Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best native resolution for most games?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 4, 2012 8:42:56 AM

I am thinking of buying a 24-27" monitor, and was wondering whether it would be better to buy one with 1900x1080 resolution or 1900x1200?

Which one is more comfortable for gaming?
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2012 9:13:18 AM

1920X1200 = more gaming real estate
a c 355 U Graphics card
a c 193 C Monitor
April 4, 2012 9:19:53 AM

I like 1920x1200.

I have a 1920x1080 Asus VK246H monitor, but I don't really like the 16:9 aspect ratio; for HDTV that's fine. I plan on dumping the Asus for a 1920x1200 monitor even though it only get used 6 - 8 hours a month.
Related resources
April 4, 2012 9:30:28 AM

Your question seems to be only around Gaming. In that case, only your personal comfort matters. All the recent games have an option of scaling the display to both 16:9 and 16:10 so you will not get stretched displays. Personally, I prefer 16:9 ratio as it suits everything that I do - gaming (especially driving games looks better on a 16:9 display), movies played without the black bars at top and bottom, office (16:9 works equally well for 2 documents/spreadsheets/browser windows maximized side by side) and so on. So in short, there is no major limitation on both the display ratios. If you are unbiased, then I would suggest you to have a look at both the display ratios (at a retailer) and buy one that suits.

Cheers!
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 9:40:45 AM

1920x1200 is better, but 1920x1080 Does not Suck. Anything between those two is pretty much fine, but personally the 1920x1200 one is better. It's pretty much 'wider' EDIT: Excuse me, TALLER, which makes the eyes more comfortable :) .
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 10:04:15 AM

@ refillable
16:10 is not 'wider' than 16:9, it is in fact taller.

@OP
I have a 1920x1200 screen and love the resolution, for movie watching it is a great compromise between 4:3 and 16:9, and when watching wide screen movies the player interface generally stays out of the screen when you move the mouse. For most games it is similar in that there is more top and bottom space for interface, and then the game play area is larger (but it does depend on the game). 1080p is not bad, and has advantages if you ever want to hook up a console or blue ray player to it, but if this is for PC gaming only then go with 16:10 ratio.

More important than resolution is the display technology. TN tech has come a long way over the years but IPS (or one of it's variants) is still the way to go if you can afford it. It will give more even coloring, deeper blacks, whiter whites, and it is color correctable.

having a 27" screen myself I can tell you than a large TN screen will look slightly warmer on the left side, and cooler on the right side. There is no way to correct for this, and while not the end of the world, and not really noticeable for games and movies, it becomes a major annoyance when trying to do photoshop or other 'color critical' work. The smaller the screen the less of an issue this will be.
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 1:46:07 PM

Eh sorry for that mistake, I was thinking of a rectangle with the shorter length being the 'Width'.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 2:14:58 PM

1920x1080 is more standard. Some games like any from THQ like space marine or homefront simply dont have a 1920x1200 resolution option. I think with space marine you can manually edit the config to get it to work though.
April 4, 2012 2:33:54 PM

My first 24" was a 1200 resolution, but I was forced to go down to 1080 because 3D monitors (don't use it for 3D, just 120Hz refresh) don't support anything higher.

Huge difference in side by side comparason... and I really do miss the extra 120 pixel height, but 120Hz > *
April 4, 2012 2:36:15 PM

1200 is great but also more expensive. I'm trying to make a similar decision because I don't have infinity money. Mission varies with time but currently addicted to BF3.

27" monitor at 1080?
or
24" monitor at 1200?

Currently using my bedroom 32" HDTV (768 res) so I'm a bit hooked on the large screen, but tired of being able to see the pixels because I'm so close to it and its so big. I'd like to return it to my bedroom and get a dedicated monitor but I'm in analysis paralysis with this decision.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2012 3:53:52 PM

27" at 1080p.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2012 4:03:33 PM

1080p is great for 21~25,but for anything more(27~28),1920x1200 is better.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 4:48:22 PM

For all-around usage I prefer the 16:10 (have both the samsung 24" Monitor/HDTV - 16:10 and the samsung 27" Monitor/HDTV - 16:9.
PS - I had no Black band when viewing Blue-ray DVD, monitor has display modes that correct to fill. Only cavet is that a "fat object will be slightly thinner. Now using a 32 in LED Samsung 120 Hz HDTV (16:9) for a monitor. Would have LOVED to afford the Dell U3011 @ 16:10, but just could not bring myself to the $1300 (my Samsung was only $550 (store display model @ BestBuy).

As to horizonal and vertical lenghts. The 16:10 is slightly LESS in Horizonal and More in Vertical.

For 16:9 - Heigth is 0.49 x Diagonal and lenght is 0.872 x Diagonal (for 24 " = 20.93 x 11.76)
For 16:10 - Heigth is 0.53 x Diagonal and lenght is 0.848 x Diagonal (for 24 " = 20.35 x 12.72)
Viewing area for 24 in 16:9 = 246.1 sq in vs 16:10 with 258.8 Sq in.

To compare 27" - @16:9 for Horiz (Diagonal x 0.872 and for Height (Diagonal x 0.49)
........................... @16:10 for Horiz (Diagonal x 0.848 and for Height (Diagonal x 0.53)
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 5:49:21 PM

Consider also the strength of your graphics card. Something like a HD6850 might do well enough at 1920x1080, but begin to suffer at 1920x1200 depending on how demanding your games are.
a c 164 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 6:04:10 PM

Used a 24" 1920x1200 display before the cat knocked it over and damaged the panel... GRRRRR :(  , but now have a 22" 1920x1080.
Do n't forget, the larger the display, the further away you should be when viewing.
If possible, see the panel you have in mind running: We all see differently and what is an awesome display to one is a mess to another.
Overall, I'd say the 1080 is the more flexible choice, but I also play movies so having no bars top and bottom looks better, but really if you're just gaming either will be fine but I think more games support 1080-any comments on this?

EDIT: Good point by jtt283.
a c 125 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 6:05:02 PM

I don't think it's worth the extra couple hundred for a 1200p over a 1080p. 23-24" 1080p offers quite a bit of real estate and a good resolution (aka pixels per inch).

If you want to go bigger like 27", the only way I'd consider that with a 1080p or 1200p screen is if I had some huge desk and sit about 5 feet away from the monitor. Since I and most people are maybe 2-3 feet away, if you have good eyesight you'll notice the pixels more (especially aliasing) but maybe that's just me.
a c 164 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 6:12:19 PM

@ Wolfram23: No, it's not just you, I notice aliasing less with the smaller display, despite the very similar resolution.
a b U Graphics card
April 4, 2012 6:16:06 PM

a smaller screen with more pixels provide better image quality due to high pixel density.23~24" 1080p is good IMO.
April 4, 2012 6:16:29 PM

I recently (a month ago) went from 24" @ 1200p "down" to 27" @ 1080p. I found my experience in games BETTER now with the 27" @ 1080p. Sure, I griped about the lost real estate for a week or so. But my FPS performance and visuals in games was improved noticeably!

Now, I am thrilled each time I sit down to game. My experience actually improved with 1080p.... and I used to be a major detractor of 16:9 gaming, thinking it was only for console fanboys!

I still have the 24" @ 1200p for some work on the side (e-mail, web browser, terminal sessions). Now it mainly just sits in portrait mode and shows me my static stuff (IM, e-mail, ventrilo, etc) while I game or watch movies, really.

I am happy as a pig in poop with the 27" @ 1080p now. Transitioning between movie/streaming media/games is great.
a c 355 U Graphics card
a c 193 C Monitor
April 4, 2012 6:20:41 PM

Onus said:
Consider also the strength of your graphics card. Something like a HD6850 might do well enough at 1920x1080, but begin to suffer at 1920x1200 depending on how demanding your games are.


1920x1200 only has 11% more pixels than 1920x1080 so the performance difference will not be very dramatic.
April 4, 2012 6:30:50 PM

jaguarskx said:
1920x1200 only has 11% more pixels than 1920x1080 so the performance difference will not be very dramatic.


In my case (using the overclocked mobile equivalent to the HD6850), that 11% reduction in pixel pushing allowed me to generally increase shadow detail and up the AA from x2 to x4 without seeing a drop in framerates for most games. Hence my growing into the comfort of losing real estate and increasing the eye candy!
a c 175 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
April 4, 2012 10:05:40 PM

Yeah, I picked the HD6850 for my example but it might be more meaningful with a HD5770; an 11% difference doesn't mean much if you're getting 70+FPS, but if you're only getting 35-40FPS, that drop could hurt. Anyway, it was just something else to consider.
!