1920 X1200 vs 1920 X 1080

[n-ster]

but for a console you can't do that... that means you'll end up with black line on top!

and also, if you can get better fps

is your only argument that you can see MORE :O omg I see 1 more mm of text! I don't have to scroll down .1 nanoseconds more! all this for only 50$ more!!

 

[kysg]

but for a console you can't do that... that means you'll end up with black line on top!

and also, if you can get better fps

is your only argument that you can see MORE :O omg I see 1 more mm of text! I don't have to scroll down .1 nanoseconds more! all this for only 50$ more!!

depends on preference, some people are just really anal about that stuff, me personally I like the 1080p monitors they are a good step in the right direction, I don't see 1900x1200 going away any time soon, heck me personally I know I will move to a 24 or 25 inch monitor later this year since I focusing more on dev, and figured may as well go with a better monitor. You can only keep moving up when it comes to monitors.

 

[n-ster]

oh yea I said that in an earlier post, 16:9 = future because all manufacturers are moving to it
please ppl, give me better reasons then "if I can get more pixels, why not?" or "OMG 120pixels more to view WEB PAGES!" COMMMMMMMMMMMONN YOU CANT BE SERIOUS!

if you hate scrolling down that much... if you prefer seeing everything smaller..

 

[Black Panther]

All I can say is that my laptop's 1920x1200 looks FAAARRR better than my desktop's 1680x1050. Even if I compare the same game using 2xAA on the desktop and no AA at all on the laptop.

(For both system's specs check system specs beneath avatar.)

 

[n-ster]

I'm sure it does, but we are comparing 19x10 to 19x12!
of course 16x10 is bad compared to 19x1X

 

[lemonadesoda]

All I can say is that my laptop's 1920x1200 looks FAAARRR better than my desktop's 1680x1050. Even if I compare the same game using 2xAA on the desktop and no AA at all on the laptop.

(For both system's specs check system specs beneath avatar.)

Panther! Yep, that is JUST what we need, and I have been hoping for for a long time; 1920x1200 or higher at laptop pixel density like you have. I can imagine that 1920x1200 on 17" with 120DPI and large icons simply looks amazing. Nice system

Yep, I really want a 2560x1600 on 21-23". That would make a HUGE difference to the hours I spend working on my PC... lots of DTP stuff.

 

[n-ster]

1080p is still a difference at 17" but a 2560x1600 on a 21"???????? OH COMMON! over 4m pixels compared to 2m pixels is just wrong... your fps will drop so badly its crazy... no one wants a 1600p for gaming unless they have 30"! sure you can make a 21" with 4m pixels...its harder to make a 21" monitor with 4m pixels and it'll cost more than a 30" with 4m pixels...

while your at it try to do it on a 15"

 

[Black Panther]

but a 2560x1600 on a 21"???????? OH COMMON!

Nope. It'd look just like as if you're viewing a real life photo.
As long as you got the gpu (or gpu's) to run it seamlessly, it'd be flawlessly perfect.

Remember also, the higher the resolution on the monitor and the smaller the monitor, the smaller and less visible the pixels would be.
For example on laptop I got 1920x1200=2,304,000 pixels on a 17" widescreen.
On desktop I got 1680x1050=1,764,000 pixels which are less than above and to add insult to injury they're larger pixels because they're stretched over a 22" monitor.

That's why a 2560x1600 on a 21" will be looking far faarr more awesome than a 2560x1600 on a 42".

 

[n-ster]

DUDESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU KNOW THE COST TO DO A 21" 1600p monitor???????? IT'LL COST OVER 1000$ TO MAKE!!!!! HOW MANY BUYERS???? 100 max... profit? none
huge difference? no... a 1600p 30" almost looks like real life to me

 

[kysg]

DUDESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU KNOW THE COST TO DO A 21" 1600p monitor???????? IT'LL COST OVER 1000$ TO MAKE!!!!! HOW MANY BUYERS???? 100 max... profit? none
huge difference? no... a 1600p 30" almost looks like real life to me

ease up on the caps, now I am somewhat skeptical of panthers deduction. doubt there is anyway I could settle for that. though I did have the old 1680x1050 19inch monitor. So I guess I'm sounding a bit conceited here. if I could see some screenshots maybe I'd feel a bit at ease.

and I'm sure a 1600p monitor won't happen for a while. but samsung did put out that nice 23 inch monitor that was packing the same res as a 30 inch if I'm correct.

 

[n-ster]

I'm sure 30" res IS 1600p (2560x1600)

 

[DarkMatter]

I too want much higher resolutions on smaller screens. I don't like 30" monitors for my PC because I have to sit too close to the screen (40-50 cm) and I don't want to have to move my head. Nor my eyes to much when I'm gaming. But why I want much higher resolutions? Because of the same thing I'm still using my CRT (one of the reasons, picture quality is another one): I want to be able to change the resolution as I please, and only super high LCDs would let me do it without losing picture quality.

I like most games at 1200p, but there's a lot that I simply don't like at such high resolution, for various reasons and there are others that simply won't run on my card (you'll always find a game that doesn't run at high res with any card, Crysis for example). Upgrading every 3 months is something I don't want to do, I left that behind already, and I'm happy as long as I have around 1000 lines, so whenever a games can't run maxed out at 1200p I simply lower the resolution instead of lowering in-game details, much much better of a solution. Being able to change resolution is a MUST for me, so I'm waiting the day that flat panels have enough resolution that scaling won't destroy the picture quality.

 

[erocker]

I too want much higher resolutions on smaller screens. I don't like 30" monitors for my PC because I have to sit too close to the screen (40-50 cm) and I don't want to have to move my head. Nor my eyes to much when I'm gaming. But why I want much higher resolutions? Because of the same thing I'm still using my CRT (one of the reasons, picture quality is another one): I want to be able to change the resolution as I please, and only super high LCDs would let me do it without losing picture quality.

I like most games at 1200p, but there's a lot that I simply don't like at such high resolution, for various reasons and there are others that simply won't run on my card (you'll always find a game that doesn't run at high res with any card, Crysis for example). Upgrading every 3 months is something I don't want to do, I left that behind already, and I'm happy as long as I have around 1000 lines, so whenever a games can't run maxed out at 1200p I simply lower the resolution instead of lowering in-game details, much much better of a solution. Being able to change resolution is a MUST for me, so I'm waiting the day that flat panels have enough resolution that scaling won't destroy the picture quality.

Well said. I would love a 22" 1920x1200 widescreen.

 

[n-ster]

buy lower res monitors will cost you less than buying that very high res small monitor anyways a 21.5" 19x10 monitor would be my pick anyday... I'm talking about the ASUS of course... v226H i think

 

[DarkMatter]

buy lower res monitors will cost you less than buying that very high res small monitor anyways a 21.5" 19x10 monitor would be my pick anyday... I'm talking about the ASUS of course... v226H i think

You dind't understand it properly. I want a monitor that will let me play either at say 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 without any quality loss or black bands. I said I'm happy with 1000 lines when I HAVE to use that res, that doesn't mean I don't prefer 1200 lines or more when my card can cope with it.

 

[n-ster]

will it be worth the price? and anyways it'll still lose picture quality one way or another... IMO, the price wouldn't justify the reason and the gain of picture quality.

 

[DarkMatter]

will it be worth the price? and anyways it'll still lose picture quality one way or another... IMO, the price wouldn't justify the reason and the gain of picture quality.

When you want to game using as a higher resolution as you can, price is relative. First of all, price would come down as soon as they started mass producing them. And then having to buy the latest graphics card every 6 months, costs way more than what the screen would cost.

About quality loss: when you change the resolution in integer factors of both vertical and horizontal pixels the quality loss is not that high. And because the pixel size would be smaller than the human eye can properly see, you wouldn't notice the difference. Best ratio is of course 1/2, but 2/3, 3/4 and 3/5 can work too if pixels are small enough. 3/4 would make a 2560x1600 panel show 1920x1200 pixels and 3/5 1536x960.

 

[Conflict0s]

For gaming, most games will output both resolutions. As long as you match the game output resolution with your monitor’s resolution it will look good. So if you had a 22" 1920x1080 monitor and play a game at that resolution it will be crystal clear (HD). BUT if you have a screen with a higher resolution than 1080 and you match it with your game output, then that will look better as it has more pixels with in the screen. Other wise your screen or graphics card will have to upscale your image and quality will be lost.
So then you have to think about what else do you do that outputs in 1080, like podcasts, videos ect.
The only reason (as I am aware of) 1080 is HD, is because everyone (manufactures) need to run at that same resolution to allow users to run at the matched resolution, 1:1.

So basically if you enjoy watching movies, videos and what not threw your monitor, and they output in HD (1080 not 720) then I would go with the x1080 screen because you will see a much clear picture, and just change your resolution in games to 1080. Otherwise, I would go with the higher resolution screen because you don’t have the need to output at 1080 when you can output at a higher resolution and just change it in game making it more detailed providing your graphics card can support it.

I hope this all makes sense lol.

 

[n-ster]

it does.. but what you don't understand is that 120 pixels won't make a difference to a freakin humans I in image quality... that is you ppls only +, and it is a bad +, therefore you lose

Don't take anything I say here personal or wtv, its just I that use logic

 

[DarkMatter]

it does.. but what you don't understand is that 120 pixels won't make a difference to a freakin humans I in image quality... that is you ppls only +, and it is a bad +, therefore you lose

Don't take anything I say here personal or wtv, its just I that use logic

That doesn't make sense at all to me. Then take 1680x1050 you are not losing too much neither. But you DO, in both cases you are losing viewing angle. It's only my personal opinion but 16/10 is already too wide for gaming. I don't like 4/3 more than 16/10, it's too narrow horizontally, but 16/10 is too wide IMO. 16/9 is just way beyond that and you really end up losing vertical viewing angle or you are forced to move your head to see what's on the left and right. Me don't like it. There's no need to say that until now, every console game does the first instead of the latter and well, it sucks.

 

[eidairaman1]

for 1 one is 16:9 or 16:10 and the other is 4:3

 

[Conflict0s]

it does.. but what you don't understand is that 120 pixels won't make a difference to a freakin humans I in image quality... that is you ppls only +, and it is a bad +, therefore you lose

Don't take anything I say here personal or wtv, its just I that use logic

Non taken I agrea also that you wouldn't see the pixel loss.

And as for the 16:9 and 16:10 rations... I ain't going into them lol, i think it is just personal choice as DarkMatter said.

 

[eidairaman1]

Wide Screen or Normal Screen is what im getting at for aspect ratios 1080 is Norm and 1200 is Wide

 

[DarkMatter]

Wide Screen or Normal Screen is what im getting at for aspect ratios 1080 is Norm and 1200 is Wide

I don't understand the logic behind that, after all 1080p is wider than 1200p.

 

[Conflict0s]

Hmm I get what you mean, but how do I have a 22" 1920x1080 widescreen then? (I am not trying to say you are wrong, I would just generally like to know)