Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by pentastar111, Feb 6, 2009.
Which is better for gaming? 1920x1200 or 1920x1080? Or does it make that much of a difference
1920x1080 is a 16:9 resolution which is what aspect ratio most tv and films are.
1920 x 1200 is a 16:10 resolution which is what most games are designed to run at.
16:10 is mostly used for computers
16:9 is mostly used for TV
However the best rez to use, usually depends on the native rez of the display.
On a native PC Monitor 16:10 @ 1200 for gaming will be best, at 1080 the screen will still have to scale unless you want black banding.
Bigger the better, as long as you have the video card/s to handle it.
I have been LOVING my 16:9 1920x1080 monitor. I don't need to have AA enabled at all because it's all high res looking!
This is true to pentastar, you can game at a high res with a decent video card and just disable some things to get good frames in the end. Saves money and looks great.
A 1920x1200 can take a 1920x1080 signal, and display it pixel for pixel. Therefore a 1920x1200 gives you the best of both worlds. 16:9 AND 16:10. If you use your PC for reading PDFs or Word documents, or editing photos, then I would go for the 1920x1200. The extra "y" pixels improves screen real estate, readability of documents, and room for taskbars.
I do a lot of "work" on my PC, so I have 2x 1600x1200 in portrait to get 1600 in the "y". That way I dont need to scroll and zoom PDF files. Just pull it up, full page, and read.
But sadly, not as high res looking as 1920 x 1200
I suspect 1920x1200 will be extinct in the next few years. LCD manufacturers save themselves a ton of money by only having to make one panel size rather than two. Since they are already making lots of 1920x1080 panels already for HDTVs, I think the 1920x1200 will have a hard time surviving.
IMO, panel makers are lagging behind the progress curve. It's a shame INTEL doesnt make flat-panels. (Now there's a thought!)
We really should be seeing more QXGA (2048 x 1536) and WQXGA (2560x1600) screens on the market, esp. in 22-24" format and NOT 30" format. It's time we used Windows Desktop Sclaing feature and had hi-resolutions fonts as standard (120dpi and higher).
For gaming, there is no reason that a 2560x1600 screen operates at 1280x800 with full AA if the GPU cant cope with 2560x1600 in full screen DirectX. With a higher pixel density there would be no loss of quality compared to current setups, but the benefit of higher quality if your GPU can take it, AND much better desktop quality, PDF reading, and photo editting.
QXGA would be perfect for the office. WQXGA would be perfect for the graphics designer or at home.
I have both my ps3 and pc up to my 14 inch 1920x1200. The ps3 has some black lines on top and bottom since it is 16:9. But 16:10 all the way imo.
I would go x1080, since it looks like manufacturers are switching to that... if you have a console, watch movies occasional and play recent game (because they support 19x10) i'd go for 19x10
not only will you be able to play with higher detail, you will have best possible image for movies and console gaming... and are you really going to cry for 120 pixels? prob not... so what if you have to scroll for 10 nanoseconds more?
1600p is too high a resolution for such a small screen. Icons would be tiny, and gaming difference would be difficult to tell. What they really need to do is start putting 1600p on these 50"+ televisions, b/c that's where the true benefit could be seen.
thanks for the replies fella's. The reason i asked is this. I don't want to chance a broken screen due to shippers error so i decided I'm taken my biz to Bestbuy for the monitor purchase. I've narrowed down to these
if your not scared of newegg and can wait a bit
How about this one if you want BB: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8909942&type=product&id=1213047114888
N-ster's there is probably the best bang/buck right now.
well it looks like i'll be ordering from the "Egg" after all. the Bestbuy here where i live is crappy at best. Their website says the LG, the Sammy and the dell are available, but in reality, they don't exist at their store. They do however, have plenty of the westinghouse monitors...blech..no-thank you.
Er, "large icons"? Check your display properties. Try it out. See how much better they look (only too big). Increase pixel density and you get THAT QUALITY at a regular size. Try reading text using fonts set to 120dpi (in advanced options, NOT "large fonts"). It's 100% better. Even better if you could work at 150dpi, but that would be too big... unless you had higher pixel density. QED.
I would rather u have 1920 x 1200. Because some games don't support 16:9 resolutions like the 1920 x 1080.
True you can always edit these things, I still don't really think it would be very beneficial. But seeing as I've never tried it, I can't say anything for sure. What I can say with greater confidence is a 60" DLP would be much more appealing if it carried a 1600p resolution. Or a 1600p KURO.......
Like what? The only game that I have found that doesn't do 16:9 is Battlefield 2(and you can just use a command line to get it to..). Neverwinter Nights(an older game) does 1920x1080 fine.
yea I know that's the best bang/buck spearman... these things can be edited so that it supports 19x10... but anyway, recent games practically all support it
I thought the exact same thing when 1080 monitors came out you can scale images using drivers to have 1:1 pixel mapping if you can get slightly higher res for about the same money why not
Separate names with a comma.