Monitor decision....

decimal

I'm looking into buying a monitor and have a few questions...

Originally I wanted a 22", but then I read that the resolution that 22" monitors run at (1680 x 1050) isn't there native resolution. So then I thought maybe I should go for a 20" monitor running at 1680 x 1050, since it should be just about the same. Am I right in thinking this?

I'm also considering stretching to a 24", but I'm just not sold on it....yet.

So, what's the deal with native resolution? Is it just stretching the pixels to give a bigger screen?

Silenceisbliss

20 inch monitors generally have a native resolution of 1680 x 1050
22 inch monitors generally also have a native resolution of 1680 x 1050
24 inch monitors generally also have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200

(had to state that for my sake aswell really)

so yes,it would seem a 22" simply has bigger pixels than a 20" and will be just as demanding on your graphics card. However, your not going to notice this unless ur working on ur PC with a magnifying glass. so id buy the 22"

a 24" inch has many more pixels, therefore is much more demanding on your graphics card. as long as you can afford to buy one and have the graphcs to support that resolution. go for it.

24" is big though...very big. Be prepared to sit a little further away from your desk....

Anti

I have a 22" and a 20" widescreen dell's. And when playing games on either one i dont notice any difference in the quality or frame rate.

Silenceisbliss

Manties wrote: »

I have a 22" and a 20" widescreen dell's. And when playing games on either one i dont notice any difference in the quality or frame rate.

TBH, i dont either regardless of screen size. i just get into the game and as long as it runs smoothly and good looking (graphics wise), I care less about screen size than I do about global warming

Anti

LOL

Silenceisbliss

Manties wrote: »

LOL

I was wondering what was with the "LOL"....then I realised what could be taken as sexual inuendo.... haha...

(if thats not what you said lol to, then never mind)

decimal

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

20 inch monitors generally have a native resolution of 1680 x 1050
22 inch monitors generally also have a native resolution of 1680 x 1050
24 inch monitors generally also have a native resolution of 1920 x 1200

(had to state that for my sake aswell really)

so yes,it would seem a 22" simply has bigger pixels than a 20" and will be just as demanding on your graphics card. However, your not going to notice this unless ur working on ur PC with a magnifying glass. so id buy the 22"

a 24" inch has many more pixels, therefore is much more demanding on your graphics card. as long as you can afford to buy one and have the graphcs to support that resolution. go for it.

24" is big though...very big. Be prepared to sit a little further away from your desk....

Thanks, that's cleared things up.

Much of my work will be done for photography and image editing, so a bigger resolution would be a great advantage for me (I deal with photos 4000 x 3000). I'll be moving on to video editing and do general coding also. Would the extra 240 x 150 pixels (and a better monitor) be worth the extra €160?

Muchos gracias for the advice

karltimber

Hi there,
I just got this baby and she is superb.

You do have to sit back - it is big but for gaming etc - exo.
I have started to edit HD clips and it's great that you can have the software open and a music vid playing - all on the one monitor -ie both resized

and it supports 1920*1200 full hd,

K

edit - forgot link

Silenceisbliss

karltimber wrote: »

You do have to sit back - it is big but for gaming etc - exo.

the Father Ted clip with Doogle and Ted in the caravan with the plastic cow comes to mind....

"These are small... but the ones out there are far away."

Id still go for the bigger monitor though....bigger e-penis.