Where's all the 1920x1200 monitors?

A

AjFreimuth

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,207
So I was finally getting ready to get a new monitor.

Currently running a 22" 1080p Acer.

wanted to go with something alittle bigger but mostly higher res.

Now that I'm looking besides spending $400+ I'm not really finding anything..

was hoping to spend around $300 or less any input / ideas?
 
Seems like the 1080 monitor fad isn't going away.

I just caved and bought 2 24" 1080 monitors to go with the my 24" 1200 monitors. I'm getting rid of one of the 1200's because it's glossy and i cannot freaking stand it.

Sure wish that i would have 3 1920x1200 instead of the mis match, but i'm not going to spend tons of $$ to get it.
 
Sadly the general public doesn't care about x1200 so manufacturers don't have a reason to make them for only a niche market.

I've caved in as well and settled for 1080.
 
I am in the same boat here... I want to go to a 3-monitor across setup for nVidia Surround...

I already have a Samsung 2443BWX 24" 1920x1200 display that is gorgeous...

Problem is, I can't find any additional 2443BWXs to match it. Correction, I have found a couple listed online, but the issue is they want >$250 for a refurb, and new ones are >$350. Biggest issue I have is that the yield for perfect displays was really poor when I bought mine about 1+ year ago (ie, I had to take back 3 monitors to get one without any stuck/dead pixels, with 2 of them having list 3 or 4), so I cannot see spending $500-$700 on a couple more to fully expect that they won't be perfect...

So, taking it back a step, I decided to look for 3 new 1920x1200 monitors. Problem is there is damn near nothing to find out there for less than $400... Hell, in the less than $300 market I can only find 24" HPs for about $280...

So, I go back a step further, and look for 3 23"-24" 1920x1080 displays... In that category I have found either the Asus VE247H (23.6" LED, 2ms) or the Acer S231HL (23" LED, 5ms). I figure if I am buying 3 new monitors I can't justify NOT getting LED units, but is the 2ms vs 5ms really that big of a difference? (and in a couple reviews they stated that the Acer is in between 3-5ms more than it is at the high-end of most 5ms displays, so the Acer does well)

I want to pull the trigger soon, and then I need to build a custom mounting bracket for the setup (I can't see spending $200+ on a bracket that isn't 100% perfect for my needs)...

Luckily, I already have dual GTX480s, so the graphics hardware side of going this route is taken care of...
 
Don't be suckered by the LED marketing gimmick, CCFL is still better. Edge Lit LED units save power at the cost of poor screen uniformity.

If you want a 1200p screen check out the Samsung 2443BW. Generally 2ms screens are faster.

Here you can see the 5ms S23HL vs a 2ms Acer.
 
As others have noted, mfgs have pretty much gone to pain 1080p. I'm not a fan of the LED screens either. From what I've read, they show a smaller gamut.
 
I suggested a few weeks ago that someone who had posted here look for a Samsung 244t or HP LP 2465 on Ebay, where you can buy the 244t, at least, new. He replied, as I recall, that he was suspicious of Ebay. Thinking it over, I supposed that he quite reasonably might be worried about warranty issues and so forth.

But how are the manufacturers going to get the message so long as buyers throw in the towel and buy 1920x1080?

Since then I have picked up another flawless 244t. Now if you're one of these guys who gets off by serially returning displays because you found a hot pixel, then, yeah, have fun with the white glow and color cast issues. Enjoy exercising your warranty rights. I remain convinced, however, that a part of the audience here is not interested in anything that is not stamped NEW, unless, like the GDM-FW900, it can be considered thoroughly RETRO. And despite the apparent superiority of the stuff that was built a few years ago.
 
I think the people that were buying 1920x1200 screens are now buying 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 screens.
 
Producing media for two different standards just doesn't make sense.

Pictures, movies, television, and games are going to be optimized for 1080p. So you are better off with a 1080p (or that aspect ratio at least) to maximize utility of any given screen size.
 
dbphelps said:
I figure if I am buying 3 new monitors I can't justify NOT getting LED units, but is the 2ms vs 5ms really that big of a difference?
Click to expand...

NCX said:
Don't be suckered by the LED marketing gimmick, CCFL is still better. Edge Lit LED units save power at the cost of poor screen uniformity.
Click to expand...

snokarver said:
As others have noted, mfgs have pretty much gone to pain 1080p. I'm not a fan of the LED screens either. From what I've read, they show a smaller gamut.
Click to expand...

dbphelps, I agree with NCX and snokarver, the "marketing" wants you to believe that LED backlights are *always* better, but that's not always the case. There are excellent and atrocious examples of both LED and CCFL backlights. You have to look at each panel and matching backlight separately because even within brands (especially a company like Dell that will put multiple combos of panels/backlights) there is variation between what goes into different models.

When the first 1920x1200 16:10 screens came out for computers, I was wondering why the heck did the computer guys choose 16:10 and didn't go with the HDTV 16:9 standard... After using some 16:10 screens, the ratio works a lot better for viewing two pages of text, or two windows... the 16:9 ratio just seems too squat at least at 1920 pixel wide resolutions. But since the mass quantities exist for 16:9 screen production there's definitely economies of scale to be had, so I caved in a bought some inexpensive, but nice quality Dell U2211H displays.
 
Well, I just got done ordering 3 Asus VW266H 25.5" non-LED 1920x1200 monitors... Cost a bit (not as much as some people on here spend, but still quite a bit), but I shouldn't have any buyers remorse with loosing vertical resolution... Thank goodness I have dual GTX480s for nVidia Surround... 5760x1200 should be sweet for when I am gaming...

I could even add in a third GTX480 now that the prices are dropping... Damn, there goes more money... :p
 
bbf said:
dbphelps, I agree with NCX and snokarver, the "marketing" wants you to believe that LED backlights are *always* better, but that's not always the case. There are excellent and atrocious examples of both LED and CCFL backlights. You have to look at each panel and matching backlight separately because even within brands (especially a company like Dell that will put multiple combos of panels/backlights) there is variation between what goes into different models.

When the first 1920x1200 16:10 screens came out for computers, I was wondering why the heck did the computer guys choose 16:10 and didn't go with the HDTV 16:9 standard... After using some 16:10 screens, the ratio works a lot better for viewing two pages of text, or two windows... the 16:9 ratio just seems too squat at least at 1920 pixel wide resolutions. But since the mass quantities exist for 16:9 screen production there's definitely economies of scale to be had, so I caved in a bought some inexpensive, but nice quality Dell U2211H displays.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I have an Asus G73JH-A3 with a great looking LED backlit LCD... And I would have been doing the comparison-game if I would have bought a set of LED displays, but with the VW266Hs I won't have to worry about that...

For me, I use the vertical real-estate quite a bit while doing development, plus going from my laptop @ 1920x1080 to my desktop @ 1920x1200 it is like a breath of fresh air with the extra screen space... Plus getting a full-page onscreen properly requires a minimum 1200 display vertically, as 1080 scales too much...
 
LEDs are technically more advanced and better then CCFLs in that sense. However in terms of consumer products and the end user experience you really need to look at the implementation. Really just compare the displays merits as is, without being focused on the back lighting used.
 
dbphelps said:
Well, I just got done ordering 3 Asus VW266H 25.5" non-LED 1920x1200 monitors... Cost a bit (not as much as some people on here spend, but still quite a bit), but I shouldn't have any buyers remorse with loosing vertical resolution... Thank goodness I have dual GTX480s for nVidia Surround... 5760x1200 should be sweet for when I am gaming...

I could even add in a third GTX480 now that the prices are dropping... Damn, there goes more money... :p
Click to expand...


Hey, I have been looking at those monitors also, do you think you could post a review when you get them?

Also, where did you end up buying yours from? I was eyeing up amazon, they are 60Hz correct? Think that would affect gaming much?

woonasty
 
I will post a review as soon as I get them... 60Hz should not affect gaming at all...
 
you can check newegg sometimes they have LP2465 PVA panel for about 200$ and of course refurbished
 
woonasty said:
I was eyeing up amazon, they are 60Hz correct? Think that would affect gaming much?
Click to expand...
There are 120hz fans, but most modern games are far more visually appealing w/ max settings and AA/AF with framerates at or below 60FPS than reducing image quality considerably to try and get close to or over 120FPS average framerates to realize the rapid motion benefit of a 120hz display.
 
Ducman69 said:
Producing media for two different standards just doesn't make sense.

Pictures, movies, television, and games are going to be optimized for 1080p. So you are better off with a 1080p (or that aspect ratio at least) to maximize utility of any given screen size.
Click to expand...

lolwut? Besides the fact that anything capable of doing 1920x1200 can just simply display 1920x1080; Most films are recorded and presented in 1.85:1 and 2.39:1.
 
No, thats not how it works. You will have a wider FOV w/ a 1080P display that games are designed for. Given two 27" monitors, one 1200p and one 1080p, movies would be larger on the 1080p display. And yes, I'm running a 16:10 display, but would have been even happier if it were 16:9.
 
Ducman69 said:
No, thats not how it works. You will have a wider FOV w/ a 1080P display that games are designed for. Given two 27" monitors, one 1200p and one 1080p, movies would be larger on the 1080p display. And yes, I'm running a 16:10 display, but would have been even happier if it were 16:9.
Click to expand...

That is, unless you get a bigger 16:10 display... Like I did with the 25.5" 1920x1200... Then you get the best of both worlds... ;)

I can see your point and was part of my consideration, but since I am not just watching movies or playing games, the extra resolution vertically is worthwhile...
 
There are new 1920x1200 monitors still coming out, like the ASUS PA246Q (which uses yet another IPS variant called P-IPS, whatever the heck that is):

http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=Oy0p29rrVbfjJOle

Its pretty stocked with input options, and according to this website, its selling for 499 euros (about 677.72 USD):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/...e-announces-pa246q-p-ips-professional-monitor

You can still find new 1920x1200 monitors coming out, just understand that they'll be more expensive then they used to be because its being assumed that the only people who will use them are professionals (which is completely unsupported by anything resembling evidence, but companies will make up whatever they want to justify anything).
 
Ducman69 said:
No, thats not how it works. You will have a wider FOV w/ a 1080P display that games are designed for. Given two 27" monitors, one 1200p and one 1080p, movies would be larger on the 1080p display. And yes, I'm running a 16:10 display, but would have been even happier if it were 16:9.
Click to expand...

Certain games will get a wider field of view because they render each frame in a 16:9 aspect ratio regardless of the resolution of your monitor, then they will crop the frame to fit your aspect ratio. Here's an example:

http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/StarCraftRatios.gif

You really don't lose much at all with 16:10, it sucks for 4:3 though.

You DO NOT get a wider view for movies for pretty obvious reasons (seriously, think about it for more than a second). On a 16:10 screen with 16:9 content your monitor or your media player will insert black bars so it doesn't have to stretch the image. These are easy to ignore.
 
King of Heroes said:
You DO NOT get a wider view for movies for pretty obvious reasons (seriously, think about it for more than a second). On a 16:10 screen with 16:9 content your monitor or your media player will insert black bars so it doesn't have to stretch the image. These are easy to ignore.
Click to expand...

You get a larger picture on the same size 1080p display if you are watching 1080p content. That's what he meant, obviously.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?b8e67d378e78edadb470e480c0bada47
 
Ducman69 said:
No, thats not how it works. You will have a wider FOV w/ a 1080P display that games are designed for. Given two 27" monitors, one 1200p and one 1080p, movies would be larger on the 1080p display. And yes, I'm running a 16:10 display, but would have been even happier if it were 16:9.
Click to expand...

You're second statement is technically correct, but no; that's not how it works. Monitors that run 1920x1200 are usually bigger than monitors that run 1920x1080.

Regardless, that is physical size. It has nothing to do with field of vision. A 24" 16:10 monitor playing something in 16:9 will give you exactly the same field of vision as a 24" 16:9 monitor. In said case, the 16:10 monitor's picture will be slightly smaller, but like mentioned above the monitors usually aren't the same size.

Do not use FOV and physical size interchangeably. They are not the same thing.

Some interesting tidbits: When playing content that has a ratio bigger than 16:10, a 24" 16:10 monitor is equivalent to a 23.3" 16:9 monitor. A 25.5" is equivalent to a 24.8" monitor. And a 27" is equivalent to a 26.3" monitor.
 
Last edited:
16:10 is falling out of fashion for the majority of consumer specification computer monitors due to the fact that 16:9 is cheaper to produce. Why is this? Well, it is because the 16:9 panels can also be used in producing a rudimentary television. Take one computer monitor, slap a digital tuner in and hey presto! You've got a TV.

Now, if you think about it this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure you lose a few hundred pixels, but where I am you can pick up 2 U2311Hs for not much more than 1 U2410 depending on where you buy from. The only trouble is getting a GPU setup that will support the extra monitor(s). The difference between e and H IPS really does not matter in terms of general use.

What I'm trying to say is, use the changing trend to your advantage. I know 16:9 is annoying but you will get used to using it eventually. I still prefer 16:10 on my main rig but I'm willing to make sacrifices everywhere else if it means saving some cash.
 
Oh right, I was supposed to make some suggestions as to buying new.

Budget/gaming/general use:
HannsG seem to do pretty good value TN panels. 28" 1920 x 1200 displays for a few hundred dollars/pounds/etc. Can't really go wrong there if you pick up one without noticeable backlight bleed.

Quality IPS:
Dell U2410 - it may not be brand new but it still does the job well and is in-keeping with Dell's current UltraSharp lineup. Since it isn't brand new you might be able to pick up a refurbished or used unit at a considerable discount.

I believe that both types of monitor above are 60 Hz (FPS) displays. If you want to view 120 FPS, I'm not of much use. :p
 
Deadgye said:
You're second statement is technically correct, but no; that's not how it works. Monitors that run 1920x1200 are usually bigger than monitors that run 1920x1080.

Regardless, that is physical size. It has nothing to do with field of vision. A 24" 16:10 monitor playing something in 16:9 will give you exactly the same field of vision as a 24" 16:9 monitor. In said case, the 16:10 monitor's picture will be slightly smaller, but like mentioned above the monitors usually aren't the same size.

Do not use FOV and physical size interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Ducman69 said:
You will have a wider FOV w/ a 1080P display that games are designed for. Given two 27" monitors, one 1200p and one 1080p, movies would be larger on the 1080p display.
Click to expand...
Please read again, those are two separate statements.

Although usually rounded up on actual viewing size, a 24" monitor is a 24" monitor regardless of 1080p or 1200p, measured diagonally across the screen. Comparing a 22" 1080p against a 24" 1200p makes no sense.

Many games are designed w/ fixed vert and scaling horizontal, hence a wider FOV on 16:9.

And separately, to reiterate, movies in 16:9 or wider aspect ratio will utilize more of any given screen size on a 16:9 than 16:10 display.

None of this is subjective. The advantage to a 1200p display is primarily in a desktop environment, but increasingly for games and media, 16:9 is superior.
 
Ducman69 said:
Producing media for two different standards just doesn't make sense.

Pictures, movies, television, and games are going to be optimized for 1080p. So you are better off with a 1080p (or that aspect ratio at least) to maximize utility of any given screen size.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

For those who have plans for using their monitor for a while 16:10 is a bad choice. The 16:10 market just gets smaller and smaller so basicallyall software will soon be optimized for the 16:9 standard. Because the 16:10 market gets smaller and smaller the costs also increases for those products so the prices rise for 16:10 monitors. Not very good if you are looking for a 'brother' to your monitor.

Also the costumers are winner with one standard. To produce screens in 5:4, 16:10 and 16:9 format simply doesnt make sence and just increase our expenditures. With one standard bigger volumes can be produced and we get lower prices. Also we get software that which really is optimized for the screenformat we use.

It is better optimize the software after the monitor than the other way around.
 
Last edited:
An uncropped APS-C image from Canon or Nikon ranges somewhere between 15:10 and 16:10 aspect ratio. Trying to get a 1.52:1 Nikon image to display full-screen on a 16:9 display (equivalent to 1.78:1) requires some extreme cropping. So forget about test-driving your digital photos by using them as a screensaver. And when you view them using a photo website like SmugMug, and you want to see them full-screen, you'll end up with black bars as the web site tries in vain to fit your photo to your display.

The displays I own are mainly used for the Internet, photo editing, book layout, writing, and spreadsheets. That makes me part of a minority here, I suppose, but one who is nonetheless adamant that the 16:9 trend has been a huge disservice to users like me.

Only for Internet surfing do I see some possible advantage for 16:9 vs. 16:10, and even there it's kind of a wash.
 
King of Heroes said:
There are new 1920x1200 monitors still coming out, like the ASUS PA246Q (which uses yet another IPS variant called P-IPS, whatever the heck that is):

http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=Oy0p29rrVbfjJOle
Click to expand...

P-IPS is what NEC uses in their high-end PA241W, PA271W, and PA301W monitors. Supposedly, P-IPS was the successor to H-IPS, so it's the best IPS tech at this time. They are obviously taking a shot directly at NEC, by even 'borrowing' their PA-series moniker. Yet I find it interesting that ASUS is coming out with a higher end monitor, since they usually just release TN crap.
 
Last edited:
King of Heroes said:
Certain games will get a wider field of view because they render each frame in a 16:9 aspect ratio regardless of the resolution of your monitor, then they will crop the frame to fit your aspect ratio. Here's an example:

http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/StarCraftRatios.gif

You really don't lose much at all with 16:10, it sucks for 4:3 though.

You DO NOT get a wider view for movies for pretty obvious reasons (seriously, think about it for more than a second). On a 16:10 screen with 16:9 content your monitor or your media player will insert black bars so it doesn't have to stretch the image. These are easy to ignore.
Click to expand...

So what? If I have a 16:10 display, I can choose a 1080p res and have it configured to display properly on my display with black bars above and below if I want the extra FOV. In that case I still have a 24.8" 16:9 display on a 25.5" 16:10 monitor... ie, I still win out.

That is the point everyone argueing about 16:10 displays is making, we can EASILY display a 1080p game/movie/whatever whenever we want. So what that you may not have as large an overall picture that you would have with a 1080p display at the same screen size. It all comes down to the monitor you choose.

I mean I went with the 25.5" display for a reason, it gives me the best of ALL worlds. When I am at 16:10 it gives me the best res and screen real-estate. When I want a wider FOV on fixed FOV games like SC2, then I just choose 1080p, in which case I have the equivalent of a 24.8" 1080p display (which is larger than most 1080p displays until you get to a 27" or larger, which means it is still ideal). Ultimately I have options at 16:10 with teh extra available resolution I would not have with a 16:9 display...

The point here is that for those of us that want the most USEABLE screen real-estate, in the best form factor, a 16:10 display @ 1920x1200 is the way to go. Sure, I spent more on a 16:10 25.5" than I would have on a 24" 16:9, but I get the benefits of it as well, so it was a worthwhile purchase for me.

The biggest issue with manufacturers going to 1080p is that it is just giving them an excuse to grossly overcharge for 16:10 displays. Ideally it doesn't take much difference in manufacturing cost (probably < 15%), but the overall cost of the 16:10 will be at least 30-40% over the cost of a 16:9...

To argue it is better for consumers, that point is moot, as with cheaper costs you usually end up with cheaper products as the norm. Sure there are exceptions and great values at times, but overall the "cheapness" just cheapens everything if quality is not kept up...
 
Of course most companies will exploit the new economies of scale in producing 16:9 monitors but the point still stands that the price is going to remain less than 16:10 panels.

I predict prices for 27" 16:9 WQHD panels coming down over the next couple of years. If you can get a sufficiently larger resolution in a different aspect for the price you used to pay for a 1200p 24-26" then why complain about it?

The aim of companies is to make a profit, but if they can pass at least some of the savings on to the consumer then that should be more than enough. You can't expect to benefit 100% otherwise the companies would have no incentive to design and produce 16:9 computer monitors.
 
SD45 said:
An uncropped APS-C image from Canon or Nikon ranges somewhere between 15:10 and 16:10 aspect ratio. Trying to get a 1.52:1 Nikon image to display full-screen on a 16:9 display (equivalent to 1.78:1) requires some extreme cropping. So forget about test-driving your digital photos by using them as a screensaver. And when you view them using a photo website like SmugMug, and you want to see them full-screen, you'll end up with black bars as the web site tries in vain to fit your photo to your display.

The displays I own are mainly used for the Internet, photo editing, book layout, writing, and spreadsheets. That makes me part of a minority here, I suppose, but one who is nonetheless adamant that the 16:9 trend has been a huge disservice to users like me.

Only for Internet surfing do I see some possible advantage for 16:9 vs. 16:10, and even there it's kind of a wash.
Click to expand...

Yeah; I am in that minority too. When you use a computer to make a living things look very different.
 
Setting aside the photo editing problem, should I consider a 16:9 display sufficiently larger than 24 inches in order to get the same or slightly greater vertical area? Then I could still get two Word pages or PDFs side by side, at actual size. The unused width would just be, well, unused. The poster above seems to contend that the extra resolution can't hurt either. It can, however, if it means significantly changing dot pitch. The combination of 1920x1200 and a 24 inch display offers just about an ideal dot pitch.

The other consideration is desk space. The 24" display fits on the desk and still allows me to peek out the window while working. Any larger (wider) and I'd be in trouble. I have worked in front of a window for 25 years. I get to watch the fox trot across the yard in the snow, bluebirds dive bombing insects off the deck in the summer, and the cat leaping to catch a butterfly. Give that up for a display? Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top