Why should I get a 24 inch if ppl tell me 22 inch looks almost as good

I have looked through too many threads on google for too many days and still cannot find a proper answer to this.

Please, for all that is good in the world, tell me how much of a difference in image quality is there between a 22 inch 1680x1050 monitor and a 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor.

I don't want to have to shell out the cash to upkeep good FPS on a 24 inch if I am not getting a noticeable better resolution.


What do you gentlemen/Ladies think? Any experience with this question???

As Flakes says the 24" supports full HD, and the 22" does not. So its better for Movie playback. Thats the main reason i would opt for a 24" over a 22" but as i game more than i watch movies i would personally get a 22" as it would give my GPU better performance no's and detail/quality levels.

Mactronix

If you're interested, I explained some of the technical specs below albeit very generally. However, for your purpose of gaming, a decent 22" monitor will be a better option (lower resolution means less processing power needed). If you want to stay happy and ontop of things, I would suggest you to shell out for a 24" instead (since the prices are relatively low at this point in time). I use a 27.5" monitor and I'm content (I upgraded from a 22" ).

Strictly speaking, you're talking about a difference in resolution. Image quality, brightness, contrast, and color vibrance don't have any direct relationship with the monitor's size and resolution; these factors are really dependent on the quality of the TN panels the manufacturers use. Read critics' and users' reviews before you make your decision and it's even better if you can go find the monitor at a local retailer and check it out for yourself.

Monitor resolution and size usually correlates to the "sharpness" of an image, but that itself is also dependent on the image source. If you play a DVD disc on an 1080P capable monitor, the image will be upscaled to fit in a higher resolution (imagine enlarging a picture with Microsoft Paint). This will result in image "noises" (distortions or little square pixels). However, if you play 1080p HD content on the monitor, the image will be very sharp.

i would like to know the max resolution of the human eye, if its 1680*1050, it would be pointless getting 1920*1200, does anyone know

Thats a good explanation but its all to do with the word "relative" The whole concept of what you have posted is solid im just posting to point out that the differance in sharpness between bigger pixel sizes is somewhat eliminated with the viewing distance increase that should be used. Thats why you should sit further back from a larger screen, if you are too close you will see th eactual pixels and that defeats the whole point.
I have a 26" screen (TV) and the reason is because my room wouldnt allow the correct viewing distance. I had to move the room around a bit for the 26" as it is.
Trust me the distance you sit from the screen makes a big differance to your experiance.

Mactronix

Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy higher than that: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagede [...] ution.html

EDIT: For reference, a 24" at 1920x1200 is 2.3 megapixels.

22 if no blu ray but 24 or higher with blu ray simple as that.

22 inch i recommend samsung t220

22 inch is your best option. 24 will slow u down in the future games . 24 wont do you any good unless someone point me to a movie thats actually shot in full HD. So its up to the graphics to decide your monitor .

Cinema has 4X full HD resolution ? Seems like four 24 inch LCD's coupled with a HD 3870x2 with crossfire disabled has the most pixels in one living room if thats possible.

Out of curiosity, how far back should you sit from a 24" monitor?

I'd like to point out that you can easily hook a 24" monitor up to a cable box through the HDMI input and use it as an HDTV. There are several channels that broadcast at 1080 resolution.

Are you insane?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6824009145

Talk about a waste of 100 dollars. Holy crap.

+1

I also own a 24" and I would say the same. I guess the word "almost the same" doest cut it for me.

^+1. imo its an ugly bastard but insane specs...

that acer someone mentioned up above - its good for the money, i mean show me a better monitor for $160...

only prob is (i own the 19"widescreen variant - same series) it has horrible glare and bleeding problems... really great OSD though. take it over my dads old CRT any day

I have a 22 and a 24, I use my 24 hd for HDTV, and the 22 inch for gaming

I have A Samsung T240 (24" ) and a Samsung 2232BW (22" )
the 24" is shiny and new and better contrast spec wise but slower refresh.
fractionally less micro stutter on the 22" but the pixcels on the 22" are visably slightly larger.
If its a gaming monitor then your GPU will suffer more obviously if its 1920x1200
Single GTX280 on my 24" has to have AA tuned to game e.g. Fallout3 8x at 1920 and Crysis says no to AA at 1920
Always prefer to use 24" it has more to offer all round.
Its just a case of what you can afford at the time.

I have this Samsung and I love it. I strongly recommend it.

see thats the whole thing. people say "don't get a 22" because then you will always be wondering what a 24" is like"

then you go and buy a 24 and wonder what a 26 is like. then a 28. then a 30". and before you know it, you're into 1k+ monitors. if you don't need the space, get a 22". that simple really.

^lulwut? so you're saying having more pixels will allow me to see further in CSS? i dont think so. it just means there's more pixels in a larger area, which should balance out to be sharper, since there are more pixels to make up a persons head for example. that doesn't mean i can see more of the area/level/map i'm playing in though.

long time no see ovaltine btw

I'm not sure where you're going here. 1080i is still 1920x1080 pixels but it is interlaced video instead of progressive video. You will be able to play HD content on a 1680x1050 screen but it will be scaled and as a result will have some degradation to the image quality. I agree that a 24" monitor is the way to go.

sure for movies. and who wants to watch movies on a tiny screen? most games (all games?) are made for 16:10 anyway.

if the OP wants more screen space, and he can afford high end graphics, he should get the 24". if he doesnt need that extra bit of screen space, then he should get the 22". that simple really.

whats the point of having a tiny screen with an extremely high res when everything would appear tiny (icons buttons etc) and would require higher end graphics than a larger 22"?

The difference is that 26, 27, etc monitors are all the same res as a 24. The only upgrade I would really consider from my current 24 is a 30, but that's too expensive for me right now.

Oh, and Homeboy, you should see a good, non-TN panel. I guarantee you that a good S-PVA or S-IPS 24" will flatten your 26" in every way (as your 26 is a TN panel). It will have better colors, better image quality, and just in general look nicer. There's nothing inherently wrong with your 26, but to call everything smaller a "toy monitor" shows a lack of understanding of image quality.

i've had all kinds of monitors cj, more than u i bet, how much will the monitors cost that will "flatten my 26" mucho bux, for 250 my 26 flattens all others and the quality is fine with me. Almost all 22" monitors are TN. The small monitors are still toys.

Say what you will, but S-PVA and S-IPS are MUCH better monitors than the TN panels. It really is that simple. You do pay for it though. $465 is quite cheap for a non-TN panel, they usually are more in the $600-700 range for 24s.

As for the resolution question? I have a notebook that has a 17" 1920x1200 screen and I love it. I'll take it over a standard 20" 1680x1050 any day. So yes, resolution matters, because resolution determines useful screen area. At a higher resolution, you can have more stuff on the screen without any part of it becoming unreadable.

It definitely depends on the person. I think it is worth it, but it won't be worth it for everyone. It is definitely true that the TN panels give a decent image for far cheaper than the better panel technologies. I just believe that it is worth the extra for the better looking panels.