1650x1050 > 1920x1080?

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 17 Oct 2011 at 17:49

Currently using my trusty 22" 1050 monitor mainly for gaming plus increasingly for photoshop which is leaving me wish for a bit more real estate.

Obviously PS would benefit from more pixels but the question is, is 1080 a benefit to recent games (BF3

) since its become the standard resolution?

clippa · 17 Oct 2011 at 18:17

It's a sad state of affairs that 16:10 is being phased out. It's true that a lot of games nowadays, especially half-arsed console ports, don't even bother adding support for 16:10 or just zoom in but I'd be very surprised if this were the case with battlefield 3 considering the pc was the lead platform.

IF you're upgrading your monitor and you insist on having 16:10, you're going to be really really limiting your choice. Probably best just to bight the bullet and go with 16:9.

It's up to you whether or not the extra screen real estate is worth the aspect ratio change. If I were you I'd go 120hz, make it feel like more of an upgrade rather than a compromise

Trana · 17 Oct 2011 at 18:27

clippa said:
IF you're upgrading your monitor and you insist on having 16:10, you're going to be really really limiting your choice. Probably best just to bight the bullet and go with 16:9.

True!

Seriously. If you are buying a gaming monitor 1920x1080 is the only way to go!

FoxEye · 17 Oct 2011 at 18:53

I'm going to go with the flow and get a 16:9 myself. The only thing to note is, if going from 16:10 to 16:9, you need to jump at least two or three sizes (20" to 27") to get any extra height (not vertical pixels, height).

In my mind, a 20" 16:10 to 24" 16:9 isn't much of an upgrade at all. You just get extra width. With that in mind, I'm personally jumping from a 20" 16:10 to a 32" 16:9 HDTV

Swifty55 · 17 Oct 2011 at 20:25

Make sure you get a 120hz monitor.

Surveyor · 17 Oct 2011 at 20:50

stuartw_b said:
Currently using my trusty 22" 1050 monitor mainly for gaming plus increasingly for photoshop which is leaving me wish for a bit more real estate.

Hold out for a 16:10 1920x1200 monitor.

You'll appreciate the extra vertical pixels for serious use.

Trana said:
True!

Seriosly. If you are buying a gaming monitor 1920x1080 is the only way to go!

The OP is going to be using the monitor for more than just games.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 17 Oct 2011 at 20:53

What I am tempted by is a LG W2363D-PF

Would give me 2 monitors for PS and one monitor at 120hz for gaming for a good price.

edit: The 1920x1200 monitors are very tempting but the 120hz....

Randomface74 · 17 Oct 2011 at 21:07

1920x1200 here - wouldn't have it any other way

Trana · 17 Oct 2011 at 21:45

Dont listen to billysielu in this thread unless you want to buy an outdated monitor.

It is obvious that he made a poor purchase and now feels forced to justify his purchase by trying to fool others to do the same misstake.

Surveyor · 17 Oct 2011 at 22:09

And don't listen to people who only sing the 16:9 tune without even considering what you use your PC for.

Consider the options and get what's best for you.

Trana · 17 Oct 2011 at 22:40

Says the guy who only sings the 16:10 song without even considering what you use your PC for.

Well, Surveyor. I can inform you. We are not living in the year of 2006 any more. You maybe should try this!

Mr Gimp · 17 Oct 2011 at 22:48

Anyone serious about getting a decent monitor for work, not just arsing about on games with, will benefit from the extra workspace with 1920 x 1200.
From personal use on my 2405 for all these years, and a 1080 monitor that ended up being used with the Xbox, I'd hold out for the 16:10 no matter the price.

Mr Krugga · 17 Oct 2011 at 22:50

Dell U2412m - £300 from OcUK. I've even seen some going for £265 which is truly a bargain.

e-IPS with a 6 bit + AFRC panel and very decent colour accuracy (good for PS). Low input lag and good response times.

1920x1200, best of both worlds.

Review here: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm

Surveyor · 17 Oct 2011 at 22:56

Trana said:
Says the guy who only sings the 16:10 song without even considering what you use your PC for.

I think you'll find you're wrong on that score.

All I've ever said is that you go on about 16:9 regardless of the circumstances.

In this particular thread I've recommended 16:10 for the OP's Photoshop use. Something you appear not to have considered before banging out the usual 16:9 answer.

There are people in this thread posting good advice (such as the 2 posts above this one) and not just offering their stock answer to every monitor question.

Edit

I'm sure it's very entertaining but I'll pass on watching the video you posted.

Trana · 17 Oct 2011 at 23:19

@I actually start to like you because you are more friendly towards me than I deserve. For that reason I'll will give you the final say in the 16:9 vs 16:10 issue in this topic.

But watch the video. Such a classic and fun movie!

Surveyor · 18 Oct 2011 at 00:22

Trana said:
@I actually start to like you because you are more friendly towards me than I deserve. For that reason I'll will give you the final say in the 16:9 vs 16:10 issue in this topic.

That's very kind of you

In the OP's circumstances I suggest they give serious consideration to a 16:10 1920x1200 monitor.

1920x1200 can be used for gaming but you can't add the extra pixels to 1920x1080 for more serious use.

They could always get a 16:9 2560x1440 monitor which would give 16:9 for games and more pixels for serious use. But that's a different ball game in terms of the cost of the monitor and the hardware needed to run games with decent performance.

Phal · 21 Oct 2011 at 15:49

Personally I didn't like the idea of giving up some of my 16:10 screen space for a new 16:9 monitor but the 120hz more than made up for the space lost imo! Definitely wouldn't choose a 16:10 monitor over a 120hz monitor!

Ideally both would be available but since they seem to be phasing 16:10 out then I guess you'll only cause yourself trouble by sticking with the old format.

Axeia · 24 Oct 2011 at 08:37

Most games do not give you an advantage but will look better. I used to be very pro-16:10 and well I still am but the 16:9 monitors are just so much more attractive.
For example, for the price of a Samsung 2443bw - 1920x1200 (with a real ****** TN-panel) you could also buy a Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM - 1920x1080 with an IPS panel..

Basically they stopped producing 16:10 panels (with some very rare and usually overpriced exceptions) making 16:9 monitors much more attractive. Not because of the aspect ratio itself but because they're actually using recent technology for a decent price. Since you're using 1680x1050 then 1920x1080 would be a step up in both directions and not leave you with that 'why wont it fit' feeling.