Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

22" vs 24" resolutions for gaming?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 26, 2008 8:29:09 AM

First, I realize this isn't so much about a graphics card... however... this is the closest forum category I could find for monitors since is says "displays". Anyways, sorry if I posted it in the wrong place. :/ 

Well, I am about to build my new PC and I am thinking of finally getting a widescreen display. My only question now is, should I get a 22" or a 24"? To me, its mostly about performance. I do a lot of graphics editing and modeling/lighting, but for entertainment I play a lot of games. I really lean more towards games then graphics editing simply because I have my work computer for that and when I render I use a CRT for better quality lighting anyways. The game I know I am going to be playing for at least the next 2 years will be Age of Conan. For those of you who don't know about this game, it's an MMORPG with superior graphics and immense view distances (DirectX 10, by far the best physically looking MMORPG out to date). So here in lies my problem. Do you guys think that I should get a 22" just so that I don't have to run at a native resolution of 1980x1200. Will it make that big of a difference do you think? One thing I wish is that I could run at a resolution without the monitor stretching the image :( , I would get a 24" and then just run at a lower resolution if needed.

Here are the specs of my system so you can guage the resolution dif:
  • EVGA GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB OC- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130325
  • 8GB G.SKILL DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231122
  • GIGABYTE LGA 775 Intel P35 ATX All Solid Capacitor Intel Motherboard - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128059
  • Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

    Thanks in advance for any help on this topic.
  • More about : resolutions gaming

    March 26, 2008 9:11:07 AM

    Your config shall do justice to 24". Not that there will be noticeable difference for 16*10 res between 22" and 24" but you can always enjoy the 19*12 whenever you can and in near future with your gfx upgrade.
    March 26, 2008 9:34:02 AM

    A 20" monitor will give a better image than a similiar specced 22" monitor due to the smaller sized pixels reducing the need for AA and giving a sharper appearance to the image.

    A 24" screen will often fall in between a 22" and 20" monitor for pixel pitch, but give extra screen acreage. The bigger screens arent about improving image quality they are just "bigger" you can fit more on the screen. higher "resolution" numbers meaning higher image quality is largelly confined to CRT's.

    If age of conan is anything like lotro which is a graphics rich dx10 mmorpg then the difference in frame rates between 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 is substantial particularly when running AA. A quick rough calculation says that the 24" lcd screen is forcing the GPU to process about 24% more pixels remember these pixels are BIGGER than the ones on the 20" screen...

    Bigger pixels means a less "sharp" image and more noticeable jaggies and higher levels of AA required to offset this.

    I would guess based on how lotro runs that age of conan with a single 8800GTS card you would be struggling to hit more than 20fps with all the eye candy on with the 24" screen!
    Related resources
    March 26, 2008 12:27:39 PM

    I don't understand why everyone says that the sharpness is worse for larger screens... My math must be wrong; someone want to explain it to me? :lol: 

    24" at 1920x1200 = 2264 virtual diagonal pixels = 94.3 ppi
    22" at 1680x1050 = 1981 virtual diagonal pixels = 90.0 ppi
    19" at 1440x900 = 1698 virtual diagonal pixels = 89.4 ppi
    19" at 1280x1024 = 1639 virtual diagonal pixels = 86.3 ppi

    Based on raw pixel amounts and measurements it would seem like 24" is the sharpest, but does the pixel pitch counteract that? I would have thought that pixel pitch wouldn't affect the need for antialiasing, but does it?
    a b U Graphics card
    March 26, 2008 12:34:50 PM

    You have to take into account the area of the scrren, not just the diag.
    March 26, 2008 12:42:19 PM

    24" = 259 square inches and 2304000 pixels, or 8895 pixels per square inch
    and
    22" = 219 square inches and 1764000 pixels, or 8055 pixels per square inch.
    a b U Graphics card
    March 26, 2008 12:49:10 PM

    How do you come up with the 22" number?
    March 26, 2008 12:54:59 PM

    22" times cos 32 (the angle of the diagonal you get with an aspect ratio of 16 by 10) is 18.7 and
    22" times sin 32 = 11.7.
    11.7 times 18.7 = 219

    1680 times 1050 is 1764000
    a b U Graphics card
    March 26, 2008 1:10:58 PM

    Hmmm...
    March 26, 2008 1:12:49 PM

    And that's what has me confused, lol.
    a b U Graphics card
    March 26, 2008 1:20:10 PM

    It must be the pitch makes up the difference in the spacing between the pixels. Im not so sure theyre saying its worse for larger screens as most say you need less AA with a larger screen.
    March 26, 2008 1:38:02 PM

    get a 24" monitor with 1:1 scaling or just use nvidia's scaling for 1:1. i have a 22" and play most games at native, but a few old ones that don't support ws, like doom3, bf2, etc, i have my monitor set to 1:1 so i play those games at 1280x1024 instead of 1680x1050. instead of the ugly stretching, there are black bars on top and bottom. there is no pixel streching. this way, if a game on the future is too demanding to play at native, you can lower the resolution and play with either black bars (1:1 scaling) or let monitor scale it to full screen. for crysis demo, i play at 1400x900 (16:10) but i let monitor scale it to full monitor size so no black bars. i think it looks great. what i don't like is the 4:3 image being stretched to a 16:10 or 16:9 screen. for that i use 1:1 scaling.
    March 26, 2008 1:49:13 PM

    For gaming color accuracy isn't that much of an issue but for your other work TN panel are rather weak. Almost all 22" are TN (gaming) LCD's just so you know.

    I just ordered a 28” this week from newegg for gaming Hanns-G. You can get a good 22” for low $200’s or a good 24” for $400 or the 28” for $550. The 24” and 28” both share the 1900x1200 res anything more than that and you will need an extreme graphics (sli or crossfire) solution. In FPS games bigger is better in mmo not as much AoC looks to be a Hybrid mmo. At the 22” size your gpu will fly and 24” or 28” it will be average. I couldn’t justify a 24” monitor because of cost at that size and resolved that I could run the games in window mode if performance became an issue at 1900x1200 with 28”

    I wouldn’t focus too much on dot pitch as you should be moving the monitor a little further away from your face which is like no cost AA.


    March 26, 2008 1:51:08 PM

    Your maths isnt far out 24" does indeed beat 22" for image sharpness but youve not done 20" 1680x1050 which beats them both Its not a linear progession of the bigger display the less sharp the image :D  But the sharpest of the commonly available lcd widescreens is the 20" model.

    Some people make this a selling point and sell 22" monitors for "ease of reading". Seems to be the case that at most "resolutions" there are two screen sizes the smaller screen size will have the sharper image for the same resolution. The manufacturers pixel pitch figures will give you a good guide to sharpness.

    Someones done a chart here that I couldnt vouch for the accuracy of, but supports the manufacturers specs for the monitors of 20" having the smallest pixels followed by 24" followed by 22" Numbers look similiar to your own.

    http://directedge.us/node/36
    March 26, 2008 2:05:19 PM

    Ahhhh thanks dtq. That makes sense.

    My next monitor will probably be 24" so that it can double as a 1080p HDTV in college, assuming it doesn't totally annihilate my desk space, lol.
    March 26, 2008 2:47:00 PM

    I vote 24". Reason being if you decide to get a blu-ray player or wish to use it as a TV/console monitor, you can get the full 1080p effect. And honestly since your already spending the bucks, why not go a little further and get the extra features with the 24". I personally got the Westinghouse E2140NM and its awesome. Also your system is speced better than mine since I'm only running a 8800GT and E2160 OC to 3Ghz(Your going to OC the Q6600 right?)
    March 26, 2008 3:50:05 PM

    MayDay94 said:
    get a 24" monitor with 1:1 scaling or just use nvidia's scaling for 1:1. i have a 22" and play most games at native, but a few old ones that don't support ws, like doom3, bf2, etc, i have my monitor set to 1:1 so i play those games at 1280x1024 instead of 1680x1050. instead of the ugly stretching, there are black bars on top and bottom. there is no pixel streching. this way, if a game on the future is too demanding to play at native, you can lower the resolution and play with either black bars (1:1 scaling) or let monitor scale it to full screen. for crysis demo, i play at 1400x900 (16:10) but i let monitor scale it to full monitor size so no black bars. i think it looks great. what i don't like is the 4:3 image being stretched to a 16:10 or 16:9 screen. for that i use 1:1 scaling.



    See, now this is what I want. But I can't ever find on the specification if a monitor is 1:1 PR. However, if you can do it with your graphics card... See, I knew it had to be possible, on my laptop its super easy, there is a tab just for it, but I can never find it on my nvidia desktop cards. So, I guess I will get a 24" if that is possible (because that is exactly what I want). Does anyone have any recommendations on 24" monitors (if possible that have good 1:1 ratio), besides Dell... already know that the Dell Ultrasharp 24"'s are great, but expensive, we have them at all of our PCs at my college. Anyone have a recommendation of around $400-$500?

    Was looking at these:

  • BenQ G2400W Black 24" 5ms DVI HDMI - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014158
  • SAMSUNG 245BW Black 24" 5ms - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001234
  • SAMSUNG 2493HM Glossy Black 24" 5ms DVI HDMI - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001263
  • Your recommendations :) 


    @bildo123

    I doubt I will OC my Q6600. Why? Simply because I have never really OCed anything before. If I had someone at my house or a really great tutorial I might, but probably not. I realize that now, there is very little risk involved if you don't go overboard and you know what your doing, but I don't lol. I really don't want to screw up an expensive piece of equipment... I doubt I would see a huge difference anyways.
    March 26, 2008 4:36:31 PM

    ausch30 said:
    All three of those models use TN panels which are not ideal for photo editing.

    Read this http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000991.html


    I know this, and it doesn't really bother me. That is what my college, work, and CRT monitors are for. I want this one for gaming and basic use. The only thing I am worried about is how TN viewing angles and color distortion will look on a 24". I don't want the corners changing color on me lol.
    Anonymous
    a b U Graphics card
    March 26, 2008 4:42:34 PM

    are you kidding? if a resolution of 1280 by 1024 in say crysis in dx10 gets 30 fps... and then you up the resolution to 1920 by 1200, which has about 70 % more pixels, the fps doesn't drop 70% atmost it will drop is about 30 - 50% usually about 30%. At higher resolutions its more gpu oriented than processor oriented buy for age of conan, in dx10 a 24 inch screen is a no brainer... should work wonderfully. Not only can my single 8800 gts 640 run crysis on very high at 1920 by 1200 at 30 fps... but a better version 8800 gts 512 could run age of conan at the same res at a much better fps rate
    March 26, 2008 5:04:54 PM

    TMLewiss said:

    @bildo123

    I doubt I would see a huge difference anyways.


    :pt1cable:  But you just said "To me, its mostly about performance."!

    You know you have the capability of a massive cpu power gain, I would shoot for the stars and start reading the guides in the OC forums. Even OC it to a simple 3Ghz will give your games a very nice boost. And if you go hardcore you can shoot for 3.6, but even just the little OC to 3Ghz~3.4Ghz will give your a nice performance boost not just in games but windows apps as well.


    ppsssst all the cool kids are doing it, don't ya wanna be.....cool :sol: 

    JK on the last part.
    March 26, 2008 6:17:55 PM

    bildo123 said:
    :pt1cable:  But you just said "To me, its mostly about performance."!

    You know you have the capability of a massive cpu power gain, I would shoot for the stars and start reading the guides in the OC forums. Even OC it to a simple 3Ghz will give your games a very nice boost. And if you go hardcore you can shoot for 3.6, but even just the little OC to 3Ghz~3.4Ghz will give your a nice performance boost not just in games but windows apps as well.


    ppsssst all the cool kids are doing it, don't ya wanna be.....cool :sol: 

    JK on the last part.



    I will look into it then :) . I can always experiment on my old PCs first :) .

    About the monitors however, anyone have any suggestions for around $400. I really do like glossy for games, I would really like to have 1:1 ratio (can someone confirm that is it possible to do this with your gcard on any monitor and have it just size in the center and create black lines?). I have been going out to places and I have to say, it is very hard to pick out a monitor lol.
    March 26, 2008 9:02:51 PM

    Well I have pretty much decided on:

  • BenQ G2400W Black 24" 5ms DVI HDMI - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014158

    It has good reviews, lots of inputs, 1:1 PR, looks nice and has a good warranty. The ONLY flaw I could find is that it is a TN Panel, and thats not that big of a deal to me (at home anyways).

    LAST QUESTION!!! lol

    What website has the best policy on monitors. I know NewEgg is ok... but has an 8 dead pixel requirement at least. Anyone know of any site lower? I have 1 dead pixel on my laptop screen and I swear it makes me want to take a razer blade and just cut it out!!. I tried to find it locally, but it seems that BenQ doesn't do much retail selling :) .
    March 27, 2008 2:05:19 PM

    that monitor looks great - i am jealous! good luck with and i'm sure you will love it. i checked my pc last night and my 7 series nvidia control panel does have option to allow for monitor's built-in scaling or use nvidia;s which has 1:1 option as well. i use my monitor's but option should be there so see which looks better to you.

    i bought my first lcd from newegg (a 17" viewsonic) and then my 22" gateway directly from gateway. luckily i had no dead pixels on either. newegg is great on returns for other things (sent several cpu/mb combos back with no problems).
    March 27, 2008 2:06:17 PM

    TMLewiss said:
    Well I have pretty much decided on:

  • BenQ G2400W Black 24" 5ms DVI HDMI - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014158

    It has good reviews, lots of inputs, 1:1 PR, looks nice and has a good warranty. The ONLY flaw I could find is that it is a TN Panel, and thats not that big of a deal to me (at home anyways).

    LAST QUESTION!!! lol

    What website has the best policy on monitors. I know NewEgg is ok... but has an 8 dead pixel requirement at least. Anyone know of any site lower? I have 1 dead pixel on my laptop screen and I swear it makes me want to take a razer blade and just cut it out!!. I tried to find it locally, but it seems that BenQ doesn't do much retail selling :) .


  • BestBuy local has a good return policy, but for pretty much any online retailer their very rough on LCD returns. Unless you mastered the art of creating dead pixels, getting a return on your monitor will be difficult even with say 4 dead pixels.
    !