# 1920 X1200 vs 1920 X 1080



## pentastar111 (Feb 6, 2009)

Which is better for gaming? 1920x1200 or 1920x1080? Or does it make that much of a difference


----------



## red268 (Feb 6, 2009)

24" Screen?


----------



## alexp999 (Feb 6, 2009)

1920x1080 is a 16:9 resolution which is what aspect ratio most tv and films are.

1920 x 1200 is a 16:10 resolution which is what most games are designed to run at.

Basically

16:10 is mostly used for computers
16:9 is mostly used for TV

However the best rez to use, usually depends on the native rez of the display.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 6, 2009)

On a native PC Monitor 16:10 @ 1200 for gaming will be best, at 1080 the screen will still have to scale unless you want black banding.


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 6, 2009)

Bigger the better, as long as you have the video card/s to handle it.


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 6, 2009)

I have been LOVING my 16:9 1920x1080 monitor. I don't need to have AA enabled at all because it's all high res looking!


----------



## CDdude55 (Feb 6, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I have been LOVING my 16:9 1920x1080 monitor. I don't need to have AA enabled at all because it's all high res looking!



This is true to pentastar, you can game at a high res with a decent video card and just disable some things to get good frames in the end. Saves money and looks great.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 6, 2009)

A 1920x1200 can take a 1920x1080 signal, and display it pixel for pixel. Therefore a 1920x1200 gives you the best of both worlds. 16:9 AND 16:10. If you use your PC for reading PDFs or Word documents, or editing photos, then I would go for the 1920x1200. The extra "y" pixels improves screen real estate, readability of documents, and room for taskbars.

I do a lot of "work" on my PC, so I have 2x 1600x1200 in portrait to get 1600 in the "y". That way I dont need to scroll and zoom PDF files. Just pull it up, full page, and read.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 6, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I have been LOVING my 16:9 1920x1080 monitor. I don't need to have AA enabled at all because it's all high res looking!



But sadly, not as high res looking as 1920 x 1200


----------



## CJCerny (Feb 6, 2009)

I suspect 1920x1200 will be extinct in the next few years. LCD manufacturers save themselves a ton of money by only having to make one panel size rather than two. Since they are already making lots of 1920x1080 panels already for HDTVs, I think the 1920x1200 will have a hard time surviving.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 6, 2009)

IMO, panel makers are lagging behind the progress curve. It's a shame INTEL doesnt make flat-panels. (Now there's a thought!)

We really should be seeing more QXGA (2048 x 1536) and WQXGA (2560x1600) screens on the market, esp. in 22-24" format and NOT 30" format. It's time we used Windows Desktop Sclaing feature and had hi-resolutions fonts as standard (120dpi and higher).

For gaming, there is no reason that a 2560x1600 screen operates at 1280x800 with full AA if the GPU cant cope with 2560x1600 in full screen DirectX.  With a higher pixel density there would be no loss of quality compared to current setups, but the benefit of higher quality if your GPU can take it, AND much better desktop quality, PDF reading, and photo editting.

QXGA would be perfect for the office. WQXGA would be perfect for the graphics designer or at home.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Feb 6, 2009)

I have both my ps3 and pc up to my 14 inch 1920x1200. The ps3 has some black lines on top and bottom since it is 16:9. But 16:10 all the way imo.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

I would go x1080, since it looks like manufacturers are switching to that... if you have a console, watch movies occasional and play recent game (because they support 19x10) i'd go for 19x10

not only will you be able to play with higher detail, you will have best possible image for movies and console gaming... and are you really going to cry for 120 pixels? prob not... so what if you have to scroll for 10 nanoseconds more?


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 6, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> IMO, panel makers are lagging behind the progress curve. It's a shame INTEL doesnt make flat-panels. (Now there's a thought!)
> 
> We really should be seeing more QXGA (2048 x 1536) and WQXGA (2560x1600) screens on the market, esp. in 22-24" format and NOT 30" format. It's time we used Windows Desktop Sclaing feature and had hi-resolutions fonts as standard (120dpi and higher).
> 
> ...



1600p is too high a resolution for such a small screen. Icons would be tiny, and gaming difference would be difficult to tell. What they really need to do is start putting 1600p on these 50"+ televisions, b/c that's where the true benefit could be seen.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> 1600p is too high a resolution for such a small screen. Icons would be tiny, and gaming difference would be difficult to tell. What they really need to do is start putting 1600p on these 50"+ televisions, b/c that's where the true benefit could be seen.



+1


----------



## pentastar111 (Feb 6, 2009)

thanks for the replies fella's. The reason i asked is this. I don't want to chance a broken screen due to shippers error so i decided I'm taken my biz to Bestbuy for the monitor purchase. I've narrowed down to these 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9047453&type=product&id=1218012053265
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8739378&type=product&id=1201913868031


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

if your not scared of newegg and can wait a bit


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 6, 2009)

How about this one if you want BB: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8909942&type=product&id=1213047114888

N-ster's there is probably the best bang/buck right now.


----------



## pentastar111 (Feb 6, 2009)

well it looks like i'll be ordering from the "Egg" after all. the Bestbuy here where i live is crappy at best. Their website says the LG, the Sammy and the dell are available, but in reality, they don't exist at their store. They do however, have plenty of the westinghouse monitors...blech..no-thank you.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 6, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> 1600p is too high a resolution for such a small screen. Icons would be tiny, and gaming difference would be difficult to tell.


Er, "large icons"? Check your display properties. Try it out. See how much better they look (only too big). Increase pixel density and you get THAT QUALITY at a regular size. Try reading text using fonts set to 120dpi (in advanced options, NOT "large fonts"). It's 100% better. Even better if you could work at 150dpi, but that would be too big... unless you had higher pixel density. QED.


----------



## spearman914 (Feb 6, 2009)

I would rather u have 1920 x 1200. Because some games don't support 16:9 resolutions like the 1920 x 1080.


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 6, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Er, "large icons"? Check your display properties. Try it out. See how much better they look (only too big). Increase pixel density and you get THAT QUALITY at a regular size. Try reading text using fonts set to 120dpi (in advanced options, NOT "large fonts"). It's 100% better. Even better if you could work at 150dpi, but that would be too big... unless you had higher pixel density. QED.



True you can always edit these things, I still don't really think it would be very beneficial. But seeing as I've never tried it, I can't say anything for sure. What I can say with greater confidence is a 60" DLP would be much more appealing if it carried a 1600p resolution. Or a 1600p KURO.......


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 6, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> I would rather u have 1920 x 1200. Because some games don't support 16:9 resolutions like the 1920 x 1080.



Like what? The only game that I have found that doesn't do 16:9 is Battlefield 2(and you can just use a command line to get it to..). Neverwinter Nights(an older game) does 1920x1080 fine.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

yea I know that's the best bang/buck  spearman... these things can be edited so that it supports 19x10... but anyway, recent games practically all support it


----------



## EviLZeD (Feb 6, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> A 1920x1200 can take a 1920x1080 signal, and display it pixel for pixel. Therefore a 1920x1200 gives you the best of both worlds. 16:9 AND 16:10. If you use your PC for reading PDFs or Word documents, or editing photos, then I would go for the 1920x1200. The extra "y" pixels improves screen real estate, readability of documents, and room for taskbars.
> 
> I do a lot of "work" on my PC, so I have 2x 1600x1200 in portrait to get 1600 in the "y". That way I dont need to scroll and zoom PDF files. Just pull it up, full page, and read.



I thought the exact same thing when 1080 monitors came out you can scale images using drivers to have 1:1 pixel mapping if you can get slightly higher res for about the same money why not


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

but for a console you can't do that... that means you'll end up with black line on top!

and also, if you can get better fps 

is your only argument that you can see MORE :O omg I see 1 more mm of text! I don't have to scroll down .1 nanoseconds more! all this for only 50$ more!!


----------



## kysg (Feb 6, 2009)

n-ster said:


> but for a console you can't do that... that means you'll end up with black line on top!
> 
> and also, if you can get better fps
> 
> is your only argument that you can see MORE :O omg I see 1 more mm of text! I don't have to scroll down .1 nanoseconds more! all this for only 50$ more!!



depends on preference, some people are just really anal about that stuff, me personally I like the 1080p monitors they are a good step in the right direction, I don't see 1900x1200 going away any time soon, heck me personally I know I will move to a 24 or 25 inch monitor later this year since I focusing more on dev, and figured may as well go with a better monitor.  You can only keep moving up when it comes to monitors.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

oh yea I said that in an earlier post, 16:9 = future because all manufacturers are moving to it
please ppl, give me better reasons then "if I can get more pixels, why not?" or "OMG 120pixels more to view WEB PAGES!" COMMMMMMMMMMMONN YOU CANT BE SERIOUS!

if you hate scrolling down that much... if you prefer seeing everything smaller..


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 6, 2009)

All I can say is that my laptop's 1920x1200 looks FAAARRR better than my desktop's 1680x1050. Even if I compare the same game using 2xAA on the desktop and no AA at all on the laptop.

(For both system's specs check system specs beneath avatar.)


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

I'm sure it does, but we are comparing 19x10 to 19x12!
of course 16x10 is bad compared to 19x1X


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 6, 2009)

Black Panther said:


> All I can say is that my laptop's 1920x1200 looks FAAARRR better than my desktop's 1680x1050. Even if I compare the same game using 2xAA on the desktop and no AA at all on the laptop.
> 
> (For both system's specs check system specs beneath avatar.)



Panther! Yep, that is JUST what we need, and I have been hoping for for a long time; 1920x1200 or higher at laptop pixel density like you have. I can imagine that 1920x1200 on 17" with 120DPI and large icons simply looks amazing. Nice system 

Yep, I really want a 2560x1600 on 21-23". That would make a HUGE difference to the hours I spend working on my PC... lots of DTP stuff.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

1080p is still a difference at 17" but a 2560x1600 on a 21"????????  OH COMMON! over 4m pixels compared to 2m pixels is just wrong... your fps will drop so badly its crazy... no one wants a 1600p for gaming unless they have 30"! sure you can make a 21" with 4m pixels...its harder to make a 21" monitor with 4m pixels and it'll cost more than a 30" with 4m pixels...

while your at it try to do it on a 15"


----------



## Black Panther (Feb 6, 2009)

n-ster said:


> but a 2560x1600 on a 21"????????  OH COMMON!



Nope. It'd look just like as if you're viewing a real life photo.
As long as you got the gpu (or gpu's) to run it seamlessly, it'd be flawlessly perfect.

Remember also, the higher the resolution on the monitor and the smaller the monitor, the smaller and less visible the pixels would be.
For example on laptop I got 1920x1200=2,304,000 pixels on a 17" widescreen.
On desktop I got 1680x1050=1,764,000 pixels which are less than above and to add insult to injury they're larger pixels because they're stretched over a 22" monitor.

That's why a 2560x1600 on a 21" will be looking far faarr more awesome than a 2560x1600 on a 42".


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

DUDESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU KNOW THE COST TO DO A 21" 1600p monitor???????? IT'LL COST OVER 1000$ TO MAKE!!!!! HOW MANY BUYERS???? 100 max... profit? none
huge difference? no... a 1600p 30" almost looks like real life to me


----------



## kysg (Feb 6, 2009)

n-ster said:


> DUDESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU KNOW THE COST TO DO A 21" 1600p monitor???????? IT'LL COST OVER 1000$ TO MAKE!!!!! HOW MANY BUYERS???? 100 max... profit? none
> huge difference? no... a 1600p 30" almost looks like real life to me



ease up on the caps, now I am somewhat skeptical of panthers deduction. doubt there is anyway I could settle for that.  though I did have the old 1680x1050 19inch monitor.  So I guess I'm sounding a bit conceited here.  if I could see some screenshots maybe I'd feel a bit at ease.

and I'm sure a 1600p monitor won't happen for a while.  but samsung did put out that nice 23 inch monitor that was packing the same res as a 30 inch if I'm correct.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

I'm sure 30" res IS 1600p (2560x1600)


----------



## DarkMatter (Feb 6, 2009)

I too want much higher resolutions on smaller screens. I don't like 30" monitors for my PC because I have to sit too close to the screen (40-50 cm) and I don't want to have to move my head. Nor my eyes to much when I'm gaming. But why I want much higher resolutions? Because of the same thing I'm still using my CRT (one of the reasons, picture quality is another one): I want to be able to change the resolution as I please, and only super high LCDs would let me do it without losing picture quality. 

I like most games at 1200p, but there's a lot that I simply don't like at such high resolution, for various reasons and there are others that simply won't run on my card (you'll always find a game that doesn't run at high res with any card, Crysis for example). Upgrading every 3 months is something I don't want to do, I left that behind already, and I'm happy as long as I have around 1000 lines, so whenever a games can't run maxed out at 1200p I simply lower the resolution instead of lowering in-game details, much much better of a solution. Being able to change resolution is a MUST for me, so I'm waiting the day that flat panels have enough resolution that scaling won't destroy the picture quality.


----------



## erocker (Feb 6, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> I too want much higher resolutions on smaller screens. I don't like 30" monitors for my PC because I have to sit too close to the screen (40-50 cm) and I don't want to have to move my head. Nor my eyes to much when I'm gaming. But why I want much higher resolutions? Because of the same thing I'm still using my CRT (one of the reasons, picture quality is another one): I want to be able to change the resolution as I please, and only super high LCDs would let me do it without losing picture quality.
> 
> I like most games at 1200p, but there's a lot that I simply don't like at such high resolution, for various reasons and there are others that simply won't run on my card (you'll always find a game that doesn't run at high res with any card, Crysis for example). Upgrading every 3 months is something I don't want to do, I left that behind already, and I'm happy as long as I have around 1000 lines, so whenever a games can't run maxed out at 1200p I simply lower the resolution instead of lowering in-game details, much much better of a solution. Being able to change resolution is a MUST for me, so I'm waiting the day that flat panels have enough resolution that scaling won't destroy the picture quality.



Well said.  I would love a 22" 1920x1200 widescreen.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

buy lower res monitors will cost you less than buying that very high res small monitor anyways  a 21.5" 19x10 monitor would be my pick anyday... I'm talking about the ASUS of course... v226H i think


----------



## DarkMatter (Feb 6, 2009)

n-ster said:


> buy lower res monitors will cost you less than buying that very high res small monitor anyways  a 21.5" 19x10 monitor would be my pick anyday... I'm talking about the ASUS of course... v226H i think



You dind't understand it properly. I want a monitor that will let me play either at say 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 without any quality loss or black bands. I said I'm happy with 1000 lines when I HAVE to use that res, that doesn't mean I don't prefer 1200 lines or more when my card can cope with it.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 6, 2009)

will it be worth the price? and anyways it'll still lose picture quality one way or another... IMO, the price wouldn't justify the reason and the gain of picture quality.


----------



## DarkMatter (Feb 7, 2009)

n-ster said:


> will it be worth the price? and anyways it'll still lose picture quality one way or another... IMO, the price wouldn't justify the reason and the gain of picture quality.



When you want to game using as a higher resolution as you can, price is relative. First of all, price would come down as soon as they started mass producing them. And then having to buy the latest graphics card every 6 months, costs way more than what the screen would cost.

About quality loss: when you change the resolution in integer factors of both vertical and horizontal pixels the quality loss is not that high. And because the pixel size would be smaller than the human eye can properly see, you wouldn't notice the difference. Best ratio is of course 1/2, but 2/3, 3/4 and 3/5 can work too if pixels are small enough. 3/4 would make a 2560x1600 panel show 1920x1200 pixels and 3/5 1536x960.


----------



## Conflict0s (Feb 7, 2009)

For gaming, most games will output both resolutions. As long as you match the game output resolution with your monitor’s resolution it will look good. So if you had a 22" 1920x1080 monitor and play a game at that resolution it will be crystal clear (HD). BUT if you have a screen with a higher resolution than 1080 and you match it with your game output, then that will look better as it has more pixels with in the screen. Other wise your screen or graphics card will have to upscale your image and quality will be lost.
So then you have to think about what else do you do that outputs in 1080, like podcasts, videos ect.
The only reason (as I am aware of) 1080 is HD, is because everyone (manufactures) need to run at that same resolution to allow users to run at the matched resolution, 1:1.

So basically if you enjoy watching movies, videos and what not threw your monitor, and they output in HD (1080 not 720) then I would go with the x1080 screen because you will see a much clear picture, and just change your resolution in games to 1080. Otherwise, I would go with the higher resolution screen because you don’t have the need to output at 1080 when you can output at a higher resolution and just change it in game making it more detailed providing your graphics card can support it.

I hope this all makes sense lol.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 7, 2009)

it does.. but what you don't understand is that 120 pixels won't make a difference to a freakin humans I in image quality... that is you ppls only +, and it is a bad +, therefore you lose 

Don't take anything I say here personal or wtv, its just I that use logic


----------



## DarkMatter (Feb 7, 2009)

n-ster said:


> it does.. but what you don't understand is that 120 pixels won't make a difference to a freakin humans I in image quality... that is you ppls only +, and it is a bad +, therefore you lose
> 
> Don't take anything I say here personal or wtv, its just I that use logic



That doesn't make sense at all to me. Then take 1680x1050 you are not losing too much neither. But you DO, in both cases you are losing viewing angle. It's only my personal opinion but 16/10 is already too wide for gaming. I don't like 4/3 more than 16/10, it's too narrow horizontally, but 16/10 is too wide IMO. 16/9 is just way beyond that and you really end up losing vertical viewing angle or you are forced to move your head to see what's on the left and right. Me don't like it. There's no need to say that until now, every console game does the first instead of the latter and well, it sucks.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 7, 2009)

for 1 one is 16:9 or 16:10 and the other is 4:3


----------



## Conflict0s (Feb 7, 2009)

n-ster said:


> it does.. but what you don't understand is that 120 pixels won't make a difference to a freakin humans I in image quality... that is you ppls only +, and it is a bad +, therefore you lose
> 
> Don't take anything I say here personal or wtv, its just I that use logic



Non taken  I agrea also that you wouldn't see the pixel loss.

And as for the 16:9 and 16:10 rations... I ain't going into them lol, i think it is just personal choice as DarkMatter said.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 7, 2009)

Wide Screen or Normal Screen is what im getting at for aspect ratios 1080 is Norm and 1200 is Wide


----------



## DarkMatter (Feb 7, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> Wide Screen or Normal Screen is what im getting at for aspect ratios 1080 is Norm and 1200 is Wide



I don't understand the logic behind that, after all 1080p is wider than 1200p.


----------



## Conflict0s (Feb 7, 2009)

Hmm I get what you mean, but how do I have a 22" 1920x1080 widescreen then? (I am not trying to say you are wrong, I would just generally like to know)


----------



## J-Man (Feb 7, 2009)

I believe 1920x1200 is better then 1920x1080.


----------



## pentastar111 (Feb 7, 2009)

Woohoo!!! I think I've found my next monitor!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236047


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 7, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> I don't understand the logic behind that, after all 1080p is wider than 1200p.



oops my mistake

i looked at the Screen Resolutions that are possible in Windows, 1080 is far wider than 1200 but 1200 has more pixels, Current Wide Screen HD TVs utilize 1080. Next Normal Resolution after that is 1920x1440, then 2048x1536 and finally 2560x1600. If its possible run your stuff at native, but i did notice this games arent really that affected by resolutions other than being bogged down by the amt of detail. My Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 1 with a 9800 256 (15.4") Monitor had a Native of 1920x1200, I guess thats pretty damn good for movies, but most games i ran at 1280x800 or next res up from that.


----------



## DarkMatter (Feb 7, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> Next Normal Resolution after that is 1920x1440, then 2048x1536 and finally 2560x1600.



Hehe, sorry, don't take offense but I think you need some sleep or something. 

2560x1600 is 16:10 resolution and not 4:3. I guess that you mean 4:3 when you say Normal, because other two are 4:3. I don't know of any standard 4:3 resolution higher than 2048x1536 but I¡ve heard of the existence of some screens with higher resolutions, don't know which ones though.

That being said, I'm going to bed. I too need some sleep and I have to wake up early in the morning tomorrow.


----------



## B1gg3stN00b (Feb 7, 2009)

Anyone who's ever used a netbook realizes how neat it is to have a high res on a small screen.

2560x1600 or whatever on at 17-22" screen would be wonderful!


----------



## B1gg3stN00b (Feb 7, 2009)

Also, I'm on a 1080p 21.5" monitor, it's God, if you don't buy an ASUS 1080p monitor, you will be attacked by velociraptors in 3... 2.... 1.....


Also, it's great for movies AND gaming, CS:S and Fallout 3 both support the res.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 7, 2009)

I paid a bit more and got the viewsonic 1080p since the asus monitor seems to have quality issues, turned out to be the best lcd I've ever seen. It's perfect for dual pc/360 use. All my pc games can do 1080p and the 360 has a great scaler chip. I had a 4:3 before, made up for it by moving my taskbar to the left. No sense in having all that width if you're not going to use it.


----------



## sLowEnd (Feb 7, 2009)

I prefer the aspect ratio of 1920x1080


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 7, 2009)

because its easier to render thats why you prefer it.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 7, 2009)

for everyone that's using "oh 1080p is godly on 21.5"" if you didn't notice, I've been telling everyone that wants a monitor, to go with ASUS v226h or higher screen version... 1080p goes well with anything that size and higher, anything below that is way to expensive

1600p = useless at under 30" IMO... maybe 26 or 28... BUT NEVER ON A 22"!!!!!

as for 1200p vs 1080p, that extra inch of wideness will probably NOTTTTTTTTT make your head turn when you play... unless you play 5 inches away from the screen....

J-man, tell me WHYYYYY you would prefer a 1200p


----------



## MoonPig (Feb 7, 2009)

I can't really say which is better, but i can tell you that games look amazing on the VH226. I have one and seriously don't regret the £140 i spent. This monitor is perfect for gaming, HD Movies and general browsing.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 7, 2009)

I know, that's why I've convinced many ppl to buy the vh226


----------



## pentastar111 (Feb 11, 2009)

Well, I just recieved the ASUS 25.5 inch monitor with 1920X1200 res. All I can say is WOW! The colors are so much richer than on my 22" Acer. Thanks for the input guys.


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 11, 2009)

pentastar111 said:


> Well, I just recieved the ASUS 25.5 inch monitor with 1920X1200 res. All I can say is WOW! The colors are so much richer than on my 22" Acer. Thanks for the input guys.



Congrats on the new view. Calibrate it and enjoy some gaming goodness.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 12, 2009)

anyways, 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 isn't much of a difference... BUT I STILL STAND BY 1080p!
it'll make you graphics card last longer


----------



## jbunch07 (Feb 12, 2009)

Does anyone know of a 22" monitor that will do 1920x1200? I'm not sure if I will like 16:9 aspect ratio?


----------



## n-ster (Feb 12, 2009)

Will you use a console? your 4870x2 will get better fps in 3 years with a 1920x1080 with a noticeable difference 

Do you have an HDTV? that's the 16:9, easy enough to see if you like it no? Have you ever played a console game in HD? that was 16:9, if you didn't like it, then you probably won't like 16:9 and vice-versa


----------



## Delta6326 (Feb 12, 2009)

All i have to say is i love my  ASUS VH226H Black 21.5" 2ms Widescreen except for its 1 dead pixel but it only shows up when my OS starts up and the screen goes blank for a sec,http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236051


----------



## RevengE (Feb 12, 2009)

Just got my Acer G24 at 1920x1200 with 2ms response and it's dark orange color make it a sexy monitor. very glossy as well. the picture is crazy it's so clear! Best monitor I have ever owned.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 13, 2009)

again, I suggested vh226h SOOOOOOOO many times its not funny... greatest monitor for the price I've ever seen... 190$ :O


----------



## jbunch07 (Feb 13, 2009)

Delta6326 said:


> All i have to say is i love my  ASUS VH226H Black 21.5" 2ms Widescreen except for its 1 dead pixel but it only shows up when my OS starts up and the screen goes blank for a sec,http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236051



Thats the monitor I want to get...I guess 16:9 wont be so bad!


----------

