Which gives better picture? high resolution or CR?

if I buy a LCD monitor....which would give me a nicer more detailed picture? I use my monitor for playing games most of the time but I occasionally watch movies as well.

a) a high resolution monitor ex. 1600x1200 only 1000:1 contrast ratio
b) 1280x1024 resolution but 2000:1 contrast ratio (LG's DFC monitors)


please explain why....thanks!

Fred

please compare for me again.....

1. 19 inch: resolution = 1280x1024 ...CR ratio = 2000:1
2. 19 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1
3. 20.1 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1

Which would produce a more detailed image without making the game characters too small to see!?

The size of the characters is a function of the resolution you are running. If you run a higher resolution, text in Windows will certainly drop in size - you would need to pick a larger text mode.

A game could be similarly affected, depending on how it renders the scene - most games will simply put in more pixels for the same "frame", so you won't see a smaller character, but a more detailed one instead.

The problem in gaming is that with the higher resolution, you need a graphics card that can deliver sufficient frame rate to run smoothly at that resolution. If you don't you will have choppy gameplay. Or, if you reduce the resolution, you will simply be enlarging the image on the LCD, further making it look blocky and terrible. Unless you can run your game at the LCD's native resolution, I would go with a CRT, as you won't have these issues on that type of a screen.

Between a 20.1 inch LCD (resolution 1600x1200) and a 24 inch LCD (which has a higher native resolution) ...which would give a more "detailed/sharp" image for game playing ?

The 20.1" *should* provide sharper image because its pixels are .255 mm. The 24" has .270 mm pixels. But unless you've got a real eagle-eye, you probably won't see a significant difference in your games.

I'm planning to get the x1950xtx (single card). Game? NWN2 and C&C3. Do you think it this card can play those games with full eye candy at (1600x1200)?

Smallest pixel in a desktop monitor is the .255mm of the UXGA, 1600x1200, 20.1".

Personally, I like NEC, Samsung, LG/Philips. The cheapest ones have a TN panel.. fast, so good for gamers. For better contrast/color, look for PVA or SIPS panels.. though a bit more expensive.

If cost is not a primay concern, check out the NEC 20WMGX2... it's a 20" widescreen, .258mm pixel, SIPS panel, Brite Screen.... it's FABULOUS for games.



Best to see in person before you buy, if possible.

Philips is a Dutch company. LG, Korean (the former Gold Star). They have a merged division, LG/Philips to produce flat panels. I don't know if the companies are fully merged.

We can still find LG monitors and Philips, too... so your guess is a good as mine.

One thing that makes LG monitors desirable is the use of higher quality SIPS or PVA panels in some models (most today are TN).

That's in a laptop screen, not a 19" desktop. And the text on the laptop is going to be tiny,tiny, @ max resolution.

Pixels also have to be tiny, so graphics resolution should be superior.

For a 19" to be 1600x1200, it would require a panel with a specifically smaller pixel size... not currently made.... or at least not currently being put into 19" frames.

Sure it would be better... about 46% more pixels in the same area means they'd have to be smaller.

There have been only a few 19" laptops... that's big to be lugging around, and I imagine they're costly.

There are 17" laptops with WXUGA (1920x1200)... tiny pixels, sharp images.

Ooops....sorry for replying really late! Just checked my mail. :? Thanks for the confirmation tho...At least i can look forward to monitors that aren't too large and yet can give me nice detailed pics.

Cheers!