Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1080 vs. 1200 Resolution for 24" Monitors???

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 16, 2008 4:50:37 AM

What's the scoop here with the latest breed of 1080 resolution 24" monitors. Some of them are already priced lower than the 1200 resolution ones. Are they better, worse, subjective?

The obvious benefit is native 1080p resolution for watching movies (the screen is full 16:9, as opposed to 16:10 for 1200 resolution).

I hope to get one and use it primarily for gaming. Is one harder to "drive" than the other (e.g., 1050 resolution may only need an ATI 4850, whereas a 1200 monitor would need a 4870--so is 1080 in between, or really functionally equivalent to the 1200)?

Does anyone have any experience to compare the two resolutions?

Thanks for your help!
December 16, 2008 4:58:33 AM

1920x1080 would be "harder" to drive than 1680x1050 since the total resolution is higher

but 1920x1200 would be harder on a gfx card than 1920x1080

the only thing "bad" about the 24" 1080p screens is that you dont get as much desktop space vertically but since you are mostly going to play games and watch movies, its not that big a deal
December 16, 2008 4:59:45 AM

the higher the pixel density the crisper the picture will look but text will look smaller. and yes it would take more gpu processing power to drive the 1200.
Related resources
a b C Monitor
December 16, 2008 5:00:46 AM

Niether place a real significant load on the cpu compared to the other. But technically 1200 would be harder, more pixels. If you do anything other then gaming on you monitor height is very important as well. Personally I would still prefer a 16:10.

If you don't mind black bars. You can run 1080p on a 1200p monitor.
a b C Monitor
December 16, 2008 5:08:59 AM

Total number of pixels is a pretty good indicator

1920 x 1200 = 2304000 total pixels

1920 x 1080 = 2073600 total pixels

For any given gfx card the 1080 should run about 11% faster frame rates . The wide aspect is also probably a bit more natural field of view because your peripheral vision is even better .

But can many games and driver combos output at 1080p?

December 16, 2008 5:23:02 AM

yeah its like those 22" running at 1920x1080.... i mean how small would the desktop have to be lol!
a c 195 C Monitor
December 16, 2008 5:32:26 AM

First, all 1920 x 1080 LCD monitors uses TN panels which is why they are so inexpensive. The same can be said for for any 24" LCD monitor that costs less than $550 (when not on sale). They are inexpensive because they have 120 less rows than the typical 24" LCD monitor. TN panels have poor viewing angles and color accuracy should be "good enough" for the average user. I would expect there will be some backlight bleeding issues as well.

Not all movies are 16:9 aspect ratio. They are many other aspect ratios used by movies; 2:35:1 is amongst the more popular one. So if the intent is to watch movies without having to deal with horizontal black bars, then you are out of luck 'cause eventually you will see them. For example, Batman: The Dark Knight is 2:35:1 so you will be seeing black bars.

Newer games supports 16:9 resolutions, for example Fallout 3. However, older games that do not support 1920 x 1080 may look distorted. In this case, it may be necessary to run a game in a window at less than native resolution to play the game in the proper aspect ratio.

The best comparison for this type of monitor is to look at 1920 x 1200 benchmarks. The difference in the number of pixels between that and 1920 x 1080 is 10%. Therefore, you can probably estimate that performance on a 16:9 monitor should be about 5% - 6% better.

Having said all of the above, I have placed an order for the ASUS VK246H which is a 16:9 monitor. It will be acting as my tertiary (as in below secondary) monitor. I was simply looking for an inexpensive monitor to connect to my HTPC so that I can "monitor" some processes. I might try to game with it, but I have my NEC 2690WUXi for that.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The monitor sells for $310 (including free shipping), but by entering the coupon code: EMCBCBBBA, which expires on 12/17, that brings the price down to $280. There was also another 15% discount if you use PayPal to pay for your purchase, but I think that expired on 12/15. It's not an instant discount, I expect to be charged $280 for the monitor, then in about 2 or 3 days PayPal will give me my 15% discount via my PayPal account (which I assume I can withdrawal or at worst use it for a later purchase). Overall, the total price of the monitor should be $238.

Please do not ask for pictures of the monitor since I do not own a camera.
December 16, 2008 6:03:57 AM

Nice monitor, Jaguarskx. Too bad you don't own a camera. I'm sure we'd all love to see pictures (or perhaps a insightful review). Thanks for sharing about the coupon code, I'm sure you weren't the only person eyeballing that monitor. Enjoy!

Just a quick math check, a 1920 x 1200 resolution monitor has ~ 11.111% more pixels than a 1920 x 1080 resolution monitor.
(Just divide 1920 from both resolutions and reduce the remaining fraction 1200/1080 to 10/9.)
December 16, 2008 9:08:30 AM

V3NOM said:
yeah its like those 22" running at 1920x1080.... i mean how small would the desktop have to be lol!


HUGE in comparison to a 19" screen running at 2048x1536...

I can fit 25 icons wide on my desktop (plus vistas sidebar) x 15 icons high :D  I can view 2 complete A4 pages and still have acess to all my icons on the desktop and view the sidebar at the same time. Of course you can change the font size to compensate for the smaller pixels on the desktop if you have problems reading the text at the higher resolution.

Different strokes for different folks, but personally I cant stand what large pixel LCD displays do to games, Why bother paying out for graphics cards that can run high levels of AA and then display the image on a screen with a large pixel pitch :o  The higher the resolution for a given screen size the smaller jaggies become.

On my 20" 1680x1050 samsung LCD screen the jaggies with 2xaa are clearly visible to MY eye from from about 3.5 feet away a 22" screen would be worse... on the 2048x1536 screen with the same settings except for resolution I have to get within 8" of the screen to make out the jaggies at all I have to get to 6" for the jaggies to be as noticeable as 3.5 feet away from the LCD screen!

This is what "HD" is all about, increasing image quality by increasing the pixel density. a 1080 screen looks better than a 720 of the same size and technology because it has - a higher pixel density...

Small pixels may not make for great office packages for people with sight issues but they do make for better gaming images (although this point may be moot if the person has sight problems). I do recommend LCD screens for office and internet use every time, but I cant stand gaming on one. My monitor at work is a sony non-tn LCD, great for sitting in front of reading text all day, terrible for gaming...

I chose the 20" as it has the smallest pixels of the commonly available LCD screens, I chose samsung because they are highly recommended for gaming LCD's, I find even its pixel size distracting, I find it colour far to variable over the screen area, I find its viewing angles cause huge issues when dungeon diving, It does however make for crisp text in a very fixed viewing position. I really dont get the "bigger is better" mentality for gaming monitors. Sure you increase the size of text, but at the same time and to the same degree you make image defects larger and more noticeable.

December 16, 2008 9:28:12 AM

thats insane lol
December 16, 2008 3:03:53 PM

Thanks for the help guys.

Sounds like maybe a 4850 will work on a 1080. But then again I will probably push for a 4870 regardless. ;) 

Anyone have any horror stories about 1080 distorting or stretching games? Other than VGA performance, that is what I am most concerned about.

I currently use 2 x 17" monitors, which is great for office use (i.e., 1 has Outlook, and the other has Firefox/Word/Excel), but it kind of sucks for gaming. My game o' choice is still BF2, but I think I may get some funky stretch effect with 16:9. 16:10 cuts off information, which is bad enough--then having what is left be distorted might be too much. http://www.widescreengaming.net/wiki/Battlefield_2

Jaguar, you are killing me: that Asus is exactly the one I want, and those discounts are unreal. Too bad daddy is last in line for Christmas gifts, behind the little guys...
December 16, 2008 3:29:59 PM

i cant picture myself being a gamer and a daddy. hell, i cant even picture myself being a gamer and a husband at the same time.

hats off to you mr. husky.
December 16, 2008 3:39:23 PM

Thanks wh3resmycar. Its really pretty easy--animals always adapt to their surroundings. You will find the time--but finding the correct balance is a bit tougher.

The REALLY tough part is convincing your old-school inlaws that being a gamer does not automatically make you some sort of immature loser.
December 16, 2008 4:14:02 PM

husky mctarflash said:
Thanks wh3resmycar. Its really pretty easy--animals always adapt to their surroundings. You will find the time--but finding the correct balance is a bit tougher.

The REALLY tough part is convincing your old-school inlaws that being a gamer does not automatically make you some sort of immature loser.


well im a different kind of animal. if that will happen to me, my "adapting skills" would actually lead me to making a map (most probably farcry2's map editor, pretty easy to use), put the inlaws face in it, make them as target practice. another good scenario is play the sims 2, make an inlaw avatar, put them in a pool, delete the pool ladder. :D 
!