Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Whats the difference between a 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 res.?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 6, 2009 6:39:09 PM

Title says it all, also, if i get a monitor with a recommended resolution (1920x1200), and lower its resolution to say 1680x1050, will another monitor with a recommended resolution of 1680x1050 have better quality? Or is it all the same either way you put it
August 6, 2009 6:50:16 PM

down scaling can lose quality so a 1680x1050 would look better, especially if the screen is larger. The larger the screen, the larger the pixels, so it will look worse sitting the same distance away (nominally). However, why wouldn't you want 1920x1200? And your question in the post has nothing to do with the question in the title. 1920x1200 is a 16x10 screen (common for computer monitors) and 1920x1080 is a 16x9 screen (common for TVs).
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2009 6:54:21 PM

@carickw, they are starting to go to 16x9 res for monitors (thats what mine is)

as for lowering the resolution, why would you, just keep it at the native res

the difference between the 1920x1200 and 1920x1080(1080P) is the aspect ratio (16:10 vs 16:9) and 120 pixels vertically

i have a 23.6" 1920x1080 monitor got it for 171 @ newegg
Related resources
August 6, 2009 6:54:36 PM

the resolution is the number of pixels width x height. so if you count the number of pixels across the screen on a 1920x**** (recommended) monitor, there will be 1920. If you count the number of pixels on a ****x1200 (recommended) there will be 1200.
August 6, 2009 6:57:46 PM

@mindless: interesting... i like 16x10 better, except i lose pixels when i watch TV or Movies (i got a T260HD..which rocks, but overpriced). I can't stand the super-wide that a lot of movies are in...its much harder to watch than a 16x10 or 16x9.
August 6, 2009 10:23:15 PM

i thought pixels were the same size no matter what. Simply that when you get a 1920x1200, there a more pixels so the image has more area and better detail, in a smaller resolution there are simply less pixels so less indepth quality

Its actually two questions, the one in the title and the one in my first post.

So should i get a 1920x1200 or a 1920x1080 LCD monitor? I was thinking that the 1920x1200 might stretch out the image more since there are more pixels, dunno
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2009 10:49:27 PM

I like 1920x1080 looks similar to 19x12 but less of performance lose in games. =]
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2009 11:36:20 PM

it won't stretch it if you use the native resolution (ie don't use 1680x1050 on these displays)

though its up to you if it is worth the extra money (if there is any) for the extra 120 pixels high
August 6, 2009 11:40:12 PM

16x9 is going to be the standard the larger the screen the more pixels you have and takes more horse power the drive them.
August 7, 2009 12:21:10 AM

will older games have to be scaled down to like 1680x1050 if u have a 1920x1080 monitor? i heard that somewhere, that older games don't like the newer 16:9 aspect ratio....

any help here? (i think that's what the OP wants...)
August 7, 2009 12:21:28 AM

Ok, but what happens when you use, for example a 24 inch monitors, one has 1920x1200 res. and the other 1920x1080 res. Assumingly the 1920x1200 has more and smaller pixels, for better quality

So which one should i get?!?!! lol
a b U Graphics card
August 7, 2009 12:22:26 AM

Quote:
There is absolutely no reason for the PC market to be flooded with 16:9 displays.


Why not? 16:9 1920x1080 monitors are affordable compared to 1920x1200. They look similar and you get less of a performance decrease.

Check this one out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... ($189.99 with free shipping)
a c 358 U Graphics card
a c 195 C Monitor
August 7, 2009 1:14:24 AM

Native resolution is always the best. Scaling something down will always result in lower image quality. Like softer edges, and less sharp images. Some monitors scales better than other monitors, of course you can always set your video card to do the scaling which in turn may or may not do a better job than the monitor.

Basically the difference between a 1920 x 1200 and 1920 x 1080 are the 120 rows of pixels. I prefer 1920 x 1200 monitors. However, I did buy a 1920 x 1080 for my HTPC because when it is connected to whatever HDTV I intend to buy both HDTV and the 1920 x 1080 monitor will have display the same desktop (clone mode). Since HDTVs are 1920 x 1080 (except the really low end HDTVs) a 1920 x 1080 monitor will display what is also on the HDTV without the black horizontal bars.

August 7, 2009 2:17:54 AM

so will older games be affected by the new 16:9 resolutions?!?!
will they scale down?!


please help!!
August 7, 2009 3:42:12 AM

Just about every decent widescreen LCD monitor allows users to configure video scaling settings.
Basically you should be able to configure your LCD to do the followings:

(I'm using the terminology from my HP L2335 monitor so your monitor may use different names for these settings).

a) 1 to 1:
In this mode video is displayed without any scaling. Any none native resolution will be displayed in the center with the appropriate black horizontal or vertical space surround the image. If you display 800x600 video, the LCD monitor will display exactly 800x600 pixels in the center of the screen.

b) Fill to Screen:
In this mode, none native resolution video will be stretched to fill the entire screen and may stretch the video vertically or horizontally if the source video is not using the same aspect ratio as the monitor.

c) Fill to Aspect Ratio:
In this mode, none native resolution video will be stretched vertically and horizontally to fill the screen while keeping the aspect ratio unchanged.
This is the mode that you want to have if you intend to display non-native resolution video.
Before you purchase any widescreen monitor, make sure it can do video scaling for non-native resoution while keeping the same aspect ratio.

As for 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 monitors, I personally prefer 1920x1200 for the following reasons:
1) More vertical space when using windows desktop. Yes, there are black bars displayed on the top and bottom when viewing 16:9 video or movies but for everyday computer usage, 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080.
2) I can play games in 1920x1080 and 1600x1200 without any video scaling.
That's right. Although 1920x1080 and 1600x1200 are non-native resolution on a 1920x1200 monitor, because they either use the same number of vertical or horizontal pixels as 1920x1200, you do not need to scale the video (assuming that your monitor does not blindly stretch video to fill the whole screen).
If you need to play some older games in 4:3 aspect ratio, you can choose 1600x1200 without video scaling.
And if in some rare situation the game you are playing only support up to 1920x1080, you can also play the game without any video scaling.
a c 358 U Graphics card
a c 195 C Monitor
August 7, 2009 3:46:21 AM

^^^

Maybe. Far Cry 1 and HL2 plays fine. Don't know about others since I play games on my 1920 x 1200 monitors.
August 7, 2009 3:50:40 AM

@saiyan
ur info is great...1 last question...
do old games use 16:10 or 16:9 resolutions ?
August 7, 2009 3:56:58 AM

depends on the game. DOS games don't support either... RA2 only supports 4:3, same with Generals, but 16:10 is more common for computers so it should be supported more
August 7, 2009 4:02:35 AM

thanks carickw
so basically, from what saiyan said, get any monitor that can enlarge the image, while keeping the aspect ratio the same , and it doesn't really matter what ratio...but 16:10 is better...but not worth too much extra cost
August 7, 2009 4:42:41 AM

Older games (e.g. games from 5+ years ago) most likely only support up to 1600x1200 or another 4:3 aspect ratio mode.
Some games may be modded into supporting 16:9 or 16:10 resolution.
I think widescreengamingforum.com has some info that.

BTW, another factor you want to consider when purchasing LCD monitor for gaming is "input lag". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag)
Based on what I read, "input lag" is usually associated with combination of certain LCD panel type and video scaler/processor used.
The best panel type (also most expensive) for gaming is probably S-IPS.
My old HP L2335 is a S-IPS monitor and I never noticed any "input lag" when playing games.

So you probably want to Google around and read some review before making any purchase.
Good reviews should have information on whether the monitor reviewed has "input lag" issue or not.
August 7, 2009 5:32:52 AM

sweet....saiyan...good info...im in the same boat as the OP, and am looking at BenQ monitors, mainly the 24" 1920x1080 atm... i think its pretty good...u?
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 7, 2009 4:02:09 PM

Quote:
HD does not really apply to pc's

Sorry mate but I have to dispute that as I use my PC to watch HD movies and I've installed quite a few PC based media servers where the customer specified HD output @ 1080 on the PC in the Study/Office/Bedroom.
August 8, 2009 5:09:51 AM

saiyan said:
Just about every decent widescreen LCD monitor allows users to configure video scaling settings.
Basically you should be able to configure your LCD to do the followings:

(I'm using the terminology from my HP L2335 monitor so your monitor may use different names for these settings).

a) 1 to 1:
In this mode video is displayed without any scaling. Any none native resolution will be displayed in the center with the appropriate black horizontal or vertical space surround the image. If you display 800x600 video, the LCD monitor will display exactly 800x600 pixels in the center of the screen.

b) Fill to Screen:
In this mode, none native resolution video will be stretched to fill the entire screen and may stretch the video vertically or horizontally if the source video is not using the same aspect ratio as the monitor.

c) Fill to Aspect Ratio:
In this mode, none native resolution video will be stretched vertically and horizontally to fill the screen while keeping the aspect ratio unchanged.
This is the mode that you want to have if you intend to display non-native resolution video.
Before you purchase any widescreen monitor, make sure it can do video scaling for non-native resoution while keeping the same aspect ratio.

As for 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 monitors, I personally prefer 1920x1200 for the following reasons:
1) More vertical space when using windows desktop. Yes, there are black bars displayed on the top and bottom when viewing 16:9 video or movies but for everyday computer usage, 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080.
2) I can play games in 1920x1080 and 1600x1200 without any video scaling.
That's right. Although 1920x1080 and 1600x1200 are non-native resolution on a 1920x1200 monitor, because they either use the same number of vertical or horizontal pixels as 1920x1200, you do not need to scale the video (assuming that your monitor does not blindly stretch video to fill the whole screen).
If you need to play some older games in 4:3 aspect ratio, you can choose 1600x1200 without video scaling.
And if in some rare situation the game you are playing only support up to 1920x1080, you can also play the game without any video scaling.


how do you know if a monitor uses a fill to aspect ratio?
August 8, 2009 5:39:35 AM

I think I can help you out Computernewbie. Over the last 2 years I have changed monitor 3 times. My first was a 22" viewsonic with 1680x1050 resolution, my second was an awesome Samsung 25.5" with 1920x1200, and right now I am using a Sharp Aquos 52" LCD HDTV which is 1920x1080.

Don't fill your head with useless technical knowledge, you're not builing the monitor you're just using it. If you stick with the high end brands like Samsung, Hp, Dell, Viewsonic, they should all have the features we told you about throughout this thread. Even the HDTVs, which are not intended for usage with computers primarily, are equipped with features to compensate for the change of resolutions. I found some of the better monitors I have seen out there are the Samsung, especially in the 1920x1200 range. If you go with a 1920x1080, its the same as a 1080p HDTV, it will play blu-rays, and so will any monitor with higher resolutions. If you pick a 1920x1200 monitor, and change windows to 1680x1050, it won't look as good, and you will regret doing so very soon. Use the native resolution in windows, and you can adjust the video games to lower resolutions (such as the 16080x1050 you were mentioning) in order to gain more performance during play.

What would I recommend? Well if you can't afford a big HDTV like I bought, I would recommend getting a 24"-26" monitor with 1920x1200 if you need more windows space and play many old games, or the 1920x1080 for movies, blurays, and recent video games. Both will suffice, there are no significant downsides to either. So in this case, what should affect your decision is the quality and price of your purchase, whatever it may be.
a b U Graphics card
August 8, 2009 5:50:40 AM

Mousemonkey said:
Sorry mate but I have to dispute that as I use my PC to watch HD movies and I've installed quite a few PC based media servers where the customer specified HD output @ 1080 on the PC in the Study/Office/Bedroom.


+1 [:jaydeejohn:5]

I use my pc for HD viewing as well..... [:lectrocrew:6]

a c 271 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 8, 2009 1:12:46 PM

OvrClkr said:
+1 [:jaydeejohn:5]

I use my pc for HD viewing as well..... [:lectrocrew:6]

I'm still surprised at the amount of people who have a TV and PC on in the same room at the same time, I still think it's only a matter of time before 'over the counter' PC's and laptop's have built in TV tuners as standard.
a b U Graphics card
August 8, 2009 1:26:13 PM

1920x1200 monitors run around $300 for a 24in. Where you can get 23.6in running at 1920x1080 for under $200. They look very similar no real lose with 1920x1080 in my opinion.
August 8, 2009 7:44:49 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I'm still surprised at the amount of people who have a TV and PC on in the same room at the same time, I still think it's only a matter of time before 'over the counter' PC's and laptop's have built in TV tuners as standard.


I don't use a TV tuner. I simply plugged my PC to my big screen in order to play games, watch Blu Rays or DVDs. As for TV, many TV networks now offer their shows on the web, you can watch them anytime you want and the commercials are only 30seconds long TOTAL. Much more pleasant to watch.
a b U Graphics card
August 8, 2009 9:30:41 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I'm still surprised at the amount of people who have a TV and PC on in the same room at the same time, I still think it's only a matter of time before 'over the counter' PC's and laptop's have built in TV tuners as standard.


Yep, I agree.... Would be nice to buy a laptop with a built in tv-tuner.....But then again you would get charged with the premium.....
August 9, 2009 6:51:44 AM

I dont actually care about the resolution, the thing i cared about the whole time is how games would look like, as if the screen would be stretched out or such, you know, because then it'll just ruin the whole picture.

Wait, so is 1920x1200 native or 1920x1080 native? Do games use both resolutions? (like crysis)

Also which brand would you recommend? Reliable, has none of that latency someone explained before, uses an aspect to ratio to fill the screen perfectly, and such

(BTW, how do you know if a screen uses an aspect to ratio filling of graphics?)
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 9, 2009 9:45:43 AM

Games use both resolutions for the most part, though in older games, 1920x1200 is more likely to be supported (since 1920x1080 is a more recent trend in computer monitors).
August 9, 2009 10:28:32 AM

computernewbie said:
I dont actually care about the resolution, the thing i cared about the whole time is how games would look like, as if the screen would be stretched out or such, you know, because then it'll just ruin the whole picture.

Wait, so is 1920x1200 native or 1920x1080 native? Do games use both resolutions? (like crysis)

Also which brand would you recommend? Reliable, has none of that latency someone explained before, uses an aspect to ratio to fill the screen perfectly, and such

(BTW, how do you know if a screen uses an aspect to ratio filling of graphics?)


Crysis is compatible with 1080 and 1200. Whether you buy a 1920x1200 or a 1920x1080 res screen, you will not be terribly disapointed in either resolution. Some monitors will stretch out the games to fill the widescreen, but most recent models wont. If you play a square resolution only game, the monitor will display black bars on either side and give you a square picture. It will fill the screen from top to bottom though, so smaller resolutions will be blown up to the full size.

Here, the Samsung Syncmaster 2693HM 25.5-inch LCD Monitor, will be perfect for you. Its the best computer monitor I ever worked with. Colour and contrast was awesome, high res enough to play Blu-Ray, will work with square resolutions and has HDMI entry as well as DVI and VGA. You could probably get something better nowadays, but I have used this one and I can vouch for its greatness. I got mine for 450$ Canadian at Bestbuy as an openbox special, so shop around you can find a good deal I am sure.
August 9, 2009 3:53:21 PM

1920x1080 is full HD 1080p, as in movies would fill up the entire screen without black bars or stretching. it is 16:9, while 1920x1200 would probably be 16:10, 16:9 also include 1280x720 which is known as 720p.
August 9, 2009 4:44:37 PM

Quote:
I'm making the move to a 30 incher soon anyway since 1920 x 1200 has become more the norm. I stay ahead of the noobs can't have what they do or can afford. I've got to be different! 2560 x 1600 here I come!

+1
August 9, 2009 6:34:00 PM

Oh, i thought any monitor can play blu-ray, it just depended if you had the optical drive
August 9, 2009 8:10:18 PM

computernewbie said:
Oh, i thought any monitor can play blu-ray, it just depended if you had the optical drive


As long as everything is rated HTCP compliant, you can play High Def stuff. But if you're playing it on less than 1920x1080 resolutions, you will take an image quality hit, which is just sad when you consider how pretty Blu-Rays can be.
August 10, 2009 6:10:10 AM

@senvae : is BenQ classified as high end brand? do u think it would have 'aspect ratio enlargement'? (only reason, is there cheap in AUS here, and the rest are like 50-75aud more, for same size, refresh, contrast, size, etc)

any help is greatly appreciated
MICK
August 10, 2009 11:38:24 AM

I've browsed through some of the BenQ products and I haven't seen a truly bad review so far. In fact, before buying the 25.5" Samsung, I also had my eye on a 24" BenQ due to its price. The best way to prevent failure by buying an unknown product is to use a google search in order to read at least 3 different reviews on the specific product. (example, type in google: "BenQ series XXXX review") I put the X where a model number should be.
August 10, 2009 9:25:56 PM

@senvae
thanks again for the information...it greatly helps...u just don't think to do that kinda stuff sometimes...

@OP
sorry for hijacking ur thread, but i got some useful information from it, and i hope u did too :D 

thanks all for the info
MICK


BTW: found this
http://www.hardware.info/en-US/productdb/compareproduct...,!/
compares heaps of monitors, and other hardware... its useful
September 29, 2009 5:24:19 PM

Quote:
I've had my 24 inch 1920 x 1200 monitor long before they were standard and affordable And 1920 x 1200 monitors will always be better because mire pixels means more detail period. I never understood the move to these wider smaller pc monitors with weird sizes 23.4 and the like. Saving money can't be the issue since 24" monitors have come down under $300 now (I paid $730 for mine 2.5 years ago). I'm making the move to a 30 incher soon anyway since 1920 x 1200 has become more the norm. I stay ahead of the noobs can't have what they do or can afford. I've got to be different! 2560 x 1600 here I come!

I'll be happy to take your current monitor off your hands for a reasonable price. hehe
January 27, 2010 5:41:09 PM

This post is great as I have been researching this issue for the past week. Let me explain my dilemma...

I got a Blu Ray drive for Xmas for my PC. I currently have a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24" monitor that I got free through work about three years ago.

When I got my Blu Ray this past Xmas, I immediately thought "well, I guess I better sell the Dell and get an "HD" monitor now so I can watch Blu Ray".

Now I'm beginning to wonder. With my Dell's native resolution of 1920 x 1200, and a new HD monitor with it's 1920 x 1080 resolution, would I actually be downgrading?? I watch movies now and then, but mostly I use my computer for just computer work (email, documents, browsing, etc). I don't play computer games.

So am I right in thinking to just stick with what I have? After all, my Dell is a beautiful monitor and I never had any issues with it at all. So would I even see an improvement with a new $200 "HD" monitor?

Thanks!

Jeff
February 8, 2010 4:18:34 AM

jking81 said:
This post is great as I have been researching this issue for the past week. Let me explain my dilemma...

I got a Blu Ray drive for Xmas for my PC. I currently have a Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24" monitor that I got free through work about three years ago.

When I got my Blu Ray this past Xmas, I immediately thought "well, I guess I better sell the Dell and get an "HD" monitor now so I can watch Blu Ray".

Now I'm beginning to wonder. With my Dell's native resolution of 1920 x 1200, and a new HD monitor with it's 1920 x 1080 resolution, would I actually be downgrading?? I watch movies now and then, but mostly I use my computer for just computer work (email, documents, browsing, etc). I don't play computer games.

So am I right in thinking to just stick with what I have? After all, my Dell is a beautiful monitor and I never had any issues with it at all. So would I even see an improvement with a new $200 "HD" monitor?

Thanks!

Jeff


Hi Jeff,

I hope its not too late to clarify this issue. I've been away from this website for a while and was just revising my most recent threads.

The pixel resolutions in your monitor of 1920x1200 are obviously greater than the 1920x1080. 1920 is the length, 1200 is the height by pixels. The 1080p HD you keep hearing about does not mean pixel but progressive lines, hence why the 1080i is interlaced resolutions which are not as good. Don't worry, I won't fill your head with useless knowledge, I will simply tell you that progressive is a far better video playback mode than interlaced, thus 1080p is greater than 1080i. Also, 1080pixels can handle 1080p. Your monitor is HD ready, hopefully your video card is as well. If you use the DVI wire, the signal will be digital, or else you use VGA for analog signals. VGA can handle higher resolutions than 1080p HD, but I never personally tried it and DVI is pretty much the same as HDMI so I would recommend DVI. If you're uncertain about all this, you can look up for some softwares that will test your PC and let you know if it is completely ready for Blu Ray playback. I know Cyberlink (makers of the Power DVD 9 Ultra software, probably the best blu ray player out there) has a free software to test your machine for compatibility. Try it: http://www.cyberlink.com/prog/bd-support/diagnosis.do
February 11, 2010 10:17:56 PM

senvae said:
Hi Jeff,

I hope its not too late to clarify this issue. I've been away from this website for a while and was just revising my most recent threads.

The pixel resolutions in your monitor of 1920x1200 are obviously greater than the 1920x1080. 1920 is the length, 1200 is the height by pixels. The 1080p HD you keep hearing about does not mean pixel but progressive lines, hence why the 1080i is interlaced resolutions which are not as good. Don't worry, I won't fill your head with useless knowledge, I will simply tell you that progressive is a far better video playback mode than interlaced, thus 1080p is greater than 1080i. Also, 1080pixels can handle 1080p. Your monitor is HD ready, hopefully your video card is as well. If you use the DVI wire, the signal will be digital, or else you use VGA for analog signals. VGA can handle higher resolutions than 1080p HD, but I never personally tried it and DVI is pretty much the same as HDMI so I would recommend DVI. If you're uncertain about all this, you can look up for some softwares that will test your PC and let you know if it is completely ready for Blu Ray playback. I know Cyberlink (makers of the Power DVD 9 Ultra software, probably the best blu ray player out there) has a free software to test your machine for compatibility. Try it: http://www.cyberlink.com/prog/bd-support/diagnosis.do



Senvae,

Thank you very much for your reply!

I understand all about 1080i and 1080p, in fact, I have a 55" 1080p HD RPTV out in the living room. I was mainly asking if I would see an improvement in going from my current Dell monitor to a new 1080p monitor for my computer.

Sorry, but in my original post I should have stated that my computer is ready for Blu Ray playback. I actually recently purchased Cyberlink's latest version of their Blu Ray player (which is excellent by the way!) and according to their diagnostic test, my PC is good to go for Blu Ray!

So it all comes down to, should I go with a 1080 HD monitor, or stick to my 1920 x 1200 Dell?

Thanks!
February 12, 2010 6:35:49 PM

jking81 said:
Senvae,

Thank you very much for your reply!

I understand all about 1080i and 1080p, in fact, I have a 55" 1080p HD RPTV out in the living room. I was mainly asking if I would see an improvement in going from my current Dell monitor to a new 1080p monitor for my computer.

Sorry, but in my original post I should have stated that my computer is ready for Blu Ray playback. I actually recently purchased Cyberlink's latest version of their Blu Ray player (which is excellent by the way!) and according to their diagnostic test, my PC is good to go for Blu Ray!

So it all comes down to, should I go with a 1080 HD monitor, or stick to my 1920 x 1200 Dell?

Thanks!


I am using PowerDVD 9 actually. It's also great for playing HD .mkv or .mp4 files. The only reason you would buy an HD monitor is if you absolutely have a problem with having black bars on bottom and top of the screen. Power DVD 9 will automatically make those bars in order to conserve the true size of the movie and its aspect ratio. I personally have a 25.5inch Samsung (1920x1080) on my second computer which looks amazing with Blu Ray, the only reason I bought my TV was to have the size of 52". For personal viewing the 1920x1200 resolution monitor will give you a bigger desktop during windows operation, a bigger screen for gaming, and will display 1080p no problem. No need to buy a new one unless you think your contrast ratio is weak or the colours are bad. If the quality of your screen is ok, then buying a 1080p monitor would be a waste of money unless you're looking to upgrade the size.
February 13, 2010 5:22:12 PM

senvae said:
I am using PowerDVD 9 actually. It's also great for playing HD .mkv or .mp4 files. The only reason you would buy an HD monitor is if you absolutely have a problem with having black bars on bottom and top of the screen. Power DVD 9 will automatically make those bars in order to conserve the true size of the movie and its aspect ratio. I personally have a 25.5inch Samsung (1920x1080) on my second computer which looks amazing with Blu Ray, the only reason I bought my TV was to have the size of 52". For personal viewing the 1920x1200 resolution monitor will give you a bigger desktop during windows operation, a bigger screen for gaming, and will display 1080p no problem. No need to buy a new one unless you think your contrast ratio is weak or the colours are bad. If the quality of your screen is ok, then buying a 1080p monitor would be a waste of money unless you're looking to upgrade the size.


Perfect. That's what I had expected, that dumping my nice Dell for a new 1080p would not give me any improvement and would end up being a waste of money.

Thanks again for your help.
a c 216 U Graphics card
a c 128 C Monitor
August 10, 2010 10:43:15 PM

Quote:
1920x1080 is better for games. It lets you see more than 1980x1200. Example: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6272315/p-3.html


This depends on the game a lot. First person shooters may actually feel better with the wider view (1920x1080), but RTS games, and Diablo style games feel better on the 1920x1200, because the image gives you a little more view at the top and bottom of the screen.

Your example isn't the typical one. Almost every other game of that nature allows you to zoom out a tad and get the same viewable area, but gives you a better centered view. Of course you can always set your 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 if you there is a rare advantage in doing so.
February 5, 2011 8:30:42 PM

Why is it at 1920X1200 the desktop icons & webpage font is so small? I'm using a new 24" LCD at that res & straining to read/type this for instance. I've changed various settings, etc & the ONLY thing "makes" webpages, etc proper size to be readable is LOWERING the res? (Forgive my ignorance. I've looked into it & still don't get it).
a c 271 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 5, 2011 8:39:54 PM

Try holding down the ctrl key and using the mouse wheel to enlarge the webpage font size or use the zoom function in the "View" menu at the top of the page.
!