Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Does size really matter? For monitors I mean!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 11, 2008 3:15:06 PM

Been suing a 24" Dell LCD at work, and now need to buy a monitor for home. So loking at 22-24. The size difference is not too much but there are other issues at work. The three biggest as I see them are pixel pitch, max resolution, and response times. What I don't know is how to compare these together.

For example a 24" has a max of 1920x1200 (which is the res I use at work) and 22" has a 1680x1050. So a little difference. But I have read that it really runs at this and just strectehs/compreses other resolutions I might use to fit. So in theory keeping the same aspect ratio would be imperitive to prevent major distortion. Problem is my rig is good but probably can't play games at the full resolution, so maybe the smaller native resolution would be good.

But how does pixel pitch and response times really affect use? I use mys system for desktop apps and games mostly. I guess at this point i an trying to figure out if the extra $ for a 24" is really worth it, other then the size part which is purely subjective. Any thoughts on the techncial aspects before I look into specific models?



More about : size matter monitors

January 11, 2008 3:23:53 PM

This should be on the monitors forum.

The biggest difference between 24" and 22" that is not so obvious is that nearly all 22" monitors use a TN panel, while almost all 24" monitors use a superior panel type. TN panels suffer from poor viewing angles and less accurate colors (can't remember other problems though they may exist).

These problems really don't matter if you intend to sit straight in front of your monitor and use most applications and/or play games. However, if you wanted to sit on a couch or chair farther away and watch a movie or do photo editing, the problems become more significant.

As I said, the monitor forum will give you more info.
January 11, 2008 3:52:42 PM

Thanks for the info. Did not see the monitor's forum, but I do now, hidden in periphiels. Admins can you please move this over there?

On the issue. I plan on sitting mostly in front of it but the wife and I do watch some movies/shows on it from time to time as well as picture editing. So maybe 24" is worth the money for the viewing angle and colors.
Related resources
January 11, 2008 3:57:07 PM

More and more 24" monitors are switching to TN, there are only a few models left that are S-IPS/S-PVA.

What connection types are important to you? This is a major consideration to many people.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2008 4:16:46 PM

If price isn't a huge concern I'd get a 24 over 22 for sure. But get a good quality 24. The 22's run at the same default rez as the 20s. Same number of pixels on a bigger screen=bigger pixels. Not a huge issue. But when you add up the advantages previously mentioned the 24 is the way to go, IMHO.

Since you watch some movies and TV on it a 24 makes even more sense. Just be sure to get a 24 that is designed to be used for this purpose which will have the needed inputs - component, HDMI etc. A 24 will also play true 1080p content.

Yes, to run games at 1920 x 1200 does take more video card but the 8800 GT is cheap enough and more than adequate to run almost anything at that rez. Crysis perhaps excepted, depending on quality settings. Of course, this could change in the future but if you have to set the res down a notch or two that doesn't look so bad really, though there will be some distortion due to the scaling. I do it for Crysis but it still looks great to me.

At this point any of the nice quality newer 24" LCDs should have adequate response time to avoid ghosting. Some may disagree.
January 11, 2008 4:30:16 PM

As notherdude alluded to, you can expect to pay a lot more for a good 24" panel over a good 22" panel. Maybe twice as much ($600+). So that's up to you. If it's just two people sitting in front of a desk, not that far away, I don't think viewing angle is a problem. If you're using this as a TV replacement, then that's a different story. Personally I would save the money and invest in a better graphics card. 22" is plenty good!
January 11, 2008 5:14:57 PM

http://www.tvcalculator.com/


Yes size really matters.

TVCalculator lets you compare monitor screen sizes, resolutions and ratios. 24" stepping down to 22" may not seem like much, but there is a noticeable size shift.



PS: Dell 2407 WFP-HC is the monitor sitting in front of me.
January 11, 2008 5:21:25 PM

Ok sounds liek24" is the way to go. Been thinking about the Samsung 245bw (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...). Seems to be a good balance between price and performance.

As for features, I don't have attached to cable so only need DVI for computer hookup, don't need and fancy speakers, USB hubs, or iPod docks. Just a monitor. Looks like I can spenf $150 more for a BenQ or Gatewya that is supposedly a little better but not sure I want to spend $600 for a monitor.

Thanks for that link SteavieD that is nice little tool.... of course it made me want a 30" screen. Ha!
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2008 5:50:14 PM

I use a 24in panel also. You can pick up 2407s which use the nicer panel for about $500 on the bay. I don't know I can tell the differnce between the TN and the nice panel though. I've seen the TN screens as low as ~300 bucks for acer and $400 for samsung. Dell has a TN screen for $499 I think also.

I think that if you're going to use it for gaming, you need to be running a powerful card like 8800GT/GTX or higher. If not, stick with 22 so you can use native res. For me, I use the higher res for my work so it makes more sense to have a 24. I invested in a 8800GTX so I could game with it also.
January 11, 2008 6:26:49 PM

I see the Sanmsun 245bw for $450 which seems like a good deal. As for gaming, my vid card is a Radeon x1900 GT, not exactly top of the line, but runs most games fine. Had to tone down Crysis when I played the demo, but then again I expect that game to tax even next year's line of cards.

I'll probably go with the Samsung but if I can find the dell for a little less I may go with that. I actually have a Dell 24" from 2006 at my desk at work, so far its pretty good.
January 11, 2008 7:59:31 PM

prodystopian said:
This should be on the monitors forum.
.


Why? So nobody will read it? That place is dead (or pretty close to it) at all times. Besides the parent to this forums section is actually called "Graphics and displays", maybe I am misinterpreting it, but I think that "displays" means Monitors right?

A LOT of people are looking at widescreens these days, as they are extremely hot products and getting very cheap. As I found a few months back, that there is soo little good information on them, scattered amongst dozens of confusing terms the amature will not be familiar with!
22" or 20" or 24"? What resolutions, what contrast ratios, what screen type, ect?

I am very happy with my dirt cheap 22" Chimie CMV 221D (was about $210 when I got it with rebate). Yes the viewing angle is poor if you don't sight right if front of it, and there is a little backlight bleeding at the edges, but not enough to bother me, and it is vastly superior to my old 21" CRT monitor, and I'll never go back to it! Games are freaking awesome on these widescreens I just love them! The wider field of view and richer colors (IMO) make the games much more immersive.

I recommend a 24" (I think you can get some good samsung models around $300) but if all you can get is a 22", you'll still probably be pretty happy with it ;) 
!