Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NEED higher resolution???

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 26, 2011 10:25:37 PM

Hi guys,

I will upgrade my GPU from 8800 gts 320 MB to an XFX 6850 Black Edition in a month or so.

I current have a display Samsung syncmaster 19" b931bw 2ms. from 2007! Resolution at 1440x900. And still wroking great.

Here a link: (5ms instead 2 could not find it.) http://www.samsung.com/dk/consumer/computer-peripherals...


I was thinking when i get a 7-8 tier higher GPU, why not get a better sceen?

So my question is do FULL HD 1920x1080, really kick some ass compare to my current sceen?

I us my desktop mostly for the Coming Shogun 2 total war and Diablo 3.

I was looking on 2 sceens 22" from Samsung.

http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LS22X3HKFP/...
http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/monitors/LS22PTNSF/Z...

The different is the other has LED.

Should i get a bigger sceen like 24" Samsung 24" SyncMaster P2450H ?
Will the higher resolution gives me a better experience? worth it?

Whenever i see youtube in HD, its really smooth. compared to lower p. so i thought the HD sceens would improve the normal pictures? Daily operation etc.

The tekst get smaller i just make higher dpi?

any thoughts?

More about : higher resolution

a c 1408 U Graphics card
a b Ô Samsung
January 26, 2011 10:28:51 PM

1080P is a lot more real estate and definitely worth it! I have a couple of 23" with that resolution and it is fine for text amongst other things.
January 26, 2011 10:32:05 PM

rolli59 said:
1080P is a lot more real estate and definitely worth it! I have a couple of 23" with that resolution and it is fine for text amongst other things.


I got a 19" (upgrade it from a 17" crt long ago) Do you think a 24" too big? 22" is also big.

I know is subjektive, from person to person but still. I should go to the local and see for myself. But still good to get opinions and experience from people.

Should i take the 22 with LED or the other one?
Related resources
a c 1408 U Graphics card
a b Ô Samsung
January 26, 2011 10:37:44 PM

I have both 22" and 23" (different computers) and they fit very well in my field of vision so would a 24". When I originally went from a 17" std to a 22" 1680 x 1050, it was and is the best upgrade I have ever done for visual experience.
January 26, 2011 10:42:23 PM

rolli59 said:
I have both 22" and 23" (different computers) and they fit very well in my field of vision so would a 24". When I originally went from a 17" std to a 22" 1680 x 1050, it was and is the best upgrade I have ever done for visual experience.


Again thx for answer.

I had great experience from 17 to 19 too.

Which of the to 22" i linked would be best buy?

In denmark where i live they both cost the same. and the 24 a little more.
a c 1408 U Graphics card
a b Ô Samsung
January 26, 2011 10:48:50 PM

What is the price difference in Danmark? Hang on the LED is cheaper! Led is supposedly better but I have no personal experience, so it is hard for me to choose.
January 26, 2011 10:59:06 PM

rolli59 said:
What is the price difference in Danmark? Hang on the LED is cheaper! Led is supposedly better but I have no personal experience, so it is hard for me to choose.


the link show that the non led cost alot more then the LED

the weird think is that in Denmark the LED model cost 1300 krone where the non led cost 1200 krone.

The led lightning reduce the watt usage by 40 %.

So i think i should go the the non led probably? Base on that the english prize cost 68 dollars more for the non led.
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:05:39 PM

The LED backlight allows the monitor to be thinner, lighter, and use less power. It also allows obnoxious levels of dynamic contrast (which never works well at all, so I always deactivate it). Actual visual/color quality will depend much more on the type (TN vs. IPS) and quality of the LCD.
a c 1408 U Graphics card
a b Ô Samsung
January 26, 2011 11:09:39 PM

The none led looks like a very good monitor although it has 5ms response time compared to the 2ms on the led. I am presuming you are buying online so you can not compare the picture quality.
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:11:28 PM

Don't worry about the response time, the numbers are all made up anyway. They are both decent quality TN panels (by Samsung) so they should both have more than sufficient response time.
January 26, 2011 11:13:31 PM

rolli59 said:
The none led looks like a very good monitor although it has 5ms response time compared to the 2ms on the led. I am presuming you are buying online so you can not compare the picture quality.


Yes, am buying online. My local stores do not have the samsungs. But i could compare the Size " of 19 to 22 to 24 but not image quality.
January 26, 2011 11:16:42 PM

Btw, maybe this is a weird question.

But what size monitor " display is more natural for the 1920x1080 resolution? 20,21,22,23,24" Widesceen etc?
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:16:45 PM

heuritisk said:
the link show that the non led cost alot more then the LED

the weird think is that in Denmark the LED model cost 1300 krone where the non led cost 1200 krone.

The led lightning reduce the watt usage by 40 %.

So i think i should go the the non led probably? Base on that the english prize cost 68 dollars more for the non led.


The Non LED that you linked is a TV also so is more expensive since it has the TV tuner and PIP so you can watch TV on the screen at the same time you are using the monitor.

I just bought a new 23" Acer with 1920x1080 resolution for $139 and it works and looks great (replaced my 4 year old 22" 1680x1050 res monitor that gave out) -- It is pretty much the same as my old monitor but the added width helps with video playback ( new monitor adds only 30 pixels to the height and 240 pixels to the length so is a bit wider for the extra 1" of screen size) -- I had gone back to using my 17" CRT monitor for about a week after the 22" monitor broke and I could barely last the week - the difference is well worth the investment in a 22-24" monitor !

For 1920x 1080 either 23 or 24" should look OK -- a 20 - 22" at that res makes the pixels a bit small and text gets hard to read (I think 1680x1050 is more suited to 22") and above 24" the 1920x1080 res starts to look a bit blocky since the pixels are getting a bit too large.
a c 1408 U Graphics card
a b Ô Samsung
January 26, 2011 11:39:05 PM

20" would be to small 22" OK but the two 23" that I have (both LG with TV tuners) and my sons are using are very good size wise having them right in front of you just on the other side of the keyboard. Then again it is all relative on how far you sit away from the monitor.
a b U Graphics card
January 26, 2011 11:43:09 PM

rolli59 said:
20" would be to small 22" OK but the two 23" that I have (both LG with TV tuners) and my sons are using are very good size wise having them right in front of you just on the other side of the keyboard. Then again it is all relative on how far you sit away from the monitor.


I'd agree with that -- 23" seems to be the sweet spot for 1920x1080 and 22 or 24 is still good but go to 20 or 25+ and it's not so good.

EDIT : just looked it up and ideally a PC monitor will use 96DPI so ideal size for a 1920x1080 display would be 20 x 11.25 inches (which happens to be the size of my 23" diagonal monitor) -- so for a windows PC 23" diagonal is the sweet spot for 1920x1080 resolution !
January 27, 2011 8:13:20 AM

Nice thx for the replys guys....

i actually linked the wrong versions...HD i was looking at the H version...since is much cheaper for my bugdet.

Well now i narrow down to 3 monitors.

b2230H

http://www.samsung.com/dk/consumer/computer-peripherals...

P2450H
http://www.samsung.com/dk/consumer/computer-peripherals...

P2470H (more exspensive then the 2450 but would it fit better)
http://www.samsung.com/dk/consumer/computer-peripherals...

So JDfan which one has the best sweet spot for 1920x1080? with 96dpi.

i cannot see the information on the actually display.

i prefer the p2450H and b2230H because the prize are nice.
a c 231 U Graphics card
a b Ô Samsung
January 27, 2011 1:31:17 PM

Size does matter. Once you have decided on a resolution, what size you pick will determine pixel pitch or PPI (pixels per inch).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

The pixel density which seems to satisfy the most people is 96 ppi. As you get below that, the image starts to look grainy as you can see the individual pixels. Gert much higher (say > 120) and ya will find yaself telling windows to 7use "large fonts". For 1920 x 1080, a diagonal size of 23-24 is ideal.

This is the one I put in most $1200 - $2000 builds.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a b U Graphics card
January 27, 2011 1:56:54 PM

Personally, i always go for 22" screens at 1080 rather than anything above as it gives the best PPI.

However it is your choice!
a b U Graphics card
January 27, 2011 2:30:40 PM

heuritisk said:
Nice thx for the replys guys....

i actually linked the wrong versions...HD i was looking at the H version...since is much cheaper for my bugdet.

Well now i narrow down to 3 monitors.

b2230H

http://www.samsung.com/dk/consumer/computer-peripherals...

P2450H
http://www.samsung.com/dk/consumer/computer-peripherals...

P2370H (more exspensive then the 2450 but would it fit better)
http://www.samsung.com/dk/consumer/computer-peripherals...

So JDfan which one has the best sweet spot for 1920x1080? with 96dpi.

i cannot see the information on the actually display.

i prefer the p2450H and b2230H because the prize are nice.


All 3 of those are nice and you'll be happy with the looks of any of them --- as mentioned the 21.5" 2230 will have the smallest pixel size so will be a slight bit sharper looking up close but the 23" 2370 is the closest to the 96DPI that windows is designed to use so will be the closest to the true image size as designed and the 2450 at 24" will have the largest pixel size so may look just a bit grainy up close but they are all 3 within acceptable size for a 1920x1080 display and it really depends on your preference (I'm getting older and my eyesight is not as sharp as it used to be so the 23 or 24" would probably be my preference since text is a bit larger on them and I do not really notice any graininess as much as some people might ) but overall any of them is well within the range of a good size for 1920x1080 resolution (Once you get around 27" diagonal size the graininess becomes very noticeable so for that size monitor you'd probably want closer to a 2560x1440 native resolution if going that large.)
!