which monitor size?

Kovala · Jul 3, 2013

Hello.
I want to buy a new monitor and I dont know which size to choose. Are monitors with max resolution 1600*900 (and similar) worth to buy today? Or is it better to choose a full hd monitor (22'' - 24'')?
I heard 22'' is too small for full hd so maybe 23'' or 24'' would be better.
And what about a performance between 1600*900 and 1920*1080 in games for example? Is full hd resolution a lot of more reliant on a hardware then lower resolutions?
Sorry for bad english
Thank you very much

Rozbwen · Jul 3, 2013

I would not buy a monitor with less than 1920x1080 display. As for the monitor size, it is just preference. I'll take a larger monitor every time so 24" would be what I would get. The difference between 1600x900 and 1920x1080 is ~40% more pixels (if I'm not terrible at math) so it will be more trying on system hardware.

dingo07 · Jul 3, 2013

get a monitor with at least a 1920x1080 resolution - 1920X1200 resolution is a little better, the extra space does really help

sam_p_lay · Jul 3, 2013

+1 to Rozbwen. That 44% pixel increase of course doesn't necessarily mean a 44% framerate loss, but it will be comfortably a 25-30% loss (and maybe getting close to 40% depending on the game - affects some games more than others).

Kovala · Jul 3, 2013

Thank you.
In the case in which hardware does not manage (low fps) a game/application in 1920x1080 is there a possibility to switch to lower resolution or will it looks weird after? I heard the monitors looks the best in theit native resolution.

sam_p_lay · Jul 3, 2013

Kovala :

They will always look best at native (especially interms of definition/clarify) but I can drop to 1680x1050 and it still looks good (I had to for an old game with limited resolution support). It does vary by monitor though how nicely they can emulate other resolutions.

Kovala · Jul 4, 2013

And would you recommend 22,23 or 24'' from your experience? I have about 150€. I play a lot of online games so better will be TN monitor than IPS (in this price category LG IPS235P) right?

b0rk_b0rk_b0rk · Jul 4, 2013

If you're going for the 150€ mark, look at some of the 22" and 23" panels. For that budget you'll likely find that a 24" monitor has a poor quality panel, and the colours will look washed out.

Case in point: I have a BenQ 24" 1920x1080 monitor that cost me £120, and it's pretty poor. Colour balance is wonky, blacks look grey, whites have a cream tinge, pretty bad banding, etc. It's my second monitor - I don't use it for gaming or watching movies - so I don't really mind too much. It's usable for what I need. Most of the time it gets a web browser put on it, so I can look stuff up or read my emails whilst I'm doing some dev work / gaming / whatever on my main monitor. My main monitor is a Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP (now sold as the 2408WFP), which is also a 24" panel but at 1920x1200 instead. It cost me £450 about 6 years ago, and they still sell for £350+ second hand. The quality is beyond perfect. Colours are perfect tones, very little banding (though this has started to show in the last year or so), very strong blacks, crisp edges (no bleeding), and no defects or stuck pixels still after all this time. When this one dies I will buy another, even if I have to pay a fortune for a perfect condition 2nd hand one.

So in my experience, going on the really cheap end of monitors is a bad idea. For 120€ you're on the cheapest band of 24", but you're on the cheap-to-mid range of 22". So you may well get a better panel if you go for the smaller screen. I definitely echo what the others have said about resolution, though - 1920x1080 minimum, higher is better.

sam_p_lay · Jul 4, 2013

Big +1 to Borks there on IPS panels. I'd strongly recommend the ASUS ML239H or ML229H (both 1080p).

dingo07 · Jul 4, 2013

@b0rk- have you tried calibrating your displays, or at least use a custom icc profile for the display? I'm sure it can look better - taking it out of the box and turning it on, then changing a couple menu items by eye is not a calibration... It's akin to buying a race car and using $100 street tires

b0rk_b0rk_b0rk · Jul 4, 2013

Yes, I have proper ICC profiles configured and I have calibrated the display. When I got it the colour was much worse - it required both calibration and manual colour adjustment at the driver level to get it to a reasonable state.

grebgonebad · Jul 4, 2013

I personally researched this quite thouroughly when choosing my last monitor, and I found out the the optimal size for a 1920 x 1080 monitor is between 26-32". Any bigger and the pixels will look horrible unless you are sitting at a reasonable distance, any smaller and there wont be any point having a 1080p monitor.

b0rk_b0rk_b0rk · Jul 4, 2013

grebgonebad :

This sounds like poor advice. At 32" the panel will be 27.89" across and 15.69" tall, which at 1080p gives you a pixel size of 0.368mm across by 0.369mm tall - that's almost as bad as a CRT. At such a panel size you really want to be stepping the resolution up to 2560x1440 at minimum, if not 2560x1600.

You're also conflating two wildly different panel sizes together without any concern for viewing distance - a 26" screen has a min/mid OVD of 4ft/6ft, whereas a 32" panel has a min/mid OVD of 5ft/8ft. That's a massive difference, and will seriously impact your viewing experience.

Having personally tried to utilise a 32" 2560x1600 monitor (it was a beast!) at ~4.5ft viewing distance, at one of my old web dev jobs, I can tell you now that it will be hard work on a normal desk. You cannot get the entire panel in your frame of view. It's really nice for work where you can split tasks into 3-4 areas of the screen, which is what I was doing, but you will have to turn your head to focus. If you have to pay attention to all of it at once, you'll want to be sat at least 6-8 feet away. For gaming it's certainly not going to be practical on your average home setup - you'd need to have a very deep desk to be sitting far away enough.

I don't know what research you did, or what information you read, but it's almost certainly lead you to the wrong answer.

grebgonebad · Jul 4, 2013

b0rk_b0rk_b0rk :

To say that is is 'poor advice' is a poor statement. My advice was based soley on my own research and experience. Just because that size doesnt suit yourself, please dont try to make out that this size will not suite anyone. Everyone has thier own oppinions on what is best, and they are all entitled to them, including yourself. But at the end of the day this person has asked for advice, and I gave them some. You, however, have simply tried to argue why my advice is irrelevant.

b0rk_b0rk_b0rk · Jul 4, 2013

grebgonebad :

I don't see why you're being confrontational. I understand that everyone has their own opinion, but you stated that you based your advice upon research - that usually implies that you founded your claims upon empirical evidence, rather than personal tastes. OVD and actual pixel size are empirical measurements that one can take in order to judge the way in which a panel will appear, and there are few mitigating subjective factors for most people. The numbers are an accurate representation of the image quality and viewing experience you will receive, and that's why I provided them.

Please keep in mind that I was not attempting to "call you out", so to speak, but rather correct what I assumed was poor advice given to you. Since you now say you're basing this on personal experience - fair enough. Though I shall also ask you to heed your own advice - please don't assume that what you prefer is what everyone prefers. Subjectivity is exactly why hard figures are useful, and that (again) is why I provided them.

Please also keep in mind that I would not have delivered my alternative advice without a reasonable basis. I've worked with a number of flat-panel display technologies for a number of years (though granted I mainly focus on mobile display technologies, rather than large-panel kit) and felt that my knowledge and experience would be useful to OP. My reply was not intended to primarily benefit you, but rather OP.

dingo07 · Jul 4, 2013

grebgonebad :

It most certainly will suit someone, as everyone's eyes are different and have different acuity. Quite frankly, that size with that resolution (1920x1080) is for people who have very poor eyesight and need to have an icon near 1.25" in size in order to see it. Legally blind, or a visual acuity of 20/400 or worse.

If you have near 20/20 vision, that display will look terrible next to one that's 24" at the same resolution. Why? Like stated by b0rk, you will actually see the pixels on the larger display when sitting a reasonable distance from it while using a computer. How the brain interprets what's seen through the eyes is a marvelous feat, and the smaller the actual pixel in the display, the more life-like the resolution becomes.

dingo07 · Jul 4, 2013

grebgonebad :

what I think you meant to say was - the optimal viewing distance for a 1920x1080 monitor is between 26-32"

that statement would hold truth

sam_p_lay · Jul 4, 2013

dingo07 :

I'm not sure about that. I'd have to be sitting quite a long way from my desk! It's about 40cm for me.

dingo07 · Jul 4, 2013

wow - you sit really close to your screen! well, it's about 55cm for me - and who knows, I was just guessing at what he might've meant to have said

b0rk_b0rk_b0rk · Jul 4, 2013

dingo07 :

26" to 32" are measurements in inches. They were never intended to be distances - they're panel sizes. I'm not sure what you were trying to say.

Update:

Ah, I think I get what you were saying now. Yes, those distances are very close for a large monitor. Are you sure you've measured them correctly? If you sit 40cm away, your face is probably closer to your screen than the length of your forearm. 55cm isn't much further away.

Just to be clear - on your average computer desk, placing the monitor at the back of the desk, and sitting on an average desk chair with your chair back one forearm (elbow to fingertip) length away from the desk edge, puts your face about 1m away from your monitor.

For a 24" monitor the OVD is about 1m (just over 3ft). Much further away and details will start to be missed, whereas any closer and you'll struggle to fit it in your FOV. If you can find a 2560x1600 monitor on a 24" panel, then I'd personally suggest getting closest to the lower end of the OVD range, to appreciate the additional detail and reduce eye-strain on smaller fonts.

Of course, visual impairment alters your OVD somewhat, but if you're wearing corrective lenses that are effective, the OVD need only be reduced by about 10%.

which monitor size?

Honorable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Honorable

Splendid

Honorable

Honorable

Splendid

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Honorable

Share this page