Is it worth paying extra for a 22" WS over a 20" WS??

geordiepaul

geordiepaul

geordiepaul

Associate
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
124
There is very little price difference between the latest 22" and 20" widescreen TFT's so I just wondered whether it was worth that little extra?

The native resolutions are the same so the only difference is that things will be a little larger. Is there any other differences?
 
I won't go for this monitor as 20" already has same resolution so it will look much sharper and easier to read.

I had 19" TFT with the same resolution as 17" so with larger text, a bit fuzzy...it wasn't easy on eye. I assume that with same resolution being on 22" from 20", it has the similar effect.

I now got a new 20" wide screen and sharper text is much easier to read. For me, it would be either 17" or 20" or 24" if you can afford!
 
I have no interest in the 22" monitors for the same reasons said above. Same res as 20"

24" is the only logical step up from 20" imo, as the res is higher
 
Quality not quantity.

A 22" monitor has a larger dot pitch that a 20" this means lower image quality.

A 24" is the only logical step up.
 
Here's the dot pitches for different sizes:

17" 1280x1024 0.264
19" 1280x1024 0.294
20" 1600x1200 0.255

20" ws 1680x1050 0.258
22" ws 1680x1050 0.282
24" ws 1920x1200 0.270

so 22" is inbetween a 17 and 19" screen, still perfectly fine.
 
Bigger screens are more immersive for games. Plus the higher res of 24" screens is a stretch for any video card. If the screens themselves are good I would consider 22" a good option.

TBH when most people upgrade from 17" to 19" TFT they rarely complain that the res is the same.
 
As a percentage it's more than the difference between 20" and 22".

What I was getting at is that people are saying don't buy 22" inch because the res isn't higher than 20", but doesn't the same thing apply to 19" over 17"? Again the res is the same, and you don't see many people complaining of the giant pixels on their 19" screens. The fact is though 19" screens are miles better than 17" for gaming since the bigger size makes the experience more immersive, so the same logic applies to the 22" screens over 20", assuiming they have good panels in them. 20" WS isn't actually that big.
 
Last edited:
The same res is ok for just an extra 2" surely, ok if it were twice the size then I would start to worry for just 2" it isn't gonna make that much difference.

Also I don't think many people can afford 24" monitors or the computer to support that res so 22" seems the best value monitor at the moment.
 
After having a good look at the specs, the VX2235wm is a TN+Film panel, so it's not of comparable quality to most of the 20" WS screens. Samsung SM-225BW - again viewing angles suggest TN+Film.

Not saying they are bad screens, but they won't be able to match the viewing angles and black depth of the 20" WS IPS/PVA/MVA screens. Plus they're 18-bit + dithering screens rather than 24 bit colour. They're basically budget screens, hence the prices.

At the same time though, if TN+Film viewing angles don't bother you and you don't need deep black depth and 16.2 M colours is ok, then they're probably excellent value for money screens.

All depends on what you're looking for.
 
fish99, your observations are on the right track ... :)

What it seems to me is that manufacturers are preparing the low spec and cheap 22" monitor options. Marketing accent is purely on the screen estate upgrade, but I think that screen (picture) quality may suffer ... especially if they will follow the suggested low pricing model and cheap panels (like CMO) implementation. Of course, this is interesting for the people who are keen to upgrade to few inches more but not care that much about the other monitor aspects. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is the general "feeling" I have about the 22" situation. Also, we are still unsure about the native resolution supported. If they will not move from the 20" typical 1680x1050, I don't see much sense in that. You will probably *may* have slightly larger pixel pitch because of those 2" extra, as panel will carry the same 1680x1050 resolution. For the picky users, maybe sticking to high quality 23"/24" ... or even 20" models is better option.

For now, we have pretty much repetitive pattern for Samsung 225BW, Acer AL2216W, Westinghouse 22" and probably ViewSonic VX2235WM: cheap TN panels, inheriting the same 1680x1050 resolution as 20" range, but they are introducing the 0.282 mm pixel pitch (screen door effect and grainy panel look is probably there) - not impressive really. In other words, they are cheap, relatively fast (for the TN panel), slightly larger - bit not that good all around performance and don't expect the miracles on other fronts (especially picture quality). We could probably clasifiy them as the budget WS gaming monitors ... a bit like resemblance of fast 19" TN panels (like Viewsonic VX924/VX922 or even Samsung 940BF) but in the larger - 22" widescreen form.
 
remember, when 17" models were common, people moaned that 19" models only had the same resolution. We've got the same situation here, and as you've said there igors, it certainly looks like manufacturers are going for entry level performance (TN Film panels) to help keep costs down. It's just another way of having a larger screen without bumping the price up, just like it was with 19" vs 17". For multimedia use i can see these screens coming into their own as gaming might offer better immersion at a larger size, and where resolution is not as important or noticable as in Windows use. IF manufacturers start to utilise PVA/MVA/IPS panel technology we might see some good screens for movies / TV as well, and a good stop gap for those wanting a decent enough screen for a PC (remember the 1680 x 1050 res is still a fair bit more than a standard 1366 x 768 LCD TV) and also wanting a pretty decent sized TV solution
 
Baddass said:
IF manufacturers start to utilise PVA/MVA/IPS panel technology we might see some good screens for movies / TV as well, and a good stop gap for those wanting a decent enough screen for a PC (remember the 1680 x 1050 res is still a fair bit more than a standard 1366 x 768 LCD TV) and also wanting a pretty decent sized TV solution
Click to expand...
You touched the interestnig subject here - TV/PC LCD monitor hybrid ;) I did try to write the few words about this but, believe it or not, my OcUK forum account was suspended for a few days. :eek:

From the technological point of view I don't see a barrier here, but from the commercial - yes. For example, 20WGX2 do have the dynamic contrast, picture enhancing logic, many tweaks, exemplary overdrive ... and so on. It's perfect LCD TV candidate, BUT screen size is simply not there. Expanding the number of pixels for this type of screens is introducing the serious price consequence and such screens simply can't rival the pricing model nor spectacular panel size of the LCD TV sets which are currently available. More importantly, screen size does matter when we are talking about the home/video entertainment. Just look at the current pricing model of the 40" LCD TV range. Shocking it is. Yes, they still do have the 1366x768 resolution and they are 1080i, but when watched from the proper distance they look pretty much fantastic to me.

Anyhow, I almost forgot what I was trying to say :) Yes, in my opinion nicely priced 24" - 26" WUXGA monitors, based on the more advanced panels and that may include the improved control circuit (dynamic contrast, overdrive and other tweaks), multiple video inputs (including HDMI) are probably the golden choice for that stop gap. For me, 30" monitors are simply overwhelming and not so ergonomically pleasant for the PC & desktop usage and you may find rather interesting TV sets at this price range.

At this stage, my preferable option is dedicated LCD TV and dedicated LCD monitor. In some way, picking up the best of both worlds but that could change soon ... who knows ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom