Native resolution for 24inch monitors?

If I was buying I would get a 1920 x 1200 screen

I would not touch a 1920 x 1080 with a barge pole

I have used both and would always prefer a 1920 x 1200

Go here
http://www.displaywars.com/

stick in 24 inch and set one to 16:9 another to 16:10
this will show you the difference between them
 
Last edited:
lurkio said:
If I was buying I would get a 1920 x 1200 screen

I would not touch a 1920 x 1080 with a barge pole

I have used both and would always prefer a 1920 x 1200
Click to expand...


On a price vs performance scale though.... is the extra resolution really worth an extra £200 with an increase in reponse time into the bargain?
 
Roscoe1724 said:
On a price vs performance scale though.... is the extra resolution really worth an extra £200?
Click to expand...

Kinda Depends IF you are a gamer /video player and dont use your PC for
anything serious then 16:9 would suit you

IF you do any desktop / graphics work as well as gaming then 16:10 for the win!

For me personally it will be a cold day in hell when I get a 16:9 lcd for computer use
 
Last edited:
If you watch films the 16:10 is less wide than the 16:9 as the common diagonal 24" is the same. You will get narrow black bars at top and bottom with a 16:10, unless the picture is stretched

If you want screen real estate, the 16:10 (1200deep) is the one to go for. They are rarer and hence the price.

I own a Samsung 1920 x 1200 24" so am biased, it is easily wide enough for two instances of IE running side by side and deep enough to avoid lots of scrolling.

andy
 
Well I went for a 16:10 1680x1050 to a 16:9 1920x1080 and it really isn't a problem at all. That could be that I was still actually gaining 30 verticle pixels though. Still, I don't think the 16:10/16:9 thing is really as a big a deal as people make it.
 
Boozebeard said:
Well I went for a 16:10 1680x1050 to a 16:9 1920x1080 and it really isn't a problem at all. That could be that I was still actually gaining 30 verticle pixels though. Still, I don't think the 16:10/16:9 thing is really as a big a deal as people make it.
Click to expand...

So you didn't go from 1200 down to 1080, which is where you really miss the height. I've been using my Firefox window in a 16:9 shape for the last hour (23") and am thinking I'd miss the height too much. It is far too wide.
 
Trifid said:
So you didn't go from 1200 down to 1080, which is where you really miss the height. I've been using my Firefox window in a 16:9 shape for the last hour (23") and am thinking I'd miss the height too much. It is far too wide.
Click to expand...

16:9 all the way, no borders on my media!
 
For films you want 1920x1080 cause thats letterbox widescreen, 1920x1200 will give u big black borders top and bottom and generally be a bit of a waste of screen space.

Its not really a resolution thing its just how wide/tall it is, 1920x1200 is taller and thus a lil better for officey type things cause you can see more of a page but for gaming i personally like the 1920x1080 for that cinematic widescreen feel.
 
1920 x 1200 , will give you a small border top and bottom of the screen , NOT a large one when watching 16:9 movies (anyway most DvD/blu-ray movies are 2.35:1 so you will get bars anyway!)

1920 x 1200 is the right size for 2 A pages to be displayed on screen side by side , 16:9 chops off the bottom of them

As I have access to loads of screens of different lcd's with different sizes , I have actually had a chance to compare them side by side in daily use.
 
The point i was trying to make is that the argument isn't really a quality thing, its a matter of if you prefer your viewing area to be wider or taller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom