1920x1080 resolution, is it really that bad?

[fenurch]

I'm getting a new monitor and some reviews say that 1920x1080 is great, others say it's crap for gaming. I'm quite a big fan of games, I don't need a gamer monitor but I would need one that works quite well with most games.

It's a big setback as the monitor is lovely but if the resolution is crap?

Your advice/ opinion needed.

 

[kiriakost]

This resolution will be ok ..

But , from the pass from CRT to TFT , i am puzzled .

I demand natural resolution 1600x1200 , so to see the pictures of my digital camera at 1:1 .

The 1920x1080 is still poor to me .

 

[fenurch]

16:10 is the widescreen standard, and 16:9 is Full HD but I don't really need it, but as I'm getting a Dell monitor for a fairly good price on my range, it only comes in 16:9. I just don't want to regret it when I'm playing CSS and seeing that all picture is blury.

 

[oli_ramsay]

When they say a resolution bad for gaming, they don't mean it's blurry, they mean that you need a powerful card to run the thing because of the HUGE amount of pixels. You'll just get reduced framerates in games.

 

[r9]

How can any resolution be crap for gaming. If you use LCD monitor for sharper picture you need to use native resolution of the monitor. If the native is 1920x 1200 than that is the best resolution for you. High resolution could be just big strain on the VGA.
For example if you use 1440x900 (native res for LCD 19" wide) on the 19" the image will look cristal clear if you use same res on 24" mon it would be blured. So depending of the monitor it depends the best resolution for gaming and every other thing.

 

[erocker]

1920x1080 is fine for gaming, the game just needs to be able to support that resolution. Most modern games do.

 

[fenurch]

I knew that this thing happens to LCD's.
Is it also common to TFT's (I have no knowledge in TFT whatsover.)

I remember one of my mates bought a 19" LCD (he used a 15" CRT and he's a proffesional player). He always played on 800x600 resolution because ... (dunno why) and when he got his 19", he thought it was super blurry. It's a good example

So as long as I run it in a pretty high resolution (it's either gonna be 1280 or 16xx), it's not gonna be blurry? BTW The one I'm getting is a TFT, if that changed anything.

 

[erocker]

You should run your LCD at it's native resolution. Of course running 800x600 on a screen that natively does 1280x1024 is going to look blurry.

 

[oli_ramsay]

It will only be blurry if you DON'T run it at it's native resolution. Also you sshould connect it via DVI and not D-sub (this one

)

 

[Keiki]

1920x1080 is just bad for web page viewing, since you are missing 120 vertical pixels you obtain from 1920x1200 monitors. But for gaming/waitching movies, it's pretty good.

One big drawback however is that all 1920x1080 monitors right now on the market are TN panels, although if you're a gamer it wouldn't matter since the response time is most important.

 

[MoonPig]

ive got a 1920x1080 monitor and i play CSS. It's alot better than my 1440x900 for gaming, i actually think it makes the game easier. I say go for it.

 

[fenurch]

Cheers for that because before I made this thread, I was really scared about 19x10 being shit. But now I'm a lot more confident. Cheers for that.

BTW I'm quite confused about contrast, the bigger the better? or what way is it? And what's the real difference (general use, not if you're looking for it)?

Here's a link to the monitor if anyone is interested.

 

[aCid888*]

Forget the monitor for now and look at something to replace that 7300GT of yours.

 

[kiriakost]

Well , i think that this is more as " Gaming " monitor LG W2284F-PF 22'' TFT BLACK

 

[fenurch]

I can get plenty different 2ms montiors, but thre's no need.

 

[erocker]

That is a very nice monitor, good contrast and a 5ms response time is plenty good for that size. The one thing I like to look at also, is pixel pitch. The pixel pitch on that monitor is quite low, which is good, as you will have a noticably better picture (less space between pixels) than a same sized monitor of the 1680x1050 variety.

 

[fenurch]

That is a very nice monitor, good contrast and a 5ms response time is plenty good for that size. The one thing I like to look at also, is pixel pitch. The pixel pitch on that monitor is quite low, which is good, as you will have a noticably better picture (less space between pixels) than a same sized monitor of the 1680x1050 variety.

Thanks for that, even more confidence in my "next" monitor. I'll try and add some pics with it on my desktop :]

 

[3870x2]

Forget the monitor for now and look at something to replace that 7300GT of yours.

+1

 

[erocker]

Like the others are saying your 7300 is going to have a very tough time with handling graphics at that resolution, so be sure to take that into consederation.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Forget the monitor for now and look at something to replace that 7300GT of yours.

^^^ what he said

Grab your self a 9600GSO or something - their pretty cheap & perform quite well for low/mid range

 

[fenurch]

Like the others are saying your 7300 is going to have a very tough time with handling graphics at that resolution, so be sure to take that into consederation.

Building a new PC, Graphics coming at around April or May.
And I know about 7300GT but I'm buying an "investment for the future" so when I get my new PC, I don't need a new monitor.

 

[Xiphos]

1920x1080 is just bad for web page viewing, since you are missing 120 vertical pixels you obtain from 1920x1200 monitors.

you make it sound bad...... even on 1920 x 1200 I still have to scroll down on most pages

 

[MoonPig]

I find it better for webpages. Not only do they look better, but everything fits without scrolling, and more bookmarks

 

[hat]

Well any resolution is just great as long as it's the native resolution for your monitor. It doesn't matter if you have a 15" that runs natively at 1024x768 or some rediculously large screen that runs 1920x1080 natively, as long as you run the native resolution on both they'll look the same. If you tried running 1024x768 on a 22" or whatever size it is that does 1920z1080, it will look like crap. Same if you could run 1920x1080 on a 15". Crap.

Basically just run the native res and you're golden. The only problem is that as you go up in resolution, your gaming performance decreases. At 1024x768, you are rendering only 786432 pixels, but at 1920x1080 you are rendering well over 2 million pixels, so 1024x768 is much faster than 1920x1080. But if you've got the hardware to run 1920x1080 go for it.

When I upgraded from my 17" LCD that ran 1280x1024 to my 19" widescreen that ran 1440x900, I was happy for 3 reasons... first off I got a bigger monitor, widescreen is cool, and at 1440x900 I render less than at 1280x1024 so I actually got better gaming performance on a bigger screen

 

[OrbitzXT]

1920x1080 is amazing, I have a 32" 1080p TV I use as my monitor for about a year now. For awhile I had a midranged card powering it, a 9600GT and it was pretty good still. I could play the latest games with good enough settings. Recently this past Christmas I upgraded to a 9800 GX2 and its incredibly better. So ideally if you're shelling out the money for a high end TV and want to use it as a monitor as well, make sure you have at least a 9600GT or better. My friends are always awed when they come over and play their World of Warcraft characters here or play any of the other games I have installed. A friend had been playing Fallout 3 on his 360 for awhile and came over and saw me playing it and was jealous of how it looked and played (Though it crashed 40 minutes later and we laughed that he doesn't have that problem).