Why are 90% of benchmarks 1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080

[Jammy95]

I'm still relatively new to the pc scene, so I've been spending a LOT of time looking at various benchmarks over then last couple of months for the pc that I'm planning to put together. Anyway, I was under the impression 1920x1080 was the norm for defintion on monitors at the moment, well at least larger monitors, but every site I come across seems use 1920x1200 for their benchmarks :S

Are 1920x1200 res monitors more popular than 1080p monitors? It seems like this isn't the case on sites like amazon etc...

Someone explain this for me

 

[AntiZig]

1080 corresponds to 16:9 screen W to H ratio
1200 corresponds to 16:10 screen W to H ratio

as you see, the 1200 gives you extra 120 pixels on the bottom/top of the screen. so, a 1920x120 = 230400 pixels extra than the 1920x1080.

as you can gather there are people out there that prefer to have this extra pixel space, as opposed to not having it just because marketing gimmick wishes you to think that 1080p is the king of all ***. In fact there are plenty of 2560x1600 monitors out there as well.

 

[Hawkeye22]

^+1

I have a 24" 16x10 IPS panel that runs native 1920x1200. The extra real estate is nice to have.

 

[AntiZig]

which monitor do you have hawkeye?

 

[cats_Paw]

THe main reason is also because the banchmarks are guidelines to how good will something work. So if you get decent benchmarks on 1920x1200, it means that for 1080p thye are better.

 

[Hawkeye22]

which monitor do you have hawkeye?

I have a HP ZR24w S-IPS monitor. I got it [strike]a couple years ago[/strike] last year. I think it's discontinued now.

 

[sam_p_lay]

What's been said is true, though I think it's also maybe an American bias towards 1920x1200. Certainly in the UK you have a lot more 1920x1080 displays to choose from. If you're shopping for a new one, I'd strongly recommend one with an IPS panel like Hawkeye22 is using. You'll get far better colour quality and much less colour shift as your eye level moves up or down relative to your monitor (or to the sides for the benefit of anyone watching). You can pick up 23-24" IPS displays as low as £150 now (check Aria, Scan, eBuyer, Dabs, Novatech etc).

 

[Jammy95]

What's been said is true, though I think it's also maybe an American bias towards 1920x1200. Certainly in the UK you have a lot more 1920x1080 displays to choose from. If you're shopping for a new one, I'd strongly recommend one with an IPS panel like Hawkeye22 is using. You'll get far better colour quality and much less colour shift as your eye level moves up or down relative to your monitor (or to the sides for the benefit of anyone watching). You can pick up 23-24" IPS displays as low as £150 now (check Aria, Scan, eBuyer, Dabs, Novatech etc).

I found a really nice, cheap IPS monitor but when i checked out some reviews the response time was huge 🙁

 

[Hawkeye22]

IPS panels are more geared toward graphics design than gaming so response time isn't important to designers. You can still find IPS panels with 8ms or less response time. My monitor has a 7 ms (gray to gray); 12 ms (on/off) response time and I get no ghosting in games or movies.

 

[sam_p_lay]

What would you consider huge? I'd steer clear of anything above 8ms. I know a lot of 'gaming monitors' are using 2ms response times as a selling point, but it's honestly pointless - 5ms is absolutely ample. These kind of numbers by the way are known as grey-to-grey (or GTG/G2G) - the time taken for a pixel to go from 50% lit to fully lit back to 50%. Traditionally, true response times were measured as the time taken for a pixel to go from totally unlit (0%) to fully lit, back to 0% again. Those values will be approximately double the GTG value. If you're seeing something like 14ms, be sure that's GTG before you disregard it. As a full-on / full-off value, 14ms isn't so bad. It's definitely good to read professional reviews though and base your decision just on numbers. CNet do some excellent monitor reviews (don't be tempted by TN panel displays though! ;-)).

 

[Jammy95]

What would you consider huge? I'd steer clear of anything above 8ms. I know a lot of 'gaming monitors' are using 2ms response times as a selling point, but it's honestly pointless - 5ms is absolutely ample. These kind of numbers by the way are known as grey-to-grey (or GTG/G2G) - the time taken for a pixel to go from 50% lit to fully lit back to 50%. Traditionally, true response times were measured as the time taken for a pixel to go from totally unlit (0%) to fully lit, back to 0% again. Those values will be approximately double the GTG value. If you're seeing something like 14ms, be sure that's GTG before you disregard it. As a full-on / full-off value, 14ms isn't so bad. It's definitely good to read professional reviews though and base your decision just on numbers. CNet do some excellent monitor reviews (don't be tempted by TN panel displays though! ;-)).

I think I remember it being somewhere around 25ms 😛 And yeh I know, I'm not bothering with 2ms, I'm just looking for 5ms because it's cost a fair amount less. But that's about as high as i'll go, I'm a very competitive gamer c:

 

[Tibbs01]

What's been said is true, though I think it's also maybe an American bias towards 1920x1200. Certainly in the UK you have a lot more 1920x1080 displays to choose from. If you're shopping for a new one, I'd strongly recommend one with an IPS panel like Hawkeye22 is using. You'll get far better colour quality and much less colour shift as your eye level moves up or down relative to your monitor (or to the sides for the benefit of anyone watching). You can pick up 23-24" IPS displays as low as £150 now (check Aria, Scan, eBuyer, Dabs, Novatech etc).

If you look at any of the popular American site's you will see the options for 1920x1080 are tenfold to those of 1920x1200 (sorry you have me chuckling at your American bias theory). Newegg, for example, has 255 models of 1920x1080's as compared to 22 options of 1920x1200. If you do anything on your computer besides watch blu-ray movies, 1920x1200 is hands-down the better resolution to purchase (assuming you can afford the hardware to support the resolution).

 

[Jammy95]

If you look at any of the popular American site's you will see the options for 1920x1080 are tenfold to those of 1920x1200 (sorry you have me chuckling at your American bias theory). Newegg, for example, has 255 models of 1920x1080's as compared to 22 options of 1920x1200. If you do anything on your computer besides watch blu-ray movies, 1920x1200 is hands-down the better resolution to purchase (assuming you can afford the hardware to support the resolution).

But that's a 16:10 res right? I have a 16:10 monitor at the moment (1440x900) and it kind annoys me how the picture looks a little bit stretched.

 

[Tibbs01]

What in particular are you looking at that appears stretched? If you are running your games at your monitors native resolution they should not appear stretched. If you are talking things like you tube videos that is a whole different issue.

 

[Hawkeye22]

But that's a 16:10 res right? I have a 16:10 monitor at the moment (1440x900) and it kind annoys me how the picture looks a little bit stretched.

Check your video settings. If it's set to stretch to fill screen, then you will get this when videos that are lower than your native resolution are played. You want "maintain aspect ratio". Of course this can lead to black bars, but it's better than stretched.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Yeah the drawback of 16:10 aspect ratio is that TV and films aren't made for it - they're 16:9 or wider (films are often wider). For the sake of 120 pixels, I doubt it's really worth it. With America apparently is also phasing out 16:10 displays in favour of 16:9, I'd say a 16:10 looks to be on the way out - 16:9 display is a good bet 🙂

Not really a massive thing to factor in though to be honest, the panel type (IPS) is far more important for colour accuracy/quality and for detail in dark frames not being compressed into the grey/black. I wouldn't worry about performance implications of 1920x1200 though - the very slight resolution increase will have barely any impact on how smooth your gameplay is.

And as for that 25ms response monitor... yeah, avoid that ;-) I'd hugely recommend this:

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Monitors+%26+TVs/23+inch+Monitors/23%22+Dell+UltraSharp+U2312HM+Widescreen+IPS+Monitor+-+Black+?productId=46999

But it is 8ms. Read reviews on it though - it's a superb monitor and 8ms won't hurt your gaming. Alternatively, this:

http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Monitors+%26+TVs/23+inch+Monitors/23%22+LG+IPS235V+Widescreen+IPS+Monitor+-+Black+?productId=51596

Is 5ms and cheaper. My brother has one (or similar model, LG have a few of these) and it's a good display. Again though, read the reviews obviously and make sure it's not lacking in any area important to you.

 

[AntiZig]

I just got the U2312 the other day. Fantastic color accuracy and compared to a mac my sister got for $2k+, this screen has less ghosting

PS: I like the LG monitor cause it's got mila kunis on the picture, def worth a buy! (/sarcasm)

 

[Hawkeye22]

Since the original question has to do with benchmarks, all I can say is perhaps the extra pixels stress the video card just a bit more than a 1920x1080 screen can. So, for a benchmark, you would want to use the more stressful hardware.

 

[Jammy95]

Since the original question has to do with benchmarks, all I can say is perhaps the extra pixels stress the video card just a bit more than a 1920x1080 screen can. So, for a benchmark, you would want to use the more stressful hardware.

I think I'm going to have to give you best answer, everyone was really helpful but this did answer my original question 😛

 

[Hawkeye22]

Thank you sir. After re-reading all posts again, I realized we were getting a little off topic.