Tom's Hardware > Forum > Computer Peripherals > Flat Panels/ LCDs > Why no LCDs under 24" with WUXGA (19x12)

Why no LCDs under 24" with WUXGA (19x12)

Forum Computer Peripherals : Flat Panels/ LCDs - Why no LCDs under 24" with WUXGA (19x12)

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
wraythosu   07-21-2008 at 11:42:00 PM

Can someone "in the know" help me understand this.
I have a 4 year old laptop that has a 15.4" widescreen LCD that runs a 1920x1200 resolution.
So why is it that now, 4 years later, I still can't get a desktop LCD that runs at that resolution on any screen under 24".

It just doesn't make sense to me. If they can run that resolution in a 15.4" laptop LCD, why aren't they making a 17",19", 20", or 22" that will run at that resolution.

Can anyone enlighten me?

Thanks,
Wrayth Osu

p.s. tried searching forums first and couldn't find anything.

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
jaguarskx   07-22-2008 at 01:44:31 AM
- 0 +

There is the Lenovo ThinkVision L220x which is the only 22" with 1920 x 1200 resolution for $450. As an added bonus it is also one of the extremely rare 22" LCD monitor that does not uses the cheaper and more inferior TN panel tech. This monitor uses a S-PVA panel created by Samsung.

The reason why there is only one is probably because many people would consider it to be more difficult to read text on a smaller screen. Also, a 22" LCD with 1920 x 1200 like the Lenovo strattles the 22"/24" fence.

The Lenovo ThinkVision L220x is:

1. More expensive than most of the 22" LCD; partially due to the better panel tech.
2. It is more expensive than some of the entry level 24" monitors that uses TN panel tech.
3. Text would probably be too small for most people's taste (as mentioned above).
4. People are generally looking for fast response times, off the top of my head, I think the Lenovo L220x is rated at 6ms. That's considered "slow" by many gamers.

Another reason why there is only one 22" LCD panel with 1920 x 1200 resolution is cost. The denser the pixel counter per square inch, the more it costs to manufacture. The higher the number of pixels in an LCD panel the higher the chances of defective panels, thus the price is higher.

------------------------------ Q9450 |Corsair XMS 4GB DDR 800 | ABit IP35 Pro | HD 5850 | Audigy 2 | Seasonic S12 550 | Cooler Master Centurion 532 | NEC LCD2690WUXi and Planar PX2611w | WinXP

Peace on Earth by means of the destruction of all life on Earth.
 Reply to jaguarskx
wraythosu   07-22-2008 at 03:26:09 AM
- 0 +

Hmm, didn't realize they were making anything other than just laptops.

I understand all your points, but none of them really address why this resolution would be common place in such a small size in the laptop screen @ 15.4" and yet not exist at all in a desktop screen.

If you think the text would be small in a 20"-22" panel, you should see it on my 15.4" screen. I get tons of people asking me how I can even read it so I can understand that point to a degree.

As for price, that's never been an issue for people who want the best stuff. I could understand if there was 1 or 2 options out there at a premium price, but other than the Lenovo you mentioned, there are no options at all.

The most compelling argument you make is the response time issue. Gamers are the biggest spender on the high end stuff, so I can see that argument. Maybe that is the main thing.

Shrug, was hoping someone out here would know of a definitive reason for this discrepancy.

Thank you for replying

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to wraythosu
jaguarskx   07-22-2008 at 04:04:25 AM
- 0 +

wraythosu wrote :



The most compelling argument you make is the response time issue. Gamers are the biggest spender on the high end stuff, so I can see that argument. Maybe that is the main thing.




Actually, nearly ever monitor that is 22" or less is made with the less expensive TN LCD panel technology.

Gamers like 'em because they generally have lower response times than more expensive LCD panel techs; lower prices helps too. But when it comes to everything else like black levels, color accuracy, backlight bleeding issues, viewing angles, and other things TN panels are beaten by the more expensive LCD panel techs.

------------------------------ Q9450 |Corsair XMS 4GB DDR 800 | ABit IP35 Pro | HD 5850 | Audigy 2 | Seasonic S12 550 | Cooler Master Centurion 532 | NEC LCD2690WUXi and Planar PX2611w | WinXP

Peace on Earth by means of the destruction of all life on Earth.
 Reply to jaguarskx
helios2052   07-23-2008 at 04:25:28 PM
- 0 +

I bought an Hp laptop a few years ago with the same 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen. It was very hard to read and although games would look great on it, most laptops do not have the graphics horsepower to run that resolution.

Overall, I think LCD makers decided it was not practical to make a 1920x1200 screen on anything less than a 22"-24".


Message edited by helios2052 on 07-24-2008 at 12:08:03 AM
Reply to helios2052
cowasaki   07-23-2008 at 07:48:28 PM
- 0 +

The Apple Macbook pro 17" has a 1920x1200 resolution screen option and it is a fine fine screen !

Reply to cowasaki
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Computer Peripherals > Flat Panels/ LCDs > Why no LCDs under 24" with WUXGA (19x12)
Go to:

There are 1191 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.180 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
Related Content
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them