1920x1200 vs 1920x1080

[dedline]

Hey guys,

I am getting ready to purchase a 27-28 inch monitor up from my 22. I am really excited about this and I want to be absolutely sure on my purchase. Can someone explain to me the differences I would see in gaming between 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080? I am leaning on the Hanns G 28 inch monitor because of the 1920x1200 display although it is only LCD and no LED backlight. The HP 2711x 27 inch monitor is LED backlit with a glossy screen which seems too look amazing with gaming if you have no light in the room messing up the viewing experience. I am really wanting the HP yet if there is a big pro on getting the higher resolution please tell me. Thanks guys, appreciate it as always.

Dedline

 

[sunnk]

1920x1200 will be more better for both gaming and picture quality.

 

[alvine]

i have found these two 1200p monitors but they are both LCD, not LED

PLANAR PX2710MW Black 27" 2ms Full HD HDMI WideScreen LCD Monitor w/Speakers 300 cd/m2 1200:1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824016155

ViewSonic VA2703 Black 27" 3ms Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 1200:1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116524

 

[alrobichaud]

I agree you get 120 more vertical pixels making the screen slightly larger but did you notice that the task bar is hidden on all the 1200 pics and it is visible on all the 1080 pics making the 1200 screen appear to be even larger. The 1200 screen is definately larger but not quite by that much. Just an observation.

 

[holdingholder]

28 inches is quite a bit larger than 22 inches, so even though the resolution is slightly higher, the pixels per inch is probably lower and you might see a slightly sharper image on the smaller one, especially if your sitting close to it. Either way you wouldn't see much of a difference. If your going to get a bigger monitor, perhaps you should save up and get a 2560x1600 one.

 

[angry12345]

I prefer the 1200 for gaming, but as mentioned its not a tremendous difference.

That being said, if gaming your so close that sometimes a 28" i think is too big and you miss some of the stuff that might be going on around you.

Unless your an competitor FPS player, I might look at Dell and some of their IPS displays. They put them on sale fairly regularly. I picked up a 24" IPS panel LED display from them for $300 and the colors and display is definitely superior to the TN panels. The only downside is no HDMI, but does have alot of extra USB ports. IF you go with TN, the Asus and ViewSonic seem to be the best of them. LCD isnt necessarily worse than LED also for some stuff such as with a LED you can have some bleeding.

If you are an competitive FPS player, get an old Trinitron CRT!!! picture isnt so great by todays standards, but no lag and they are cheap. Also, a side benefit is they are so heavy if you get broken into, nobody will steal it

 

[dedline]

Does anyone have any experience or opinions of the HP 2711x and glossy screen? Also keep the comments coming. Thank you

 

[angry12345]

Does anyone have any experience or opinions of the HP 2711x and glossy screen? Also keep the comments coming. Thank you

Glossy screens will get better richer display if you play in room that is dark. Only problem is if you play with lights on or sun at your back, you get reflection

there is a forum for monitors here with some guys who really know a ridiculous amount about every monitor out there

 

[dedline]

I keep hearing from many reviewers that a lot of games or movies can end up having a black top and bottom space around display if you have a 1920x1200 monitor, is that true? Or will games and movies fill the screen at the true res. What are your thoughts on IPS Dell monitors vs these 27-28 TF monitors

 

[bystander]

You'll find that if you want 120hz, your only option is 1080p or lower, but if you only plan to use 60hz, then you can go higher in resolution.

 

[vrumor]

I own that Hanns-G 28 inch and let me tell ya, best money I ever spent. You really wont regret it. Just make sure you have a card thatll power the resolution.

 

[esrever]

16:9 is the way to go, 16:10 is on the way out. Software will eventually switch to suit 16:9 displays better since theres no point in having 16:10 with difference so minimal.

 

[unksol]

16:9 is the way to go, 16:10 is on the way out. Software will eventually switch to suit 16:9 displays better since theres no point in having 16:10 with difference so minimal.

16:9 is not the way to go. You lose vertical resolution. its ONLY present in displays now because of the rise of HDTV 1080p, consumers thinking "1080p is the best" and cheaper to make. 16:10 was the standard before that. and TVs and monitors are used for completely different things. 16:9 only makes sense for movies

No software is really designed to suit x resolution/ratio better than y. that doesn't even make sense, you just set the resolution to what you're using.

 

[unksol]

I keep hearing from many reviewers that a lot of games or movies can end up having a black top and bottom space around display if you have a 1920x1200 monitor, is that true? Or will games and movies fill the screen at the true res.

games will not have black bars. you just set the correct resolution in game. Movies will, but most will on 16:9 displays/tvs too because they often film at even wider ratios. "black bars" will always be on movies, I never got why people choose to worry about them

 

[esrever]

16:9 is not the way to go. You lose vertical resolution. its ONLY present in displays now because of the rise of HDTV 1080p, consumers thinking "1080p is the best" and cheaper to make. 16:10 was the standard before that. and TVs and monitors are used for completely different things. 16:9 only makes sense for movies

No software is really designed to suit x resolution/ratio better than y. that doesn't even make sense, you just set the resolution to what you're using.

actually webpages were designed for 4:3 before widscreen became popular and even today a lot of webpages make better use of space at 4:3 but thats starting to change.

Many programs have toolbar positioning and such that make use of different resolutions that makes use of the screen better than other resolutions.

you aren't really losing pixel density so the vertical resolution point is somewhat mute. 16:10 really wasn't around that long and theres no point in having it. I find it a lot easier to multitask on a wider screen.

 

[alrobichaud]

Going from 1920x1080 on a 22 inch screen to 1920x1200 on a 27-28 will give you a larger screen but also a slightly lower level of clarity. If you figure 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels and 1920x1200 = 2304000 pixles. That is a 10% increase in the number of pixels. If you knew the exact dimensions of the 27 inch screen you could calculate the area in square inches and compare it to the 22 inch screen and I bet you come out with a number that equals an increase of more than 10% in the screen area. A 27 or 28 inch monitor would be cool as hell but don't expect to have a sharper image on the larger screen unless you go with something like 2560x1600. A good way to guage this would be to look at the pixel size on the spec sheet. Smaller pixels = sharper image.

 

[ionut19]

1920x1200 will be more better for both gaming and picture quality.

"picture quality" -please expand. The images you posted don't say anything about picture quality, only that the 1920x1200 screen has a different aspect ratio. The screen surface area is the same(24").

@dedline

I have a 32" 1080p LCD TV as a monitor and the image(resolution) is ok for it's size. I would chose the LED screen because the colors are more natural. If you place 2 screens near each other, one LCD and the other LED you can clearly see the difference, witch is not marginal.

 

[alrobichaud]

"picture quality" -please expand. The images you posted don't say anything about picture quality, only that the 1920x1200 screen has a different aspect ratio. The screen surface area is the same(24").

@dedline

I have a 32" 1080p LCD TV as a monitor and the image(resolution) is ok for it's size. I would chose the LED screen because the colors are more natural. If you place 2 screens near each other, one LCD and the other LED you can clearly see the difference, witch is not marginal.

I do like the quality of the picture of my backlit LED's vs my one LCD. It looks softer and more natural IMO but you know what they say about opinions. Just wanted to point out that the surface area is not the same on those monitors in the pics posted. The 1200 monitor has a screen that is clearly taller than the 1080 monitor. Just use a ruler and measure the screen. It's also strange that if you measure the both monitors diagonally the 1200 monitor is slightly longer than the 1080 monitor. Given that they are both supposed to be 24", it should be identical.

 

[ionut19]

I might have been wrong on the surface area.

 

[alrobichaud]

If the monitors are 24" then the area is the same.Also you can not know how accurate are those images.But the surface area is the same, 24". The pixel density and aspect ratio, however, is not the same.

That is the point I am trying to make. Are each of those pics made up of two separate pics that have been pasted together or is it two side by side monitors. 24" should have exactly the same area but those pics do not look the same. Sure, the pixel density is higher on the 1200 monitor but I keep looking at the side by side pics and thinking the comparison is quite flawed. Given the same size monitor with more pixels should the image on the left not look a very slight amount smaller with better image quality than the lower resolution monitor. The image on the higher resolution monitor is clearly much larger than on the lower res monitor.

 

[wolfram23]

28 inches is quite a bit larger than 22 inches, so even though the resolution is slightly higher, the pixels per inch is probably lower and you might see a slightly sharper image on the smaller one, especially if your sitting close to it. Either way you wouldn't see much of a difference. If your going to get a bigger monitor, perhaps you should save up and get a 2560x1600 one.

This, although 2560x1440 instead of x1600. Mostly because 2560x1600 is stupidly expensive. The Dell Ultrasharp U2711 and the HP ZW2740W are really good 27" monitors at 2560x1440. The Dell is a little higher end with more features, but also quite a bit more expensive. The HP is very good and can be had for around $700.

Otherwise I'd suggest getting 24" tops for 1080p. I mean, maybe image sharpness isn't a big deal to the OP, but I can't really see a reason to buy a massive display with a very low pixel per inch count.

 

[alrobichaud]

Anyway, I would ignore those pics posted. I believe you will have a higher quality image on the 22" 1080 monitor vs a 27" 1200 monitor. The increase in pixel density vs the increase in screen area is not proportionate so the images will appear larger on the larger monitor as opposed to the same size with a higher clarity as the 22" monitor. If what you are looking for is a larger image on the screen, then a 27" 1920x1200 monitor is the way to go. If you want to see more of the screen and still have the same quality of picture that you have with a 22" monitor, you will need a 27" monitor that supports a higher resolution than 1920x1200.

 

[vrumor]

Not really sure how less pixels can create a higher quality picture. 1920x1200 resolution normalizes gaming, for me at least. 1080p is stretched to fit the resolution, works well with movies and TV, not so much with games. It is a personal choice I think, to me 1080p looks stretched and dull. But then again, it is my opinion, as it is everyone elses.

 

[wolfram23]

Not really sure how less pixels can create a higher quality picture. 1920x1200 resolution normalizes gaming, for me at least. 1080p is stretched to fit the resolution, works well with movies and TV, not so much with games. It is a personal choice I think, to me 1080p looks stretched and dull. But then again, it is my opinion, as it is everyone elses.

On a 16:10 monitor, 16:9 would look stretched. On a 16:9 monitor, it would not.

The reason he's saying less pixels = higher picture quality is that he's also saying it's on a 22" monitor. If you divide your amount of pixels by the area of the screen, you get pixels per inch. More pixels per inch = higher quality image. So stretching a 1080p or 1200p amount of pixels over a 28" screen is going to be a lot less sharp than on a 22" screen. That's all.

 

[vrumor]

Had a few 16:9 monitors in my time, looked like crap on those too I was floored by the picture of my Hanns-G by far the best bang for the buck. But again, its all opinion based, you may prefer the look of 1080p. If ya have a store around ya that has em, check em out.