22 or 24 inch computer monitor?

Forums › Desktop computing › 22 or 24 inch computer monitor?

BackNBlack

83 posts

Master Geek

#28319 26-Nov-2008 14:10

What should you suggest i get a 22 inch monitor or a 24 inch? will be for gaming. Will i see much of a increase in pitcure from the 1680x1050 to the 1920x1080? Will a Ati Radeon 4850 be enough to play the games in 1920x1080 max settings such as WoW CSS COD5 Crysis basically all the latest games and a few old. And if i get a 24inch any suggestions?

1 | 2

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#180430 26-Nov-2008 14:14

I've been using a 24" iMac since the Intel ones came out, and I have to say I'd never go for anything less. I use a 19" widescreen at work and it's painful! 24" is just a great mid-range for me now, I'd love to get a 30" at some point but yeah, having 1920x1200 is so much better than 1680x1050! The more real estate you can get for your $ the better imo!

Can't comment too much on gaming, although I've played 1920x1200 WoW on my iMac at mid-high settings about a year ago and it was smooth as silk. Can't recall what my iMac GPU is but it can't be great...

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#180439 26-Nov-2008 14:54

Having the ablilty to run native 1920*1080 will be a good investment if you ever want to play HD 1080p content on your rig in the Future.

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#180441 26-Nov-2008 15:02

wellygary: Having the ablilty to run native 1920*1080 will be a good investment if you ever want to play HD 1080p content on your rig in the Future.

and if that is a requirement make sure the thing is hdcp compliant...

BackNBlack

83 posts

Master Geek

#180451 26-Nov-2008 16:03

The reason im looking to get a 24inch is so i can get the games looking as best they can with 1920x1200 rather then 1680x1050. When the 4850 starts to lag in games max settings, all i will need to do is upgrade the card, but wont need to upgrade my monitor.

Is it wise to get a 24inch now or better in like a year, will the price of them drop alot?

BackNBlack

83 posts

Master Geek

#180536 26-Nov-2008 21:24

I see the Dell Ultrasharp 24" is a good recommend monitor and on sale it can be $500.

i see it has a 5 ms response rate, is 2ms a must for gaming?

Fossie

1240 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#180567 27-Nov-2008 00:28

23 16:9 1920x1080 or 24 16:10 1920x1200. Don't touch a 22.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

eXDee

4033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1070

Trusted

#180569 27-Nov-2008 00:39

22" is nice and its not ultra huge on the desk. A 4850 will lag at 1920x1200 in crysis on high settings, and possibly CoD5 also. I'm happy with my LG 22", 24 seems so much bigger for only 2 inches and it would loo crazy on the desk.

BackNBlack

83 posts

Master Geek

#181146 29-Nov-2008 17:43

I think im going to go with a 24" cause i will have the option to go 1900x1200. Even if the game lags i can turn the resolution down but i can view the rest of the computer in 1900x1200. Few questions is higher the brightness like 400cd/m2 better? And what about Contrast Ratio? do i need a high contrast ration?

Since im gonna go for a 24" any recommendations? so far ive been looking at this http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentview.asp?partid=7696

And the dell ultra sharp http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/24lcd?c=nz&cs=nzdhs1&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=mn best only if it drops in price, or if there is a special on it.

Any other recommendations? I need it to have HDMI ports and stuff like that.

Thanks

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#181240 30-Nov-2008 17:09

1: While you can turn the resolution down on a 24" any resolution other than the native resolution will look crappy, that's part of how LCD's work.

2: That Dell model has a bad reputation for gaming due to high input lag.

eXDee

4033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1070

Trusted

#181241 30-Nov-2008 17:16

Ragnor: 1: While you can turn the resolution down on a 24" any resolution other than the native resolution will look crappy, that's part of how LCD's work.

2: That Dell model has a bad reputation for gaming due to high input lag.

1. Can support this, have used a 17" laptop which used 1920x1200 and when i turned it down to 1650x1050 it looked all blurry, hard to read text. However the laptops quadro graphics card wouldn't allow the selection of GPU scaling, which would solve this problem since than the GPU will scale it up to the resolution before outputting it.

2. I've actually heard they are quite good, remember this is an ultra sharp not one of the entry level ones. 5ms is fairly typical for an LCD screen.
However that LG one is nice.

Neither have HDMI ports that you mention that you want.

BackNBlack

83 posts

Master Geek

#181257 30-Nov-2008 21:49

So therefore if i play Crysis on a 24" native resolution of 1900x1200 but drop it down to 1600x1080 it is going to look worse then if i had played it on 22" native resolution of 1600x1080?

And if im not building an expenesive computer with high end graphics cards, but rather a bang for buck computer then it is not worth trying to play on a 1900x1080 resolutaion, in which i may need to drop the graphics?

Are there any videos/pitcures when i can see examples of playing on a 1600x1080 resolution with a native of 1900x1200, and a comparison with a native resolution of 1600x1080?

Thanks for the help.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#181261 30-Nov-2008 22:34

With an LCD the physical number of horizontal and vertical pixels that make up the LCD matrix determine the native resolution of the
display.

Setting an LCD to a resolution lower than this resolution will either cause the monitor to use a reduced visible area of the screen or it will have to do extrapolation.

Extrapolation is when the LCD attempts to blend multiple pixels together to produce a similar image to what you would see if the monitor were to display it at the given resolution but it will result in fuzzyness.

The Dell 2408WFP-HC is using a 6ms S-PVA panel, very good for color reproduction but for gaming you really want 2ms.

BackNBlack

83 posts

Master Geek

#181264 30-Nov-2008 22:45

Thanks, so double checking, playing cysis on a 24" (native resolution 1900x1200) at 1680x1050 will look more fuzzier, then if you played on a 22" with 1680x1050 being its native resolution?

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#181265 30-Nov-2008 22:58

Yes imo however it's subjective, perhaps go into a local computer store and check out some monitors try changing the resolution away from the native res and see if you can live with the results.

Also here is some information about my comments on the Dell 2408

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/dell_2408wfp.htm

Input Lag
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fnvRZplyISg
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TnApFzmd9NY

DS248

1702 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 771

Lifetime subscriber

#181273 30-Nov-2008 23:35

I have a SyncMaster 2493HM and am very happy with it. The newer T240 may now be a better option (slightly cheaper) and has good customer reviews on Newegg. But the specs for the LG you linked to also look fine & and it's cheaper. I would definitely recommend 1900 x 1200 (or 1080). 24" is fine - not oversized, even on my cluttered desk.

Non-native resolution may not be good for text & line art etc (never tried it). However, I don't notice any issues viewing photos or TV at non-native res (TV1 etc looks fine), so I doubt it would be a significant issue for most games??? (Don't play games though, so maybe I am wrong there).

1 | 2