1920x1200 or 1680x1050 ??

MattandJet

MattandJet

MattandJet

Associate
Joined
13 Oct 2007
Posts
1,140
Location
Cotswolds
Hi all,

Im interesting in getting a new monitor, but I dont know wheather to go for a 22" with 1680x1050 res or a 24" with 1920x1200.

Does the higher resolution mean a drop in frame rate?


The computer is mainly used for gaming and i'm still yet to build it, but would a 8800GTX be able to cope with the latest games (soon inc. Crysis) on full graphical settings and at either of those resolutions?

Thanks, and if you could spec me a monitor that would be ace ;) cheers
 
so the 1680x1050 would be a safer option to go for do u think? Because I dont really want to comprimise on fps, but my old 19" is a bit boring now and it has got some damaged pixels lol
 
Your GTX should be fine with 1920x1200 But for how long who know's. Me personaly i would get a 22' and save the cash. For a future upgrade but thats just me.
 
Thanks for your quick responce :D

Also if I did go for the larger 24", could I stil have it on 1680x1050 without it looking too pixelated:)
 
Im sure one of the Monitor Buffs could tell you that as i only have a 22' and not a 24' so i don't know but i wouldnt of thought it would look pixelated.
 
TBh though i can not notice any difference in gaming at 1680*1050 compared to 1920*1200 on my 24inch Dell.
So i wouldnt worry about it tbh, if your frame rate suffers at the higher resolution then, just drop it down one
 
my brother has a 30'' dell and runs it below his optimal, i think he runs games at 1680, and that doesnt look pixelated at all, it looks fine (infact it looks amazing still as its a huge screen!)

so if a 30'' can run far below the optimal without noticible pixelation, im guessing a 24'' should be able to do it too, since the 24'' wont be as far below the optimal as my brothers 30''.
 
If you want to run games at 1920 then you will be forever upgrading to the latest spec when new demanding games come out. But you could just get a big screen and run it at 1680 instead. There is no noticeable difference.
 
I have the option to go for 19x or stay at 16x, being that I have a mid-end rig now probably best to get the lower resolution. Of course you can get 192x and run it at 16x and let it scale but it looks more blurry.
 
I might think about it this evening and let you know later what I decide!

Thank you for your input guys (+ thanks sanaxe for replying so quick! :P)

Matt.
 
dont forget that if you ever decide to watch 1080p movies, a 24'' that goes up to 1920x1200 will be able to display 1080p in its full, where as a 1680x1050 monitor would have to squash the movie to make it fit. This is another big + for a 24'' monitor imo, although if you dont often watch movies much, or dont plan to watch 1080p movies, then its not as important.
 
Cr0fty said:
Sitting at your computer desk 24" is hardly small ;)
Click to expand...

LOL

If you can afford the 24" that would be the better purchase over the 22" But it would depend on your budget

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-054-SA 1920x1200 Resolution, 3000:1 Contrast Ratio, 5ms Response Time, 400 cd/m2 Brightness, 1x Analogue Input, 1x Digital Input, 3yr On-Site Warranty.£328.99inc

Or if you want to go to town as your GTX card will support two monitors http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-050-SA at 2ms response time £223.24 inc VAT x2= £446.48
 
Last edited:
I'd just use the PC on the TV if it does 1920x1080, that would look fantastic.

A 37" 1080P TV by a good make (LG) can be had for like £630 now, fell down in price lots.
 
TV screens dont do PC well as it bloats it up and makes it look pixalated. They also dont have a fast enough responce time.

TBH get a projector for 650 quid and you got a pc and a tv :P
 
to make the most ouf of a projector you also have to get a good quality screen to project on to, and the screens themselves are quite expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom