Which monitor: 19" 1440x900 versus 20/22" 1680x10

[Roscoe]

Hi,

I'm looking to upgrade from my current Hitachi CML174 17" LCD to something a bit flashier - I want widescreen for gaming (TF2 / Insurgency / DOD:S / CoD4 / Crysis) and for watching movies and web browsing.

My current top choice at the moment is the Samsung 931BW 19", available from Comet for £150... which is really the *absolute* limit of my budget.

It's a good fit for my system's performance and I'd be able to continue playing at the full native res of the screen... as 1440x900 has fewer pixels to push than my current 1280x1024.

But I'm also feeling like it's not enough of a jump from my current screen - ie. I'd only be gaining a little width, losing a little height... I've got to keep this screen for a year or two, maybe even longer.

However 1680x1050 is *big* jump in the number of pixels - 1.76 million versus 1.29 million for the 19" screen. My system specs are: A64 3700 / X1950 Pro / 2gb ram so I've not got much horsepower.

So here come the questions:

Should I stick with the original plan for a 19" monitor?

I'm fairly sure my system is cpu limited - so would the extra resolution equate directly to a performance hit?

How good are current monitors at upscaling from a non-native res?

Is it better to buy a good 20" (Samsung 205?) or a budget 22"?


Any thoughts you might have will be much appreciated

[Archer]

I've got a 1440x900.

Go with a larger screen if you can swing it.

This isn't bad mind you, just a bit too short and at times it's annoying.

1680 on a 20 is too small, imho. Try and make a 22 if you can.

[Flying Fox]

1280x1024 -> 1440x900 you are losing pixels.

Don't do it.

[derFunkenstein]

I've got a 20" 1680x1050, and while it can be kinda small, i have no problems reading it. Try it in a B&M store if you can find one that will let you actually test drive a monitor.

[Archer]

1280x1024 -> 1440x900 you are losing pixels.

Don't do it.

Yeah, pixel loss, but the wide screen for gaming is nice.

I'd still recommend getting a larger screen if you can swing it.

[Gungir]

Monitors are one of those purchases that stick around for a long time. I'd say get the biggest and baddest one your budget allows. I have a 1440x900, myself, which I like, but I chose that size more because I needed it to fit within a certain space, and I couldn't find a higher resolution with the same dimensions.

My monitor is a 19" version of this one, with which I am very pleased. It came with a dead pixel, but it's in the extreme upper-right corner, and is completely unnoticeable. Plus, Acer's policy on dead pixels is that if you have one in the middle 50% of the monitor, they'll replace it. That's the best policy in the industry, so far as I'm aware.

[Flying Fox]

1280x1024 -> 1440x900 you are losing pixels.

Don't do it.

Yeah, pixel loss, but the wide screen for gaming is nice.

I'd still recommend getting a larger screen if you can swing it.

I meant don't go 1440x900 but go to 1680x1050.

[Roscoe]

Thanks guys, you're all swinging me towards the bigger screen.

I guess the possibility I'll have to run some games at lower res is worth the trade-off of more screen space, and some future-proofing.... especially as I might try and ebay some stuff to go for a cpu upgrade sooner rather than later


Gungir, the best policy I've seen so far is Samsung's: zero dead pixels and 3 yrs collect from site warranty!

[king_kilr]

I have the Samsung 205BW and a friend has the 225BW, they are both great monitors.

[Flying Fox]

How good are current monitors at upscaling from a non-native res?

Only the Dell's seem to have in-monitor aspect scaling at good prices. You can always watch for the next Dell deal. Or you can use Nvidia's aspect scaling from drivers.

[elmopuddy]

hmm, my 20" 16x10 at home looks huge after working on my 14.1" 14x9 lappy all day..

I'd say go for a 20", unless you can find a 22" with a decent panel.

[Roscoe]

I'v e had a look for Dell's, they all seem very expensive? I'm sure they're good and worth the expense, but they're still out of my league... I have to get this expenditure past the wife - she currently thinks I'm only spending £100 (That's the cheapest 19" widescreen price, for a Belinea 1925S1W)

I actually work all day with a Samsung 213T 21" 16x12, and when I come home to my little Hitachi I don't think to myself 'oh no, they stole my pixels' I just get on with it. I guess the reason is I don't multi-task like I do at work - I tend to have either Opera, or a game, or Media Player open... or a couple of explorer windows to copy files. Rarely any more than that.

However the issue I have now is that although the Sammy 931BW is a lovely bit of kit, it's quite a bit of cash to spend to actually lose some pixels. I've been too skint for too long to be able to let that pass easily, I want some concrete return for my cash! A 20" represents a gain in pixels and might be a good compromise, but then again I'm also thinking 'I have to lose native res game playing for this, let's have a really big screen to justify it' so I'm now sorely tempted by the 22" size. Though I don't know which screen I'd take!

Ok, here's a rundown of my current 'interesting' monitors:
('*' indicates my favourites)

19"
£100 Belinea 1925S1W * Staples.co.uk
£120 Asus VW193S Scan.co.uk
£123 Hanns-G HW191D MicroWarehouse.co.uk
£135 Samsung SM940BW LaptopsDirect.co.uk
£149 Samsung SM931BW ** Komplett.co.uk

20" (only just started looking at these, need to find some reviews)
£140 Acer X201W play.com
£150 Samsung SM204BW ebuyer.com
£160 Asus VW202S play.com
£171 Samsung 206BW * shop.bt.com
£171 Samsung SM2032BW ebuyer.com

22"
£150 Hyundai N220W-D * ebuyer.com
£152 HannsG HG216DP Saverstore.co.uk
£179 Samsung SM225BW ebuyer.com

... I'm still looking. £150 still represents my preferred max spend, but I'll *maybe* go higher (to £170) if the extra quality is demonstrably worth it.

[JustAnEngineer]

I'm pushing 2560x1600 with a Radeon X1950Pro 512MB card. Don't let the 1680x1050 resolution scare you away.

[Roscoe]

I'm pushing 2560x1600 with a Radeon X1950Pro 512MB card. Don't let the 1680x1050 resolution scare you away.

blimey, what are you playing... minesweeper? I'm very fps-sensitive, so I'm very wary of dropping too much, but thanks - that does give me a degree of hope for the bigger screen. I'll go and investigate...

[dragmor]

1680x1050

Wide screen is good for movies and games but 1440x900 make its hard to read web pages, do work, etc.

[Roscoe]

I've spent a bit of time oscillating between Staples, John Lewis and Comet this morning, primarily trying to decide which screen size to go for.
I'm still not sure!
The 19" screens still look good to my eyes, I looked at the Samsung next to a cheap 17" 4:3 screen and the difference is night and day - both in terms of the vibrancy of the screen display, and the apparent screen size. I'm sure it's to do with the way our eyes and brains work, but widescreen seems so much bigger than normal ratio screens.

Then I went to John Lewis and looked at the Sammy 19" 931BW sat right next to a 20" 206BW. Hmmm... the difference in pixel counts and the extra 1" are there, but not significant. Which is rather a shame because I could have stretched to the 206 (it's at £179 in Comet). I also had the attention of a reasonably helpful and clued-up sales guy, who let me fiddle with the settings. This meant I could test the picture quality at non-native resolutions. Not as bad as my Hitachi was, but still not ideal

In Staples I compared two Belinea screens, the bargain bucket 19" (which is now £99 in-store!) and the 22" version.
Now 22" is definitely noticeably bigger. But both screens were noticeably less impressive in terms of image quality, just sitting at Vista desktop.

So yes, it comes down to this: do 22" justify buying a 'bargain' level screen, or should I make do with 19" but get the best picture quality?
I've now reconciled myself to spending the full £150 of my budget, but still don't want to go beyond that.

Samsung SM931BW *** Vs *** HannsG HG216DP Which wins?

[JustAnEngineer]

Go for the 1680x1050 screen.

Did one of those Samsung models have a PVA panel rather than a TN panel? That would certainly provide improved color and viewing angles.

[mongoosesRawesome]

don't go less than 1680x1050.

Yea, it's nice for games and all. But I also get a lot of use out of vertically tiling windows (code and firefox, for instance), which 1440x900 just isn't big enough to feel comfortable with.

Ideally, two monitors would be better suited for that, but you do what you can...

[Roscoe]

I think the panels are still 'normal' TN ones, but they look very good

I must admit, I know everyone says the bigger screens are better for viewing vertical documents / web pages... but... it's only 150 pixels difference? That's not a great deal is it? I don't do Word / Office stuff at home, so it's only really impacting my web browsing... I'm not convinced on that point. (Yet!) I mean, right now I'm working on a borrowed 15" screen, at 1024x768. Does it feel cramped, compard to my old 12x10, or work's 16x12? Yeah. but not outlandishly though. I guess I might be insensitive to screen size in the same way some (weird!) people are insensitive to in-game framerates

[Flying Fox]

I must admit, I know everyone says the bigger screens are better for viewing vertical documents / web pages... but... it's only 150 pixels difference? That's not a great deal is it? I don't do Word / Office stuff at home, so it's only really impacting my web browsing... I'm not convinced on that point. (Yet!) I mean, right now I'm working on a 15" screen, at 1024x768. Does it feel cramped, compard to my old 12x10, or work's 16x12? Yeah. but not outlandishly though. I guess I might be insensitive to screen size in the same way some (weird!) people are insensitive to in-game framerates

You can at least read one more thread posting, or 3-4 clicks less on the scroll bar button, or half a rotation on the mouse wheel when scrolling down a web page...