Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which 22" LCD should I get for gaming?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Which 22" LCD?

Total: 19 votes (9 blank votes)

  • Dell UltraSharp 2208WFP
  • 30 %
  • HP w2207
  • 10 %
  • Other (Comment)
  • 60 %
March 15, 2008 7:31:05 PM

I will be buying a 22" monitor for gaming.

More about : lcd gaming

March 15, 2008 8:34:11 PM

anyone?
March 15, 2008 8:42:57 PM

The one with the resolution you'd like and almost no ghosting and is on sale?
Related resources
March 15, 2008 9:44:58 PM

I hear good things about dell monitors... In fact I'm getting the 20" model.
a c 234 U Graphics card
a c 232 4 Gaming
a c 79 C Monitor
March 15, 2008 9:54:47 PM

Lenovo L220x is the only 1920 x 1200 monitor. Probably the only non TN type monitor you will find for under $500....real 24 bit color not faked by dithering like on TN (18 bit) models.

March 15, 2008 9:56:10 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
Lenovo L220x is the only 1920 x 1200 monitor. Probably the only non TN type monitor you will find for under $500....real 24 bit color not faked by dithering like on TN (18 bit) models.

Yea, but that monitor is too small for the res.
a b U Graphics card
March 15, 2008 10:52:29 PM

I think we've had a few of these 22" and 24" monitor questions recently. I would suggest the Samsung 226bw - It has been amazing for me. You can usually find it on sale or with a rebate.
a c 234 U Graphics card
a c 232 4 Gaming
a c 79 C Monitor
March 17, 2008 10:01:08 PM

carman594 said:
Yea, but that monitor is too small for the res.


That doesn't make any sense....I'm typing from a 17" 1920 x 1200.

How can a monitor be "too small for the rez" ? All it means that the picture is more accurate as they jammed more pixels in per inch to produce a higher quality image with less "graininess". There's a reason you don't see many manufacturers jamming more pixels in per inch .... cause it costs more money to produce a better product.

Most printers are 300 x 300 print resolution. So I guess my 600 x 600 printer is too big for 8.5 x 11 paper ???? No, all it means is that the 600 x 600 puts down 4 times as many dots as 300 x 300 on the same square inch of paper producing a more accurate image. Look at two 22" monitors side by side, all things being equal, the one with the higher resolution will have the more accurate image.

1920 x 1200 resolution is available on screen from 15" to 27". At 27" you can easily count the pixels as they are readily visible to the naked eye. As the size gets smaller they get smaller and smaller. In this respect 96 dpi can be considered the functional equivalent of 30 fps. Anything less than 30 fps and most people can see flicker.....anything less than 96 dpi and most people can easily see the individual pixels.

Let's compare how a face is defined on your 24" TN screen which covers 1" x 1" of screen real estate versus a 22" S-PVA model:

24" screen = 94 dots x 94 dots x 6 bits x 3 colors = 159,048 bits
22" screen = 106 x 106 x 8 bits x 3 colors = 269,664 bits

The 22" screen places 70% more data within that 1" x 1" space than the 24". In other words, the accuracy of the 24" will be only 59% of the 22" model.

A computer screen is "in your face" ; it's not hanging on a wall 10 feet away. Walk up to a 60" 1920 x 1200 screen and see how close you can get ...after about 7 feet, the image gets fuzzy and grainy. Now start walking up to smaller and smaller screens and you will note that you can get closer and closer before this occurs. With a computer monitor, we are talking 18" away...most desktop returns are only 18" - 24" deep.

Here's how Displaymate the makers of standard benchmark monitor testing software say about "Dot Pitch"

"The smaller the value the finer and sharper the image can be"

A 22" has a dot itch of 0.240
A 24" has a dot pitch of 0.270

So all that means is that the 22" model will have a finer and sharper image. The finer the dot pitch, the more accurate text appears on screen, the less "jaggies" you see on curbed lines, the more accurate colors are simply because you are squeezing more dots into a smaller space for more sharpness.

Look here for more:

http://www.littlepc.com/faq_lcd_technology.htm#dotpitch

"The dot pitch specification for a display monitor tells you how sharp the displayed image can be. The dot pitch is measured in millimeters (mm) and a smaller number means a sharper image. In desk top monitors, common dot pitches are .31mm, .28mm, .27mm, .26mm, and .25mm. Personal computer users will usually want a .28mm or finer"

As you can see 0.27 isn't bad as it's just under the acceptable limit of 0.28 .... but 0.24 is simply better and comes with a higher quality monitor.
March 17, 2008 10:06:21 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
That doesn't make any sense....I'm typing from a 17" 1920 x 1200.

How can a monitor be "too small for the rez" ? All it means that the picture is more accurate as they jammed more pixels in per inch to produce a higher quality image with less "graininess". There's a reason you don't see many manufacturers jamming more pixels in per inch .... cause it costs more money to produce a better product.

Most printers are 300 x 300 print resolution. So I guess my 600 x 600 printer is too big for 8.5 x 11 paper ???? No, all it means is that the 600 x 600 puts down 4 times as many dots as 300 x 300 on the same square inch of paper producing a more accurate image. Look at two 22" monitors side by side, all things being equal, the one with the higher resolution will have the more accurate image.

1920 x 1200 resolution is available on screen from 15" to 27". At 27" you can easily count the pixels as they are readily visible to the naked eye. As the size gets smaller they get smaller and smaller. In this respect 96 dpi can be considered the functional equivalent of 30 fps. Anything less than 30 fps and most people can see flicker.....anything less than 96 dpi and most people can easily see the individual pixels.

Let's compare how a face is defined on your 24" TN screen which covers 1" x 1" of screen real estate versus a 22" S-PVA model:

24" screen = 94 dots x 94 dots x 6 bits x 3 colors = 159,048 bits
22" screen = 106 x 106 x 8 bits x 3 colors = 269,664 bits

The 22" screen places 70% more data within that 1" x 1" space than the 24". In other words, the accuracy of the 24" will be only 59% of the 22" model.

A computer screen is "in your face" ; it's not hanging on a wall 10 feet away. Walk up to a 60" 1920 x 1200 screen and see how close you can get ...after about 7 feet, the image gets fuzzy and grainy. Now start walking up to smaller and smaller screens and you will note that you can get closer and closer before this occurs. With a computer monitor, we are talking 18" away...most desktop returns are only 18" - 24" deep.

Here's how Displaymate the makers of standard benchmark monitor testing software say about "Dot Pitch"

"The smaller the value the finer and sharper the image can be"

A 22" has a dot itch of 0.240
A 24" has a dot pitch of 0.270

So all that means is that the 22" model will have a finer and sharper image. The finer the dot pitch, the more accurate text appears on screen, the less "jaggies" you see on curbed lines, the more accurate colors are simply because you are squeezing more dots into a smaller space for more sharpness.

Look here for more:

http://www.littlepc.com/faq_lcd_technology.htm#dotpitch

"The dot pitch specification for a display monitor tells you how sharp the displayed image can be. The dot pitch is measured in millimeters (mm) and a smaller number means a sharper image. In desk top monitors, common dot pitches are .31mm, .28mm, .27mm, .26mm, and .25mm. Personal computer users will usually want a .28mm or finer"

As you can see 0.27 isn't bad as it's just under the acceptable limit of 0.28 .... but 0.24 is simply better and comes with a higher quality monitor.

I somewhat agree with you but when I saw the 22" 1920x1200, I had to do alot of squinting.
a c 234 U Graphics card
a c 232 4 Gaming
a c 79 C Monitor
March 17, 2008 10:34:24 PM

carman594 said:
I somewhat agree with you but when I saw the 22" 1920x1200, I had to do alot of squinting.


That's a matter of choosing a correct system font size. Of course that's the basic fault with LCD's as changing resolutions kinda sucks. I wonder when there will be a backlash and peeps start wanting CRT's again :) 
March 18, 2008 4:44:51 AM

Who sells a 17" 1920x1200 LCD monitor? Carman can't use a MacBook for his monitor........Anyway, if you don't have a potential glare problem where your computer is, I love my glossy screen HP W2207, and Samsung also makes a glossy screen 22" LCD. If I were buying again, I would consider a 24" LCD, because they use 8-bit color instead of the 6-bit on 22's. Office Max often sells the 24" Soyo for $280-$300, but it doesn't have HDCP. If you are just gamimg and not watching Blu-Ray, it's a great monitor.
March 18, 2008 5:53:02 AM

All i have to say is that i have an NEC 19" glossy.. and i love it... and i'll buy another glossy in a heartbeat... to me they look better
March 18, 2008 7:59:53 AM

Samsung SM226BW !!!!!!!! Best 22" LCD ever ! (I do not have one :(  )
March 18, 2008 12:13:30 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
That's a matter of choosing a correct system font size. Of course that's the basic fault with LCD's as changing resolutions kinda sucks. I wonder when there will be a backlash and peeps start wanting CRT's again :) 


You're a year or two late the backlash has already began :lol:  , unfortunately stocks are scarse and units are detiorating all the time :( . Its a shame because despite the bulky cabinet and the less slick appearance, the image quality and scaleability of a high end CRT is a real dream for gamers...

Its hard to find really good CRT's these days, you are near enough always picking up second hand units of varying quality. Ideally you want something along the lines of 2048x1536@80+hz, 21" trinitron type tube, 0.20 dot pitch and of course brand new not 6 years old and on its last legs :( . Its hard to find these monitors out there :( 
a c 234 U Graphics card
a c 232 4 Gaming
a c 79 C Monitor
March 18, 2008 1:01:50 PM

coolvoodoo said:
Who sells a 17" 1920x1200 LCD monitor?


Most laptop vendors offer 17" models with 1920 x 1200 screens. I'd say that every laptop "maker" does make one; as just about every "brand" name model you are familiar with is made by one of about 4 OEM's. Here's a SLI (twin 8800 GTX) model w/ X6800, 3 HD's in RAID 5, model w/ 17" 1920 x 1200 for example.

http://www.pro-star.com/index.cfm?mainpage=productdetai...
!