2048x1152 or 1920x1200!

Minstadave said:
As far as I'm aware 16:9 is supported by the minority of games, and I'm I can't see why it'd look better, I'd doubt its even noticeable.
Click to expand...

is or isnt noticable? come on, you just said you'd steer well clear? why if it isnt noticable?

personally, your all getting too hung up on the ratio. its the pixel density that insterests me!
 
Isn't noticeable.

The reason I'd steer clear is the odd res which I'm not convinced a lot of games support (so you may be stuck with non-native res) and the ratio (which is less of an issue but still isn't supported that widely).

The pixel density isn't particularly impressive either, again I'd doubt anyone would notice it.
 
Minstadave said:
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.
Click to expand...

Remember its also an inch smaller.
Anyone care to calculate the increase in pixel density?
 
ok lets forget the Samsung SM-2343BW and give me your views on the Samsung SM-2443BW 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor.
Well i cant seem to get an answer on the Samsung SM-2443BW 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor im going to take a gamble and go for it.
Seems posters got mixed up with the 16.9 version while this on e is 16.10, oh well.
 
Last edited:
rapid64k said:
ok lets forget the Samsung SM-2343BW and give me your views on the Samsung SM-2443BW 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor.
Well i cant seem to get an answer on the Samsung SM-2443BW 24" Widescreen LCD Monitor im going to take a gamble and go for it.
Seems posters got mixed up with the 16.9 version while this on e is 16.10, oh well.
Click to expand...

So you're just deciding to opt for the 24" becuase some people have an irrational fear of 16:9 monitors?
 
Well no one has successfully made any argument between the two, the general theme was only about the 2343BW and not the 2443BW...and also because it s sale price.
 
Well the 23" has a higher pixel density, therefore a clearer image.
At the cost of a clearer image, you may lose some game performance, or it may not even be noticable.

The only thing in favour of the 24" is that its got a 16:10 ratio rather than 16:9... and even still... thats only becuase some people have a weird problem with 16:9.
Oh... and its slightly bigger.
 
Natima said:
Remember its also an inch smaller.
Anyone care to calculate the increase in pixel density?
Click to expand...

2,013 pixels per square inch.

Well no one has successfully made any argument between the two, the general theme was only about the 2343BW and not the 2443BW...and also because it s sale price.
Click to expand...

Higher res, sharper image. is that not good enough for you? i already said that

BUT, what will decide it is the type of panel in use. if its a TN film, like the 2443 is, then i wouldnt buy either. sorry, ive been spoilt by a decent PVA panel. the colours are more accurate and the viewing angles are better. But since the monitor doesnt seem to be available yet, its anybodys guess.
 
Last edited:
stay clear, its a non-standard resolution in the PC world.
16:10 is the standard, this applies to for OS's, Drivers, Games & Software.

You can get away with it in windows/programs just dont expect games to magicaly work at 16:9 unless they have that specific aspect ratio.
 
kleox64 said:
stay clear, its a non-standard resolution in the PC world.
16:10 is the standard, this applies to for OS's, Drivers, Games & Software.

You can get away with it in windows/programs just dont expect games to magicaly work at 16:9 unless they have that specific aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

Another voice of reason, thank you!
 
voice of reason, give over i didnt see you or anybody else saying that about the smaller 16:9 monitors. I havent seen anybody complaing about the lack of support, either, and what about the 16:9 24" dell? how about the 1000's of people who game on hdtv's?

Honestly, what a load of rubbish. non-standard resolution i'll give you, but stop arguing about the aspect ratio - it's a none issue.
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
Honestly, what a load of rubbish. non-standard resolution i'll give you, but stop arguing about the aspect ratio - it's a none issue.
Click to expand...

No it isn't a non issue for everyone. Maybe for you, you like 16:9 for your own reason. Personally I would like a 3:2 aspect screen as that is the ratio of the photos from my camera. However I can't get this but 16:10 is much closer than 16:9. Also 16:10 is also very close to the golden ratio ;)

For programming use a squarer ratio is better such as 5:4 as you can get more lines of code on one view. Each different use has a prefered aspect ratio and imo the only things 16:9 is better than anything else for is films (and maybe games, I havn't tried) for everything else it is worse.
 
Gregeff said:
No it isn't a non issue for everyone. Maybe for you, you like 16:9 for your own reason. Personally I would like a 3:2 aspect screen as that is the ratio of the photos from my camera. However I can't get this but 16:10 is much closer than 16:9. Also 16:10 is also very close to the golden ratio ;)
Click to expand...
i dont like 16:9 any more than i do 16:10. there's naff all difference in usable space between the two at these resolutions.

For programming use a squarer ratio is better such as 5:4 as you can get more lines of code on one view. Each different use has a prefered aspect ratio and imo the only things 16:9 is better than anything else for is films (and maybe games, I havn't tried) for everything else it is worse.
Click to expand...

nit picking surely? its 48 pixels lower in vertical resolution than a 16:10! 4 entire lines @ 12points, more or less. you'll sure miss those lol. At least keep the discussion focused on the two sizes and ratios in question?

also this is off topic but how would you get more lines of code on a 5:4 monitor? surely the amount of lines you can get on one display is limited by the vertical resolution, and the horizontal if your lines wrap over?
 
Last edited:
james.miller said:
voice of reason, give over i didnt see you or anybody else saying that about the smaller 16:9 monitors. I havent seen anybody complaing about the lack of support, either, and what about the 16:9 24" dell? how about the 1000's of people who game on hdtv's?

Honestly, what a load of rubbish. non-standard resolution i'll give you, but stop arguing about the aspect ratio - it's a none issue.
Click to expand...

1920x1200 is the standard, so is 2560x1600 and also 1680x1050. These are tied to OS's, Video Drivers, DVI/Display port interfaces, Games, Software etc...

1650x1050--> WSXGA+
1920x1200 --> WUXGA
2560x1600--> WQXGA



Put it this way WUXGA for example... has been around even before the W900 Sony widecreen CRT(1997 release I think)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom