Should I give up on 1200p?

[Drakul]

I'm looking to upgrade from my Samsung T220 TN monitor. It served its purpose and I'm ready for greener pastures.

I want a 24" monitor, 1200p, I game all kinds (FPS, MMOs...but PC dedicated, no console), video editing a fair amount...
It was already a pretty sad situation for 16:10 monitors to begin with but now with the G-Sync everyone is talking about the only 16:10 monitor is the ASUS ROG and it's a 27" so.....

Am I screwed?

 

[NCX]

Links to reviews of the best 24" 1200p monitors can be found here.

 

[Firepc]

You should give up on making things up. 1200p indeed.

 

[Armenius]

I'm looking to upgrade from my Samsung T220 TN monitor. It served its purpose and I'm ready for greener pastures.

I want a 24" monitor, 1200p, I game all kinds (FPS, MMOs...but PC dedicated, no console), video editing a fair amount...
It was already a pretty sad situation for 16:10 monitors to begin with but now with the G-Sync everyone is talking about the only 16:10 monitor is the ASUS ROG and it's a 27" so.....

Am I screwed?

The "ASUS ROG" (PG278Q) is a 16:9 monitor with a native resolution of 2560x1440. 2560 / 1440 = 1.78. The 16:10 resolution would be 2560x1600.

 

[[X]eltic]

At lower resolutions, if you can find a nice monitor, I would not give up on 16:10.

Imo:

1920x1200 > 1920x1080.
2560x1440 > 2560x1600.

Why? I believe 16:9 is a better aspect ratio, but it depends on the resolution. At lower resolutions, the lack of vertical height hurts, so I would pick 1920x1200 instead. But at higher resolutions, there's plenty of vertical height, so I would take 2560x1440 over 2560x1600. What I don't like about the 16:10 aspect ratio, is that it is not as well-suited for multimedia content as 16:9. For example, bigger black bars in movies.

 

[Drakul]

Links to reviews of the best 24" 1200p monitors can be found here.

Trust me I went through the whole thread a few times already

At lower resolutions, if you can find a nice monitor, I would not give up on 16:10.

Imo:

1920x1200 > 1920x1080.
2560x1440 > 2560x1600.

Why? I believe 16:9 is a better aspect ratio, but it depends on the resolution. At lower resolutions, the lack of vertical height hurts, so I would pick 1920x1200 instead. But at higher resolutions, there's plenty of vertical height, so I would take 2560x1440 over 2560x1600. What I don't like about the 16:10 aspect ratio, is that it is not as well-suited for multimedia content as 16:9. For example, bigger black bars in movies.

You actually make a good point. I kept comparing my 22" 16:10 with 24" sizes but never really compared 24" and 27". A 24" 16:10 and a 27" 16:9 are basically the same height and you 'just' gain 3" in width.

Still now we have to pay attention to G-Switch, Freeswitch or whatever else it's called.

 

[WillC310]

At lower resolutions, if you can find a nice monitor, I would not give up on 16:10.

Imo:

1920x1200 > 1920x1080.
2560x1440 > 2560x1600.

Why? I believe 16:9 is a better aspect ratio, but it depends on the resolution. At lower resolutions, the lack of vertical height hurts, so I would pick 1920x1200 instead. But at higher resolutions, there's plenty of vertical height, so I would take 2560x1440 over 2560x1600. What I don't like about the 16:10 aspect ratio, is that it is not as well-suited for multimedia content as 16:9. For example, bigger black bars in movies.

I agree with this also. I held out on my 24" 16:10 monitor for the longest time and didn't want a 16:9 1080p panel. Then I got the ROG Swift the other day and I'm more than satisfied.

 

[[X]eltic]

You actually make a good point. I kept comparing my 22" 16:10 with 24" sizes but never really compared 24" and 27". A 24" 16:10 and a 27" 16:9 are basically the same height and you 'just' gain 3" in width.

Well, it is important to not mix up screen size and screen resolution. Screen size is about physical dimensions and screen resolution is about virtual dimensions. Virtually, a 27" 16:9 monitor could still have less vertical height than a 24” 16:10 monitor, if the former has 1080 resolution and the latter 1200 resolution. The 27” 16:9 monitor has to have greater than 1200 resolution to gain virtual vertical height. In practice, this means a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

If I were you, I would buy a 2560x1440 monitor, not a 1920x1200 monitor. You'll gain a lot of virtual space (both vertically and horizontally) and you'll have the better (imo) 16:9 aspect ratio, too. Additionally, you have better monitors to choose from. If it has a 27” screen size, it will also have a sharper picture, due to the higher pixel density. Depending on your eyesight, this is positive or negative, but most people like the extra sharpness.

The only real problem with a 2560x1440 resolution, is that it puts more stress on your videocard. This will negatively effect FPS in games. But if you stay above 60 FPS or so, you won't really notice it anyway. And with a G-Sync monitor, even a larger FPS drop isn't noticeable. With G-Sync, some people say everything above 30 FPS is smooth. But FPS drop aside, the higher resolution also has a positive effect: less aliasing.

 

[Church]

2560x1440 been normal resolution for some time that can be handled even with current middle end gpus. 4K is which .. well, currently even with multiple top end gpus might be better. As for OP, imho in these days it's wrong to buy as display (which usually serves for long time) something less then 27".

 

[NCX]

Trust me I went through the whole thread a few times already

Then what's the problem? There are 7 good options ranging from 230-1400$ to choose from...along with grainier options which use LED PWM Dimming if you want to pay the same price for an inferior product (Asus PA248Q, Dell U2412, ect...)

 

[Drakul]

Well, it is important to not mix up screen size and screen resolution. Screen size is about physical dimensions and screen resolution is about virtual dimensions. Virtually, a 27" 16:9 monitor could still have less vertical height than a 24” 16:10 monitor, if the former has 1080 resolution and the latter 1200 resolution. The 27” 16:9 monitor has to have greater than 1200 resolution to gain virtual vertical height. In practice, this means a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

If I were you, I would buy a 2560x1440 monitor, not a 1920x1200 monitor. You'll gain a lot of virtual space (both vertically and horizontally) and you'll have the better (imo) 16:9 aspect ratio, too. Additionally, you have better monitors to choose from. If it has a 27” screen size, it will also have a sharper picture, due to the higher pixel density. Depending on your eyesight, this is positive or negative, but most people like the extra sharpness.

The only real problem with a 2560x1440 resolution, is that it puts more stress on your videocard. This will negatively effect FPS in games. But if you stay above 60 FPS or so, you won't really notice it anyway. And with a G-Sync monitor, even a larger FPS drop isn't noticeable. With G-Sync, some people say everything above 30 FPS is smooth. But FPS drop aside, the higher resolution also has a positive effect: less aliasing.

that's what I'm looking at right now, I have a GTX 760 so that should be more than fine. I just need to get the $$$.

Then what's the problem? There are 7 good options ranging from 230-1400$ to choose from...along with grainier options which use LED PWM Dimming if you want to pay the same price for an inferior product (Asus PA248Q, Dell U2412, ect...)

Now now.. the problem is that what's acceptable to you and me isn't the same and it's hard to spend $500+ without being positive.

 

[NCX]

Now now.. the problem is that what's acceptable to you and me isn't the same and it's hard to spend $500+ without being positive.

You are using a budget 60hz 1680x1050 TN won't be much faster (if at all) than the current IPS/PLS panels and obviously is much worse color and viewing angle wise. Five (Asus VS24AH or AL, BenQ BL2411PT, HP E24i, Z24i and Samsung S24A850D) good IPS/PLS panels available for under 500$...

Either you want something that does not exist (120hz 1200p TN?), or just want to complain. The current 1200p monitors are much better than the older models and the good 24" 144hz BenQ are available for under 500$ as well (1080p>1050)...

 

[Drakul]

You are using a budget 60hz 1680x1050 TN won't be much faster (if at all) than the current IPS/PLS panels and obviously is much worse color and viewing angle wise. Five (Asus VS24AH or AL, BenQ BL2411PT, HP E24i, Z24i and Samsung S24A850D) good IPS/PLS panels available for under 500$...

Either you want something that does not exist (120hz 1200p TN?), or just want to complain. The current 1200p monitors are much better than the older models and the good 24" 144hz BenQ are available for under 500$ as well (1080p>1050)...

Don't we all want something that doesn't exists? A good IPS/VA in 16:10 that has 120-144Hz. Isn't that what we all craze in the end?

But seriously won't the new breed of G-Synch, Freesynch monitor make the ones you listed somewhat obsolete? I just heard about this new (?) thing so I don't quite grasp it yet but everyone seems excited about it and when I look at the monitors that feature it.... none are 16:10. That was the reason for my post originally.

 

[XoR]

G-sync/Freesync is feature that make LCDs work exactly how most people think they already work

 

[alienate]

Don't we all want something that doesn't exists? A good IPS/VA in 16:10 that has 120-144Hz. Isn't that what we all craze in the end?

But seriously won't the new breed of G-Synch, Freesynch monitor make the ones you listed somewhat obsolete? I just heard about this new (?) thing so I don't quite grasp it yet but everyone seems excited about it and when I look at the monitors that feature it.... none are 16:10. That was the reason for my post originally.

I'm with you. We're in the "dark age" of monitors, lol, there have been virtually no improvements the last 5 years, just trade offs.

 

[XoR]

lol, there have been virtually no improvements the last 5 years, just trade offs.

not entirely true cause now we have:
120/144Hz TN monitors
strobed 120Hz monitors with CRT-like motion
lots of cheap IPS screens (5 years ago any IPS was hellishly expensive)
cheap korean 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitors overclockable to 96Hz and some even to 120Hz
4K monitors
21:9 monitors
G-Sync monitors
PWM-free monitors
there is much more low input lag monitors than before, especially IPS


Sure, its not what we expected, much less OLEDish and LCD panels itself actually did not improve at all. But all in all what you can buy for given amount of money improved considerably bringing IPS technology for the masses and improvement in electronics made gaming monitors much better for gaming and on par with CRTs. This are all still trade offs but at least there are options to choose from. 5 years ago everything was much more expensive and with even more trade offs...

 

[Rock&Roll]

At lower resolutions, if you can find a nice monitor, I would not give up on 16:10.

Imo:

1920x1200 > 1920x1080.
2560x1440 > 2560x1600.

Why? I believe 16:9 is a better aspect ratio, but it depends on the resolution. At lower resolutions, the lack of vertical height hurts, so I would pick 1920x1200 instead. But at higher resolutions, there's plenty of vertical height, so I would take 2560x1440 over 2560x1600. What I don't like about the 16:10 aspect ratio, is that it is not as well-suited for multimedia content as 16:9. For example, bigger black bars in movies.

This was my experience. I refused to use 1080p for desktop use. But I took a chance on 1440p 16:9 and was happily impressed.

 

[BIGGRIMTIM]

I am a long time 24" 1920x1200 user and recently switched to a 27" 2560x1440 display. I will never go back. The only thing I am looking forward to a curved 3440x1440.

 

[Drakul]

Yeah G-Synch seems like one of the bigger innovations of the recent years. But from what I've understood you don't even need to have a G-Synch monitor to have G-Synch, it can be imbeded straight into the DP cable?
That's the part that kind of confuses me.

 

[Lordken]

At lower resolutions, if you can find a nice monitor, I would not give up on 16:10.

Imo:

1920x1200 > 1920x1080.
2560x1440 > 2560x1600.

Why? I believe 16:9 is a better aspect ratio, but it depends on the resolution. At lower resolutions, the lack of vertical height hurts, so I would pick 1920x1200 instead. But at higher resolutions, there's plenty of vertical height, so I would take 2560x1440 over 2560x1600. What I don't like about the 16:10 aspect ratio, is that it is not as well-suited for multimedia content as 16:9. For example, bigger black bars in movies.

That looks to be great point there! I was in 24" 16:10 nonTN market for ~3-4years to replace my 7years old LG L204wt 1680x1050TN, but couldn't find any monitor worth my money. Now I was about to give up myself to 16:9 (yeah I feel ashamed) but actually I may go for 27" instead , I've never considered 27" as I assumed screen will be real big. So from NCX's thread I'm considering EV2736 now(though there were some reports of worse quality displays recently on this forum).

But worse thing is, that just by accident I found about eizo FG2421 this weekend. It looks to be pretty awesome (despite huge QC issues). Although it is 24" 16:9 I could get myself over it in order to get 120Hz strobing VA. So I'm really torn apart now between the two
I would hate to wait another year to see that perfect monitor just doesn't exist...

not entirely true cause now we have:
120/144Hz TN monitors
strobed 120Hz monitors with CRT-like motion
lots of cheap IPS screens (5 years ago any IPS was hellishly expensive)
cheap korean 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitors overclockable to 96Hz and some even to 120Hz
4K monitors
21:9 monitors
G-Sync monitors
PWM-free monitors
there is much more low input lag monitors than before, especially IPS

Sure, its not what we expected, much less OLEDish and LCD panels itself actually did not improve at all.

I happen to agree with alienate, its dark age. New technology (replacing old one) should be better, and not being [much] worse. Now after ~10years we are probably getting back where we already were in CRT era with FG2421 and more models like this. imho only thing that was achieved in those years was that manufacturers was able to milk market selling garbage.

OP: did you made any decision?