1600X900 or 1280x1024

[funkymonky]

I "got" (found) a new monitor (acer x203h), it runs at 60hz, is somewhere around 20 inches, and runs at the resolutions I listed above. Which is better, my previous monitor is some dell p190s, that ran at 1280x1024, 75hz, and was 15 inches (square).

Which is better?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

At this point you really should be looking at a 1080p monitor with freesync as they are pretty cheap. The Dell's pixel density is 18ppi higher assuming the acer is 20 inches so it sorta depends on if you value sharpness or size more.

For gaming and movie content I would say a 20 inch 900p monitor is better personally.

 

[GoldenX]

16:9 all the way, pixel amount is higher, aspect ratio is better for modern uses, the monitor is bigger, making it better for reading or watching a video.
The only downside is the 60Hz refresh rate, but on most monitors that can be overclocked to 75Hz with CRU.

 

[W1zzard]

, you're using a 15" monitor in 2019? Why?

 

[hat]

Reminds me of 10 years ago when I had a 1024x768 CRT and I was telling all the 1920x1080 flatscreen guys it was fine...

 

[GoldenX]

, you're using a 15" monitor in 2019? Why?

Hey, I'm still on a 17" VGA one.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

The (new)monitor you found is better..
1600x900 is wider. Pixel per viewing area is about the same but you have more viewing area with 16x9

 

[funkymonky]

The (new)monitor you found is better..

Okay, thank you, now I now

 

[dorsetknob]

Run your favorite programs at both Resolutions "then chose the one you prefer"
most media( films/youtube these days prefer 16.9

 

[Toothless]

Dude, I want to know what resolution is better, not that

Let's do some basic math.
1600x900 is 1,440,000 pixels at 16:9. 1280x1024 is 1,320,720 pixels at 4:3. Since you can't really compare them besides pixel count due to the aspect ratios my answer to you is 100% valid and you're just looking for someone to pick for you.

 

[funkymonky]

Let's do some basic math.
1600x900 is 1,440,000 pixels at 16:9. 1280x1024 is 1,320,720 pixels at 4:3. Since you can't really compare them besides pixel count due to the aspect ratios my answer to you is 100% valid and you're just looking for someone to pick for you.

Why didn't you say that earlier? I am 12, I don't know how resolution works

I mean, I multiplied the numbers, but I didn't know whether lower or higher was better

 

[thebluebumblebee]

Okay, here's how I investigate a computer part. I simply highlight the part number, x203h in this case, and right click search google. In the results, I'm hoping to find a result from Newegg, and one is found for this monitor. https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824009158 On Newegg, scroll down and click on the Specifications tab. (this is why I like Newegg and try to support them - you most likely won't find this info on Amazon) There you will find:

Spoiler: Specifications

Notice the "Recommended Resolution". There's even information there if you click on it. But, simply put, that's the resolution you want to run at, and the math just doesn't matter.

 

[aQi]

Not a very serious upgrade though do you have better options?

 

[funkymonky]

Not a very serious upgrade though do you have better options?

I found it in my home, I do have better options, but not right now. I think I will go with the 1600x900 monitor

 

[aQi]

Then its fine. Suit yourself by comparing both their outputs by your daily usage applications.

 

[cucker tarlson]

why the hell stop here,get a third one and go for crt surround