Resolution

D

DeanEH

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
110
What is the difference in gaming between 1920 x 1200 and 1920 x 1080? I am thinking about moving up to a 24" monitor and saw the two different resolutions. I was wondering what is the advantage of one over the other?:confused:
 
16:9 is better for movies and games
16:10 for everything else
Difference is not big though and I believe the price is almost the same, so more pixels the better. I dont believe there are any 22-24" non-TN 16:9 panels on the market, so if You want better panel You wont have a choice anyway.
 
1920x1200 has 11% more pixels than 1920x1080, but my impression is that 1920x1200 monitors tend to be quite a bit more expensive than 1920x1080 monitors. Most video cards and output signals in either resolution, so both are fine for computer use. However, IIRC some HD video players and game consoles output only 1920x1080 signals (not 1920x1200), so if your monitor does not support 1:1 pixel mapping, the image will stretch vertically.
 
novemberrain said:
What makes you think so? 16:9 is better no matter what gaming. All today's games which support widescreen support 16:9 too, at least all I play. And it gives a nice advantage online too.
Click to expand...

The only possible explanation I have for thinking this is that 'Lower Resolution = Higher Frame Rate'.

Otherwise, higher resolution is always better for gaming.
 
PC games can utilize the extra resolution of 1920x1200, where as consoles are limited to the lower rez. Cutscenes will revert to 16:9 and black bars however. Not a huge difference but IMO the more vertical viewing real estate the better.
 
chklin said:
1920x1200 has 11% more pixels than 1920x1080, but my impression is that 1920x1200 monitors tend to be quite a bit more expensive than 1920x1080 monitors. Most video cards and output signals in either resolution, so both are fine for computer use. However, IIRC some HD video players and game consoles output only 1920x1080 signals (not 1920x1200), so if your monitor does not support 1:1 pixel mapping, the image will stretch vertically.
Click to expand...

That's if you compare the quality WUXGA monitors against the basic, run-of-the-mill crappy TN panels that are usually in those 24" 1080p resolution monitors.

As for the topic-at-hand, I'd take WUXGA over 1080p any day...something about 16:10 seems "right" while 16:9 for monitors just seems like a downsize to me (because it technically is a reduction in vertical screen resolution).

I don't mind letterboxing for 16:9 display anyways. :)
 
new@this said:
PC games can utilize the extra resolution of 1920x1200, where as consoles are limited to the lower rez. Cutscenes will revert to 16:9 and black bars however. Not a huge difference but IMO the more vertical viewing real estate the better.
Click to expand...
Ok, I understand your analogy and I believe there has been quite a lot of discussion about 16:9vs16:10. But for gaming only (PC) I'd still get a 16:9 monitor because it looks nicer and has wider fov, which is I consider the most important in games.
 
Assuming the diagonal sizes are even the only advantage you might get out of 1080 in online gaming is a slightly larger screen. You can always set a 1920x1200 screen for 1080. You'll just get black bars on the top & bottom like you do with widescreen video if you use 1920x1080. 1080 modes will of course run a wee little bit faster than 1920x1200 since there are fewer pixels.
For watching TV or movies 1080 is slightly better. Widescreen video is generally 16:9 for HDTV or even wider aspect ratios for movies. But again, you just get the same number of usable pixels in a slightly smaller size on a 16:10 screen.
For work use, web browsing, etc. there's really no contest. 1920x1200 is better. 1920x1200 has more pixels and the difference in pixel size at a given diagonal is small enough it's hardly noticeable.
I think panel type & performance are more important that 1920x1200 v. 1080 for a straight up gaming and/or video watching screen.
 
Syntax Error said:
That's if you compare the quality WUXGA monitors against the basic, run-of-the-mill crappy TN panels that are usually in those 24" 1080p resolution monitors.
Click to expand...
Even run-of-the-mill crappy TN 1920x1200 monitors are still quite a bit more expensive than run-of-the-mill crappy TN 1920x1200 monitors. Here are the prices of five lowest-priced 1920x1200 monitors on NewEgg:

$239.99, $269.99, $279.99, $319.99, $339.99

While the lowest prices for 1920x1080 monitors are:

4 * $179.99, 4 * $189.99, 2 * $209.99, 2 * $219.99, 3 * $229.99

Yes, the 1920x1080 monitors are generally smaller than the 1920x1200 monitors, but my point is that 1920x1080 monitors tend to occupy lower price points. Of course, if you have very high standards and consider all TN monitors crappy, then of course 1920x1200 wins by default.
 
For PC use get 16:10 monitor, because on such you can always (excluding some crappy monitors) display 16:9 content. Vice versa is not possible.
 
Biges said:
For PC use get 16:10 monitor, because on such you can always (excluding some crappy monitors) display 16:9 content. Vice versa is not possible.
Click to expand...
yeah but if newer games and movies are priority then 16:9 can be better. some 16:9 content will just stretch on a 16:10 monitor instead of putting the black bars in. sometimes flat panel scaling through the video card drivers just doesnt work on some monitors. if the monitor itself allows it then yes you should be able display in res properly on a 16:10 monitor. problem is most monitors dont have that function.
 
cannondale06 said:
yeah but if newer games and movies are priority then 16:9 can be better. some 16:9 content will just stretch on a 16:10 monitor instead of putting the black bars in. sometimes flat panel scaling through the video card drivers just doesnt work on some monitors. if the monitor itself allows it then yes you should be able display in res properly on a 16:10 monitor. problem is most monitors dont have that function.
Click to expand...

Well, monitors without 1:1 mapping are to be considered crap, aren't they?
 
Monitors should be able to do 1:1 - if they can't, they are budget and only meant for PC use.

Higher resolution = better. You can still watch 16:9 1080i/p content at full resolution but you can get even more pixel space for PC use. If you get a 1920x1080 monitor then you just lose some resolution when using your PC.

Providing the monitor can do 1:1 pixel mapping properly, there is no advantage to 1920x1080.
 
The thing with 16:9 "HD" monitors is that manufacturers create a "buzz" around them to persuade customers that these monitors are better while they are just cheaper to manufacture.
Their ads are sometimes quite funny :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top