Gaming Monitor 1920X1200 vs 1920X1080

[Goodman]

@Live OR Die maybe you should edit your post , we don't need to see a big banana dance all over our screen & your Google comment... what a big helping hand you just give...

[Live OR Die]

Originally Posted by Goodman

@Live OR Die maybe you should edit your post , we don't need to see a big banana dance all over our screen & your Google comment... what a big helping hand you just give...

I just think this topic has been covered.... and no i wont remove my banana

[inferKNOX]

How can 1920x1080 possibly be wider than 1920x1200?!
I bought my Samsung Syncmaster T260 for the 1920x1200 & have since wanted to buy something new, but haven't done so for the mere fact that I'm failing to find a decent 1200 screen (other than Dells, which aren't going for a logical price). That is how much better I find 1200 than 1080.
1200 is the best of both worlds, height for work, browsing, productivity, etc and width for gaming & media. It is easily superior if you try it, however, it's cheaper for manufacturers to make everything in 1080, since they already make TVs, etc in that format, so they're pushing out the 1200s... a sad thing indeed. I'm now thinking of simply waiting until there's a decent OLED 16:10 screen, at the same resolution or higher, since it seems there's no decent go between at a normal price.

[phill]

Just noticed this but I thought I would try and reply

I have got 3 30" panels and they are one of the best things I have upgraded too. I find that the extra resolution is very helpfull and when I connect all three screens together it gives an amazing gaming experience.
I'm trying to find something that I could connect all the 3 screens together and that would allow me to turn them on to portrait as well as I think that would be a benefit to some games...

The only sheer downside to having such a huge resolution is that the sheer GPU power that you need. I've nearly hit the limits of my 3Gb 580 GTX's but addmittedly that was with just two cards, but I don't think it would make any difference with a third (I have to test it as I do have another one sat here...)

I think if you can have a 30" panel, it'll be one of the best things that you upgrade to.

[Completely Bonkers]

If I had deep pockets (aka millionaire) I would buy three TFTs designed for Airport Control Towers. They are 2k x 2k pixels. The combination of 3 would give 6144x2048. Each panel is 1:1 but combined it would be 3:1 or 27:9, which is true cinema width.

A single screen with 2048 "y" would be perfect for reading A4 pdfs etc, and creating Word documents. While still nowhere near print quality (300dpi) it would be so much better than having to zoom and scroll through current 1200 in the "y"

[LightningJR]

Originally Posted by RoboX

Can you tell me what resolution is more suitable (more graphic quality) for Gaming?

Get an IPS monitor with high PPI. You can get cheap 21.5" IPS 1080p monitors these days. IMO it's the best quality for your buck

This topic is too subjective and the OP needs to give more info. Not to mention his question doesn't make perfect sense. It's hurting my OCD.

[GotNoRice]

I went from a 24" 1920x1200 monitor to a 27" 1920x1080 monitor and have no regrets. The 27" monitor is larger enough than the 24" that I even have more physical screen height (despite less pixels obviously).

Most of the games I play handle their FoV such that I do get to view more of the game with 1080P. While 1920x1200 is more pixels than 1920x1080, that doesn't mean a game just cuts a few pixels off the top and bottom to make it fit, the entire FoV is recalculated and in the end is displayed differently on the two monitors. That is why you aren't missing anything on the top of bottom with 1080P, but are in fact seeing extra info on the sides in most situations.

[Goodman]

Originally Posted by inferKNOX

How can 1920x1080 possibly be wider than 1920x1200?! (

2 Monitor's at same size (21",24" etc...) the 1080 will always be wider since the 1200 is higher & in order to keep the same dimension diagonal (24") the 1200 is going to be shorter in width
So the 1200 loose a little bit of width but gain a little more in height

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Goodman

2 Monitor's at same size (21",24" etc...) the 1080 will always be wider since the 1200 is higher & in order to keep the same dimension diagonal (24") the 1200 is going to be shorter in width
So the 1200 loose a little bit of width but gain a little more in height

That makes no sense at all. They are both 1920 pixels wide. Take a 1920x1200 screen and cover up 60 pixels on both the top and bottom. Shrink the image so it fits within the aspect ratio and you have 1920x1080.

[GotNoRice]

Originally Posted by erocker

That makes no sense at all. They are both 1920 pixels wide. Take a 1920x1200 screen and cover up 60 pixels on both the top and bottom. Shrink the image so it fits within the aspect ratio and you have 1920x1080.

I think he was talking about physical screen dimensions. To maintain the same diagonal screen size with reduced height, it would indeed have to be wider.

[eidairaman1]

Definitely go 1200, it will be even as of pixel ratio n supported better than 1080.

CRTs could handle resolutions better due to not being restrained to physical pixels.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by GotNoRice

I think he was talking about physical screen dimensions. To maintain the same diagonal screen size with reduced height, it would indeed have to be wider.

Ahh, I think I understand now.

[Irocing]

Have run both the 1080 and 1200 Sammy's and can definately tell the
difference between them.

Run the 26" 1920x1200 Sammy now and wouldn't look back.

Getting harder to find but thier out there.

Later

[Goodman]

Originally Posted by GotNoRice

I think he was talking about physical screen dimensions. To maintain the same diagonal screen size with reduced height, it would indeed have to be wider.

Exactly! what i was trying to say

[refluxxed]

Originally Posted by LightningJR

Get an IPS monitor with high PPI. You can get cheap 21.5" IPS 1080p monitors these days. IMO it's the best quality for your buck

Here's a really cheap 1080p IPS panel, if that's the way he wants to go.... the LG IPS225V, gets a very good write up here. The main moan is a wobbly stand, but this is apparently a very nice image quality for the money.

[brandonwh64]

This may help..

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...0+vs+1920X1080

[Prima.Vera]

The guy asked a simple question. What is the best monitor for gaming? The answer is simple. The wider is it the better. For example even if you have more pixels like in 1920x1200, still, in games you have more details with 1920x1080, and even more with 1920x900 resolution because of the aspect ratio.
So in other words, the bigger the number from aspect ratio, the more details you get in games (1920x1200=1.6; 1920x1080=1.78; 1920x900=2.13) The screens with Starcraft provided early speaks from themselves.

Btw, some people from here are really OBSESSED with resolution.

[matar]

1080p is for xbox 360 and ps3 gamers.

1920x1200 is for real PC games..............

[natr0n]

120 pixels make almost no difference to me

[Completely Bonkers]

Originally Posted by natr0n

120 pixels make almost no difference

1200 pixels is to 1080 as 7 inches is to 6.
YOU might think it makes almost no difference. But she knows it does

[natr0n]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

1200 pixels is to 1080 as 7 inches is to 6.
YOU might think is makes almost no difference. But she knows it does

lol, lighting tricks help give depth and dimension or something

[eidairaman1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10

You have 120 Additional Pixels On Screen with a 1920x1200 (16:10/8:5) vs a 1920x1080 (16:9/8:4.5) Screen, The Higher the Pixel Count the More Detailed Images Can be On screen

Full HD is Considered 1080p, 1200p or higher. HD is Considered 720p to what the next Level is but not 1080p

15" LCD ran at 1024x768 (4:3) and 17" LCD ran at 1280x1024 (5:4) so technically those were Higher Resolution than any 720p TV thus Higher Definition. My 15.4" LCD on My Laptop ran at 1920x1200 for Movies, I dropped it back for Games Since Graphics cards 7-8 years ago have issues running beyond 1280x1024 for Frame Rate in Games

1080i etc means interlacing of each row of pixels meaning 1 row refreshes then the next- which causes artifacting.

1080p etc doesnt have that issue as it is progressive scan

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

1200 pixels is to 1080 as 7 inches is to 6.
YOU might think it makes almost no difference. But she knows it does

Hey Ive Accidently choked the last woman I was with haha

[Jstn7477]

I think by now we are all aware that 1920*1200 gives you more space on your desktop and non-fullscreen activities than 1920*1080.

However, most modern games DO NOT give you a greater VERTICAL view, but adjust the width of the horizontal view to fill the screen. The vertical FOV in these games is always the same on 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 for the sake of being able to have enough vertical viewing area on all displays, since we know that the vertical resolution is less than the horizontal resolution on pretty much any standard display. Instead, the difference between aspect ratios in these games is that you will see a greater horizontal area (but the SAME vertical area) for a display with a greater horizontal to vertical ratio. The TF2, Starcraft, etc. GIFs demonstrate this.

[Completely Bonkers]

so pull down the console, type cg_fov 90 and profit

[bostonbuddy]

size>$$$>1200>1080