1920x1200 vs. 2560x1600

[Claud3]

Whats the difference between a 24" monitor displaying @ 1920x1200 and a 30" monitor displaying @ 2560x1600?
Will i get the same clarity and quality but just a bigger picture? Or will i get a bigger picture, more clarity and quality?

Thanks,
Claude

 

[darkstar782]

You'll get a picture that is 6" bigger diagonally, of course

I'm not sure what you mean by "more clarity and quality", the quality of the monitor is down to many factors, such as the panel technology used (TN+Film, S-PVA/MVA, S-IPS, and others).

You'll have more pixels, obviously....

 

[enewmen]

Both monitors are good. (the 30" is better)
From what I've seen, there is a bigger gain with running applications (have more windows and icons on the screen).
A smaller gain running games.
However, with the 30", that can also double as a bedroom movie screen.
About quality, just look before you buy.

 

[Ycon]

Area of 30" monitor: 41.28" x 25.8" = ~1065" (sq)
pxl count 30" monitor: 2560x1600 = 4.096 million
pxls per area (in): 4096000 / 1065" = 3846 pxls per square inch

Area of 24" monitor: 32.96" x 20.6" = ~679" (sq)
pxl count 24" monitur: 1920x1200 = 2.304 million
pxls per area (in): 2304000 / 679" = 3393 pxls per square inch

Nuff math :lol:

The 30" will not only give you the bigger picture but it will also give the better image (DANG, I could have also figured that out by just comparing pixel pitch...) since it offers higher pxl density.
Only problem would be feeding 4 million pxls, which brings most graphix cards down to their knees (talking about games).

BUT you still need to find out what panel the respective monitors use. If one uses a TN panel and other one a S-IPS, then its a no-brainer =)
However, I havent come across many large displays that use st00pid panels, especially 30" (which all use S-IPS panels).

 

[Heyyou27]

The 30" has a higher resolution, so it would be sharper, but pushing that resolution would be best with two 8800GTXs.

 

[telim]

For gaming you have to wonder when the screen will become TOO BIG, ie you'll have to pan your eyes/head/neck around to see something in the corner if you're focused on the center.

I absolutely love my 24" Dell. Since all the 30" displays have a much higher response time, they didn't interest me at all. I'm a CSS addict and I knew that, for me, 24" was probably optimal for CSS, playing with my friend's 30" Apple Cinema Display I need to move my head a bit from side to side to see the corners.

For me, 1080p @ 24" @ 6ms = the win.

I want to try a 27"... but not for $1500. And I think, for gaming at least, 30" is overkill.

Ideally I want a 2nd 24" panel for dual-monitor productivity work.

-Alex

 

[Yrusoad]

Whats the difference between a 24" monitor displaying @ 1920x1200 and a 30" monitor displaying @ 2560x1600?
Will i get the same clarity and quality but just a bigger picture? Or will i get a bigger picture, more clarity and quality?

Thanks,
Claude

what is the video card you will be using?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

(DANG, I could have also figured that out by just comparing pixel pitch...) since it offers higher pxl density.

LOL! Yeah I was going to post that, but your math was fun to watch. :mrgreen:

Handy link;
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/widescreen.htm

 

[Claud3]

im going to use it for gming, and i'll get the ebst cards to go with it. If the game is sharper, i.e looks less pixalted much nicer etc... i'll go with 2560x1600, if it doesnt make a difference ill opt for 1920x1200.

thanks for your replies

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

im going to use it for gming, and i'll get the ebst cards to go with it. If the game is sharper, i.e looks less pixalted much nicer etc... i'll go with 2560x1600, if it doesnt make a difference ill opt for 1920x1200.

Well for gaming, you really need alot more power to make an LCD loook good because you don't have the advantage of scaling that a CRT does. So while the 30" is much better for 2D, if you're gaming then you need a much more powerful card to keep the framerate up high enough at that higher resolution. If you need to go outside of native resolution to play then that 'sharper' 30" will look more fuzzy/blurry because it will need to guesstimate the lower resolution you need to play on, or else you need to turn down features.

So either you stay current with the latest top of the line graphics card whenever new games come out, or you should get the 24" if you want your games to look less pixelated and still play with the features on.

Like right now you'd be fine with the GF8800, however when Crysis and the new games come out I doubt you'll be playing at the higher resolution without at least 2 GTXs in SLi, and maybe not even then.

 

[Primitivus]

As you might have guessed by now, the general rule of thumb is that bigger is better. However, among the many factors you have to take into account I would add the distance between the monitor and your sitting position. So if you're sitting rather close to the desktop, a 30" screen is TOO big.
But if you can afford it, as well as two GTX's, then, by all means, go for it!

 

[jamiepotter]

As you might have guessed by now, the general rule of thumb is that bigger is better. However, among the many factors you have to take into account I would add the distance between the monitor and your sitting position. So if you're sitting rather close to the desktop, a 30" screen is TOO big.
But if you can afford it, as well as two GTX's, then, by all means, go for it!

Well, my experience has been that you get used to it pretty quickly. What happens is that you get used to there being more area than you can actively focus upon at any one time (much like you do at the cinema, in fact). It does make gaming very immersive: it got to the point on FEAR where it just terrified the bejesus out of me!

But my God do you need the hardware. I can't really run it at 2560x1600 with my video card.

I'm incredibly chuffed with my monitor overall, and would maintain that it's a great use of cash compared to other uses. It affects every single aspect of your computer usage, and always for the better.

 

[Primitivus]

I do agree with you but it's still dependent on the use you have for it, the graphics card and the room you have. Oh and another thing, the more pixels a monitor has the more likely it is to have dead or stuck pixels

 

[Claud3]

will the better resolution give me a sharper image or just a bigger one?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Using ycon's math (im too tired/lazyyoupick) here : Area of 30" monitor: 41.28" x 25.8" = ~1065" (sq)
pxl count 30" monitor: 2560x1600 = 4.096 million
pxls per area (in): 4096000 / 1065" = 3846 pxls per square inch

Area of 24" monitor: 32.96" x 20.6" = ~679" (sq)
pxl count 24" monitur: 1920x1200 = 2.304 million
pxls per area (in): 2304000 / 679" = 3393 pxls per square inch

Look at the pixels per square inch, the more the clearer/sharper the image

 

[Claud3]

id say the extra 400 pixels per square inch arent worth the extra money + the added need to upgrade mor regularly

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

You have to take into account that a 30 screen is ALOT bigger than a 24. Like was mentioned above, you could use this for various things as well. Ever play movies on your rig? Have a decent 5:1 sound system? Put this setup in your den or bedroom and youre doin good

 

[Claud3]

yeah i do play movies and i have a 2.1 creative megabass 300w system, but ill do fine with the 24" for now and ill buy the 30 inch when theyre more mainstream

 

[bullaRh]

im waiting for some 24 inch monitors we will see many in 2007 and the price will go lower and i think alot of 24'' got input lag aswell so im waiting for more choices

 

[13thmonkey]

with 24" you'll be able to do HD in 1:1 pixel mapping, i.e. not having to interpolate it up to the higher res. that interpolation has the same effect going as it does going down, it won't look too good.