Your input on 24 inch displays.

1920x1080 or 1920x1200

  • 1920x1080

    Votes: 14 20.0%

  • 1920x1200

    Votes: 56 80.0%
  • Total voters
    70
P

Proxy

Pumpkin Ghost
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
4,308
So what would you pick and why? I have not used a 1920x1080 monitor, but hear that they are nice. How well do they compare to 1920x1200? Other than obviously having the higher resolution.
 
Last edited:
It depends on what you are doing. For general everyday stuff and for work/productivity, it's 16:10 hands down.

But for movies, games (especially those that use HOR+ or are 16:9 anamorphic), and multimedia I'd lean towards a 16:9 panel.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bluntman said:
games (especially those that default to VERT- like most all UE3 games), ... I'd lean towards a 16:9 panel.
Click to expand...

Vert- is *WORSE* on 16:9. 16:10 will show more game world than 16:9 in Vert- games.

Other than that, 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080 'cause it's got more pixels. 16:9 vs. 16:10 is meaningless, 1920x1080 can fit perfectly on a 1920x1200 display and has room to spare - so I'll take the 1920x1200 display every single time.
 
Bigger never, never means better when it comes to image quality.

For gaming/movies get a 24" 250$ 1080p TN like the Samsung P2407

Review:

http://www.digitalversus.com/samsung-syncmaster-p2470h-p357_8128_36.html

Or Acer G245H

Review:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035834696&postcount=16

Compared to a bunch of other TN's with lots of pictures so you can see for yourself that the G245H is noticeably better:

http://wecravegames.com/forums/show...aming-Panel-Comparison-x9&p=173571#post173571
 
I have really been looking at the ASUS VW266H I really like that it is 16x10 but at the same time I need to really save money where I can. So I am now considering the Acer G245H or Acer GD245HQ. there only about $20 cheaper but like I said, I am on a tight budget.
The Acer has gotten good reviews and I really like the asthetics.

I would really like to get the 16x10 however if my budget wasn't so tight I would get the Acer GD245HZ 3D monitor. I really don't think we will se a 16x10 120hz monitor so if you want 3d you have to go 16x9.
 
Diablo2K said:
I have really been looking at the ASUS VW266H I really like that it is 16x10 but at the same time I need to really save money where I can. So I am now considering the Acer G245H or Acer GD245HQ. there only about $20 cheaper but like I said, I am on a tight budget.
The Acer has gotten good reviews and I really like the asthetics.

I would really like to get the 16x10 however if my budget wasn't so tight I would get the Acer GD245HZ 3D monitor. I really don't think we will se a 16x10 120hz monitor so if you want 3d you have to go 16x9.
Click to expand...

The G245H is 250$ max while the 120hz GD235HZ is about 380$.

You shouldn't be worried about an extra inch or 2 when image quality and $$ has to to sacrificed to achieve a "bigger picture," which won't be better, it will just be bigger.
 
Last edited:
1920x1200, obviously, it's more resolution, but with that if you want to get 16:9 for a certain game or movie, it easily scales to 1920x1080 as well.
 
kllrnohj said:
Vert- is *WORSE* on 16:9. 16:10 will show more game world than 16:9 in Vert- games.
Click to expand...

picard-facepalm.jpg


Fixed my original post. Whoops.
 
This problem with this question is that it assumes everything else aside from the resolution is equal. Unless all you do is watching movies and hate black bars, I can't see anyone preferring a 1920x1080 screen over 1920x1200 in that kind of scenario.

However the actual situation is much more complex, as comparing actual x1080 vs. x1200 screen you are going to run into a whole host of differences in price, image quality, motion performance, feature sets, and availability. And honestly those factors in my opinion are much more important then simply resolution.

Take for example the Dell u2311h vs. Dell u2410. Just looking at cost alone, you can get ~2 u2311hs for 1 u2410. Would you pay that much more for the extra vertical and size?
 
NCX said:
Bigger never, never means better when it comes to image quality.
Click to expand...

I'm slightly confused by this statement. Of course bigger means better when it comes to image quality when you are talking about pixel count, or rather, pixel density. More pixels per inch = better image quality (generally speaking, of course there are more factors than that). Your average 24" 1920x1200 monitor has a PPI of roughly 8,900/sq in. Your average 24" 1920x1080 monitor has a PPI of roughly 8,425/sq in. A difference of 475 pixels per square inch.

Since the 16:10 monitor has more pixels per square inch, all other things being equal, it will have slightly better image quality than a 16:9 monitor. To further my point, a 27" 2560x1600 monitor has a PPI of roughly 12,500/sq in, far surpassing both.

Bigger most definitely is better.

If I missed your meaning, I apologize... although I'm not sure what else you would have been talking about in a 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 thread. :)
 
DDigital said:
I'm slightly confused by this statement. Of course bigger means better when it comes to image quality when you are talking about pixel count, or rather, pixel density. More pixels per inch = better image quality (generally speaking, of course there are more factors than that). Your average 24" 1920x1200 monitor has a PPI of roughly 8,900/sq in. Your average 24" 1920x1080 monitor has a PPI of roughly 8,425/sq in. A difference of 475 pixels per square inch.

Since the 16:10 monitor has more pixels per square inch, all other things being equal, it will have slightly better image quality than a 16:9 monitor. To further my point, a 27" 2560x1600 monitor has a PPI of roughly 12,500/sq in, far surpassing both.

Bigger most definitely is better.

If I missed your meaning, I apologize... although I'm not sure what else you would have been talking about in a 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 thread. :)
Click to expand...

The problem is, like I mentioned, due to -

all other things being equal
Click to expand...

It is hard to find a situation where that is true. Take for instance the u2410/u2311 example. Is the u2410 better in image quality? Yes it is in some areas, like in terms of pixel density. But it also worse in other areas, such as having significantly lower contrast.
 
First of all, you're life isn't going to end if you choose the 'wrong resolution'. I do all sorts of computing including internet browsing and lots of gaming on two 24" Asus LCD's that are 1920x1080 and my life is unchanged. Get whatever you want...I seem to find that a lot of games have either res so don't worry about having to squeeze or stretch a res. The visual difference between the two res's is insignificant.
 
limitedaccess said:
The problem is, like I mentioned, due to -

all other things being equal
Click to expand...

It is hard to find a situation where that is true. Take for instance the u2410/u2311 example. Is the u2410 better in image quality? Yes it is in some areas, like in terms of pixel density. But it also worse in other areas, such as having significantly lower contrast.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, obviously. I wasn't trying to say that all 16:10 monitors are better than all 16:9 monitors (which I thought I made clear, but maybe not). I was merely making a comment on the statement that "Bigger never, never means better when it comes to image quality". Image quality is determined by many many factors other than pixel density. This is why I didn't compare models, only formats.

However, I will say this. On the whole, 1920x1200 monitors (as a group) are of better quality than 1920x1080 monitors (as a group). However, this is mostly due to the fact that 1920x1200 seems to only exist in the high mid range and high end markets anymore (though, there are exceptions), and thus generally employ superior panels and build quality. 1920x1080 on the other hand has laid almost exclusive claim to the budget and low mid-range markets (again, there are exceptions).

All that said, the original post didn't ask what models were better. It asked what format was better. The answer to that, is 1920x1200, for the reasons I spelled out above. When asking what format is superior, you have to look at it on an even field. In other words, all things being equal. :cool:

Rob. said:
Im using 16:10 CRT Sont FW900 :)
Click to expand...

I am envious of you, and feel pity for your over burdened desk :)
 
If you're like me, using a 5:4 1280x1024, then both options are upgrades in terms of vertical and horizontal pixels. It's a win no matter what you do!

Forced to choose between a 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 24" display I would go with 1920x1200

* I very rarely watch movies or TV shows on my computer screen. So I wouldn't feel like I wasted some of my inches on black bars.
* I quite often browse webpages and edit documents, so the extra vertical pixels would come in handy
* I don't hook up my console to my computer monitor, so I wouldn't feel like I wasted some of my inches on black bars.
* I sometimes play PC games, but I don't have a favorite game I play constantly that is vert-.
 
Well I voted for 1920x1200 but ended up getting a 1920x1080 yesterday. Its still an upgrade for me and the price was right.
 
I have a 22'' 16:10 1680x1050 LCD. I've been trying to find a decent 24" 16:10 panel, preferably TN as I game, for a decent price. Is this possible, or am I just going to have to suck it up and go 16:9?
 
Soodey said:
I have a 22'' 16:10 1680x1050 LCD. I've been trying to find a decent 24" 16:10 panel, preferably TN as I game, for a decent price. Is this possible, or am I just going to have to suck it up and go 16:9?
Click to expand...

The ASUS VW266H is a very good gaming monitor and can still be found for about $275. It has gotten very good reviews [H]ere and else where.
 
I prefer 16:9. With a 23" 16:19, I find that it fits in my vertical field of vision much better and I feel like I can see it all ot once. With 16:10 and 24", the screen seems just a bit too tall, and part of the image is outside my straight on vertical view, to the point where it can be a little distracting. I think 16:9 was chosen in part because it fits better with natural human vision. I just went from a 16:10 to a 16:9 monitor and I LIKE the loss of real estate.

Also at 1920x1080 you will have faster frame rates/smoother gameplay on demanding games, even if you have high end video card.

Finally, if you output to a TV simulataneously, you dont need to deal with black bars on the top and bottom of your monitor. And let's not forget that 16:9 content like HD movies from my camcorder play full screen now. 16:9 FTW!
 
I'd also like to add, that with MANY games like Crysis and Bioshock, you actually SEE MORE in the picture with 16:9 than 16:10. You see more image on the sides, but the same amount of image vertically. Don't believe me? Head over to widescreengamingforum.com and see for yourself, they have comparison shots. 16:9 is DEFINITELY the way to go if you are a gamer. Sure, there are a handful of games that are Vert-, but most seem to be Hor+. If you just use office apps, have fun with 16:10.
 
Last edited:
I have two 1920 x 1200 monitors that I use as a displays on my desktop; NEC and Planar.

I have one 1920 x 1080 monitor that is a secondary display on my HTPC, the primary display being a LG 47LH90 HDTV. I bought a 1080p monitor since it matched the resolution of my HDTV. No sense in wasting money on black bars.

Of the two formats, I prefer 1920 x 1200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top