Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ideal monitor size for Gaming?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 13, 2008 9:02:59 AM

I just wanted some Imput on what size monitor to purchase with my soon to be new rig. I will be waiting to see what kind of performance the new Gen GPU will offer before I buy my GPU. Just know it will be top of the line GPU for sure.

Thanks,

DeepSeaDoc
June 13, 2008 9:49:50 AM

Thats entirely down to what you look for in a monitor.

For image quality the 20" widescreens offer the sharpest imges of the common lcd panels they have the best pixel pitch.

other than that it comes down to what size you feel the need for, and brand will have a big impact on quality of image.
June 13, 2008 10:05:32 AM

DeepSeaDoc said:
I just wanted some Imput on what size monitor to purchase with my soon to be new rig. I will be waiting to see what kind of performance the new Gen GPU will offer before I buy my GPU. Just know it will be top of the line GPU for sure.

Thanks,

DeepSeaDoc

Depends on your budget and taste
For me 19" with 1280X1024 resolution is enough and can play any game maxed
Better than having 1200X1600 and get graphic card strugling to perform
Related resources
June 13, 2008 2:55:39 PM

For me, I not into going too big on monitor size. For one, I am sitting just a couple feet away (if that) from the monitor anyhow. Thus, I find that my 20" Samsung 204b non-WS LCD is perfect for games I rather play at 4:3. Then for widescreen I'm lovin' my LG 22". Also, as far as size, I find that my 20" non WS can seem just as large as my 22" WS, maybe due to the top to bottom size being notably larger still.

Anyhow, with my 20", I insisted that I got a 1600x1200 res, which the 204b does offer.
Then my 22" actually offers a slightly lower pixel count (but really not notable) at 1680x1050.
So if you work on a more typical desk like I do, I think 20" or 22" WS is just perfect if you can get that 16x12 or 16x10 res.
In fact, as you've heard, some are even happy in the 1280x range. And if your hardware isn't the best, having this lower res might allow you some more room to tack on some extra AA. However, if you do get something in the 1280x range, the monitor will very likely be 20" or less. But I wouldn't even consider a good 19" small, it can do you right. Again, depends on your tastes.

However, if you are a truly dedicated gamer, have the space, sit further away from the screen than just a few feet, and have the hardware to push it, then going higher yet with res can be a great, but definitely expensive option.

If you have decent hardware and a pretty modern card, you should have very little problem pushing 16x12 or 16x10. Even on a game like Crysis, although you may have to forget about AA.
But if you have like an 8800 card with 512mb or more of vid RAM, & a nice size memory bandwidth like the GTX & Ultra's have, then adding some AA becomes much easier, in general.

But since you said you will be getting one of these upcoming beasts from ATI or nvidia, then pushing 16x12 or 16x10 should be no problem, even on Crysis you should be able to really get things maxed out with AA and such. So...in this case, having such a nice card, I guess all I would say is just don't get a monitor with a res below 16x10 or 16x12 because these upcoming cards will laugh at 1280x and you may not get the most out of your card. But again, if you do want to go 1280x (below 20"), you can just add loads of AA no problem, which will make things look great.

I think that with LCD monitors, what it all comes down to is that (if you are on a bit of a budget) is that you want to get a monitor that has a good native res, not too high a res that some games will have trouble, and not too low to where you don't get the most out of your card.
Why? Because with LCD's, I hate scaling, as I'm sure most do (you don't want to have to scale down to improve performance if your native res is just too much for your card to handle). LCD's of course don't scale perfectly like CRT's did. With how close I sit, I find something in the 16x12 or 16x10 range to be about perfect, but not overkill. So I got monitors that natively do just that.

I think that range is a good mix of a high resolution, but still leaves some headroom (to where resolution alone isn't sucking up all my memory) to add AA, sometimes loads of it, to really get some awesome looking games.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b 4 Gaming
June 13, 2008 3:07:10 PM

22" at 1680x1050. alot of these monitors are better picture quality wise then most 24" screens. Plus at the price you pay for a good 24" you could just about get 2 22" screens and have more screen space overall.

Alot of the games are going wide screen. and even 1920x1200 isn't too hard on next gen graphics. I have a single 8800gt and i can run every game i have on it's highest settings at 1920x1200 with the exception of crysis.

Multi mon can be fun if you play more laid back games like wow, mass effect. I love to have windows media center open and watch tv while i play mass effect.
June 13, 2008 3:22:30 PM

My vote goes to dual monitors.

Why get a single 30" monitor for $1000+ when you can get two decent 24" panels for ~$700-800?
June 13, 2008 3:26:21 PM

I'd consider how often you are willing to upgrade your graphics card and how concerned you are with playing the new cutting edge games with eye candy. Back in the old CRT days your monitor lasted forever, since you could simply turn the resolution down and play new games on an aging card. LCDs are not forgiving at all in that respect.

You're buying a high end card and things will look awesome on a huge monitor for a while, but unless you plan to keep the rest of your hardware high end running on a regular upgrade schedule then a monitor with some extreme native resolution will quickly outpace your rig.

My personal opinion is that around the 22" 1680x1050 range is the sweet spot if you keep reasonably mid to high end equipment, but don't upgrade every 6 months. The monitor is pretty big, and the resolution is enough to look very good. They are reasonably cheap in the $300 ish range and your brand new video card won't be maxed out in 3 months. So you'll still be able to turn on things like AA and high end shadows in future titles.
a c 259 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b 4 Gaming
June 13, 2008 3:42:28 PM

If you have the budget, look at a 30" monitor at 2560x1600. A high end vga card will be obsoleted in a year or two, but a good monitor will last a long time. It would be best to see for yourself a demo of what the difference is between 1920x1200 and 2540x1600.
June 13, 2008 3:46:33 PM

I agree with clay, it all depends on your current setup, and future upgrades as well as budget. Overall I'd say 19/20/22" at 1680x1050. I intend to get the Viewsonic X-Series 19" WS for my next monitor. Although I love the 1920x1080 resolution of my HDTV with HTPC (Panasonic 42" plasma, Celeron 420, Geforce 7100, 4GB), so if money/space is no concern, I'd go for a 24-28" @ 1920x1200.
June 13, 2008 3:48:47 PM

I personally think 24 is the optimal size. I have seen a 30 up close and it is to large unless you are sitting a distance away. Also it depends alot on the video card because it takes alot to run a 24 inch monitor at its native resolution.
a c 358 U Graphics card
a c 195 C Monitor
a b 4 Gaming
June 13, 2008 4:06:12 PM

PsyKhiqZero said:
22" at 1680x1050. alot of these monitors are better picture quality wise then most 24" screens. Plus at the price you pay for a good 24" you could just about get 2 22" screens and have more screen space overall.



Actually nearly all 22" monitors are built around the crappy TN Panel technology which inherently have poor color and image quality with regards to more advanced and expensive LCD panel technology. The only 22" LCD monitors that do not use TN panel technology is the Lenovo ThinkVision L220x ($450 - $500) and Eizo's 22" LCD monitor series (starting price ~ $650 to ~$5,000 depending on the monitor).

For the most part 22" monitors are good if you don't care about accurate colors and sharp text. Text on TN panel monitor tends to be less sharp than other panel tech based on my experience.

Never played games on a TN panel 'cause the only TN panel I've used are the ones at work. At home my LCDs uses S-PVA and H-IPS panels.

The "perfect size" LCD depends on:
1. Desk space.
2. Your GPU. Higher resolution requires more power. Otherwise you will have to play at less than native resolution.
3. Price. Generally the larger the display, the more it will cost.

For 1680 x 1050 resolution, I would recommend at least an nVidia 9600GT, a 8800GT would be even better. Sorry I haven't been keeping up with ATI so I don't really know what's comparable.

It also depends on the game, as mentioned before Crysis will bring even the most powerful GPU to it's knees at native resolution.
June 13, 2008 4:26:19 PM

I have to agree with everyone else about the distance and desk space. I have a 19" and I wouldn't want anything larger for gaming. However, I would love to have two lcd's and be able to have two things up on two seperate screens. Consider it if you have the desk space.

I have a 9600gt and it runs everything very well and oc's quite decently too! It works fine for my 1280x1024 res.

So, for a graphics card, I would consider either an 8800gt 512mb, GTS 512, 9600gt, or even the 8800gtx or 9800gtx. It depends on what you can afford.
June 13, 2008 4:27:29 PM

My 22" Hanns-G at 1680 x 1050 was only $200, and I love it. I dont know what the above poster is talking about, really. The colors are as accurate as they are going to get and the text is just fine. Dont know what kind of propaganda that is...
June 13, 2008 4:29:32 PM

fwiw, my samsung 245bw scales from 1920 -> 1280x720 quite well

in fact most of the 24s will scale nicely to either 1280x720 or 800 since its a easy 3:2 scaling, so you can play crysis .
June 13, 2008 4:43:01 PM

Grab some huge unused CRT (19'' +) from wherever work (if your in an office there are always some of these somewhere). Excellent image quality and it will keep up with your gpu.
a c 191 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b 4 Gaming
June 13, 2008 4:53:38 PM

I agree with Clay. 1680x1050 looks pretty nice. Also consider how good your eyes are (focus, depth of field, and ease of following movement), and your distance from the monitor. I'm using a 22" LCD now at that resolution, and I am entirely satisfied with how Guild Wars looks. I can forsee getting an additional monitor (probably a smaller one) long before I'd get a bigger one.
June 13, 2008 5:01:13 PM

24" at 1920x1200 or greater!!!
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b 4 Gaming
June 14, 2008 6:12:48 AM

could be wrong but i could swear that tn panels are faster. I'm not to keen on differences between panel types. I run a 24" gateway monitor and a 21" gateway. comparing the two side by side i can say that while the colors on my 24 are brighter and more vibrant they at times can feel overexposed. especially the high contrast ratio tends to wash out all the blacks.

Really it's all what you see and I can tell you that at the 300 dollar price point i've seen some awesome quality 22.
June 14, 2008 7:08:20 AM

So from all the advise and opinions on Monitor size it seem it is down to a
24" @ 1920x1200 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... cost is $439
vs.
22" @ 1680x1050 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... cost is $319
vs.
20" @ 1680x1050 www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E1682... cost is $229

Keep in mind, this is for a new system that will have either the new ATI 4870 or Nvidia GTS280. So it will have a very nice GPU so I want to make sure I take advantage of its powers with a monitor that does it justice if you know what I mean. My budget for a Monitor is $500 or less. It seem that most people are saying either 24" or 22". Oh and yes I have a fare amount of desk top space and sit approx 2-3 feet away from were the monitor will be sitting.

My last question is the importance of HDMI imput/connections? Will that change my gaming exsperiance at all having that option on the monitor or is it purely for PS3/blueray movies etc etc?

Thanks for all your help! :bounce: 

DeepSea :hello: 
June 14, 2008 1:10:22 PM

DeepSeaDoc said:
So from all the advise and opinions on Monitor size it seem it is down to a
24" @ 1920x1200 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... cost is $439
vs.
22" @ 1680x1050 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... cost is $319
vs.
20" @ 1680x1050 www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E1682... cost is $229

Quote:
Keep in mind, this is for a new system that will have either the new ATI 4870 or Nvidia GTS280.
So it will have a very nice GPU so I want to make sure I take advantage of its powers with a monitor that does it justice if you know what I mean. My budget for a Monitor is $500 or less. It seem that most people are saying either 24" or 22". Oh and yes I have a fare amount of desk top space and sit approx 2-3 feet away from were the monitor will be sitting.

Quote:
My last question is the importance of HDMI imput/connections? Will that change my gaming exsperiance at all having that option on the monitor or is it purely for PS3/blueray movies etc etc?


Thanks for all your help! :bounce: 

DeepSea :hello: 

I will take that as a 'money is no object' since the GTX280 is rumored to be as expensive as the 8800GTX when it first came out. In that case, the 24" (or larger) for sure (a 26-28" will have a larger dit pitch for easier reading of text from distances).

HDMI is moot unless you have a use for it (console, BD player, etc). It will in no way 'improve' the experience.
June 14, 2008 2:11:02 PM

angry_ducky said:
My vote goes to dual monitors.

Why get a single 30" monitor for $1000+ when you can get two decent 24" panels for ~$700-800?



That is exactly what I was thinking. When I build my new rig in a couple weeks I am going dual 24" for sure, it is gonna be great.
June 14, 2008 2:14:30 PM

Fofo said:
That is exactly what I was thinking. When I build my new rig in a couple weeks I am going dual 24" for sure, it is gonna be great.



How does dual monitor work for gaming? Doesn't it only occupy one at a time? :p 

Might as well save the second $350 for a graphics card upgrade down the line.
a c 259 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b 4 Gaming
June 14, 2008 6:34:30 PM

Most games will only use the primary monitor. A second(perhaps smaller) one is useful to hold other stuff like e-mail, or monitor programs. With a single large monitor at 2560x1600, you will see a lot more real estate in the game. This is very nice with strategy games like civ-4.
June 14, 2008 7:02:00 PM

gadgetnerd said:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

this ftw bigger you go the more your eyes get strained :) 

It's funny they'd call 5ms "ultra-fast" and 700:1 crisp. Well, actually they are quite good, we've just seen too many high specs and have inflated expectations. Good price.
!