1920 x 1080 vs 1920 x 1200

[Pacemaker]

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.

 

[yh125d]

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

 

[Denithor]

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).

 

[smackababy]

I opted for 1920 x 1080 because my monitor doubles with my console.

 

[nOOky]

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.

 

[aigomorla]

running dual 1920x1200.

TV's are nice in 1920x1080.

computer monitors are better in 1920x1200.

More real estate on windows desktop = always FTW!

 

[Darkrage]

Which Asus did you get nooky? I was looking at them for possible upgrade from my current 1680x1050 dell monitor.

 

[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)

 

[Darkrage]

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.

 

[toyota]

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.

 

[error8]

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:

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: error8

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.

 

[yh125d]

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)

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: error8

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.

 

[chizow]

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.

 

[AzN]

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.

 

[chizow]

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.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

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.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow

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.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow

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.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow

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.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: chizow

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:

 

[chizow]

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:

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:

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: chizow

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.

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:

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:

 

[yh125d]

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