24" really worth it over 22" ?

Teaf

Teaf

Teaf

Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2006
Posts
8,257
I'll probably be getting a new monitor for Chritmas from the family (yay!) and currently looking at something like a Samsung 22" Pebble which seems a really good monitor. However if I wanted a 24" I'll have to add money to it myself and get it which I don't mind if it's going to be worth it. Upgrading from a an Acer AL1916W (19" WS, 5ms, 300 cd/m², 500:1 contrast) and am really wondering if it's worth getting the 24" for £350 ish over a 22" for £250? The benefits seem to be 1920x1200 res instead of 1680x1050 and of course the extra 2". Other than that is it worth it? Has anyone bought a 22" and really wished they just got the 24" ?

The computer is mainly for watching movies and tv and the occassional game. Graphics card is a 2900 XT is that helps for picking which, as I'm not sure if my 2900 XT would croak at 1920x1200 or not.

Cheers
 
whatever screen size we get , we always wnat bigger n better. I say you should get whichever size you can comfortably afford else you may regret the decission as soon as a few hours later. I cant think of many situations when a display is too big ;)

my 21" screen may as well be 14" since it looks so tiny next to the 24" ;)
 
All I can say is we got a 22" into work and I got to use it. It made a big difference over my 17" 4:3 dell monitor at home. I don't think the 24" would be really worth the extra. The 22" seemed so big to me that I wouldn't really need more.

Depending on your distance from the screen the 24" might even be too big.
 
i think the 24 is worth it. I was in a similar position to yourself last month. i chose the 24inch as it could show 1080p, whereas a 22inch cannot as it doesnt have enough pixels. (i use ps3 on the screen).

A monitor is a part of the pc you are likely not be changing that often so imo the 24 is a worthy buy
 
The only real reason why I'm buying a 24" is the benefit of being able to have two full sized A4 windows next to each other, saves on having a second monitor. Plus games will look amazing when driven by a 8800 GTX.
 
I went 24 for the extra res and it was well worth it. If you plan on playing games just make sure your system is going to be upto running it at the native resolution to get the most out of it.
 
Is it worth double the cost of a 22" ? i don't think so if it were £300 for a decent one i would say yes.Most people have lcd tv's these days for consoles id rather get a decent 32" lcd for £450 than a 24" monitor.
 
Last edited:
Run stuff at higher resolution before you say that, you get used to the drop after a while, but the higher detail, cleaner lines etc really do improve the picture quality, I really missed the loss of resolution when I went to LCD, and am considering getting a 24" myself now I have a huge working hour increase. Especially when you consider that 22" are probably just as cheap to produce for companies as 20" as the resolution is the same, they may even be cheaper due to higher pixel pitch. LCDs are cheaper for size because of this, they can't produce the resolution. If you look at 1080P TVs you'll probably notice the prices are more in line with 24" monitors for this reason.
 
Cheers for replies.

Still mulling it over, would prefer a 24" for obvious reasons but not sure if it'll cope on my 2900 XT and getting high detail out of a game. I like my AF and not really bothered about AA, so if I can game at 1920x1200 on my 2900 XT and still get high settings out of it then I guess I'll probably get the 24", otherwise I suspect it'll be 22". Although I do watch A LOT of movies and tv shows so the 24" would suit me there. Finding this a harder choice than I would have thought.

Anyone got a 24" @ 1920x1200 under a 2900 XT? If so, how are you finding it to game with? High settings and good FPS or having to dumb down the quality somewhat?
 
I got a 32" Samsung TV 8000:1, use it as dual purpose TV/monitor.
The contrast is awsome; I used have a viewsonic 1000:1 & compared to the TV it looks really crap/grey. Playing a game up close to a high contrast 32" is amazing.
1360x768 is enough for a desktop & even quadcore/8800GTX cant play new games at good FPS >100k pixels.
Oh & my bro got 2900XT for 20mins then took it back as compared to my 8800GTX it was a lot slower in games (I dont care what benches say), it was very noisy, would not clock at all & eg 30fps slower in Bioshock than 8800gtx.
 
Last edited:
I've used a 32" LCD TV as monitor, it's not great. Too low resolution and not enough desktop space. I'd use a 37" 1080p instead, higher pixel density.

I think the price the difference between 22" and 24" is a bit high, also problem of higher resolution therefore more demanding on hardware
 
I had a 22" and a 24", eventually settling on keeping the 24". Its a big difference but if funds aint too much of a problem its not too hard to justify having a 24" imo, they feel quite a lot bigger imo (more than pictures with them alongside each other would suggest).
 
Hmm never considered a LCD TV.

Was looking at some 32" LCD's and they seem pretty good, reasonable resolution or pretty much what I play on at the moment (1400 x 900) and would be great for my future HTPC setup which I'm planning in the spare room (pending female approval). They do seem costly though, decent ones looking around £450 - £500.
 
I had a samsung 22 before i think it was a C panel, i couldn't get it to look good no matter what (didnt have a calibrator) but i took it back and got this 24inch dell and to be honest its much better in pretty much every way, card reader, usb ports, the extra size, you might think 2 inches but for videos you can really tell.
If you have the money go for the 24, you wont regret it at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom