Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080 ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 19, 2010 5:25:31 PM

I am finally in the market for a new monitor (Samsung 19" 4:3 current).

My biggest question is, now that 1920x1080 is most common 23-24" screen is it really best for gaming? I know some newer games may support this resolution since it's the new "in size", however, a lot of older games would look slightly out of proper aspect wouldn't they since they would mostly use 1920x1200?

If anyone has tried both especially, I would love to know if there is much noticable difference other than the fact it seems you pay more for the x1200 resolution. Will it look odd or will there be annoying bars on the screen to make it fit properly?

Appreciate any insight as I already have 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 models picked out but would love to save $70-90 bucks getting the 1080 if it isn't going to make any noticable difference. Thanks :pt1cable: 

More about : 1920x1200 1920x1080

a c 106 U Graphics card
April 19, 2010 5:35:31 PM

I say just get the 1080p model. A 16:9 ratio monitor is better than a 16:10 ratio one when watching HD on the internet for one :p . If an older game supports a 16:10 ratio it should also support a 16:9 ratio, or at least you can force it to do so. The issue with older games though is that they may only support a 4:3 monitor, in which case I find it's best to run them in windowed mode. Not ideal, but it works.
April 19, 2010 5:41:10 PM

Appreciate the reply. I think in back of my head I felt that way but I think I needed another opinion more than anything. I think I'll get the 1080p then. The price difference just doesn't seem to justify getting the 1200 one overall.

Thanks !
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2010 5:41:20 PM

Some Samsung monitors do come with a automatic ratio setting that will switch the monitor from 16:10 to 4:3 when you play older style games that do not support the 16:10 or 16:9 ratio. This helps to prevent stretching and distortion.
April 19, 2010 11:26:52 PM

Unless you are watching movies..I would stick with 1920x1200. But thats just me.
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 4:27:21 AM

Get the 1080 and save some money. If you were a bigger monitor, then get the 1200.
April 20, 2010 4:33:17 AM

I've got a 23" Dell 1920x1080 and a buddy has a Samsung 1920x1200 monitor. To be honest, I think they look about the same. But then again, I really don't play too many games. I'd probably save some cash like the others recommended and go with the 1080.
April 20, 2010 5:20:04 AM

If you get a LCD monitor that supports "1:1 aspect ratio", then the advantage of a 1920x1200 monitor is you can run it at 1600x1200 for 4:3 aspect ratio games with just black bars on the sides. If you have a 1920x1080 monitor then you're stuck running at 1280x960 with black borders all around. Again this assumes you have a monitor that supports "1:1 aspect ratio". I'm not sure if there's any issue with the video cards in order to support this.

Part of this depends on many older games you have that only support 4:3 aspect ratios. There weren't many games made before 2007 that support ratios other than 4:3. One exception was Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness, released in 2003, that allowed a user to specify 4:3, 16:10, 16:9 aspect ratios, as well as a relatively rare 30 bit color mode (true color is really 24 bit color).

You should also make sure that the LCD monitor you buy supports 24 bit color, or 8 bits per color per pixel. Most of the "TN" type LCD monitors only support 6 bits per color and results in visible border noise on subtly shaded images, or blur due to dithering. "VA" and "VPS" LCD monitors support 8 bits per color. Usually the manufactures will not specify the number of bits per color, and you have to be careful about LCD monitors that claim to be "true color" or support 16.7 million colors. I haven't followed LCD monitors much (still using a CRT monitor), so I don't know much about current LCD monitors.


a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 6:46:47 AM

Talon said:
I am finally in the market for a new monitor (Samsung 19" 4:3 current).

My biggest question is, now that 1920x1080 is most common 23-24" screen is it really best for gaming? I know some newer games may support this resolution since it's the new "in size", however, a lot of older games would look slightly out of proper aspect wouldn't they since they would mostly use 1920x1200?

If anyone has tried both especially, I would love to know if there is much noticable difference other than the fact it seems you pay more for the x1200 resolution. Will it look odd or will there be annoying bars on the screen to make it fit properly?

Appreciate any insight as I already have 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 models picked out but would love to save $70-90 bucks getting the 1080 if it isn't going to make any noticable difference. Thanks :pt1cable: 


It started out as a scam. 24" monitors used to almost exclusively be 1920x1200. But 1920x1080 monitors have less screen size and therefor cost slightly less to manufacture. In fact, the "wider" the ratio, the smaller the screeen. I wouldn't be surprised to see 23" wide by 1" high monitors eventually, those would be REALLY cheap to produce.

And then, to win over customers to the cheaper parts, manufacturers started advertising them as "True 1080P! TRUE 1080P!!!". In other words, they were trying to tell you that these cheaper monitors were somehow better.

My big beef is this: I used a 1600x1200 CRT for many years before I finally got a 1920x1200 display. Now, I work with documents and photos. A 1200 pixel display will hold a 1280x1024 photo at 100% in Photoshop, between the tool bars, while a 1080P screen will not. Whenever I try a shorter screen I end up wasting a bunch of time zooming out and zooming in while photo editing, scrolling up and down in documents, etc.

Someone give me a freaking 1920x1600! But whatever you do, don't try to sell me on 1080P for WORK.

Oh, and as you can see, enough people were stupid enough to accept the marketing line "True 1080P!!!" that 1920x1200 monitors are becoming scarce. At the beginning the price difference wasn't noticeable, but stupid buyers getting steered away from 1920x1200 by those exclamation marks has made these a "scarce" part.

Oh, and Talon, thanks for the opportunity to rant. I watched this entire scheme unfold over the past two years and this was my first chance to vent :) 
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 7:17:10 AM

Crashman said:
It started out as a scam. 24" monitors used to almost exclusively be 1920x1200. But 1920x1080 monitors have less screen size and therefor cost slightly less to manufacture. In fact, the "wider" the ratio, the smaller the screeen. I wouldn't be surprised to see 23" wide by 1" high monitors eventually, those would be REALLY cheap to produce.

And then, to win over customers to the cheaper parts, manufacturers started advertising them as "True 1080P! TRUE 1080P!!!". In other words, they were trying to tell you that these cheaper monitors were somehow better.

My big beef is this: I used a 1600x1200 CRT for many years before I finally got a 1920x1200 display. Now, I work with documents and photos. A 1200 pixel display will hold a 1280x1024 photo at 100% in Photoshop, between the tool bars, while a 1080P screen will not. Whenever I try a shorter screen I end up wasting a bunch of time zooming out and zooming in while photo editing, scrolling up and down in documents, etc.

Someone give me a freaking 1920x1600! But whatever you do, don't try to sell me on 1080P for WORK.

Oh, and as you can see, enough people were stupid enough to accept the marketing line "True 1080P!!!" that 1920x1200 monitors are becoming scarce. At the beginning the price difference wasn't noticeable, but stupid buyers getting steered away from 1920x1200 by those exclamation marks has made these a "scarce" part.


Reason why monitors use 16:10=Slightly more screen real state.

Reason why 16:9 started to be implemented is because HD's standard has become 16:9 aspect ratio. Truth is 1920x1200 is a rather awkward wide screen, often requiring letter boxing to give a true wide screen effect.

Production costs for a LCD rely more on screen size then resolution. You can get into the whole "but 1920x1200=higher quality" argument but truth is resolution is no shape way or form a measure of quality. A 1920x1200 can cost less then a 1920x1080 LCD, and vice versa. If anything at all by going to 16:9 aspect ratio LCD manufacturers are actually shelling out more $$ to change their manufacturing materials/procedures/costs to change specifications/legal matters.

Requirements for HD Ready 720p or 1080P (Europe, but true for USA as well):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_ready
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 7:44:07 AM

AsAnAtheist said:
Reason why monitors use 16:10=Slightly more screen real state.

Reason why 16:9 started to be implemented is because HD's standard has become 16:9 aspect ratio. Truth is 1920x1200 is a rather awkward wide screen, often requiring letter boxing to give a true wide screen effect.

So do "true 1080p screens".

I have quite a few blu-rays, and the majority are in a wider than 16:9 ratio, which means that they will letter box on a "true HD" screen too.


Oh, and 1920x1200 isn't awkward. It's awesome. I have a 24" 1920x1200, and it's the perfect balance IMHO.
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 8:18:14 AM

AsAnAtheist said:
You can get into the whole "but 1920x1200=higher quality" argument but truth is resolution is no shape way or form a measure of quality. A 1920x1200 can cost less then a 1920x1080 LCD, and vice versa.


I never even mentioned quality, quit trying to put words in my mouth. A 16:10 screen cost more to manufacture than a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal size, because it has more SQUARE INCHES of material, just like I ACTUALLY said.
April 20, 2010 11:24:17 AM

I also noticed a trend away from 1920x1200 monitors, in the last year or so. Since the high end monitors are 2560x1600, which is a 16:10 ratio, I don't understand why the trend is going away from 1920x1200. As mentioned, 1920x1200 is good for handling 1600x1200 with 4:3 aspect ratio games. 1920x1200 would also seem better for documents, which are still done in portrait instead of landscape mode.

April 20, 2010 2:05:10 PM

Well Crashman, you sorta dredge up my feelings as I have watched this unfold the last couple of years as well. It seems the only benefit is if you mostly use your PC for media purposes in going with 1080p.

If using it for mostly gaming, or at least a lot of gaming which I will likely do, it seems if you can spend the extra $ it might be best to get the x1200 resolution. It is definitely food for thought and I too am saddened that the 'HD' marketing has overshadowed the gaming or productivity side of a PC.

I appreciate all the replies, it has been very helpful, I think I might wait for another paycheck and suck it up and get the 1920x1200 before they all go the way of the Do-Do :) 

I don't mind borders if watching a movie as much as i'd mind a game not scaling correctly or having borders possibly. About all I watch on my PC is the occasional Netflix stream or movie I can't watch with the kids around due to violent or mature themes. Otherwise I watch all movies on the comfort of my couch on a big screen :) 

Now just a matter of picking between the couple of "affordable" ones left on the market. Thanks all !
April 20, 2010 2:33:18 PM

1920x1200 my vote too
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 2:59:07 PM

cjl said:
So do "true 1080p screens".

I have quite a few blu-rays, and the majority are in a wider than 16:9 ratio, which means that they will letter box on a "true HD" screen too.


Oh, and 1920x1200 isn't awkward. It's awesome. I have a 24" 1920x1200, and it's the perfect balance IMHO.


Yeah Blu-rays were/sometimes are released in 1:85:1 ratio, however that is quickly changing and many new movies are coming out at 16:9.
Avatar: 16:9 (1:78:1) being a prime example.

@Crashman

Your right, but how much did they really save in terms of manufacturing costs that wasn't eaten away by publicity, legal matters, and changing manufacturing methods?

HP LA2405wg 24" 1920x1200 (16:10) ratio:
20.4" x 12.7" Screen size (LCD ONLY)
Square Inches: 259.08

SAMSUNG B2430H 24" 1920x1080 (16:9) ratio:
20.921" x 11.76" inches (LCD only)
Square inches: 246.03

Square inch difference: 13 inches squared, which would equal around 1.2~ inch of vertical space.

Personal preference. 16:9 or 16:10. I personally prefer 16:9 because of movie playback, but if you need 16:10 for work by all means go ahead. To be honest 16:10 ratio wouldnt help me at all at work with a 4000x3000 picture, while a 1280x1024 is the LEAST of my worries, those things can be incredibly easy to photoshop due to the low resolution..
For long vertical height you should consider an LCD that can be vertically rotate 90 degress, and supports portrait mode.

My real beef with LCD manufacturing companies is pricing. The LCD's are overpriced at 16:9 or 16:10 ratio. Sure they have gone down in price since 2001, but really? 24" LCD still costs well over $200+, you can often find the previous generation or the "lower end" new generation LCD's for sale under $200 which is an OBVIOUS hint that LCD's can go cheaper. If anything at least curse monitor manufacturers/assemblers for often using the same LCD panel for a series of monitors while only changing the bezel, back lights, or if your lucky the board.
April 20, 2010 3:24:42 PM

AsAnAtheist said:
Yeah Blu-rays were/sometimes are released in 1:85:1 ratio, however that is quickly changing and many new movies are coming out at 16:9.
or 2.00:1 or 2.35:1. There are various formats, including the digital cinemas that use some subset of 4096x2168, and in these cases, 16:9 has been relatively rare until Avatar.

I personally prefer 16:9 because of movie playback said:
I personally prefer 16:9 because of movie playback
It's an LCD monitor. The image size on a similarly sized 1920x1200 monitor will be about the same as the 1920x1080, the only difference being the black bars above and below, so I don't see an issue here.
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 4:01:57 PM

rcgldr said:
or 2.00:1 or 2.35:1. There are various formats, including the digital cinemas that use some subset of 4096x2168, and in these cases, 16:9 has been relatively rare until Avatar.

It's an LCD monitor. The image size on a similarly sized 1920x1200 monitor will be about the same as the 1920x1080, the only difference being the black bars above and below, so I don't see an issue here.


Ah yes, almost forgot, the dying anamorphic widescreen. Anyways 2:35:1 ratio is not a very typical aspect ratio for movies anymore, the more popular is 1:85:1 but that is changing to 1:78:1 (16:9). We'll see if 16:9 picks up more wind.
Actually AVATAR was shown in 2D screen at 2:35:1, but in 3D IMAX was shown in 16:9... Blu-ray release is confirmed at 16:9.

Anyways who's getting AVATAR for Blu-ray?
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 8:13:35 PM

AsAnAtheist said:
@Crashman

Your right, but how much did they really save in terms of manufacturing costs that wasn't eaten away by publicity, legal matters, and changing manufacturing methods?

HP LA2405wg 24" 1920x1200 (16:10) ratio:
20.4" x 12.7" Screen size (LCD ONLY)
Square Inches: 259.08

SAMSUNG B2430H 24" 1920x1080 (16:9) ratio:
20.921" x 11.76" inches (LCD only)
Square inches: 246.03

Square inch difference: 13 inches squared, which would equal around 1.2~ inch of vertical space.


Well, there's the other thing I left out of my argument because it's a sidetrack: Another reason 1080p monitors are cheaper to produce than 1920x1200 monitors because of the economies of scale: They can use the same panel for a 24" monitor as they do for a 24" TV with 1080P. Of course, that's assuming people in the 24" TV market care enough to pay extra for 1080P, when 720P is usually considered acceptable for TV's less than 32".
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 8:24:59 PM

Crashman said:
Well, there's the other thing I left out of my argument because it's a sidetrack: Another reason 1080p monitors are cheaper to produce than 1920x1200 monitors because of the economies of scale: They can use the same panel for a 24" monitor as they do for a 24" TV with 1080P. Of course, that's assuming people in the 24" TV market care enough to pay extra for 1080P, when 720P is usually considered acceptable for TV's less than 32".


Yeah I already know that bit, however I dont actually know anyone with a 1080P HDTV under 26", the smallest TV i seen anyone own with 1080p is a 32" Samsung.. Only difference is TV's get their stupid cost from royalty fees, dedicated video board (not a video card but image processing board) and the technology to process the image such as Sony Bravia's "engine". Not to mention price fixing.
May 9, 2010 6:16:47 AM

Good thread! I am also looking for a monitor Talon. I have been searching for about 2 weeks now and I keep getting torn between getting a -1920x1080p and 1920x1200- HD monitor. I currently have an ALienware M17x and I really want to get an external monitor so that I won't have to keep squinting at the 17" screen to spot snipers in Bad company 2 among that fact I also want to hoop up my 360 also.

I feel that having the extra 120 pixels make a little difference in view. That just my personal preference but its comfortable for me. I am just having the darndest time finding the right monitor.

I keep thinking I want to go with a samsung but I'm just not quite sure. What I am looking for is as follows:
-I am willing to spead around $300 bucks
-23"-24" (about 2.8 Feet away viewing)
-1920x1200 Resolution
- 1-2 HDMI Ports (for my 360)
- 1 DVI (for HDMI out from [M17x] to DVI to monitor)
- Low ms response time ( 2-5 ms) Or does that even matter?
-Glossy Screen Preferably

I think thats about it. If any knows of any monitors that fit that criteria reply to this or shoot me a message.

Thanks!!

O by the way Talon, I would go with 1920x1200 imho.

God Bless!!
a c 376 U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 6:55:36 AM

Crashman said:
But whatever you do, don't try to sell me on 1080P for WORK.

And by that you mean your particular line of work when you edit certain size images with a certain program... not exactly good general advice.
a c 376 U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 7:08:51 AM

A lot of the reasons given are valid as to why a 1920x1200 monitor is a nice thing to have over a 1920x1080 one. If fact I'll add another in that you can then game in 16:9 resolutions in windowed mode and still have access to the task bar and never have to alt-tab which some games don't like.
However a quick look over on newegg shows that 1920x1200 monitors are fully double the price. Are the advantages worth that much? IMO hell no.
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 9:33:24 AM

jyjjy said:
And by that you mean your particular line of work when you edit certain size images with a certain program... not exactly good general advice.


No, it's excellent general advice. I cannot think of ONE line of work where having LESS vertical screen size is beneficial. Word processing? You see more lines without scrolling. Spreadsheets? You see more rows at a time. Databases? You can visually compare more records at a glance. Photo editing? If 2560x1600 isn't enough, why would you go from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080?

And that last comment hits the work concept perfectly. There are very few lines of work where a 2560x1600 display isn't beneficial, but people often don't have the space or money for those monsters. Given that people normally run out of vertical pixels first, 4x3--specifically 1920x1440 or larger--would be better for work.
a c 376 U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 11:32:45 AM

Well of course in most cases larger = better. My main point with that comment was that your particular description of having problems was exceedingly specific to your work and not generally applicable.
The question in general is whether it's worth the price and I would think that for most people a gain of 11% vertical screen size simply is not worth twice as much money. I can imagine for some applications/work situations it may be worth it but for general computing... well I just thought someone needed to counter balance this threads love parade on the concept with the unfortunate reality of the rather outrageous price difference.
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 12:30:39 PM

jyjjy said:
Well of course in most cases larger = better. My main point with that comment was that your particular description of having problems was exceedingly specific to your work and not generally applicable.
The question in general is whether it's worth the price and I would think that for most people a gain of 11% vertical screen size simply is not worth twice as much money. I can imagine for some applications/work situations it may be worth it but for general computing... well I just thought someone needed to counter balance this threads love parade on the concept with the unfortunately reality of the rather outrageous price difference.


My gripe is thus: The price difference used to be less than $15 when the smaller parts were introduced. People bought the marketing for the smaller parts, and now VOLUME has made the prices spread out to a much greater amount. In other words, the huge difference in price is due to only two factors: tricky sellers and naive buyers. It's easy to criticize both.

Now, if I'm to look after my own interest, I'm going to try to convince the mass market to swing the other way, no? Because if the mass market did swing the other way, the larger monitors would be far cheaper.
a c 376 U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 12:40:55 PM

I guess. That's a rather selfish(and ultimately probably quite fruitless) angle to take when handing out advice though.
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 12:55:11 PM

Well if the only thing standing between you and a 1920x1200 monitor is price then I guess you should downgrade to 1920x1080 since the extra $60 doesn't give you a dollar per inch ratio.

To me a 24" is really long and no width. My 1080P experience lasted about 2 months before I upgraded again to 30". Never complain about desktop space ever again. Never will I be bothered by screen height again. Unlike 1080P the lack of height does nothing for scrolling through web pages and text documents. 30"

Also you shouldn't get a glossy screen. Unless you are working in a cave or have one of those monitor covers that creates a minature cave for the monitor to hide in. You would get so much glare from any light source it would drive you nuts trying to calibrate anything. The performance isn't even that much different. The only reason why laptops and TVs have hard glossy screens is because people throw things at TVs and laptop screens tend to scratch against keyboards.
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 1:09:14 PM

rofl_my_waffle said:
Well if the only thing standing between you and a 1920x1200 monitor is price then I guess you should downgrade to 1920x1080 since the extra $60 doesn't give you a dollar per inch ratio.

To me a 24" is really long and no width. My 1080P experience lasted about 2 months before I upgraded again to 30". Never complain about desktop space ever again. Never will I be bothered by screen height again. Unlike 1080P the lack of height does nothing for scrolling through web pages and text documents. 30"

Also you shouldn't get a glossy screen. Unless you are working in a cave or have one of those monitor covers that creates a minature cave for the monitor to hide in. You would get so much glare from any light source it would drive you nuts trying to calibrate anything. The performance isn't even that much different. The only reason why laptops and TVs have hard glossy screens is because people throw things at TVs and laptop screens tend to scratch against keyboards.


Excellent point on the glossy screens. Some are better than others, but none are perfect. Anti-glare screens are easier to deal with when it comes to background lighting and so forth.
a c 376 U Graphics card
May 9, 2010 1:25:24 PM

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of glossy screens either. In general when shopping for a monitor it's not a bad idea to go to an actual store that has a variety of them set up so you can see them in person and get a better idea of what you personally prefer. I wouldn't actually buy one in a store though as you will undoubtedly find better prices online.
May 10, 2010 2:31:32 AM

I say that unless you find a good deal, price-wise it really isn't worth it. If you wanted a worthwhile 16:10, you might as well go to 2560x1600.

Also, I hope to god movies stay wider and don't shrink to 16:9. Anamorphic rules in my book, as the uber wideness better suits the human vision. In some ways, I think games would be better at wide ratios, but that would only happen if that somehow became the standard, and I'll admit that for actual desktop work and not media watching, squarer is better.
a b U Graphics card
May 10, 2010 4:44:33 AM

i prefer 1080P for gaming and movies, though i wish i had a monitor that could rotate so i could get 9:16 when i am programming
a b U Graphics card
May 10, 2010 6:11:01 AM

mindless728 said:
i prefer 1080P for gaming and movies, though i wish i had a monitor that could rotate so i could get 9:16 when i am programming
I'd prefer my game to be displayed in a 16:9 frame with all the status bars outside of that frame, but doing so would require a 4:3 monitor!
!