Quality 24"-27", 16:9 panel for gaming?

Shocked

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
373
I have a 26" Planar PX2611W that's kind of spoiled me.

I'm looking for an additional monitor I'll be using for gaming, which is why I'd like the 16:9 aspect ratio specifically for its field of view in certain games. That's not it's only purpose, I need an additional monitor anyway to complement my current workspace for other things.

I thought about just getting another monitor for work and running those games on my Planar at 1920x1080 with resolution scaling disabled (it's native is 1920x1200, and disabling resolution scaling works except that everything becomes extremely fuzzy).

I'd prefer a non-TN panel, but I know IPS and low input lag don't go together very often, at least that wasn't the case the last time I did some real research on the matter. I also know they can be expensive, I'm not looking to pay another $800 USD for a monitor like I did with my Planar, but $400-$500 isn't out of the question.
 

HardwareGuru

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
4,772
You must be using this monitor for console gaming more than pc gaming? I would recommend the Dell U2410 24" IPS display. I am not totally sure it has 1:1 pixel mapping but, not surprised if it does.
 

Shocked

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
373
Well, strategy games. Specifically Starcraft 2. The field of view is much wider in 16:9.

The funny thing about my Planar is I'm pretty sure it can do 1:1 pixel mapping. Everything looks normal in any resolution I try *except* 1920x1080. I can run it in 1024x768 and the viewable space will be tiny, but it looks fine.
 
Last edited:

Lotheron

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2001
Messages
281
I bought a 32inch TV for 1080p gaming and would not go back. I know 19x12 is a higher resolution, but I believe these 32inch 1080p TVs are the best bang for the buck in monitors today and see them going more and more mainstream in the future.
 

FocalFury

n00b
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
58
wow that monitor is at a great price....gaming in general you guys think this looks good?

at this price this looks like something i'd consider for my eyefinity setup, unless people say against it other wise
 

Shocked

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
373
I'm rather curious what the input lag is on it. I hadn't thought about getting an HDTV.
 

King of Heroes

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,006
I'm rather curious what the input lag is on it. I hadn't thought about getting an HDTV.
I feel that for purely gaming purposes, and as a secondary screen, an HDTV makes more sense than a monitor for your particular needs. Given how affordable they are, a good quality IPS HDTV is a better and more useful option than a cheap-o TN monitor for playing games on. You also get the handy option of plugging a console into it at any time and not have to worry about aspect ratio or scaling. Alot of TVs nowadays (well, at least mine does) also have a "Game Mode" that bypasses any needless image processing, which lowers response time.
 

FocalFury

n00b
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
58
I feel that for purely gaming purposes, and as a secondary screen, an HDTV makes more sense than a monitor for your particular needs. Given how affordable they are, a good quality IPS HDTV is a better and more useful option than a cheap-o TN monitor for playing games on. You also get the handy option of plugging a console into it at any time and not have to worry about aspect ratio or scaling. Alot of TVs nowadays (well, at least mine does) also have a "Game Mode" that bypasses any needless image processing, which lowers response time.
Thats great...
and you feel confident in that LG that you linked in your last post being a good gaming screen...makes me want to get 3 of those for eyefinity now
 

King of Heroes

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,006
Thats great...
and you feel confident in that LG that you linked in your last post being a good gaming screen...makes me want to get 3 of those for eyefinity now
No, I can't say I feel that way because I've never used that TV. It was just the first thing that came up when I Googled.
 

FocalFury

n00b
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
58
No, I can't say I feel that way because I've never used that TV. It was just the first thing that came up when I Googled.
ah ok....I'll need to do some research but I can't see me NOT being happy with 3 of those at that price :cool::cool:
LG is good in the business of these
 

eddieck

Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,010
I can't help with your original post (other than suggesting you drop down an inch and get an EA231WMi which is a 1080p e-IPS display for around $300 with under 10ms input lag), but I'd like to clarify on the 16:9 FOV. When comparing between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, 16:9 does not have a wider FOV. They both have the same amount of horizontal pixels, and while those pixels may be larger, they still represent the same information.
 

Wendig0

Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
810
Sorry to burst some bubbles but I heard that they rarely use the IPS panel in their 32" models now. They switched to a decent VA and now a crappier VA screen from somewhere... Just look around and you'll find out what I'm talking about. Some people, however, think the cheaper screens are adequate enough.
 

Shocked

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
373
I can't help with your original post (other than suggesting you drop down an inch and get an EA231WMi which is a 1080p e-IPS display for around $300 with under 10ms input lag), but I'd like to clarify on the 16:9 FOV. When comparing between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, 16:9 does not have a wider FOV. They both have the same amount of horizontal pixels, and while those pixels may be larger, they still represent the same information.
This is what I'm referring to. Makes sense to me, at any rate.



EDIT: I discovered why my monitor is having problems with 1920x1080. Apparently, the highest refresh rate option available is 30Hz interlaced.
 
Last edited:

Mozex

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
1,319
When comparing between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, 16:9 does not have a wider FOV. They both have the same amount of horizontal pixels, and while those pixels may be larger, they still represent the same information.
If the game is designed to give the same vertical viewing angle across all aspect ratios (HOR+) then 16:9 screens give more viewable horizontal area than 16:10 screens.

It appears SC2 is HOR+ (I'm assuming the above gif is accurate).

If the game is designed to give the same horizontal viewing angle across all aspect ratios (VERT-) then 5:4 screens give the most vertical viewing area (16:10s are better than 16:9s in this regard).

Global agenda is VERT-
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/02/11/dont_buy_global_agenda_editorial/
 
Last edited:

Wendig0

Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
810
16:10's are the best because you can get 1920 x 1200 instead of 1920 x 1080. That gif is misleading.
 

HardwareGuru

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
4,772
That gif image is not totally right. But, I know what he is trying to explain. A 16:9 image displayed on a 16:10 monitor does not mean it will be cropped to where you will lose out on what you see. It will still be the same since it is 1920x1080 resolution. If a 1920x1080 image is displayed on a 16:10 display that does not have 1:1 mapping, it will stretch the image height from 1080 to 1200 vertically. This is the opposite of stretching a 4:3 non widescreen movie on a 16:9 WS display. If the monitor has 1:1 mapping, there will be black bars on the top and bottom and there is no stretching of the image. The thing is that the overall size of the image at 1920x1080 displayed on a 24" 16:10 monitor will be a little smaller than it being displayed on a 24" 16:9 monitor. If you're playing a 1080P movie with 1:85 aspect ratio displayed on a 24" 1080P display, the whole image measured diagonally will be 24". If that same movie was playing on a 24" 16:10 display with 1920x1200 resolution with 1:1 pixel mapping enabled, the overall image measured diagonally would be more like 23-23.5" in size. What shocked is trying to say is that a 1920x1080 image will be slightly smaller on a 16:10 24" vs a 16:9 24"
 

Zaints

n00b
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
1
16:10's are the best because you can get 1920 x 1200 instead of 1920 x 1080. That gif is misleading.
That gif is not misleading. While it's true that 1920x1200 gives you 120 more vertical pixels, that has absolutely nothing to do with Starcraft II's aspect ratios. As has been mentioned, Blizzard designed it as HOR+ which means you'll see the maximum amount of playing field with a 1920x1080 resolution.

To be clear about this, moving from a x1080 display to a x1200 one--for Starcraft II--does not give you more vertical viewing space. All it ends up doing is cutting off a bit of the sides (as the animated gif demonstrates). This is not the case for all games but, given the rampant popularity of Starcraft (as a competitive e-sport), Blizzard specifically wanted 1080p to be the norm as that's, obviously, the standard when it comes to 1080p, high-definition broadcasting.

If they made 1920x1200 allow the max possible viewing space, they would have had to have utilized black bars for hd broadcasting which is not something they wanted to do (nor did they want to force competitive players to "downsize" to a "smaller" 1080p screen, for competitions, as that wouldn't be in the best interests of the competitors or the integrity of the e-sport). Does that clear things up?
 

Wendig0

Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
810
lol yeah that clears things up.. I didn't know thats how they designed the game... I thought that .gif was just another picture comparing 16:10 to 16:9 and only showing the 16:9 gaining more horizontal view and not losing any of vertical view.
 

Silverghost

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,627
I thought that .gif was just another picture comparing 16:10 to 16:9 and only showing the 16:9 gaining more horizontal view and not losing any of vertical view.
That's exactly what the .gif is showing. The vertical FOV is fixed and doesn't care what resolution you have, and the horizontal FOV is determined by the aspect ratio. The more rectangular the ratio, the more horizontal FOV. Every game should be like this.
 

Deadgye

[H]Lite
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
118
Blah blah blah 16:9 gives more field of vision/view blah blah any 16:10 capable monitor worth it's shit can display 16:9 exactly the same way a 16:9 monitor would blah blah so basically a 16:10 monitor does what the 16:9 monitor does and more blah blah unless you're a nazi and hate black bars.
 

holinger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
335
... Seriously... the tunnel vision of the average hard member is pathetic... its their way or the highway... nobody questions the fact that 1:1 pixel mapping can turn any 16:10 to 16:9 but your wasting space that you spent money on by turning into black bars... in any case.. i can't vouch for this monitor, but i'm in the same boat and this one appears to be my favorite... added resolution so people don't bitch about lost pixels and everything :p

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009165&cm_re=acer_27-_-24-009-165-_-Product
 

drgnfang

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
1,086
The bigger issue (to me anyway) is that the 16:10 are being niche pieces. Harder to find, and more expensive (in general), than 16:9. Oh, and I've been trying to get the Acer 27" for two weeks now, it's on backorder everywhere. Even places that say it is in stock.
 

holinger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
335
well if you end up getting one... you gotta let me know how it looks... i've tried several times to find someone with some decent monitor knowledge to tell me how they like it... and you should be able to compare to your planar for a good review. . . it definitely has a sweet stand :p
 

jojospcs

n00b
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
55
Blah blah blah 16:9 gives more field of vision/view blah blah any 16:10 capable monitor worth it's shit can display 16:9 exactly the same way a 16:9 monitor would blah blah so basically a 16:10 monitor does what the 16:9 monitor does and more blah blah unless you're a nazi and hate black bars.
lol funniest post I've read here since joining.
 

Uberbob102000

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,243
The bigger issue (to me anyway) is that the 16:10 are being niche pieces. Harder to find, and more expensive (in general), than 16:9. Oh, and I've been trying to get the Acer 27" for two weeks now, it's on backorder everywhere. Even places that say it is in stock.
Well they also tend to be much better quality panels, the 1920x1200 panels are for the most part 8 bit panels now and the TNs are the cheaper, crappier 1920x1080.
 
Top