# Gaming Monitor 1920X1200 vs 1920X1080



## RoboX (Feb 20, 2012)

Can you tell me what resolution  is more suitable (more graphic quality) for Gaming?


----------



## digibucc (Feb 20, 2012)

technically speaking, more pixels = better quality. in reality, it _enables_ you to have better quality.

so 1200 would offer the ability to have more vertical pixels, which has the ability to give better visual quality - but in the end it depends on the game, and whether it was designed for 16:9 and gives options for fov, etc - otherwise all it will do is stretch the picture for more pixels, which WILL NOT give you better quality.

1200 is technically better but 1080 is the standard, which gives benefits of it's own. in most cases there is a simple workaround like black bars to stop it from stretching, so if money isn't the issue and you want to be able to get better quality while understanding you may have to fiddle with some options or even ini files to get all the games you want to work optimally, then 1200 would be the option. i went 1080.


----------



## magibeg (Feb 20, 2012)

I went 1200. It's fantastic. Even things like web browsing is better. Those extra 120px are absolutely noticeable.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 20, 2012)

RoboX said:


> Can you tell me what resolution  is more suitable (more graphic quality) for Gaming?



There are 2,073,600 pixels on a 1920x1080 and 2,304,000 on 1920x1200. 

Is better in every way for gaming FOV. Only bad thing is the added stress on your hardware. More to render, more pixels to manage. The more you have the better the image, and also higher resolutions tend not to need so much Anti-Aliasing.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Feb 20, 2012)

Depending on your GPU, your budget, and if you are using the PC only for gaming, you might want to consider a 1600x900 or 1680x1050.  Your GPU might be able to give you a better quality picture on these resolutions than a higher resolution.

I would *never* choose for such a low resolution, because I use my PC for work, productivity, reading PDFs etc. and want more pixels for better screen and font readability and more of an A4 page on the screen at a time.

I would go for a 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 and run it at a lower resolution so that my GPU could cope. The monitor would take care of the scaling, so you set your gaming resolution to (say) 1280x800 and get nice fast gameplay.

So what's your budget, and do you use your PC just for gaming?


----------



## Jstn7477 (Feb 20, 2012)

I have used 1920*1080 displays for several years and don't care about the 16:9 vs. 16:10 debate. 16:10 monitors are less common these days and are typically more expensive than their 16:9 counterparts. Many games these days are console port trash so they tend to work great with 16:9 monitors, so that's why I have used them. I currently own a $320 ASUS VG236HE 23" 120Hz monitor and it's the best monitor I have ever owned (even though it is glossy TN panel it seems vastly better than the generic TN monitors everyone gripes about).

I still have a 2005 Samsung SyncMaster 940BW at work and while it is 16:10 it's a measly 1440*900 19" monitor and I would easily replace it with a 1080p monitor in a heartbeat.


----------



## Frick (Feb 20, 2012)

Jstn7477 said:


> I have used 1920*1080 displays for several years and don't care about the 16:9 vs. 16:10 debate. 16:10 monitors are less common these days and are typically more expensive than their 16:9 counterparts.



This and this. Cheap 1920x1200 are like €200 here and you can get a pretty decent IPS 1920x1080 for that.


----------



## RoboX (Feb 22, 2012)

I do not make a problem of money or performance of the vga, but simply the monitor (and its aspect ratio) more suitable for video games, saw that the exclusive use is gaming.
I read around that is important  the native aspect ratio of the game, which is for most of them 16:9. This dont has particular problems in 1920x1200 but can lead to a slight loss of vision (the sides) or the complete picture but with black bars above and below


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Feb 22, 2012)

I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:12

16:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. No. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down. It's simple. They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 22, 2012)

digibucc said:


> so 1200 would offer the ability to have more vertical pixels, which has the ability to give better visual quality - but in the end it depends on the game, and whether it was designed for 16:9 and gives options for fov, etc - otherwise all it will do is stretch the picture for more pixels, which WILL NOT give you better quality.



That about sums it up.  Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 11.1% more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor.  The horizontal FOV will be the same.

It's also a heck of a lot nicer when working with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see 11.1% more of a page.

I have TWO 1920x1200 monitors at home, one is actually a Samsung 27" 1080p HDTV (which scales a 1080p signal nicely to fill the screen).  I'd ALWAYS take 1920x1200 given the choice.



Completely Bonkers said:


> I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10



Me too.  With a 16:10 PC monitor, the entire width will be filled up, assuming it's an application running at full resolution.


----------



## claylomax (Feb 22, 2012)

Go 1920x1200, good luck finding one. It's better for gaming and can display 1920x1080 movies but a 1920x1080 monitor cannot display 1920x1200


----------



## BlackOmega (Feb 22, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> That about sums it up.  Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 20%more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor.  The horizontal FOV will be the same.
> 
> It's also a heck of a lot nicer when working with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see ~20% more of a page.
> 
> ...



It's not 20% more it's only 10% more.


----------



## erocker (Feb 22, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:12
> 
> 16:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. No. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down. It's simple. They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!



I've seen this person post on other forums with the same false argument. The true way to look at 16:10 vs. 16:9 and comparing 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 would be to show a 1920x1200 picture and remove 60 pixels from both the top and bottom of the 1920x1080 picture.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 22, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> It's not 20% more it's only 10% more.



11.1%  Fixed


----------



## Kwod (Feb 22, 2012)

The panel quality and type are FAR more important than the meager diff between 1200 and 1080 pixels.
I've yet to see a TN panel come anywhere near my 4yr old 8 bit Acer 25.5in LCD.
TN panels{one's I've had a chance to fiddle with} are faint and lack depth and detail.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 22, 2012)

Aren't there some games that experience inexplicable performance decreases at a particular Aspect Ratio?  I remember Bulletstorm was one such example where using a 4:3 or 16:10 resolution made the game borderline unplayable at launch.  I think it was since patched in the case of Bulletstorm, but it's something to consider.

Get the 24' Dell UltraSharp IPS, you won't be disappointed


----------



## BlackOmega (Feb 22, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> 11.1%  Fixed



Try again bud. 

 1200 / 90% = 1080.

1200 x 90%= 1080

 1200x.9=1080

 Or 1080/1200=.9



EDIT: If it was 11.1 then the aspect ratio would be 16:11.1


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Feb 22, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> That about sums it up.  Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 11.1% more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor.  The horizontal FOV will be the same.
> 
> But with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, *you'll see 15%* more of a page.



Fixed.

On productivity tools, ie applications, you get the taskbar 32px, the windows title 32px, the menu bar 32px, the icon shortcuts 32px for one row, 64px for two rows. In MS Word 2003 you get the top margin 32px and bottom footer bars 64px. In MS Excel 2003 you get cell entry and column headings bar 64px and the tabs and calc footers 64px.

This means a 1080y actually gives the user "working space" of 1080-32-32-32-64-64-64=792px.
Whereas a 1200y gives the user "working space" of 1200-32-32-32-64-64-64=912px

The difference is 120/792 or 15%.  If your screen shots 32 lines of text in MS Word 2003, or 32 rows in Excel 2003, that is equivalent to another 5 lines of text or 5 rows!

With MS Office 2007+, the ribbon bars add another 64px making the difference 17%

Email clients are similar to MS Office 2003. You will see another 5 emails on each screen.

NOBODY would go for 1080 over 1200 if they use productivity software.


----------



## Maban (Feb 23, 2012)

I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?

TF2 1920x1200
TF2 1920x1080
TF2 1600x1200

AOE3 1920x1200
AOE3 1920x1080
AOE3 1600x1200

Skyrim 1920x1200
Skyrim 1920x1080
Not sure what the deal is with the time of day or weather change here. I didn't do a 16x12 for Skyrim.

Stalker 1920x1200
Stalker 1920x1080
Stalker 1600x1200

These were all full-sized images. I have no idea why imageshack has since re-sized them.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 23, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> 1200 / 90% = 1080.
> 
> 1200 x 90%= 1080
> 
> ...



You're looking at the inverse

1200 is 111.1% of 1080

1080 is 90.0% of 1200



Maban said:


> I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?
> 
> TF2 1920x1200
> TF2 1920x1080
> ...



That settles it, at least for those games... it appears the FOV is better with a wider aspect ratio.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Feb 23, 2012)

Maban said:


> I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?
> 
> TF2 1920x1200
> TF2 1920x1080
> ...



This is why I don't bother with the screen ratio debate. I simply went with a 1080p 16:9 monitor a couple years ago because it was affordable to do so. The main game I play happens to be Team Fortress 2 (which I also play competitively), and I have ~3100 hours total in it. Your testing proves that TF2 at 16:9 is superior to the other aspect ratios, and I'd imagine this is applicable to most if not all other Source based games, and that is what matters to me.

There are 169 1080p monitors and 20 1200p monitors currently available on Newegg. 1080p monitors start at $109 and 1200p monitors start at $280. Being snobby and paying a ton more for a probably outdated 1200p monitor just because "it's 10% taller" is a rather crappy argument. In fact, for slightly above the price of the cheapest Samsung 24" 5ms 1200p monitor, you can get a 23" ASUS VG236HE which is a fantastic 2ms 1080p monitor that has a 120Hz dual-link DVI input and the nicest TN panel I have ever seen. 5ms TN panels are so 2005, and I would not drop $300 on one.

How about some pros and cons for 16:9 monitors?

Pros:
Cost effective, lots of models on the market.
Standard aspect ratio for HD movies released on consumer mediums. (seriously, guys, everyone considers scaling evil, so how is scaling your 1080p movie to 1200p suddenly acceptable?)
Most games support 16:9 well, since many are ported from consoles played on 16:9 TVs.
No black bars on fullscreen 16:9 content, which is basically most entertainment content nowadays.
Potential ~10% performance increase in games (because you have to render 230,400 extra pixels on a 16:10 display, and chances are your game will still chop off your sides to fill the extra height up).
3D or 120Hz models readily available.

Cons:
Less desktop "height" (but if you have some document fetish and are so concerned with 120 pixels of height being gone, you should really consider a professional 27/30 inch monitor if you are scared of zooming out).

If you're doing any work that you are going to gripe about not having enough space to work with, get a higher resolution monitor. Plain and simple.


----------



## Brilford Wimley (Feb 23, 2012)

Boycott the 1080


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Feb 24, 2012)

Jstn7477 said:


> If you're doing any work that you are going to gripe about not having enough space to work with, get a higher resolution monitor. Plain and simple.



Consumer 1080 killed the workstation star.  Just _*where *_ did all those 2048 x 1536 TFTs go? Because that is what I want... 3 of them... side by side.


----------



## Goodman (Feb 24, 2012)

16x9 is wider than 16:10 but 16:10 are higher in heights 

See here-->http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x10-vs-24-inch-16x9

It's all about what you like the most i guess?
16x9 are cheaper to make than 16:10 so they cost less & that is why 16:9 is the norm now

As for me i like it wider but still 16:9 is not wide enough for me i would like more...

I would like something like 21:9 or 21:10 it would be so  maybe in 10 years from now?


----------



## LiveOrDie (Feb 24, 2012)

Spoiler



GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND


----------



## Goodman (Feb 24, 2012)

@Live OR Die maybe you should edit your post , we don't need to see a big banana dance all over our screen & your Google comment... what a big helping hand you just give... :shadedshu


----------



## LiveOrDie (Feb 24, 2012)

Goodman said:


> @Live OR Die maybe you should edit your post , we don't need to see a big banana dance all over our screen & your Google comment... what a big helping hand you just give... :shadedshu



I just think this topic has been covered.... and no i wont remove my banana


----------



## inferKNOX (Feb 24, 2012)

How can 1920x1080 possibly be wider than 1920x1200?! :shadedshu
I bought my Samsung Syncmaster T260 for the 1920x1200 & have since wanted to buy something new, but haven't done so for the mere fact that I'm failing to find a decent 1200 screen (other than Dells, which aren't going for a logical price). That is how much better I find 1200 than 1080.
1200 is the best of both worlds, height for work, browsing, productivity, etc and width for gaming & media. It is easily superior if you try it, however, it's cheaper for manufacturers to make everything in 1080, since they already make TVs, etc in that format, so they're pushing out the 1200s... a sad thing indeed. I'm now thinking of simply waiting until there's a decent OLED 16:10 screen, at the same resolution or higher, since it seems there's no decent go between at a normal price.


----------



## phill (Feb 24, 2012)

Just noticed this but I thought I would try and reply 

I have got 3 30" panels and they are one of the best things I have upgraded too.  I find that the extra resolution is very helpfull and when I connect all three screens together it gives an amazing gaming experience.  
I'm trying to find something that I could connect all the 3 screens together and that would allow me to turn them on to portrait as well as I think that would be a benefit to some games...  

The only sheer downside to having such a huge resolution is that the sheer GPU power that you need.  I've nearly hit the limits of my 3Gb 580 GTX's but addmittedly that was with just two cards, but I don't think it would make any difference with a third (I have to test it as I do have another one sat here...) 

I think if you can have a 30" panel, it'll be one of the best things that you upgrade to.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Feb 24, 2012)

If I had deep pockets (aka millionaire) I would buy three TFTs designed for Airport Control Towers. They are 2k x 2k pixels.  The combination of 3 would give 6144x2048. Each panel is 1:1 but combined it would be 3:1 or 27:9, which is true cinema width.

A single screen with 2048 "y" would be perfect for reading A4 pdfs etc, and creating Word documents. While still nowhere near print quality (300dpi) it would be so much better than having to zoom and scroll through current 1200 in the "y"


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 24, 2012)

RoboX said:


> Can you tell me what resolution  is more suitable (more graphic quality) for Gaming?



Get an IPS monitor with high PPI. You can get cheap 21.5" IPS 1080p monitors these days. IMO it's the best quality for your buck

This topic is too subjective and the OP needs to give more info. Not to mention his question doesn't make perfect sense.  It's hurting my OCD.


----------



## GotNoRice (Feb 24, 2012)

I went from a 24" 1920x1200 monitor to a 27" 1920x1080 monitor and have no regrets.  The 27" monitor is larger enough than the 24" that I even have more physical screen height (despite less pixels obviously).

Most of the games I play handle their FoV such that I do get to view more of the game with 1080P.  While 1920x1200 is more pixels than 1920x1080, that doesn't mean a game just cuts a few pixels off the top and bottom to make it fit, the entire FoV is recalculated and in the end is displayed differently on the two monitors.  That is why you aren't missing anything on the top of bottom with 1080P, but are in fact seeing extra info on the sides in most situations.


----------



## Goodman (Feb 24, 2012)

inferKNOX said:


> How can 1920x1080 possibly be wider than 1920x1200?! :shadedshu(



2 Monitor's at same size (21",24" etc...) the 1080 will always be wider since the 1200 is higher & in order to keep the same dimension diagonal (24") the 1200 is going to be shorter in width
So the 1200 loose a little bit of width but gain a little more in height


----------



## erocker (Feb 24, 2012)

Goodman said:


> 2 Monitor's at same size (21",24" etc...) the 1080 will always be wider since the 1200 is higher & in order to keep the same dimension diagonal (24") the 1200 is going to be shorter in width
> So the 1200 loose a little bit of width but gain a little more in height



That makes no sense at all. They are both 1920 pixels wide. Take a 1920x1200 screen and cover up 60 pixels on both the top and bottom. Shrink the image so it fits within the aspect ratio and you have 1920x1080.


----------



## GotNoRice (Feb 24, 2012)

erocker said:


> That makes no sense at all. They are both 1920 pixels wide. Take a 1920x1200 screen and cover up 60 pixels on both the top and bottom. Shrink the image so it fits within the aspect ratio and you have 1920x1080.



I think he was talking about physical screen dimensions.  To maintain the same diagonal screen size with reduced height, it would indeed have to be wider.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Definitely go 1200, it will be even as of pixel ratio n supported better than 1080.

CRTs could handle resolutions better due to not being restrained to physical pixels.


----------



## erocker (Feb 24, 2012)

GotNoRice said:


> I think he was talking about physical screen dimensions.  To maintain the same diagonal screen size with reduced height, it would indeed have to be wider.



Ahh, I think I understand now.


----------



## Irocing (Feb 24, 2012)

Have run both the 1080 and 1200 Sammy's and can definately tell the
difference between them.

Run the 26" 1920x1200 Sammy now and wouldn't look back.

Getting harder to find but thier out there.

Later


----------



## Goodman (Feb 24, 2012)

GotNoRice said:


> I think he was talking about physical screen dimensions.  To maintain the same diagonal screen size with reduced height, it would indeed have to be wider.



Exactly! what i was trying to say


----------



## refluxxed (Mar 12, 2012)

LightningJR said:


> Get an IPS monitor with high PPI. You can get cheap 21.5" IPS 1080p monitors these days. IMO it's the best quality for your buck



Here's a really cheap 1080p IPS panel, if that's the way he wants to go.... the LG IPS225V, gets a very good write up here. The main moan is a wobbly stand, but this is apparently a very nice image quality for the money.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 12, 2012)

This may help..

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150809&highlight=1920X1200+vs+1920X1080


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 12, 2012)

The guy asked a simple question. What is the best monitor for gaming? The answer is simple. The wider is it the better. For example even if you have more pixels like in 1920x1200, still, *in games* you have more details with 1920x1080, and even more with 1920x900 resolution because of the aspect ratio. 
So in other words, the bigger the number from aspect ratio, the more details you get in games (1920x1200=*1.6*; 1920x1080=*1.78*; 1920x900=*2.13*) The screens with Starcraft provided early speaks from themselves. 

Btw, some people from here are really OBSESSED  with resolution.


----------



## matar (Aug 13, 2012)

1080p is for xbox 360 and ps3 gamers. 

1920x1200 is for real PC games..............


----------



## natr0n (Aug 13, 2012)

120 pixels make almost no difference to me


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Aug 13, 2012)

natr0n said:


> 120 pixels make almost no difference


1200 pixels is to 1080 as 7 inches is to 6.
YOU might think it makes almost no difference.  But *she *knows it does


----------



## natr0n (Aug 13, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> 1200 pixels is to 1080 as 7 inches is to 6.
> YOU might think is makes almost no difference.  But *she *knows it does



lol, lighting tricks help give depth and dimension or something


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 13, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10

You have 120 Additional Pixels On Screen with a 1920x1200 (16:10/8:5) vs a 1920x1080 (16:9/8:4.5) Screen, The Higher the Pixel Count the More Detailed Images Can be On screen

Full HD is Considered 1080p, 1200p or higher. HD is Considered 720p to what the next Level is but not 1080p

15" LCD ran at 1024x768 (4:3) and 17" LCD ran at 1280x1024 (5:4) so technically those were Higher Resolution than any 720p TV thus Higher Definition. My 15.4" LCD on My Laptop ran at 1920x1200 for Movies, I dropped it back for Games Since Graphics cards 7-8 years ago have issues running beyond 1280x1024 for Frame Rate in Games

1080i etc means interlacing of each row of pixels meaning 1 row refreshes then the next- which causes artifacting.

1080p etc doesnt have that issue as it is progressive scan




Completely Bonkers said:


> 1200 pixels is to 1080 as 7 inches is to 6.
> YOU might think it makes almost no difference.  But *she *knows it does



Hey Ive Accidently choked the last woman I was with haha


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 13, 2012)

I think by now we are all aware that 1920*1200 gives you more space on your desktop and non-fullscreen activities than 1920*1080. 

However, most modern games DO NOT give you a greater VERTICAL view, but adjust the width of the horizontal view to fill the screen. The vertical FOV in these games is always the same on 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 for the sake of being able to have enough vertical viewing area on all displays, since we know that the vertical resolution is less than the horizontal resolution on pretty much any standard display. Instead, the difference between aspect ratios in these games is that you will see a greater horizontal area (but the SAME vertical area) for a display with a greater horizontal to vertical ratio. The TF2, Starcraft, etc. GIFs demonstrate this.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Aug 13, 2012)

so pull down the console, type cg_fov 90 and profit


----------



## bostonbuddy (Aug 14, 2012)

size>$$$>1200>1080


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 14, 2012)

love my 1920x1080 res but might get this

http://www.vizio.com/cinemawide/specs  2560x1080


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 14, 2012)

2560x1600 is 16:10/8:5 Ratio


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Aug 14, 2012)

2880x1800 is also 16:10/8:5 ratio... is what we want


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Aug 14, 2012)

I loved 1920x1200, but since that res is rare now days I have folded and went with 1920x1080. Though I do want to say, 1200 vertical will not be any higher quality than 1080 vertical. Because they aren't using 1200 pixels in the same size are as they are 1080. A monitor with 1200 vertical pixels will be a taller screen, rather than more pixels contained in the same area. So visual quality will be the same as 1080, it just gives you a bit of extra vertical view, which I always liked, I wish it stayed the standard for PC's


----------



## purecain (Jan 2, 2014)

when your playing a game like battlefield and there are people stood above you, you can see them with 16x10 where as with 16x9 you have to look up.... just something I noticed watching my pal play on his rig...


----------



## StrongForce (Jan 4, 2014)

I'm on a 25.5" 1900x1200 and I freaking love it ! Highly recommend, but as other people say there are more important factors these days, such as the panel, If I had money I would go for a IPS(better viewing angles, which totally sucks with TN) and if possible 120hz cause I do alot of fast paced FPS's games.


----------



## Flibolito (Jan 4, 2014)

Wait for G-Sync monitor later this year?


----------



## StrongForce (Jan 4, 2014)

Yeah also that does sound like a plan, if you're willing to put the extra money of course !


----------



## Flibolito (Jan 5, 2014)

I'm guessing a 2560x1440p IPS 60Hz monitor with G-Sync will be sub $500US within 2014, which would be a game changer. If this come to pass I will surely pick one up, high res@60Hz is perfect for G-Sync to make a difference.


----------



## StrongForce (Jan 5, 2014)

OH that sounds good ! cause 500 was the price of this monitor (1900x1200, 25.5" ) when I got it.   I guess we can keep dreaming to see a 2560x1440p 120hz in the near future though


----------



## Flibolito (Jan 5, 2014)

yea 120hz would be nice and I bet the Tegra could push it but not sure if the IPS panels could keep up. I would settle for 90Hz G-Synced though once Maxwell comes out games like BF4 all ultra at 2560x1440 would do close to 100fps on one gpu. Time will tell but as far as monitors go, I would sit and chill right now. CES is going to reveal a ton of new monitor technology in the next week. Keep your eyes peeled.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 5, 2014)

the main downfall I find with My 1200p is recording issues. like when You have to play in 1080. and record in 1080 because of Youboob. but I think they changed the available resolutions. all above 1080 is Gravy pretty much anyway.


----------



## Flibolito (Jan 5, 2014)

Yea I play in 2560x1440 and record into 1080 which makes my cpu work overtime even when recording onto a fast SSD. WQHD files are huge and take forever to render/upload even with lagarith codec but it seems to work well for now. I can't wait for shadowplay to be solid and I will start using that instead of Dxtory.


----------



## Flash (Jan 5, 2014)

Boycotting the 1080. 

Bought a Dell U2410m IPS 1920x1200 and it's awesome. Those extra 120px vertical in desktop is also awesome

You use your monitor to watch purely movies, get a x1080. You use it for anything else, x1200 is the way to go.


----------



## Flibolito (Jan 5, 2014)

I agree with that if 2560x1600 was affordable/available I would be a happy camper. Most monitor makers forgot these things get strapped to computers and not DVD/Blooray players. For productivity/gaming 16:10 is still king in aspect ratio. Although 21:9 has me interested once pixel density is higher and GPUs will keep up for a more "surround" like experience, although I think my future lies in Star Citizen + High res (maybe even G-Synced) Oculus Rift.


----------



## Flibolito (Jan 7, 2014)

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-rog-pg278q-nvidia-g-sync-monitor,25597.html

It has begun... not IPS but still a beginning. I'd like to trade 120Hz for IPS pls and let's do $500 . Again competition throughout the year will drive prices down a good bit, especially since Lenovo 4K 28" monitor is going to be less than $850.


----------



## RoboX (Jan 10, 2014)

what os the advantage of the 12HZ (no the 3d, is not for me)


----------



## StrongForce (Jan 10, 2014)

120 hz make you able to have up to 120FPS (assuming your pc can provide) and also supposedly less tearing/ghosting overall, I don't know for sure haven't try but I'm interested by it too.


----------



## qubit (Jan 13, 2014)

Completely Bonkers said:


> I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:12
> 
> 16:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. No. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down. It's simple. They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!


Yes indeed. If one wanted to show the most on a screen, then the optimum ratio would be 1:1. Of course, it wouldn't be very comfortable to use due to human anatomy (ie eyes side by side) especially at large display sizes. I've seen specialized monitors that use a 1:1 ratio, I think for medical imaging.

Personally, I find 16:9 is better for gaming, while 16:10 is better for productivity. I prefer 16:10 for productivity now compared to the old 4:3 ratio of the CRT monitor, finding it more comfortable.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 13, 2014)

1200p Dell here. As far as iam concerned, the only reason there are so many 1080p monitors is because of the film industry pushing 1080p for HD films.


----------



## Eroticus (Jan 13, 2014)

I got korean ah ips monitor 1440p stable in 120hz  and it's awesome.


----------



## StrongForce (Jan 13, 2014)

Eroticus said:


> I got korean ah ips monitor 1440p stable in 120hz  and it's awesome.


How does that even work ? btw 1440p is what Ratio ? 16/10 or 

And what about the price? would be interested to hear about the model and where you can purchase it, for a future upgrade. =)


----------



## JunkBear (Jan 13, 2014)

I got myself a 32" TV and in my opinion a 1080P is plenty enough. Even for gamings since the higher the resolution the smaller the objects get in regular computer screens. Meaning the snipers are even smallers...these little fuc*ers!


----------



## JunkBear (Jan 13, 2014)

qubit said:


> Yes indeed. If one wanted to show the most on a screen, then the optimum ratio would be 1:1. Of course, it wouldn't be very comfortable to use due to human anatomy (ie eyes side by side) especially at large display sizes. I've seen specialized monitors that use a 1:1 ratio, I think for medical imaging.
> 
> Personally, I find 16:9 is better for gaming, while 16:10 is better for productivity. I prefer 16:10 for productivity now compared to the old 4:3 ratio of the CRT monitor, finding it more comfortable.


 

Yes especially for Excel sheets in Office.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Jan 13, 2014)

Flash said:


> Boycotting the 1080.
> 
> Bought a Dell U2410m IPS 1920x1200 and it's awesome. Those extra 120px vertical in desktop is also awesome
> 
> You use your monitor to watch purely movies, get a x1080. You use it for anything else, x1200 is the way to go.



Did the same thing, the only down side is that all the movies are 16:9, but that's hardly a draw back as you don't even notice the black bars. In RTS games that extra FOV is great, so I recommend an 16:10 monitor.


----------



## Frick (Jan 13, 2014)

So how many of you have realized this is a pretty old thread?


----------



## StrongForce (Jan 13, 2014)

How many of us cares ?  Baha


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 13, 2014)

The best reason for getting 1200 over 1080 is because a lot of older games still have a 1600x1200 resolution option.  There's nothing compatible with 1080.  If you only play modern games, this point is moot but it is a no brainer for older titles.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Jan 13, 2014)

Frick said:


> So how many of you have realized this is a pretty old thread?



Thank you for pointing that out, the question was good though


----------



## Eroticus (Jan 13, 2014)

StrongForce said:


> How does that even work ? btw 1440p is what Ratio ? 16/10 or
> 
> And what about the price? would be interested to hear about the model and where you can purchase it, for a future upgrade. =)



I got Crossover Black Tune 2755 AMG - 1440p - i bought this monitor for 499$ USD . you can get overclockable Korean monitor even for less ... just check in amazon or ebay

The monitor is 16:9 - 2560x1440


----------



## ice_v (Jul 30, 2014)

Soooo...has anyone found a decent 1920x1200 gaming monitor yet? Even amongst the Korean ones? At least do the mainstream ones (AoC, Dell, Asus) reach 75Hz?


----------



## vallonen (Apr 13, 2015)

ice_v said:


> Soooo...has anyone found a decent 1920x1200 gaming monitor yet? Even amongst the Korean ones? At least do the mainstream ones (AoC, Dell, Asus) reach 75Hz?



I'm looking at a BenQ BL2411PT IPS as my new monitor, currently I'm using a Samsung S24B350 (1920X1080) but I'm not happy with it (it's not flicker free and it's TN) I would like to get back to proper PC resolution.


----------



## Octopuss (Apr 13, 2015)

Nice necro 
I can't recommend Dell U2415 enough. And the price is, for the quality you'd get, unbeatable.


----------

