Why should I get a 24 inch if ppl tell me 22 inch looks almost as good

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
^+1. imo its an ugly bastard but insane specs...

that acer someone mentioned up above - its good for the money, i mean show me a better monitor for $160...

only prob is (i own the 19"widescreen variant - same series) it has horrible glare and bleeding problems... really great OSD though. take it over my dads old CRT any day 😀
 


Dont buy a 24" get the westy 26", now its even cheaper at 259! Would grab it in a heartbeat if i didnt already have the Samsung 26.
 
Everyone can over analyze system specs and point out strengths and weaknesses for each but I personally own a 24" and will never go smaller. A friend of mine has a 22" and there really is a noticeable difference in terms of game play with the 24”. Of course you can get a 22" and save some dough but I think the additional surface area is worth the additional cost. Just read consumer reviews to ensure you are purchasing a quality product whichever route you take.
 
I have A Samsung T240 (24") and a Samsung 2232BW (22")
the 24" is shiny and new and better contrast spec wise but slower refresh.
fractionally less micro stutter on the 22" but the pixcels on the 22" are visably slightly larger.
If its a gaming monitor then your GPU will suffer more obviously if its 1920x1200
Single GTX280 on my 24" has to have AA tuned to game e.g. Fallout3 8x at 1920 and Crysis says no to AA at 1920
Always prefer to use 24" it has more to offer all round.
Its just a case of what you can afford at the time.
 




I have this Samsung and I love it. I strongly recommend it. :)






 

The 26 has a higher pixel pitch though, and only has the same resolution, so it actually appears slightly less sharp. You gain screen area at the cost of sharpness, and it has no more resolution. I'll stick with my 2408WFP honestly.
 
see thats the whole thing. people say "don't get a 22" because then you will always be wondering what a 24" is like"

then you go and buy a 24 and wonder what a 26 is like. then a 28. then a 30". and before you know it, you're into 1k+ monitors. if you don't need the space, get a 22". that simple really.
 
If you're building a pc for gaming than go with a 1920*1200 screen, because this will give you a wider field of view than a 1600*1200 screen which can give you an edge in certain games, especially FPS.
 
^lulwut? so you're saying having more pixels will allow me to see further in CSS? i dont think so. it just means there's more pixels in a larger area, which should balance out to be sharper, since there are more pixels to make up a persons head for example. that doesn't mean i can see more of the area/level/map i'm playing in though.

long time no see ovaltine btw
 
well...your 24 is better bet. First, higher resolution always equals to better quality image which is the main point here. Also, if you ever want to watch a full HD movie (1080p) from a blue ray or something, your 22'' wont supported becuase 1680x1050 is higher then 1080i but lower then 1080p. however your 24 inch will support full hd so you can make good use of it.
 


I'm not sure where you're going here. 1080i is still 1920x1080 pixels but it is interlaced video instead of progressive video. You will be able to play HD content on a 1680x1050 screen but it will be scaled and as a result will have some degradation to the image quality. I agree that a 24" monitor is the way to go.
 

sure for movies. and who wants to watch movies on a tiny screen? most games (all games?) are made for 16:10 anyway.

if the OP wants more screen space, and he can afford high end graphics, he should get the 24". if he doesnt need that extra bit of screen space, then he should get the 22". that simple really.

whats the point of having a tiny screen with an extremely high res when everything would appear tiny (icons buttons etc) and would require higher end graphics than a larger 22"?
 
just buy the gawd damn 26" westy and forget about the toy monitors. for 250 bucks you cant beat it. cj i've had all kinds of monitors and i like my 26"best and the only way you'll get it away from me is to pry it from my cold dead fingers! :lol:
 


The difference is that 26, 27, etc monitors are all the same res as a 24. The only upgrade I would really consider from my current 24 is a 30, but that's too expensive for me right now.

Oh, and Homeboy, you should see a good, non-TN panel. I guarantee you that a good S-PVA or S-IPS 24" will flatten your 26" in every way (as your 26 is a TN panel). It will have better colors, better image quality, and just in general look nicer. There's nothing inherently wrong with your 26, but to call everything smaller a "toy monitor" shows a lack of understanding of image quality.
 
so what people really want is higher res, not more screen space. is that it?

if so, then everything would look much sharper (and ridiculously small :lol:) on a high res+small screen LCD. if so, you would be best served getting one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009157
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236052

i think you should only go for a bigger monitor if you need a BIGGER MONITOR. not higher RES. there's a reason a 30" has a high res - because if it had a low res the pixels would be large. having a 22" at 1680x1050 is probably around the same pixel size as a 30" at 2560x1600.
 



i've had all kinds of monitors cj, more than u i bet, how much will the monitors cost that will "flatten my 26" mucho bux, for 250 my 26 flattens all others and the quality is fine with me. Almost all 22" monitors are TN. The small monitors are still toys.
 
465 bucks for a 2408WFP! cheapest I could find. 200 more for a smaller screen. no thanks. and I've owned dells and i've seen the 2408WFP at the dell store. Not overwhelmed. Dude, I aint get a Dell :lol:
 

Say what you will, but S-PVA and S-IPS are MUCH better monitors than the TN panels. It really is that simple. You do pay for it though. $465 is quite cheap for a non-TN panel, they usually are more in the $600-700 range for 24s.

As for the resolution question? I have a notebook that has a 17" 1920x1200 screen and I love it. I'll take it over a standard 20" 1680x1050 any day. So yes, resolution matters, because resolution determines useful screen area. At a higher resolution, you can have more stuff on the screen without any part of it becoming unreadable.
 
 
It definitely depends on the person. I think it is worth it, but it won't be worth it for everyone. It is definitely true that the TN panels give a decent image for far cheaper than the better panel technologies. I just believe that it is worth the extra for the better looking panels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom