Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-22-2009, 11:41 AM   #1
Pacemaker
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,184
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

I've been looking for a new monitor and the one thing that has me puzzled a bit is this difference in resolution. I understand that by doing that it doubles as a TV or console display, but if you aren't going to do that are you better off with the other?

I'm leaning toward getting the 1200 because the extra height will be nice for normal computing, but I was wondering if there was something I was overlooking because there seems to be a ton of 1080 monitors coming out now.
Pacemaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 11:53 AM   #2
yh125d
Diamond Member
 
yh125d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,688
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

I prefer 1080, so I can watch 16:9 HD content without bars. It's fine for me for normal computing/gaming, although some people would prefer a taller screen
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by girlsname View Post
actually this election was between a buick and a lambo only once you got the lambo you realized it was really a fiero kitcar
yh125d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 12:08 PM   #3
Denithor
Diamond Member
 
Denithor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 5,705
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

1920x1200 does give a nicer environment for normal computing. But if you use the screen for a lot of HD movies, you're going to either have black bars (top & bottom) or a stretched picture (if you switch to 1920x1080 for viewing to eliminate the bars).
__________________
HTPC: GTX 650 Ti Boost -- i7 3770 (4.2GHz) -- Intel 330 180GB -- 16GB DDR3 -- 50" LG plasma
Gaming: GTX 660 -- i5 750 (3.2GHz) -- Samsung 830 128GB -- 8GB DDR3 -- Dell 2709W

Originally posted by: ironwing
Adam should'a bought a PC instead. Eve fell for the marketing hype.
Denithor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 12:31 PM   #4
smackababy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Glenview, IL
Posts: 19,615
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

I opted for 1920 x 1080 because my monitor doubles with my console.
__________________
Heatware; eBay under uoislame
------------------------
"F the police, but whose stopping you from killing me?" - Chuck D
------------------------
XBL: the wrong panda
smackababy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 12:46 PM   #5
nOOky
Senior Member
 
nOOky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 773
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

I went with 1920 x 1080. It seems all my favorite games have that resolution as an option, movies look better without black bars, and it's slightly less pixels to push over 1920 x 1200.
I sometimes wish for the 1200 height though. More space for the desktop is always nice, more area for games is always a good thing, and you lose that extra height for photos etc. If you're coming off a smaller monitor it probably won't matter, but if you have a 1600 x 1200 4:3 or something you'll miss the height.
If my Asus wasn't such a good deal, I'd probably get a Benq as mentioned all over these forums.
__________________
System 1: i7-2600K @ 4.4GHz, Asus P8P67 PRO, 2X8 G-SKILL DDR3 1600, Hyper 212+, Sapphire 7970, Samsung 840 Pro 256GB - Win 8 Pro, Kingston HyperX 3K 120GB - Windows 7, all in a HAF-X with an Asus VW266H.
System 2: FX6300 @ 4.5, Asus M5A97 R2.0, 2 x 4 G-Skill 1600, Corsair Force GT 180 - Windows 8, HD6870, 32" Panasonic monitor 1080p.
System 3: Asus laptop, Windows 8. Intel 160GB SSD, G50Vt-X5.
nOOky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 01:12 PM   #6
aigomorla
Cases & Cooling
Moderator
 
aigomorla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Out Singing in the Rain~
Posts: 14,890
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

running dual 1920x1200.

TV's are nice in 1920x1080.

computer monitors are better in 1920x1200.

More real estate on windows desktop = always FTW!
__________________
Have a watercooling question?
Newbies Guide to H20 Coolingl

Anandtech Case and Cooling Moderator
Anandtech's Watercooling God err Mod.
aigomorla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 01:20 PM   #7
Darkrage
Senior Member
 
Darkrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 232
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Which Asus did you get nooky? I was looking at them for possible upgrade from my current 1680x1050 dell monitor.
Darkrage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 01:28 PM   #8
nOOky
Senior Member
 
nOOky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 773
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

This one. I can't detect any ghosting or blurring when playing games. It's $249 shipped right now. I find the monitor to be fully acceptable for everything I've thrown at it. The response time is 5ms, I'm not sure if I can tell the difference between that and my other 2ms respose time monitor (also a 1080p Acer)
__________________
System 1: i7-2600K @ 4.4GHz, Asus P8P67 PRO, 2X8 G-SKILL DDR3 1600, Hyper 212+, Sapphire 7970, Samsung 840 Pro 256GB - Win 8 Pro, Kingston HyperX 3K 120GB - Windows 7, all in a HAF-X with an Asus VW266H.
System 2: FX6300 @ 4.5, Asus M5A97 R2.0, 2 x 4 G-Skill 1600, Corsair Force GT 180 - Windows 8, HD6870, 32" Panasonic monitor 1080p.
System 3: Asus laptop, Windows 8. Intel 160GB SSD, G50Vt-X5.
nOOky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 01:53 PM   #9
Darkrage
Senior Member
 
Darkrage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 232
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: nOOky
This one. I can't detect any ghosting or blurring when playing games. It's $249 shipped right now. I find the monitor to be fully acceptable for everything I've thrown at it. The response time is 5ms, I'm not sure if I can tell the difference between that and my other 2ms respose time monitor (also a 1080p Acer)
Interesting, I was looking at that one or this one

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16824236048

because cause of the faster response time and the full 24" screen.
Darkrage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:26 PM   #10
toyota
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: my chair
Posts: 12,450
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

I jus got a Dell 24inch 1080 monitor and its pretty decent. I know the pros and cons and I dont mind missing the additional 120 lines of the 1920x1200 monitors. games look really cool and feel much more immersive on the wider 16:9 format as opposed to 16:10. 24 inches is about as small as I would go with a 1080 monitor though since they dont have as much physical height as 16:10 monitors do.
__________________
Win 8.1 64 bit | 4770k@4.4 | Asus Z87 Pro | Asus reference GTX 980 | G.SKILL Ares 16GB DDR3 2133 | Seagate SSHD 2TB | Corsair 500R | Corsair TX650 V2 | Sound Blaster Zx | Gateway 23inch 1920x1080 IPS
toyota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:36 PM   #11
error8
Diamond Member
 
error8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,194
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: toyota
games look really cool and feel much more immersive on the wider 16:9 format as opposed to 16:10
Yeah, right. I guess it's night and day difference. :laugh:
__________________
Q6700 @ 3.6 ghz
Xigmatek S1283 + Antec tricool
MSI P35 Neo 2-FR
4x2048 A-data
WD 640 gb
Gigabyte 4870 1GB
Antec EarthWatts 650W
Antec 300
BenQ FP202WA (20 inch)
error8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 02:50 PM   #12
AzN
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,112
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: error8
Quote:
Originally posted by: toyota
games look really cool and feel much more immersive on the wider 16:9 format as opposed to 16:10
Yeah, right. I guess it's night and day difference. :laugh:
I have 1080p too and it makes a whole lot of difference. :laugh: NOT! For movies though it's great.
AzN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:00 PM   #13
yh125d
Diamond Member
 
yh125d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,688
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

I prefer gaming on 1080 too :

I have a 24" dell 19x10, and I prefer it for everything over my laptop's 19x12 (and not because of the physical size difference, I just like the aspect ratio)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by girlsname View Post
actually this election was between a buick and a lambo only once you got the lambo you realized it was really a fiero kitcar
yh125d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:07 PM   #14
toyota
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: my chair
Posts: 12,450
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: error8
Quote:
Originally posted by: toyota
games look really cool and feel much more immersive on the wider 16:9 format as opposed to 16:10
Yeah, right. I guess it's night and day difference. :laugh:
well its not the same jump as from 4:3 to 16:10 but it is wider so yeah it does look and feel better to me.
__________________
Win 8.1 64 bit | 4770k@4.4 | Asus Z87 Pro | Asus reference GTX 980 | G.SKILL Ares 16GB DDR3 2133 | Seagate SSHD 2TB | Corsair 500R | Corsair TX650 V2 | Sound Blaster Zx | Gateway 23inch 1920x1080 IPS
toyota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:34 PM   #15
chizow
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,511
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

I prefer 1920x1200, as others mentioned it works better for desktop use and more pixels are typically better. For PC games, those additional 120 vertical lines mean more viewing space after menus/overlays. Also with 1920x1200, you can do 1600x1200 in games that don't support widescreen, or if you want to run 4:3 for whatever reason.

For movies, many movies will still letterbox your screen with 16:9 as there's the ultra-wide 2.65:1 or whatever which kinda defeats the purpose if you want to avoid black bars. The 22" 16:9 screens are pretty interesting though, as they offer a much lower pixel pitch than 1680x1050 22" monitors. I'd say go 1920x1080 for 22" or lower, but 1920x1200 for 24" or bigger.
__________________
Intel Core i7 4770K @4.3GHz | Gigabyte Z87X-UD4 | Win8.1 x64 Pro | Corsair H100i | Ballistix Elite 2x8GB | EVGA GeForce GTX 980 SC | Asus ROG Swift 144Hz 3D Vision G-Sync LCD | Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD | Samsung 840EVO 4x1TB SSD RAID 0 | Sony STR-DG1000 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1| LG Blu-Ray | Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G110/G700s/G27/G930 | Cooler Master HAF X | Antec TPQ 1200W
chizow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:36 PM   #16
AzN
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,112
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

1080p monitors can't do 1600x1200? :laugh: My monitor supports all 4.3 resolution and 16x10 resolution except for 1920x1200.

For movies you get bigger viewing space with a 16x9 monitor over 16x10 however you look at it. With 16x9 you get no bars in all the HDTV shows while you get bars with 16x10 monitor.
AzN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:37 PM   #17
chizow
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,511
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
1080p monitors can't do 1600x1200? :laugh: My monitor supports all 4.3 resolution and 16x10 resolution except for 1920x1200.
It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
__________________
Intel Core i7 4770K @4.3GHz | Gigabyte Z87X-UD4 | Win8.1 x64 Pro | Corsair H100i | Ballistix Elite 2x8GB | EVGA GeForce GTX 980 SC | Asus ROG Swift 144Hz 3D Vision G-Sync LCD | Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD | Samsung 840EVO 4x1TB SSD RAID 0 | Sony STR-DG1000 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1| LG Blu-Ray | Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G110/G700s/G27/G930 | Cooler Master HAF X | Antec TPQ 1200W
chizow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:38 PM   #18
AzN
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,112
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
1080p monitors can't do 1600x1200? :laugh: My monitor supports all 4.3 resolution and 16x10 resolution except for 1920x1200.
It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
Wanna bet? You wanna run 4.3 1:1 on a 16x10 monitor? Won't the picture be stretched? You can easily run 1:1 on a 16x9 monitor too but it's going to look whack as a 16:10 1:1.
AzN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:43 PM   #19
chizow
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,511
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
1080p monitors can't do 1600x1200? :laugh: My monitor supports all 4.3 resolution and 16x10 resolution except for 1920x1200.
It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
Wanna bet?
If you have a 1920x1080 monitor, it can't do 1600x1200 natively with 1:1 pixel mapping. I don't know what panel you have, nor do I care that much, but a 1080p monitor is 1920x1080, which means it does not have 1200 vertical lines of resolution, meaning it can't display 1200 vertical lines required in 1600x1200 with 1:1 pixel mapping. Considering this thread is specifically aimed at 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200, 1080p would be the former, not the latter.
__________________
Intel Core i7 4770K @4.3GHz | Gigabyte Z87X-UD4 | Win8.1 x64 Pro | Corsair H100i | Ballistix Elite 2x8GB | EVGA GeForce GTX 980 SC | Asus ROG Swift 144Hz 3D Vision G-Sync LCD | Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD | Samsung 840EVO 4x1TB SSD RAID 0 | Sony STR-DG1000 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1| LG Blu-Ray | Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G110/G700s/G27/G930 | Cooler Master HAF X | Antec TPQ 1200W
chizow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:45 PM   #20
AzN
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,112
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
1080p monitors can't do 1600x1200? :laugh: My monitor supports all 4.3 resolution and 16x10 resolution except for 1920x1200.
It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
Wanna bet?
If you have a 1920x1080 monitor, it can't do 1600x1200 natively with 1:1 pixel mapping. I don't know what panel you have, nor do I care that much, but a 1080p monitor is 1920x1080, which means it does not have 1200 vertical lines of resolution, meaning it can't display 1200 vertical lines required in 1600x1200 with 1:1 pixel mapping. Considering this thread is specifically aimed at 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200, 1080p would be the former, not the latter.
Just because it can't do 1200 lines @ 1920 doesn't mean it can't do 1200 lines at lower resolution.
AzN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:47 PM   #21
chizow
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,511
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
1080p monitors can't do 1600x1200? :laugh: My monitor supports all 4.3 resolution and 16x10 resolution except for 1920x1200.
It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
Wanna bet?
If you have a 1920x1080 monitor, it can't do 1600x1200 natively with 1:1 pixel mapping. I don't know what panel you have, nor do I care that much, but a 1080p monitor is 1920x1080, which means it does not have 1200 vertical lines of resolution, meaning it can't display 1200 vertical lines required in 1600x1200 with 1:1 pixel mapping. Considering this thread is specifically aimed at 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200, 1080p would be the former, not the latter.
Just because it can't do 1200 lines @ 1920 doesn't mean it can't do 1200 lines at lower resolution.
LMAO, like I said earlier It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
__________________
Intel Core i7 4770K @4.3GHz | Gigabyte Z87X-UD4 | Win8.1 x64 Pro | Corsair H100i | Ballistix Elite 2x8GB | EVGA GeForce GTX 980 SC | Asus ROG Swift 144Hz 3D Vision G-Sync LCD | Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD | Samsung 840EVO 4x1TB SSD RAID 0 | Sony STR-DG1000 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1| LG Blu-Ray | Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G110/G700s/G27/G930 | Cooler Master HAF X | Antec TPQ 1200W
chizow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 03:53 PM   #22
AzN
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,112
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
Quote:
Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
1080p monitors can't do 1600x1200? :laugh: My monitor supports all 4.3 resolution and 16x10 resolution except for 1920x1200.
It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
Wanna bet?
If you have a 1920x1080 monitor, it can't do 1600x1200 natively with 1:1 pixel mapping. I don't know what panel you have, nor do I care that much, but a 1080p monitor is 1920x1080, which means it does not have 1200 vertical lines of resolution, meaning it can't display 1200 vertical lines required in 1600x1200 with 1:1 pixel mapping. Considering this thread is specifically aimed at 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200, 1080p would be the former, not the latter.
Just because it can't do 1200 lines @ 1920 doesn't mean it can't do 1200 lines at lower resolution.
LMAO, like I said earlier It might, it'll be downsampled or scaled though, as it certainly isn't 1:1.
So your original comment about 16:10 monitor not able to pull of 1600x1200 is BS. :laugh:
AzN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:00 PM   #23
chizow
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,511
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
So your original comment about 16:10 monitor not able to pull of 1600x1200 is BS. :laugh:
Nope, my original comment is accurate:

Quote:
Also with 1920x1200, you can do 1600x1200 in games that don't support widescreen, or if you want to run 4:3 for whatever reason.
A 1920x1080 panel can't do that natively, ie 1:1, because it lacks the physical pixels to allow it. Otherwise it would be a 1920x1200 panel. Perhaps you just have a "special" monitor, which wouldn't be surprising at all. :laugh:
__________________
Intel Core i7 4770K @4.3GHz | Gigabyte Z87X-UD4 | Win8.1 x64 Pro | Corsair H100i | Ballistix Elite 2x8GB | EVGA GeForce GTX 980 SC | Asus ROG Swift 144Hz 3D Vision G-Sync LCD | Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD | Samsung 840EVO 4x1TB SSD RAID 0 | Sony STR-DG1000 A/V Receiver | Polk Audio RM6880 7.1| LG Blu-Ray | Auzen X-Fi HT HD | Logitech G110/G700s/G27/G930 | Cooler Master HAF X | Antec TPQ 1200W
chizow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:43 PM   #24
AzN
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,112
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

[quote]Originally posted by: chizow
Quote:
Originally posted by: Azn
So your original comment about 16:10 monitor not able to pull of 1600x1200 is BS. :laugh:
Nope, my original comment is accurate:

Let me quote you on that.

Quote:
Also with 1920x1200, you can do 1600x1200 in games that don't support widescreen, or if you want to run 4:3 for whatever reason.
You implying a 16:9 monitor can't do 1600x1200. :laugh:


Quote:
A 1920x1080 panel can't do that natively, ie 1:1, because it lacks the physical pixels to allow it. Otherwise it would be a 1920x1200 panel. Perhaps you just have a "special" monitor, which wouldn't be surprising at all. :laugh:
Fact that 16:9 can do 1600x1200 or 4.3 resolution beats the purpose doesn't it. :laugh:
AzN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2009, 04:48 PM   #25
yh125d
Diamond Member
 
yh125d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,688
Default 1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

Azn, you don;t know how pixels work. 1920x1080 CANNOT do 1600x1200 with 1:1 mapping, as that requires a monitor with minimum 1600 vertical lines and 1200 horizontal lines. a 19x10 monitor can display a 1600x1200 image, but not without scaling
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by girlsname View Post
actually this election was between a buick and a lambo only once you got the lambo you realized it was really a fiero kitcar
yh125d is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.