1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080 ?

[Talon]

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

 

[megamanx00]

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 . 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.

 

[Talon]

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 !

 

[deweycd]

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.

 

[Bighairyman]

Unless you are watching movies..I would stick with 1920x1200. But thats just me.

 

[soundefx]

Get the 1080 and save some money. If you were a bigger monitor, then get the 1200.

 

[buwish]

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.

 

[rcgldr]

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.

 

[Crashman]

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

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

 

[AsAnAtheist]

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

 

[cjl]

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.

 

[Crashman]

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.

 

[rcgldr]

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.

 

[Talon]

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 !

 

[maximiza]

1920x1200 my vote too

 

[AsAnAtheist]

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.

 

[rcgldr]

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

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.

 

[AsAnAtheist]

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?

 

[Crashman]

@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".

 

[AsAnAtheist]

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.

 

[Probound]

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!!

 

[jyjjy]

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.

 

[jyjjy]

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.

 

[Crashman]

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.

 

[jyjjy]

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.