Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 19, 2009 4:06:38 AM

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???

More about : inch ppl inch good

January 19, 2009 5:41:59 AM

get the 24, its not the image quality you should be concerned about(youll get about the same here) but the screen real estate.... if you buy the 22" you will always be wondering what the 24" would be like. Get the 24" save yourself the trouble, and enjoy gaming on it.... plus the 24" supports full HD, and the 22" does not.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 19, 2009 6:32:26 AM

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
Related resources
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 196 C Monitor
January 19, 2009 7:26:05 AM

If you are gonna watch HD video (1080p), then it will be reduced to 1680 x 1050 to fit on a 22" LCD monitor. Will you notice a drop in quality? Probably not, unless you have a 24" LCD monitor right next to it.

If all you are concerned about is gaming then get a 22" LCD monitor since that will put less stress on your GPU. Thus, your current card can last you longer since it will not be pushing as many pixels.
January 19, 2009 7:44:39 AM

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.
January 19, 2009 7:51:59 AM

The simple idea is that bigger monitors need higher resolution to display the image at the same relative "sharpness." So a 22" at 1680*1050 and a 24" at 1920*1200 should display the image equally well, assuming the monitor panels are of the same quality.
January 19, 2009 8:06:04 AM

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
January 19, 2009 8:29:34 AM

Can anyone point me to a movie thats shot in full HD ? I'm talking about bluray HD DVD across the board. No.......?
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 19, 2009 9:41:17 AM

johnyeah said:
The simple idea is that bigger monitors need higher resolution to display the image at the same relative "sharpness." So a 22" at 1680*1050 and a 24" at 1920*1200 should display the image equally well, assuming the monitor panels are of the same quality.


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
January 19, 2009 12:34:16 PM

johnyeah said:
The simple idea is that bigger monitors need higher resolution to display the image at the same relative "sharpness." So a 22" at 1680*1050 and a 24" at 1920*1200 should display the image equally well, assuming the monitor panels are of the same quality.


Almost true. The 24" has a .27 pixel pitch while the 22" only has a .282, so the 24" will display a bit of a sharper image. This is one of the main reasons I went for a 24" over a 22".

24" pros:
Sharper image quality.
Full 1080P.
More screen real estate.
Prices have fallen dramatically in the past few months.

24" Cons:
More stress on your graphics card due to higher resolution.
Still more expensive than a 22".
January 19, 2009 12:38:00 PM

rangers said:
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


Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy higher than that: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.h...

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. [b said:
Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.

The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record. ]The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).

At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.

The full angle of human vision would require even more megapixels. This kind of image detail requires A large format camera to record.
[/b]

EDIT: For reference, a 24" at 1920x1200 is 2.3 megapixels.
January 19, 2009 1:23:29 PM

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

22 inch i recommend samsung t220 :D 
January 19, 2009 2:02:30 PM

Wow.

First. Thankyou so much for taking the time to give thoughtful replies.

This computer is going to be purely for gaming> Therefore, according to the general consensus, I should go for the 22 inch right?

I was actually deciding between these two 22 inch ones

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

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

The second one is a 22 inch one but with a Pixel pitch of .252??? Wow.
But the first one is a LG with good reviews too.
January 19, 2009 2:19:36 PM

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 .
January 19, 2009 5:44:26 PM

full HD movies.....

Batman begins,
Dark Knight,
Transformers,
Wall E,
Spiderman 2,
Spiderman 3....

of course all movies are recorded higher than hidef its just the quality of the cameras that have really changed, a cinema resolution is 4x that of full HD.
January 19, 2009 7:26:49 PM

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.
January 19, 2009 9:13:39 PM

yea, thats why a cinema image looks so good on such a big screen.....sure theres artifacts but thats because the media is film...

anyway, everyone here has said go to for the 22" because your graphics card will last longer, BUT NOT ONE has asked what graphics card you actually have, i feel that if you have anything more powerfull than a 8800GTX you should get the 24" screen...

i currently use a 32" 1080p JVC Television as my computer monitor and absolutly love it :D rools:
January 19, 2009 11:52:35 PM

Out of curiosity, how far back should you sit from a 24" monitor?
January 20, 2009 2:38:39 AM

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



you are the only one that can answer that.
January 20, 2009 3:14:50 AM

cyber_jockey said:
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 .


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.
January 20, 2009 3:47:12 AM

...yeah but unless its a 16:9 monitor/tv, it will either STRETCH (ew.) or put black bars at the top and bottom when watching 1920x1080 (16:9 aspect ratio) content.

and besides, there are a few 22" monitors that display 1920x1080.

thats native full HD res.

imo just grab a 22" monitor, and save yourself the cost of a 4870X2 :lol: 
January 21, 2009 12:16:11 AM

I'm using a 24'' atm and I will NEVER get a monitor smaller than it for the rest of my life.

If you've got the money, 24'' is always better.
January 21, 2009 12:23:39 AM

Liderc said:
I'm using a 24'' atm and I will NEVER get a monitor smaller than it for the rest of my life.

If you've got the money, 24'' is always better.

+1

I also own a 24" and I would say the same. I guess the word "almost the same" doest cut it for me.
January 21, 2009 4:29:18 AM

^+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 :D 
January 23, 2009 4:05:27 PM

magicbullet said:
+1

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


Dont buy a 24" get the westy 26", now its even cheaper at 259! Would grab it in a heartbeat if i didnt already have the Samsung 26.
January 23, 2009 7:02:25 PM

I have a 22 and a 24, I use my 24 hd for HDTV, and the 22 inch for gaming :) 
January 23, 2009 8:07:53 PM

Everyone can over analyze system specs and point out strengths and weaknesses for each but I personally own a 24" and will never go smaller. A friend of mine has a 22" and there really is a noticeable difference in terms of game play with the 24”. Of course you can get a 22" and save some dough but I think the additional surface area is worth the additional cost. Just read consumer reviews to ensure you are purchasing a quality product whichever route you take.
January 23, 2009 8:15:34 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
January 23, 2009 10:52:56 PM

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

this is the 22 inch you should actually buy.

bad parts are you can't adjust the angle of the screen but the technical specs are best out of all of these 22 :D 




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






a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 23, 2009 11:23:27 PM

Homeboy2 said:
Dont buy a 24" get the westy 26", now its even cheaper at 259! Would grab it in a heartbeat if i didnt already have the Samsung 26.

The 26 has a higher pixel pitch though, and only has the same resolution, so it actually appears slightly less sharp. You gain screen area at the cost of sharpness, and it has no more resolution. I'll stick with my 2408WFP honestly.
January 23, 2009 11:54:14 PM

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.
January 24, 2009 12:54:50 AM

If you're building a pc for gaming than go with a 1920*1200 screen, because this will give you a wider field of view than a 1600*1200 screen which can give you an edge in certain games, especially FPS.
January 24, 2009 1:22:20 AM

^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
January 24, 2009 1:48:14 AM

well...your 24 is better bet. First, higher resolution always equals to better quality image which is the main point here. Also, if you ever want to watch a full HD movie (1080p) from a blue ray or something, your 22'' wont supported becuase 1680x1050 is higher then 1080i but lower then 1080p. however your 24 inch will support full hd so you can make good use of it.
January 24, 2009 2:42:59 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
1680x1050 is higher then 1080i but lower then 1080p.


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.
January 24, 2009 5:23:26 AM

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

This monitor is 21.5 inch, but it supports full 1080p HD (1920x1080 res). I bought it and it has been good to me so far. Games I've played on it have been excellent. I know the OP is looking for a screen specifically for gaming, but this monitor won't have those silly black bars on the top and bottom since its aspect ratio is already 16:9.
January 24, 2009 5:50:32 AM

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

This monitor is 21.5 inch, but it supports full 1080p HD (1920x1080 res). I bought it and it has been good to me so far. Games I've played on it have been excellent. I know the OP is looking for a screen specifically for gaming, but this monitor won't have those silly black bars on the top and bottom since its aspect ratio is already 16:9.

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"?
January 24, 2009 6:02:30 AM

just buy the gawd damn 26" westy and forget about the toy monitors. for 250 bucks you cant beat it. cj i've had all kinds of monitors and i like my 26"best and the only way you'll get it away from me is to pry it from my cold dead fingers! :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 24, 2009 7:07:55 PM

V3NOM said:
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.


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.
January 24, 2009 10:23:38 PM

so what people really want is higher res, not more screen space. is that it?

if so, then everything would look much sharper (and ridiculously small :lol: ) on a high res+small screen LCD. if so, you would be best served getting one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

i think you should only go for a bigger monitor if you need a BIGGER MONITOR. not higher RES. there's a reason a 30" has a high res - because if it had a low res the pixels would be large. having a 22" at 1680x1050 is probably around the same pixel size as a 30" at 2560x1600.
January 24, 2009 11:58:40 PM

cjl said:
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.
January 25, 2009 12:13:16 AM

465 bucks for a 2408WFP! cheapest I could find. 200 more for a smaller screen. no thanks. and I've owned dells and i've seen the 2408WFP at the dell store. Not overwhelmed. Dude, I aint get a Dell :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 25, 2009 1:18:10 AM

Homeboy2 said:
465 bucks for a 2408WFP! cheapest I could find. 200 more for a smaller screen. no thanks. and I've owned dells and i've seen the 2408WFP at the dell store. Not overwhelmed. Dude, I aint get a Dell :lol: 

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.
January 25, 2009 2:09:03 AM

1903643,47,333651 said:
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.[/quotems

yeh, the vendor i saw with 465 price i wouldnt order from, 600 to 700? No way, and say what you will, there's no way they are worth twice or three times what i paid for mine. I surf, play a few games, and watch some video. This monitor is plenty sharp enough for me. The only reason i can see paying more is if someone needs really accurate colors for work or his hobby.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 25, 2009 8:50:36 AM

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.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
Related resources
!