New monitor. 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 ?

Loque

Loque

Loque

Associate
Joined
14 Nov 2008
Posts
1,758
Location
South Shields
Hey there,
Christmas is coming soon, and im planning to get a new monitor. My 20" Belinea is dying (wont display anything when i first switch it on, untill its warmed up, then i switch it off and on, untill it decides to work. Also emits a strange hissing sound when first switched on)
Anyway. I need a new monitor, and i've been reading around that a 1920x1200 screen will display true HD perfectly fine (just like a 1920x1080 screen)
I'm guessing this is true, so long as the panel has 1:1 pixel mapping right?

To the point. Im after a monitor that will be primarily used for gaming. (PC and Xbox360) along with general PC use. (web browsing, and some occasional photoshop/vegas use) Will I be better off with a 1920x1200 panel? Will it display my xbox360 in 1080p perfectly normal?

HDMI is not important. My xbox uses a VGA cable.

oh, and my budget, will be around £200 give or take, if that helps :)

Cheers for the help.
 
Last edited:
On the gaming front... deffo go for the 16:10 (1920 x 1200 pix) cos there don't appear to be a great many games around that support 16:9 (1920 x 1080)...

IMO leave the 16:9 ratio to the TV & stick with the bigger one.
 
Monstermunch said:
On the gaming front... deffo go for the 16:10 (1920 x 1200 pix) cos there don't appear to be a great many games around that support 16:9 (1920 x 1080)
Click to expand...

errr 95% of games natively support 1920x1080 and the ones that don't can easily have their configs changed
 
bee said:
errr 95% of games natively support 1920x1080 and the ones that don't can easily have their configs changed
Click to expand...

They might be starting to now but older games don't and some of them it isn't very easy to change the configs at all... 16:10 ratio has been supported for some time now but 16:9 isn't widely recognised yet.

2 Large online games as an example that are the subjects of constant updates like Counterstrike Source and Company of Heroes only support 1600 x 900... Thats the only 16:9 ratio they support... 1920 x 1080 nowhere in sight m8
 
well im perfectly ok with having the black borders at the top and bottom of the screen when using 1920x1080 so long as theres is no impact on the image quality.
 
Got the dell 2409 myself and love it.

Even on older games I've managed to find workarounds for all but one and bit of searching nearly always returns results of how force a game into 16:9.

Certainly every game Ive bought over the last couple of years has given me the option of 16:9 so just buy one and enjoy fella.
 
Last edited:
For around £200 I would go for the Samsung 2433BW.
You can get it for around £225 and there have been people who got it for £200 :eek: so shop around.
Its got VGA and DVI but Its dos'nt have HDMI, but you said thats ok, But if you want HDMI in the future you can get HDMI to DVI converters.
I play all game now on 1900x1200 which is true HD and they look great! :D
 
duckdodgersuk said:
For around £200 I would go for the Samsung 2433BW.
You can get it for around £225 and there have been people who got it for £200 :eek: so shop around.
Its got VGA and DVI but Its dos'nt have HDMI, but you said thats ok, But if you want HDMI in the future you can get HDMI to DVI converters.
I play all game now on 1900x1200 which is true HD and they look great! :D
Click to expand...
1920x1200 isn't 'true HD', it's higher. ;)
 
I personally can't really see the point in 16:9 PC monitors.... I'd rather risk losing a tiny bit of IQ by resizing an HD source, than having to sacrifice resolution/screen 'real estate' in every other application.
 
Monstermunch said:
2 Large online games as an example that are the subjects of constant updates like Counterstrike Source and Company of Heroes only support 1600 x 900... Thats the only 16:9 ratio they support... 1920 x 1080 nowhere in sight m8
Click to expand...

dunno where you got that from but its wrong

snjx49.jpg


avkml0.jpg


didn't have to change anything to get that
 
i think i'll most likely go for the samsung, if I can get it for closer to the £200 mark. £225 is a bit of a strech for me.
 
Monstermunch said:
They might be starting to now but older games don't and some of them it isn't very easy to change the configs at all... 16:10 ratio has been supported for some time now but 16:9 isn't widely recognised yet.

2 Large online games as an example that are the subjects of constant updates like Counterstrike Source and Company of Heroes only support 1600 x 900... Thats the only 16:9 ratio they support... 1920 x 1080 nowhere in sight m8
Click to expand...

Classic case of miss-information.
 
Personally I'd go for 1920x1200, as all else being equal, it's just inherently better than 1920x1080 (higher resolution).
 
I had 16:10 2408WFP and after using my 2409 16:9 for 2 weeks when i look back at the 16:10 it looks fat, like 4:3.

Dark Knight blu ray fits perfect to my screen in 16:9 no black bars just looks better. No movies are 16:10 but a fair lot are 16:9.

Gaming is better at 16:9 because you can lower the resolution for an fps boost and still maintain 16:9. With 16:10 your stuck at 1920x1200 or lower it to a 4:3 resolution. So with 16:9 you can have a low faster resolution that's STILL widescreen. It's also NOT higher res, it's the same but the screen is a bit wider length ways making it more sqaure. So it needs more pixels hence 1200 vs 1080p it's the same pixel ration just 1200 more screen estate.

Aynone who says 16:10 is better and 16:9 is inferior probally just own a 16:10 and want to tell themselfs they don't regret buying it (I did this). It does have it's advantges like running 4:3 better and more desktop space. However 16:9 is a lot wider then you would think compared to 16:10 and just looks nicer wider, like more cinema wide. You don't ever really see the top and bottom part of 16:10 in games/movies because it's kinda out the field of vision so it's just a waste of pixels/fps.

Dell 2409 f.t.w
 
Last edited:
just for the record, 16:10 has just as many resolutions as 16:9 :P its certinly not limited to just 1920x1200
 
At the end of the day you will buy whichever aspect ration you feel happy with... But IMO 16:9 will always be a TV/Movie format, 16:10 has been around for years now for the PC and although as pointed out above games now seem to support the 16:9 format it's all good.

However... most of the time there appears to be very little cost difference between these two formats and personally I would rather go for something that will give me more desktop space ;)

As for the black bar top & bottom (letterbox format) majority of films still have this as the actual ratio of cinema is more like 24:9 so whether you're watching it on a 16:9 screen or a 16:10 screen is completely irrelevant!
 
Last edited:
Nate Silvers said:
Gaming is better at 16:9 because you can lower the resolution for an fps boost and still maintain 16:9. With 16:10 your stuck at 1920x1200 or lower it to a 4:3 resolution. So with 16:9 you can have a low faster resolution that's STILL widescreen. It's also NOT higher res, it's the same but the screen is a bit wider length ways making it more sqaure. So it needs more pixels hence 1200 vs 1080p it's the same pixel ration just 1200 more screen estate.
Click to expand...

Fail. You can use 16:9 resolutions on a 16:10 monitor as long as it offers 1:1 pixel mapping (any decent monitor does). 16:10 gives the best of all worlds, it allows you to use 4:3, 16:10 AND 16:9 :p

Nate Silvers said:
Aynone who says 16:10 is better and 16:9 is inferior probally just own a 16:10 and want to tell themselfs they don't regret buying it (I did this).
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, I'd never buy a 16:9 screen as all arguments for them are moot. 16:10 is the PC default for a reason, it's close to the golden ratio, it allows 2 A4 pages side-by-side in word/DTP packages and offers more vertical resolution which is good for productivity.

If people are concerned about black bars then they need their heads examining.
 
Last edited:
Ok after looking around, ive noticed that theres 2 28" screens that look to be excellent value for the money.
Hanns-G HG281DP - which is around £280 on ocUK at the moment.
Viewsonic VX2835wm - which ocUK dont stock for some reason, but i've found it for £284 at a compeditor.

Now after some research, I found that the Hanns-G only has 1 VGA, and 1 HDMI port. Thats it. (wtf?) Anyway, it also does not have 1:1 pixel mapping, which is a major downfall when using the xbox or ps3.
The Viewsonic on the other hand, has 1 VGA port, 1 HDMI port, S-Video, Component and Composite which is much better than the Hanns-G, but most importantly, it DOES have 1:1 pixel mapping.
Is it just me, or that a no brainer really? Should I go ahead and get the Viewsonic for £284?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom