Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: G0atmaster on May 05, 2012, 03:27:27 am
-
And how do you like it?
I'm looking for inches, aspect ratio and resolution.
Is 16:10 better than 16:9? I realize the industry is moving toward a universalized 1080 market, which means 16:10 is a dying breed, but is it better than 16:9? Enough so to justify an extra $90 in monitor cost?
I'm trying to decide between these three monitors:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100006519%2050010772%2040000020%20600030155&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&CompareItemList=20%7C24-260-055%5E24-260-055-TS%2C24-260-047%5E24-260-047-TS%2C24-260-054%5E24-260-054-TS
-
I've heard that 16:10 is the standard for most recent games, but I've never encountered something that couldn't also run 16:9.
My experience with IPS is non-existent, so I can't offer an opinion on any those.
-
This is what I'm currently using
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-acer-s243hl-acer-price-208082.html
It's great and has yet to cause me any grief.
I'm not big on Dell though
24" 16:9 and less than what you've listed
-
I'm using a 22 inch ViewSonic, runs at 1680x1050.
I like it a lot, though a few games don't support this resolution natively. It's generally trivial to squeeze them into something that does work though.
-
Recently got myself a pair of Dell 2412m's, 1920x1200. Couldn't be happier. I switched from a couple of 1600x1200 panels, and I didn't want to give up the 120 pixels of vertical resolutions by going to 1080. I also work on a pair of 1920x1080 monitors at work, and the difference in work area is very, very noticable. Anyone who says the 120 pixels of difference isn't a lot probably hasn't tried both standards. It's of course a personal thing, but 16:10 is also a much nicer aspect ratio for me. A couple of 16:9 are a too narrow strip for me.
-
a samsung syncmaster p2570. i forget what its dimentions are but it has a nice 1080p resolution.
-
If you have the money to spend, many plasma screen TV's double as computer monitors. I use a 42" Samsung Series 4 Plasma TV, with a screen resolution of 1928x1080
-
a 22inch samsung syncmaster 2233 and a eizo flexscan s2231w here.
both at 1680x1050, never had any problems with this resolution on any games. the samsung has one dead pixel tho'
-
I bought a 22" LG 1080p screen from a friend. Works like a charm. I also have a side Acer 1366x768 which mainly serves as a IRC screen.
-
This is what I'm currently using
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-acer-s243hl-acer-price-208082.html
It's great and has yet to cause me any grief.
I'm not big on Dell though
24" 16:9 and less than what you've listed
Acer v243h here, with a NEC 1970NX
dual screen ftw :p
so yeah, 24", 1920x1080 is glorious for gaming and the second monitor is glorious for the rest.
btw, deathfun, hows your vertical FOV on the acer? does it change colors horribly between various head positions?
-
Philips 190S, 19'', 1280x1024. I've had it for five years or so and it's still working without a hitch.
-
Using this for the last 2 and a half years: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2009/review-eizo-cg243w.html and hope it will enjoy a long and happy life.
Once it does break after the 5 year warranty, I would propably want to get the same one again - if they still make them then.
A good monitor is one of the few things that doesn't become obsolete until it dies these days :)
Oh and... once you have gone IPS, you do not go back. It is that simple.
For a gamer the main problem now is that IPS panels with low input lag and without other issues (evenness of lighting, black values, candy colors etc.) are rare and/or expensive.
On the other hand... even the lowest quality IPS panel with acceptable input lag will wipe the floor with any TN panel in direct comparison.
-
I play on an Acer AL1916W, 16:10, 1440x900. I'd get something bigger and better, as I think my video card is capable of doing better than my monitor, but I'm currently in a tight state money-wise, and my current 19" is doing just fine.
-
I play on a Toshiba Satellite A665-S6050. 16" monitor, 1366x768 resolution. 16:9 aspect ratio, or thereabouts. It's a good monitor for a laptop, even if my video card can go suck something unpleasant.
-
16.4" monitor, 1080p on my laptop. It's basically a retina display at ~2 feet away. The horizontal space is nice to have so you can view things side-by-side, but I've never worked on 16:10 before to appreciate the extra height. However, I would hesitate to go down to 1680x1050 (16:10) for such a huge loss in horizontal space and would be happier with 1920x1200 if I wanted to try 16:10 over 16:9. For me, actual resolution matters a heck of a lot more than screen size. A 13.1 inch 1600x900 monitor (which I had for a while) is far more productive than any size of 1366x768, a useless max resolution imo. Some people complain of very high dpi making screen elements too small, but that has never really been an issue for me.
-
I'm still on an ancient Dell 19" CRT running at 1280x960. It's slowly starting to go on the fritz, but until I can get enough dough pooled to build an uber-system, it'll suffice.
-
This is what I'm currently using
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-acer-s243hl-acer-price-208082.html
Is that TN or IPS panel?
-
I have a pair of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254052 got em for $240 on sale.
The extra pixels in 1920x1200 is so worth it, I'll never go back to 1080 if I can help it. They're not LED backlit, but they serve me well.
-
Currently using a bargain-basement Acer 21.5 inch 16:9 1080p set as my main screen, with a "reclaimed" (two broken screens, one dead screen, one dead power supply, making one working screen after frankensteining) Dell 19" 4:3 LCD at 1280x1024 that rotates to portrait mode for code, webpages and whatnot.
Although the Acer has proven reliable, I'll be the first to admit the color reproduction is awful, especially at vertical angles and dark scenes. Cheap TN panel.
-
This is what I'm currently using
http://www.shopbot.ca/pp-acer-s243hl-acer-price-208082.html
Is that TN or IPS panel?
Unfortunately, it's TN
Although, this website might prove useful to you
http://computers.toptenreviews.com/monitors/acer/acer-s243hl-bmii-review.html
-
I've got a 22" Acer widescreen running at 1680x1050, and an 18" square screen of some random brand I've never heard of (a friend gave it to me) running at 1280x1024 on the side.
-
5292x1050 3x22"
-
I'm still on an ancient Dell 19" CRT running at 1280x960. It's slowly starting to go on the fritz, but until I can get enough dough pooled to build an uber-system, it'll suffice.
Similar story here. I'm on a 17" Dell CRT (because Dell CRTs were rebranded Sony Trinitrons for the longest time), running at 1280x960 as well. I bought this CRT, back when LCD technology was young (i.e. ****), and as it's only just starting to show signs of failure, I'm only just now starting to look into replacing it. Considering that this monitor was manufactured in the 1990's, it's had such a good run that I wish I could buy another, but consumer-grade CRTs apparently aren't a thing anymore.
Dell 19" 4:3 LCD at 1280x1024
If that's actually a 4:3 screen, then you're stretching everything vertically at that resolution. 1280:1024 reduces to 5:4. That said, a lot of the early rotating monitors had a 5:4 screen ratio, which kind of minimized the benefit of the monitor being rotatable.
-
I'm still on an ancient Dell 19" CRT running at 1280x960. It's slowly starting to go on the fritz, but until I can get enough dough pooled to build an uber-system, it'll suffice.
Similar story here. I'm on a 17" Dell CRT (because Dell CRTs were rebranded Sony Trinitrons for the longest time), running at 1280x960 as well. I bought this CRT, back when LCD technology was young (i.e. ****), and as it's only just starting to show signs of failure, I'm only just now starting to look into replacing it. Considering that this monitor was manufactured in the 1990's, it's had such a good run that I wish I could buy another, but consumer-grade CRTs apparently aren't a thing anymore.
Dell 19" 4:3 LCD at 1280x1024
If that's actually a 4:3 screen, then you're stretching everything vertically at that resolution. 1280:1024 reduces to 5:4. That said, a lot of the early rotating monitors had a 5:4 screen ratio, which kind of minimized the benefit of the monitor being rotatable.
It's one of these: http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/monitors/1901FP/en/specs.htm, and yes, I was wrong, it's a 5:4. Honestly, it still works great for viewing webpages and whatnot in portrait mode, especially considering it was free except for time spent cobbling together two non-working ones into one that worked.
-
Strangely, my CRT lists a default resolution of 1280x1024...even though I measured the visible area and confirmed that it's exactly a 4:3 ratio. Never figured that one out.
-
55'' LCD, 1920x1080. Great for movies and games! I like using it a lot, especially for strategy games since it makes it feel like my living room is like a command center. Also great for getting immersed in games like Skyrim. Also, I can play from my couch!
I pretty much took the good things about console gaming and applied them to my PC, creating an entertainment system without weakness.
You should consider it, it's pretty great.
-
For "cinematic" gaming... I found nothing beats the 2-3 meter picture that a projector can put out.
Just as with LCD and Plasma TVs, gotta be really really careful to get a model with low input lag.
Most TVs and Projectors are very crappy in that regard.
And yeah nothing beats couch gaming with a proper wireless keyboard and a mouse on a small table on your righthand side.
And games that work great with a gamepad work absolutely fantastic for in bed gaming with a projector putting the picture on your wall or even ceiling :)
-
28" TFT with 1920 x 1200 pixels.
and an old 17" with 1280 x 1080 for Teamspeak, Clock, CPU/Ram usage ect...
nice for gaming, difficult to transport to the next Lan... :D
-
I have a pair of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254052 got em for $240 on sale.
The extra pixels in 1920x1200 is so worth it, I'll never go back to 1080 if I can help it. They're not LED backlit, but they serve me well.
The monitor you linked is a 1080 monitor... lol.
-
I use a Samsung S27A750D (27" 120hz 1920x1080) for most things and a Mitsubishi 2070SB (20" CRT) as a secondary. I would much prefer 1920x1200 but it has almost been phased out these days, and there are no 120hz models with it, which is a must for me.
The best deal in displays right now is that Korean Catleap model on ebay (2560x1440 S-IPS for $300).
Strangely, my CRT lists a default resolution of 1280x1024...even though I measured the visible area and confirmed that it's exactly a 4:3 ratio.
They all do. That resolution is a historical artifact and was the biggest one that would work on 4MB video cards. Apparently nobody cared about having the right aspect ratio back then, as there were several other odd resolutions around. :p
-
They all do. That resolution is a historical artifact and was the biggest one that would work on 4MB video cards. Apparently nobody cared about having the right aspect ratio back then, as there were several other odd resolutions around. :p
Heh, the more you know.