2048x1152 or 1920x1200!

rapid64k

rapid64k

rapid64k

Associate
Joined
18 Dec 2006
Posts
1,799
Guys need some advice, need a new monitor for gaming.
I have been looking at the 24" mionitors and im having trouble picking one I dont really want to spend more than £290 on a monitor.

I have an 4870x2 so i guess the ideal resulotion will be 1920-1200, I have noticed that the Samsung SM-2343BW 23 has a 2048x1152 would this suit me better or could someone be nice enough to speck me a TFT.:)

Or should i get a 22" instead.
 
Last edited:
sound slike a very interesting res imo. there's something about the sharpness of my laptop that my 24" DGM just misses with its bigger pixels. i think that is going to be a screen to watch out for!
 
*palmface* Eh? How's it a weird ratio? It's 16:9, same as TVs and dell's newest 24" monitor. I don't really understand why people seem to be so against it, it's a higher res than all 24" screens and it's a 23" so the screen will be really nice and sharp.

I think people don't like it because the res looks like a weird number, but don't let them put you off what looks to be a nice screen.
 
kylew said:
*palmface* Eh? How's it a weird ratio? It's 16:9, same as TVs and dell's newest 24" monitor. I don't really understand why people seem to be so against it, it's a higher res than all 24" screens and it's a 23" so the screen will be really nice and sharp.

I think people don't like it because the res looks like a weird number, but don't let them put you off what looks to be a nice screen.
Click to expand...

I don't like it because it's 16:9 and you actually lose res on the vertical where it matterrs most for desktop use.
 
Its 16:9 which is currently an oddity in the PC world, ontop of that its a weird rarely used resolution.

Given that its barely any more pixels than a standard 24" I just wouldn't bother, its bound to cause you hassle.

1920x1200 = 2,304,000

2048x1152 = 2,359,296

Why bother with the screwball res for so little extra real estate? You can't even say it's good for high def movies, because they'll still need to scale to odd res unlike a true 1920x1080 panel like the Dell.
 
Last edited:
16:9 isnt a weird ratio and the 160pixel loss is really nothing, if it was people wouldnt be so happy to use their tv's. having had both a 1080p hdtv and a 1920x1200 monitor i was happy to use either. my laptop is 16:9 and it doesnt bother me in the slightest.

Gregeff said:
I don't like it because it's 16:9 and you actually lose res on the vertical where it matterrs most for desktop use.
Click to expand...

yes a whole 48 pixels in height compared to a 16:10 24" lol. Or to put it another way, 4% in height!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom