New monitor. 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 ?

DrBombcrater · 4 Dec 2008 at 16:07

I've had (and still have) all three as well. At the moment, in this room, I've got a 6ms S-PVA, a 6ms P-MVA, a 2ms TN and a 5ms TN, all less than 2 years old. The first three are essentially identical. I can't tell the difference in games, and neither can anyone I know. The 5ms TN is obviously slower than the others, even on the desktop, I'd guess because it's the only one that doesn't have overdrive.

philjohn · 4 Dec 2008 at 20:04

helmutcheese said:
Seems peeps don't know why you have 16:10.

Hint if you type Word doc's all day long and want to see 2 side by side A4 Doc's at 100% on screen at same time then get a 16:10.

If your PC is mainly about multimedia get a 16:9, finally Manu's are now turning this this proper widely used/old Ratio (its not a RES its a Ratio).

Or if you want the most flexibility - i.e. you play games and watch movies but also type up uni coursework or use productivity apps like Photoshop.

-Raphus- · 8 Dec 2008 at 13:16

---

Hi guys!
The problem of 16:10 or 16:9 is actual for me too.
I want to buy a new monitor for New Year Holidays, becouse my Acer AL1715 is awful for new games, I think like the author of this thread (I am about Christmas gift like monitor

)
To the main, I googled a lot about 24" LCD, but the main question doesn't disappear - 1920x1080 or 1920x1200? I would prefer gaming in high resolution instead watching HD (Blu-ray) movies. So, what resolution is the best for gaming (1920x1080 or 1920x1200)? Who have LCD 24" or bigger, and can tell us on which video games looks much more exciting? I am interested in gaming (PC gaming at all) and nothing else.
The second:
I found this great monitor - BenQ E2400HD - for 16:9, what you can say about it? About its specifications? (And on that page you can find some PR material about 16:9 an 16:10)
Waiting your answers in impatience.

-Raphus- · 25 Dec 2008 at 19:01

No answers? Why?

Loque · 25 Dec 2008 at 21:40

well, in the end, I chose the Acer G24, because its aimed at gamers, and it has everything I need. DVI, VGA, 1:1 pixel mapping, nice fast panel.

If you only PC play games, then you want a 16:10 monitor. If you intend to play PC and console games, you want a 16:10 monitor that supports 1:1 pixel mapping, like the Acer G24

-Raphus- · 26 Apr 2009 at 14:21

Heh, my choiсe was BenQ E2400HD

And... It's really good! 16:9 for games - all you need. All new games are support 1920x1080 resolution. F.E.A.R 2 for example, was very nice, becouse it's 16:9 game! So, I think 16:9 will be the best in the near future...

OCdude · 26 Apr 2009 at 16:20

HOLY THREAD RESURRECTION

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd i'm done.

mame · 26 Apr 2009 at 16:54

-Raphus- said:
Heh, my choiсe was BenQ E2400HD And... It's really good! 16:9 for games - all you need. All new games are support 1920x1080 resolution. F.E.A.R 2 for example, was very nice, becouse it's 16:9 game! So, I think 16:9 will be the best in the near future...

just finished FEAR 2 on my 16:10 monitor. Yes, it did have small black borders but no, it didn't bother me or distract me one bit. Swapping the black borders for extra view of the wall behind the monitor wouldn't really interest me and it's nice having the option of both without doing anything really: Play FEAR 2 16:9, quit to desktop, 16:10, play a game in 16:10 etc etc.

If my next monitor is 16:9 it will be purely because it was a lot cheaper than the 16:10 version (which could quite possibly happen)

-Raphus- · 27 Apr 2009 at 16:57

mame said:
If my next monitor is 16:9 it will be purely because it was a lot cheaper than the 16:10 version (which could quite possibly happen)

Sorry, what monitor you have? I didn't catch...

Hm, about cheaper you are absolutely right, I saw buy.com. But, I don't understand, why? I bought my E2400HD ~370$. And for example G2400WD is ~400$. Identical models... Becouse 80px only?

P.S: Heh, not F.E.A.R 2 only) Assassins Creed

Making games from FullHD cinema textures will be more easy, I think. In the future

naffers · 27 Apr 2009 at 21:45

ooh this is interesting never occured to me about the screen ratios will have to have a think about what monitor to get now

Elevon · 27 Apr 2009 at 22:13

Loque said:
well, in the end, I chose the Acer G24, because its aimed at gamers, and it has everything I need. DVI, VGA, 1:1 pixel mapping, nice fast panel.

If you only PC play games, then you want a 16:10 monitor. If you intend to play PC and console games, you want a 16:10 monitor that supports 1:1 pixel mapping, like the Acer G24

I just went from 16:10 to 16:9 for pc gaming and to be honest prefer 16:9 screen,pixel mapping is not an issue since you can do that via nvidia or ATi CP,very interesting that 90% of all the new LCDs are going 16:9 size,I wonder if this will become the new general standard down the road and 16:10 phased out?

-Raphus- · 28 Apr 2009 at 10:43

Elevon said:
I just went from 16:10 to 16:9 for pc gaming and to be honest prefer 16:9 screen,pixel mapping is not an issue since you can do that via nvidia or ATi CP,very interesting that 90% of all the new LCDs are going 16:9 size,I wonder if this will become the new general standard down the road and 16:10 phased out?

Of course, of course! I think so.

Solari · 28 Apr 2009 at 11:20

Can you not just letterbox the DVD playback on a 16:10 screen? Doesn't seem much of an issue to me tbh?

smilertoo · 28 Apr 2009 at 20:29

I'd go with 1920x1200, the letterboxing is minimal and the extra res is always useful on a desktop.

jarfin · 2 May 2009 at 10:59

hi all

i try/use both and dont seen any practical different for it,or maybe if you look movies,but who look movies from pc monitor.

i play a lot virtual pool 3 and i have been 16:9 and 16:10 diplays, and i check sharp thouse balls, and i must say i dont seen nothing different balls roundings.

all monitors fix that 'errors' nicely so human eye not cant be see different,well i dont see.

also i want tell that that game virtual pool 3 and its game snooker is excellent way to check how good you monitor is for game purposes.

check thouse red balls many way and you see easily is ur diplay speed enough.

i have been 6 monitors ,list here:

- NEC MultiSync 24WMGX3
- LG LGW2442PAB
- Samsung SM2443BW
- Acer G24
- Benq FP241W

and also few more

benq is ok,but input lag is too much all rest is same normal game monitor,nothing specail,except NEC is overrespect,its good office monitor.

best is acer,cleary.
only bad is little light leak,but its not matter when you see picture and play with it,and no matter what game you play,all go great!

elpedro · 2 May 2009 at 14:38

I went for 1920x1080 22" purely because 16:9 is a broadcasting standard and I have a TV monitor, and lets be honest guys, people claiming there's more desktop space, its a mere 120 pixels higher which is like an extra row of icons on your desktop...woop.

Also you will come across some games designed for 16:9 which add black bars to the top and bottom of the screen, PES being one of the top of my head.

smilertoo · 2 May 2009 at 14:57

if the difference between 16:10 and 16:9 leaves 'big black borders' then your scaling is screwed, the borders should be small and hardly noticible.

ShaolinDreams · 3 May 2009 at 00:14

1200p for the win

...but still theres nothing wrong with 1920x1080

snowdog · 3 May 2009 at 01:40

UHHHHHHHH ? :eek:

1920x1080 is more supported than 1920x1200. for example in the gta games but also others, because 16:9 tv's were there before 16:10 monitors.

Anyways, if 24'', I'd go for 16:10 ( even though I've got 16:9 myself).

However, for the price of a 24'' 16:10 you can get a 26'' 16:9, in which case I'd go for 16:9... But I have no idea where you guys get it from that 16:10 is better supported than 16:9, afaik 16:9 is a much more widely and earlier used standard than 16:10, and any early widescreen solutions were 16:9 and not 16:10 ( eg. look at gta vice city)... Just because 16:10 are more mainstream for pc atm doesn't mean they are any less supported than 16:9...

EDIT :

Old thread

, oh well...
Still: Want 24'' only : Get 16:10.
Want more screen for your money: get a 26'' 16:9 for the price of a 24'' 16:10.

Imo anyways.
I like the smaller/lack of black borders in films on 16:9 screens and in games like Assassins Creed or Mirror's Edge.

thecremeegg · 3 May 2009 at 02:25

jarfin said:
hi all

i try/use both and dont seen any practical different for it,or maybe if you look movies,but who look movies from pc monitor.

i play a lot virtual pool 3 and i have been 16:9 and 16:10 diplays, and i check sharp thouse balls, and i must say i dont seen nothing different balls roundings.

all monitors fix that 'errors' nicely so human eye not cant be see different,well i dont see.

also i want tell that that game virtual pool 3 and its game snooker is excellent way to check how good you monitor is for game purposes.

check thouse red balls many way and you see easily is ur diplay speed enough.

i have been 6 monitors ,list here:

- NEC MultiSync 24WMGX3
- LG LGW2442PAB
- Samsung SM2443BW
- Acer G24
- Benq FP241W

and also few more

benq is ok,but input lag is too much all rest is same normal game monitor,nothing specail,except NEC is overrespect,its good office monitor.

best is acer,cleary.
only bad is little light leak,but its not matter when you see picture and play with it,and no matter what game you play,all go great!

Sorry input lag on the BenQ? Now I'm obviously biased here

p) but mine has none whatsoever - yours is broke