Much difference between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080?

Azureth

Azureth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
5,323
I notice that 24' monitors have one or the other, is there much of a difference?
 
Azureth said:
I notice that 24' monitors have one or the other, is there much of a difference?
Click to expand...

Well, aside from the obvious note of there being 120 pix of difference I will sound off with my own 0.02cents about this. Take a look at Dell's web page and you'll notice a myriad of 24 inch monitors, most in the 1080p category and then the Ultrasharp which does 1900x1200 res for nearly 200 dollars more. Ask yourself why they could charge so much more? Why would anyone pay that?

Well, most people won't. But you get a better monitor in my experience. You're not getting some sized down mass produced 1080p generic LCD Screen originally made for a TV crammed into a stand and called a monitor. The color reproduction will be better on the Ultrasharp as will refresh and lack of ghosting. You just are getting a monitor which was made, from the ground up, to be a computer monitor.

I run about six monitors on my home system. Two 37 inch Westinghouse 1080p's over HDMI, 2 dell 30's, one on Display-port and one on DVI, and 2 24's, again one on DP and o one on DVI. Now the 1080p 37's are great for web browsing or just have big screens but the response and color on the 30's and 24's are MUCH better. I notice the difference.

Of course YMMV.

But generally it's a question of quality and how important is to you. 1080's are very nice now days. The true 1900x1200's are better. Just this man's opinion.
 
I'd disagree with most everything UrbanCore said.

Basically with the 1080p TV movement monitor manufacturers figured out that they could drop resolution to x1080 and the vast majority of people would just know "1080p that's the best, right?". For every 9 x1200 panels they can make 10 x1080, so for the low-end market (TN panels) aimed at the clueless consumer everything has moved to x1080. Graphics professionals and similar professions still demand the extra vertical resolution (personally I'd love a portrait 1440x1920 resolution for coding... ) And for professional use people aren't concerned about refresh rate (the TN panels advantage), they want color accuracy and viewing angles. Hence all the x1200 panels are IPS (or in a few cases *VA).

The x1080 panels are not down-sized TV screens. A quality x1080 TN will have far less ghosting than a quality x1200 panel (IPS or *VA). It's the advantage of TN after all.

You need to decide how much vertical resolution you want/need. You'll also need to decide what you want to use it for. If you're ok with x1080 then you have some solid inexpensive options like the aforementioned Acer, or the Dell U2311 if you don't want the horrible off-angle viewing issues of TN.

If instead you want x1200, then you're looking at the HP ZR24W or the Dell U2410. Might want to try to find a refurbed Dell U2408 if you're ok with a PVA and are willing to gamble on getting a Rev A02 so you don't have high input lag (or don't care about input lag).

But let us know what your uses are, as that'll determine which panel tech works best for you (as they all have thier own set of drawbacks) and then start thinking about how much vertical resolution you want and how important it is to you.
 
Do you ever plan to use it in portrait mode? If so then I have to tell you that 1080 makes things just too cramped/squeezed in. 1200 is the minimum I'd be comfortable with.
 
I read a lot about this 1080 vs 1200 debate, on these forums too, and recently purchased a 1920x1080 screen. I ended up returning it, not solely because of the resolution but I wasn't a fan of it at all either. I've tried a 1920x1200 monitor and it's much, much better for work. On paper, the 120 pixel difference doesn't seem much but in practice it really is, at least for me.

The problem seems to be that the manufacturers have for a few reasons decided 1080p is the future so there aren't many 1200 monitors out there anymore. It means you have less choice and 1080 screens are cheaper as well. Basically there aren't many high quality 1200 screens that aren't aimed at professionals. Even the likes of Dell U2410 and HP ZR24w which should beat TN panels, don't seem to be as good as their smaller AND bigger versions. The U2311H for instance proves that IPS does not neccessarily = poor blacks. The U2711 has good blacks as well.

Despite all that, I'm getting a 1200 monitor. 1080p just isn't enough for me and I'm willing to pay more/sacrifice some image quality to get higher resolution.

In short, 1200 is a lot better in my opinion but you have to take other factors into account too and decide what is best for you.
 
Do you ever plan to use it in portrait mode? If so then I have to tell you that 1080 makes things just too cramped/squeezed in. 1200 is the minimum I'd be comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Does any one have experience using a 1080 in portrait mode for software development (primarily text) ? I am planning a 3 screen setup with ZR22W's in portrait mode on the outer sides. With my current display, I'm using about 10 pixels of width for each character, so I'm thinking 80-100 character wide text panels on the 1080 portrait screens. I realize that 1600x1200 might be a better form factor, but those screens are getting a little long in the tooth ... and a tad expensive.

Thoughts ?
 
UrbanCore said:
Well, aside from the obvious note of there being 120 pix of difference I will sound off with my own 0.02cents about this. Take a look at Dell's web page and you'll notice a myriad of 24 inch monitors, most in the 1080p category and then the Ultrasharp which does 1900x1200 res for nearly 200 dollars more. Ask yourself why they could charge so much more? Why would anyone pay that?
Click to expand...

The U2410 is a 16:10 H-IPS panel and not some cheap 1080p TN, that's why.
 
I use a U2311H for graphics work and its far superior than any TN i've worked on. Even tho its 16:9.

Honestly when widescreens first came out i was really annoyed they were 16:10 because i use my screens to watch a lot of TV / media.
 
16:9 is generally better if you're going to do more movie watching and gaming than work where you cram in as much info and windows as possible on the screen. Pretty much all games actually zoom in the view when you go from 16:9 to 16:10, so you see less in the game with 16:10. Instead of adding more top and bottom the games cut off a bit of the sides which can make games with a narrow field of view really annoying to play. It's not a huge difference either way and there really is no correlation between the aspect ratio and the quality of the screen itself because there are plenty of VA and IPS 16:9 screens now so the argument that a "made for pc 16:10" screen would be superior by design isn't true.
 
TheManko, I'll simply note that nothing says you can't run those games at 16:9 mapped 1:1 to the display and not have that issue.

jvsfms, I run a 1600x1200 in portrait mode at work. I find myself wishing for a bit more width. 1440 pixels would be nice. Maybe they should make a 1920x1440 for those of us that do more than watch movies :p
 
Khanmots said:
TheManko, I'll simply note that nothing says you can't run those games at 16:9 mapped 1:1 to the display and not have that issue.
Click to expand...

Not every monitor supports 1:1 pixel mapping though. The HP ZR24W does not, and it's 1920x1200.

The only good reason that I can think of for having 1920x1080 would be so that I could duplicate my desktop onto my TV. As it is now, I'm using a 1440x900 monitor, and when I duplicate it onto my TV, the TV scales it to fit 1920x1080, causing a very mild horizontal distortion. It's not terribly noticeable to me, and I can live with it, but would prefer both to be the same AR.
 
I think it'd be an awesome idea if someone stickied one of the 20 other 16:10 vs 16:9 threads that are already floating around. Otherwise every week someone is just going to make a new topic asking the exact same question.
 
The reason I asked is because I have a BenQ V2400W LCD Monitor and was thinking about getting the new BenQ EW2420 24" LED Backlit LCD Monitor with VA Panel
 
I know this thread's a bit old, but in case the OP is still fishing for info, software dev is one of the things I use my setup for, and 1200 is the minimum I would consider "usable" for my left & right portrait units. In fact, I have a 1080 model that's about to go back to the store because of it; it's that noticeable for me. But, I also tend to work with largely nested modules, etc, which may not be an issue for you. All I know is, if they ever make a 1440x1920 portrait monitor, I'm all over 2 them in a heart beat.

jvsfms said:
Does any one have experience using a 1080 in portrait mode for software development (primarily text) ? I am planning a 3 screen setup with ZR22W's in portrait mode on the outer sides. With my current display, I'm using about 10 pixels of width for each character, so I'm thinking 80-100 character wide text panels on the 1080 portrait screens. I realize that 1600x1200 might be a better form factor, but those screens are getting a little long in the tooth ... and a tad expensive.

Thoughts ?
Click to expand...
 
While I can't comment on software development, I did try to use a 16:9 display in portrait mode for different tasks (including writing MATLAB scripts). I cannot recommend this setup. The horizontal resolution way to low. Moreover the aspect ration seems very unnatural, much higher than an A4 sheet.

On the scaling topic: the display does not have to have 1:1 mapping to display lower resolution. Both ATI and Nvidia drivers support GPU based scaling, which also allows to send a lower resolution image extended by black bars to the display at native resolution.
 
Khanmots said:
TheManko, I'll simply note that nothing says you can't run those games at 16:9 mapped 1:1 to the display and not have that issue.

jvsfms, I run a 1600x1200 in portrait mode at work. I find myself wishing for a bit more width. 1440 pixels would be nice. Maybe they should make a 1920x1440 for those of us that do more than watch movies :p
Click to expand...

What are some models that are 1920x1200 that support 1:1 pixel mapping? I'd prefer TN just because they are cheaper, the larger the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top