lights flashing in 200Hz... Humans definitely can't notice, but I'm just wondering whether it's good for eyes.
 
so you're saying that almost all 22" monitors out there today are based on TN matrix?
 
After a lot of research, I've found 22" S-IPS is not available, which sucks. I want dual 22".. 24" is too big for dual IMO.
 
Where are you getting native 1920x1080 support? My 24" sceptre's ( I have two) both run natively at 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 (for my Xbox 360 using VGA). And some 22" monitors will upscale that extra 30 pixels to 1080 like my old 226BW's.

IvanI said:
I think it's time for me to get a new monitor.
but I have a dilemma: 24" or 22".
I summed up the pros and cons of each choice:

22"
+ able to play today's games on 1680x1050 (native) with my 8800GTS G92 512MB
+ bigger than my current 17" LCD :)
+ takes less space than 24, consumes less power, cheaper than 24"
- the best thing about it regarding games is also the worst: it's not HD (1920x1080)

24
+ Full HD
+ huge workspace
- big, heating, power?
- inability to play games on native 1920x1080 resolution.

The problem is that I just don't know how games "look" when not played on native resolution when it comes to such huge resolutions (1920 vs 1680)

Other than games I do various stuff on it, amateur photo editing, web design, etc.

For 24" I have a pretty good idea what monitor would I pick, but for 22" I don't have a clue (I don't want Lenovo L220x).
What is the best allround 22" 1680x1050 monitor out there? with S-PVA or even maybe S-IPS (although I think that's not good for gaming...)

Can you help me out guys? Let's really discuss this so that other people in my situation can benefit from this.
Click to expand...
 
sorry, I overlooked being caught up in HD and stuff.... I meant 1920x1200 native (even worse for gaming, :) )
 
IvanI said:
sorry, I overlooked being caught up in HD and stuff.... I meant 1920x1200 native (even worse for gaming, :) )
Click to expand...

In regards to your questions about how do games look at anything other than native res.....well, they look fine on my 26 and on my mate's 226bw.....but gaming on my 26 is significantly better because of both the size and the 8 bit panel.

IMO....22in{as long as it's one of the latest one's}
+ widescreen works beautifully for games, DVD and HDTV
+1680X1050 is an EXTRAORDINARY amount of pixels per screen area......and as I've said many times, if it doesn't look good at 1680x1050, it won't look any better at 1920x1200.
+ fairly cheap
+ a massive upgrade over a 17 and 19in CRT

- TN panel.

24in.....

+ bigger than 22, and that's desirable{forget about the pixels, worry about the SIZE}
+ reasonably good value these days
+ available in 8 bit
- are often TN these days.


There's no way I'd persist with shitty 17-19in CRT's anymore, 22in TN's are a worthy upgrade, even if one can level genuine criticism against them.
FORGET ABOUT PIXELS, FOCUS ON SIZE AND WIDESCREEN VIEWING.
 
Your 8800GTS G92 can definitely handle games at 1920x1200. Mine does. The only game it has trouble with at 1920x1200 is Crysis. Also, a 24" will hardly take any more space on your desk than a 22". As for power consumption, the difference is too small to worry about.
 
I can highly recommend the Samsung SyncMaster 215TW for a 22"'er. It's a PVA panel and picture quality is absolutely fantastic. It's also more than adequate for gaming and supports HCDP over DVI if that matters to you.
 
I have the same dilemma. From the reviews on the net the best 22" should be Samsung 2232BW, but i still don't know the difference between 2232bw 2243nw and 2253bw??

For 24" the BenQ G2400W and Samsung 2493HM should be the best buy.

I'm using my current 19" samsung CRT mainly for watching TV (I have analog TV card in my PC), movies and playing games.

I'm weary close to buying Samsung 2493HM because i have discount on Samsung products, but i would much more prefer Dell 2408WFP :) .

I'm willing to pay 500$ for 24" and 300$ for 22", if someone has any suggestions speak now ...... please.
 
IvanI said:
sorry, I overlooked being caught up in HD and stuff.... I meant 1920x1200 native (even worse for gaming, :) )
Click to expand...


I think you might have gotten this confused a bit. An LCD have a fixed amount of pixels.1920x1200 means it has 1920 pixels wide and 1200 pixels high. "Native resolution" is a term when it uses all of the pixels in a 1:1 ratio (1 pixel read = 1 pixel displayed on screen)

This means that it can maximum have a resolution of 1920x1200 in a 1:1 ratio. It doesn't mean it cannot have 1680x1050 in a 1:1 ratio.

If you disregard the pixel pitch (size of pixels), then a 1920x1200 screen showing a 1680x1050 image with black bars (1:1 ratio) will be just as sharp as a 1680x1050 on its "native resolution". The difference will be the pixel pitch and that one screen has black bars, while the other shows the wall behind the screen.

Buying a 1920x1200 screen instead of buying a 1680x1050 screen gives you a possiblitily to dipslay both resolutions in 1:1, while buying a 1680x1050 only gives you an option to display 1680x1050 of the two resolutions in 1:1 ratio.

So I would advice you to consider a higher resolution if the higher price point doesn't scare you. :)
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
I think you might have gotten this confused a bit. An LCD have a fixed amount of pixels.1920x1200 means it has 1920 pixels wide and 1200 pixels high. "Native resolution" is a term when it uses all of the pixels in a 1:1 ratio (1 pixel read = 1 pixel displayed on screen)

This means that it can maximum have a resolution of 1920x1200 in a 1:1 ratio. It doesn't mean it cannot have 1680x1050 in a 1:1 ratio.

If you disregard the pixel pitch (size of pixels), then a 1920x1200 screen showing a 1680x1050 image with black bars (1:1 ratio) will be just as sharp as a 1680x1050 on its "native resolution". The difference will be the pixel pitch and that one screen has black bars, while the other shows the wall behind the screen.

Buying a 1920x1200 screen instead of buying a 1680x1050 screen gives you a possiblitily to dipslay both resolutions in 1:1, while buying a 1680x1050 only gives you an option to display 1680x1050 of the two resolutions in 1:1 ratio.

So I would advice you to consider a higher resolution if the higher price point doesn't scare you. :)
Click to expand...

This single post of yours made me decide on a 2408 straight away... Thanks a ton buddy... If i understood it correctly i can game @ 1650x1050 in two ways on a 24"... one is forcing the complete screen res @ 1650x1050 or Letting it show 1650x10150 1:1 while keeping the rest black... Will feel like as if extended bezel of the Monitor :p... Hopefully i got it correct...
 
Switch said:
This single post of yours made me decide on a 2408 straight away... Thanks a ton buddy... If i understood it correctly i can game @ 1650x1050 in two ways on a 24"... one is forcing the complete screen res @ 1650x1050 or Letting it show 1650x10150 1:1 while keeping the rest black... Will feel like as if extended bezel of the Monitor :p... Hopefully i got it correct...
Click to expand...

You're welcome. This is correct. You can game @ 1680x1050 on a 1920x1200 screen and choose if you want 1:1 (pixel perfect with black bars), Scale to aspect (stretched until it reaches vertical height) or full screen (stretched to 1920x1200). The Dell 2408 have all those options within the screen altso, so you don't have to rely on GFX drivers. If its the same with the 2408 as with the earlier models, then you need to be in a resolution lower then 1920x1200 to change the scaling modes. :)

Edit: Forgot to mention, but you might already know that the 2408 have much input lag. I'm not sensitive to it myself, but wanted to tell you before you buy in case you were:

http://www.behardware.com/articles/712-4/lcd-david-vs-goliath-iolair-vs-dell.html

Its a bit over 4 frames of lag in average.
 
I guess the A01 Revision takes care of that apart from few other things...

Also we don't get any other 24"inchers around here in India easily...
 
I have a 1920x1200 native screen and while it can run lower widescreen and 4:3 (with black bars) resolutions, the full screen, lower resolution is interpolated and slightly blurrier (except for something like 1600x1200, which is 1:1). It's very noticeable for any text (office applications, browsing, desktop and explorer windows), but I don't notice it at all when gaming. It's most obvious just after switching to a lower resolution on a page full of text, but after a while you get used to it. It's not a problem for gaming though.

You can see which you prefer, black bars and non-interpolated pixels or filling the screen with a lower resolution.
 
berzerker said:
I have to disagree with the previous poster. I have a 1920x1200 native screen and while it can run lower widescreen and 4:3 (with black bars) resolutions, the lower resolution is interpolated and slightly blurrier (except for something like 1600x1200, which is 1:1). It's very noticeable for any text (office applications, browsing, desktop and explorer windows), but I don't notice it at all when gaming. It's most obvious just after switching to a lower resolution on a page full of text, but after a while you get used to it. It's not a problem for gaming though.
Click to expand...

Interpolation comes only if you use scale to aspect or full screen. 1:1 doesn't give any interpolation/scaling since its not needed.. If it still does, then something is wrong in the setup.

Under interpolation, you can still counteract the effect to some degree. If your screen have a sharpness setting, then it can take away some of the blurryness that comes from interpolation/scaling. :)
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
Interpolation comes only if you use scale to aspect or full screen. 1:1 doesn't give any interpolation/scaling since its not needed.. If it still does, then something is wrong in the setup.
Click to expand...
I was still editing my post when you replied. If you play with black bars you won't have interpolation.

Here is a badly shot comparison of my screen. On the left is native 1920x1200 on the right is interpolated 800x600 (to make the difference more obvious) filling the vertical space (not 1:1 pixels). Unfortunately, I couldn't get close enough to screen with my camera to take exactly the same size, so I scaled down the 800x600 image a bit to match the size of the 1920x1200.

Left is native. Right is a (much) lower resolution.

10erl0o.jpg


Again, in gaming I don't notice this effect at all when running at non-native.
 
Thats true. An LCD has a fixed amount of pixels, so if you use scaling, it uses several pixels to draw the image resulting in some blur and less sharpness. In games it IS less visible as you say. On my screen I have a sharpness setting that can be set individually for each resolution giving some free AA to counteract this effect. The scaling is good in games regardless though and I can play games in lower resolutions and run them in full screen instead of 1:1 if I wish and still enjoy them. Here's some images of my screens interpolation in Farcry:
http://prad.de/en/monitore/review/2007/review-nec-lcd2690wuxi-part13.html#Interpolation
 
Tamlin_WSGF said:
The scaling is good in games regardless though and I can play games in lower resolutions and run them in full screen instead of 1:1 if I wish and still enjoy them. Here's some images of my screens interpolation in Farcry:
http://prad.de/en/monitore/review/2007/review-nec-lcd2690wuxi-part13.html#Interpolation
Click to expand...

It looks quite good. There are some very minor differences, like this, but you would never see this while playing.

20hsxgx.jpg


Unfortunately, my screen doesn't have any sharpness control.
 
lcd's used to have problems running outside their native res- but anymore its just a non-issue. my samsung 225bw runs games at lower resolution like it was a crt. you can only notice the interpolating in 2d text and stuff... and even then its not bad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top