So what res does your monitor do?

[Sir_Real]

Depends how far you are sitting, if I added another million pixels to my screen I doubt i will see a difference as I'm too far away.

Prob best to rank my total pixels, so Horizontal X Vertical = Total Pixels.

Despite 2048 x 1152 having fewer vertical pixels as its 16:9, it just edges with total pixels.

I'll go more by total pixels over size. Plus other factors like responce time.

 

[alexp999]

I'll go more by total pixels over size. Plus other factors like responce time.

Stuff like response time, is 90% BS as different companies do different ways of measuring. Plus the screen only has to respond at 16ms to keep up with a 60 Hz signal.

Just keep it to total pixel count i think, thats the only thing companies cant bullshit on.

 

[Sir_Real]

Stuff like response time, is 90% BS as different companies do different ways of measuring. Plus the screen only has to respond at 16ms to keep up with a 60 Hz signal.

Just keep it to total pixel count i think, thats the only thing companies cant bullshit on.

Yeah think thats about right responce time can be bullshitted to easy not as if it can be checked !

I might av to get my other 21" crt on here. A sony/dell trinitron with a max res of 2048x1536 thats 3.146 mega pixel. Beat that with ya LCD's

 

[Kursah]

I run an Asus VW246H 24" Widescreen LCD @ native 1920x1080@60hz, and my fiance's Acer AL2216W 22" Widescreen LCD @ native 1680x1050@60hz. Both look great, both have treated me extremely well. Got the Acer new from newegg for under $200 near the beginning of the year iirc, and the Asus open box from newegg (the box looked like it was never opened, hey it was 1/2 price! no dead pixels, no issues, all cables, manuals etc). They might not be 2k X 1.5K + rez, but it sure looks good to me and my vid cards should last me longer, while still looking great with all the eyecandy at smooth fps.

 

[CDdude55]

My Monitor:

Its 1440x900 and its a great monitor for gaming. But when i game my 8600 GTS can't really play many games at that res so i have to bring it down.

When i first got it, i thought it was huge since i was so use of gaming an a small 17'' Dell screen.

 

[grunt_408]

1920x1080
This is my second rig I will post main rig later

 

[FemTech]

I love my 25" AOC!!

 

[nascasho]

Mine:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001331&Tpk=p2570

And look who's review is front page!

 

[DreamSeller]

1440x900 & 1280x1024

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Anyone who has this monitor is going to take the cake (9.2 million pixels):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

Good luck finding one though. They cost a small fortune.


I my 17" CRT @ 1024x768.



I'd also argue that refresh rate should be in your equation. A lot of CRTs, especially, can go to very high resolutions but at pretty lousy refresh rates...

pixels wide * pixels tall * refresh rate = pixels / second


Mine: 1024 * 768 * 85 Hz = 66,846,720 pixels/sec
T221: 3840 * 2400 * 41 Hz = 377,856,000 pixels/sec

41 Hz...sad.

 

[AsRock]

Run mine at 1920x1080 can do 120Htz. Also can do 1920x1200 at 100Htz.

 

[Frick]

I recently got a Nec Accusync 22WMGX (1680*1050 60Hz), and I'm quite pleased with it. The specs are kinda avarage for a 22' monitor (it's a TN+ panel), but it was kinda cheap. The best thing is that it has both HDMI and component video. Very useful.

 

[selway89]

To be honest I don't think refresh rate should be a contributing factor in this poll (unless it's a CRT) due to the very nature of how LCDs work and that it is a very subjective matter. People can be fine with 60Hz while others swear you need 100Hz plus.

 

[Mussels]

i technically use two, but i chose the 1080p.

 

[Deleted member 3]

1680x1050 on the main screen, 1280x720 on the beamer. Might need a new monitor soon, thinking about buying a bigger screen to replace the 22" and moving the 22" on to another PC.

 

[Sir_Real]

To be honest I don't think refresh rate should be a contributing factor in this poll (unless it's a CRT) due to the very nature of how LCDs work and that it is a very subjective matter. People can be fine with 60Hz while others swear you need 100Hz plus.

I reckon 60htz on a LCD is fine. But not on a CRT. I've found most manufaturers that made high end CRT's never staited the top resolution the monitor could run at. Its usually the case it could only handle the highest res at flickery 60htz.

 

[Dreadnought33]

Mine is a Samsung 275T.

 

[toxirau]

Got a pair of samsung 2343BWX's 2048x1152 each 4096*1152 desktop res.
They are so pretty :3, though i would not have them if i would not have found such a great deal over at eCost. Got them for 125 each including shipping .

http://www.samsung.com/hk_en/consum...s&subtype=giantseries&model_cd=LS23MYZAFV/XSH

 

[Arctucas]

My Samsung 305T has a native resolution of 2560x1600, but I use 1920x1200.

 

[ASRockIQ]

Envision Model: G918W1

Max Res. 1440x900 Loving this Monitor

 

[entropy13]

Acer X233H 23" LCD widescreen monitor @ 1920x1080 60Hz

 

[chuck216]

Mine is 1680 x 1050. Yeah I know 19" is kind of small but I sit about 2 feet away from it. So I don't need a bigger one.

 

[AsRock]

To be honest I don't think refresh rate should be a contributing factor in this poll (unless it's a CRT) due to the very nature of how LCDs work and that it is a very subjective matter. People can be fine with 60Hz while others swear you need 100Hz plus.

I agree but there is some games that work better with vsync on and there is also those people have a problem with 60FPS. Which means of course if there monitor LCD or not can display 120Htz they can leave run it at that and have vsync on at the same time.

I believe there's only a few people who have this issue but i know there's a few on these forums.

I my self with LCD is fine with the refresh rate 60Htz and with a CRT any thing less than 85Htz hurts my eye's.

 

[yaji]

LG W2242T - 1680x1050@75hz

 

[Easo]

Samsung 2253LW

1680x1050