1920 x 1200 or 1920 x 1080

[pcslookout]

I found topics for it but they are to old to bump.

So which resolution should I go for in a new monitor if I am a gamer ?

 

[Fallen Kell]

I prefer 1920x1200. The out of game bonuses for it make it well worth it. Even in game, it helps since your field of view is better.

 

[Blain]

1920x1200... Asus VS24AH-P

 

[rc3ilynt]

I have the same dilemma with my next monitor except its between 1440p or 1600p.

 

[destrekor]

As an owner of 3x1080p monitors: go for 1920x1200.

The only reason you should consider 1080p is if you are OCD about black bars and find yourself watching 16:9 content for a significant portion of your viewing time on whatever monitor you purchase. If that is not the case, just save yourself the time and decide, right now, to get a 1920x1200 monitor.

In games, it is just enough extra height that it can help significantly in games that use vertical POV functions, and plenty of utility for general productivity.

 

[Black Octagon]

No. You should choose 1920x1080 because:

1) The range of choice is massively better than if you restrict yourself to 1920x1200, and

2) AFAIK, no 1920x1200 monitor supports gamer-friendly features like 120-144Hz, G-Sync, ULMB/LightBoost, etc.

3) 1920x1200 is being effectively abandoned

 

[ithehappy]

Depends on what GPU you have I suppose? I am using a 1200p one, came from a 1050p one, and even after calculating that 1200p is ~31% extra resolution I still went for the upgrade and I loathe my decision. The first reason is I am now having 30% less frames per second, secondly while recording via Dxtory I have to downscale the game to 1080p anyway to get rid of the zooming effect, and thirdly this monitor is garbage and the person who says there are no good 1200p gaming monitors available is absolutely right.

Right now I will happily switch to a 1080p monitor, call it a downgrade or whatever.

 

[imaheadcase]

If you can find a good priced 1920x1200 go for it, that said they are more towards the top of the line ones targeted towards professionals. That said you prob won't care if you use 1080 after awhile. More options for those in the long run, they are perfectly fine.

Don't worry about any of the "gaming features" on monitors, unless you are hardcore FPS they won't serve a interest to %99 of gamers. I got a expensive 144Hz 1080 monitor and a Dell 1920x1200 monitor and still prefer the dell to most things, even gaming.

 

[96Firebird]

Depends on what GPU you have I suppose? I am using a 1200p one, came from a 1080p one, and even after calculating that 1200p is ~31% extra resolution I still went for the upgrade and I loathe my decision. The first reason is I am now having 30% less frames per second, secondly while recording via Dxtory I have to downscale the game to 1080p anyway to get rid of the zooming effect, and thirdly this monitor is garbage and the person who says there are no good 1200p gaming monitors available is absolutely right.

Right now I will happily switch to a 1080p monitor, call it a downgrade or whatever.

1200p only has about 11% more pixels than 1080p, not sure how you got to 30%...

For me, 1200p was a no brainer... I was coming from 1680x1050 and was used to 16:10.

 

[Lonyo]

If you are going for gaming as your near-sole use, or maybe TV/movies, then go for 16:9, as that's what modern games are made for.
In the past (10 years ago), games were frequently horizontal- meaning you lost height going from 4:3/5:4 to widescreen. Now, you get maximum game viewing area with a widescreen display as all modern games are made for 16:9.

Add in the extra choice/etc in 16:9 monitors (e.g. features available), and the better value proposition (as 16:9 displays are cheaper than 16:10) and 16:9 makes by far the most sense for gaming.

 

[Gryz]

It also depends on what games you play. I've played a lot of World of Warcraft. MMOs like WoW usually have a lot of UI space. Actionbars, player frame, target, focus and targetoftarget frame, raid-frames, spell-duration bars, etc. Lots of that UI is located at the bottom of the screen. With a 1920x1080, when you lose the bottom 20% of your screen for the actionbars, the remaining height is even smaller.

So when I went from a 24" 1920x1200 screen to a 27" 1920x1080 screen, I felt like I actually had less viewing space in WoW. I suppose it would be the same problem in other MMOs.

In other games, like RPGs, adventures and shooters, I feel 1920x1080 is fine. For desktop usage, I also prefer a 1920x1200, but 1920x1080 is very acceptable too.

The main deciding factor for a new gaming monitor should not be resolution. It should be: g-sync or not, and ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) or not. That also depends on your videocard (if you have an AMD card, you don't want g-sync, you want freesync).

The amount of 1920x1200 monitors is very small, compared to 1920x1080. As a result, there are no 1920x1200 monitors with g-sync, freesync or ULMB. In fact, it seems most of the new top-end gaming monitors are 2560x1440 (still 16:9). But you'll need a beast of a videocard to drive that higher resolution. (Twice the pixels means half the framerate. You'll need a videocard that's twice as powerful).

And then there are new 21:9 monitors. I think they are intended for viewing wider movies. But also for people who enjoy very wide-view in their games. If the trend continues for wider monitors, then 16:10 will become completely unfashionable.

 

[KingFatty]

the 1920x1200 monitors are pricey enough to where it might just bump your price range up to 2560x1440 anyway.

I mean there was that HP 32" 2560x1440 monitor on sale for $399 come on now...

 

[wanderer27]

Yeah, I definitely prefer 1200p over 1080p.

I have a 1200p at work and the extra vertical space helps with Spreadsheet and Programming work (extra lines).

I bought one for home use primarily for gaming with the reason being that for the same size Monitor the 1200p is going to be a bit sharper as there are more pixels per inch in comparison to 1080p.
It's kind of like a free version of low AA.



.

 

[GrumpyMan]

No brainer, 1200p has 120 more p's, and since I'm getting older I p a lot more often so I like that..

 

[Leyawiin]

1920x1200. I'd rather have more vertical than horizontal (1080p being the standard or not).

 

[Techhog]

No brainer, 1200p has 120 more p's, and since I'm getting older I p a lot more often so I like that..

 

[Railgun]

Yeah, I definitely prefer 1200p over 1080p.



.

I like 1200i over 1080i

 

[redhotiron2004]

Small answer go for 1080p screen simply because it's much better supported by the games and softwares. Even movies and other content have 1080p native resolution. A 1200p resolution would mean that you would need to upscale or resize most of the things. And any content whether it's movies, gaming, pictures and videos etc all look best on there native resolution only. Resizing or upscaling losses the clarity and original perspective on which the developer or movie maker wanted you to view the content.

 

[destrekor]

Small answer go for 1080p screen simply because it's much better supported by the games and softwares. Even movies and other content have 1080p native resolution. A 1200p resolution would mean that you would need to upscale or resize most of the things. And any content whether it's movies, gaming, pictures and videos etc all look best on there native resolution only. Resizing or upscaling losses the clarity and original perspective on which the developer or movie maker wanted you to view the content.

Or you just accept the black bars on top and bottom for any true 16:9 or wider content. Most movies already have black bars when watched on 16;9, their true vertical resolution often a fair bit less than 1080p, though the horizontal resolution remains 1920.

No. You should choose 1920x1080 because:

1) The range of choice is massively better than if you restrict yourself to 1920x1200, and

2) AFAIK, no 1920x1200 monitor supports gamer-friendly features like 120-144Hz, G-Sync, ULMB/LightBoost, etc.

3) 1920x1200 is being effectively abandoned

1920x1200 is harder to find these days, but it's not abandoned. You might have an easier time finding 2560×1600 monitors these days as opposed to 1920x1200, but both are 16:10. 16:10 is still preferred by many, but 1920x1200 is become less common almost entirely due to the push for larger monitors with higher resolutions. 1920x1080 remains due to its sheer accepted nomenclature with the uneducated. 1080p FullHD is what most believe you should have, so the market panders to that demographic. In the meantime, some panel manufacturers do go out of their way to add value to such monitors, but the commonality of 1080p across many mediums is what drives that resolution's market share.

Due to 1440/1600p not having an equivalent in home media, both formats have a more evenly split market share.



Ultimately, OP, your choice should be dictated by panel quality and features. If you do find yourself using your system for productivity, the extra vertical resolution can go a long way. It may be minor in resolution difference, but it can be significant in perception. If you need higher refresh rates or other features, let those be your guiding points. And if you are looking for high color accuracy and overall a great panel, let that guide your decision. With accuracy in mind, it is again pretty easy to find 16:10. But finding fast pixel response times, low input lag, and also faster panel refresh rates, that's less common in 16:10 formats. The gaming community is just like the home media community in the eyes of marketers and manufacturers, so 16:9 monitors get that focus.

 

[tweakboy]

You just get about 200 more pixels ...

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Just a thought on this, without being an irritant.

I'm no expert on flat-panel/LCD-LED displays. I used a cheap Hanns-G (on and off) since around 2010, and it died on me. So I had to choose whether to move up to 1440p or 4K now, or simply replace the Hanns with something less expensive (but better) now.

It had always been my experience that departing from the recommended resolution on a monitor had certain undesirable results. For instance, I used to use the Win 7 "Gadget" clock. Using other than the recommended resolution, the clock would be ellipsoid rather than round. Would that sort of thing happen when using 1920x1200? If a monitor is 1920x1200 "capable," is that the "recommended" resolution?

Choosing between a 4K monitor and a 1080p monitor is an important and fundamental choice. It would raise not only the factors of price, but also whether you're "ready" for it. But choosing between a 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 just doesn't seem to be a hilla-beans difference.

Some minority of us think it necessary or desirable to use as KVM switch -- deploying a single monitor across 2 or more PCs. I've noticed that some of the contemporary DVI/USB 4-port switches (IOGEAR, StarTech) tout 1920x1200 capability in their specs. That doesn't mean anything to me as long as they're 1920x1080 capable. And I will hold off buying a new KVM until they are either 4K capable, or the 4K capable KVMs don't cost between $400 and $500.

Frankly, in that latter respect, I won't move up to a 4K monitor until they become more prevalent among the offerings and the price declines somewhat.

When I do, I will have planned for the transition, and the planning . . . begins now . . . .

 

[kasakka]

It had always been my experience that departing from the recommended resolution on a monitor had certain undesirable results. For instance, I used to use the Win 7 "Gadget" clock. Using other than the recommended resolution, the clock would be ellipsoid rather than round. Would that sort of thing happen when using 1920x1200? If a monitor is 1920x1200 "capable," is that the "recommended" resolution?

No, that cannot happen unless the display scales a resolution to the wrong aspect ratio (for example 1920x1080 resolution stretched to 1920x1200 aka 16:10 aspect ratio).

Some minority of us think it necessary or desirable to use as KVM switch -- deploying a single monitor across 2 or more PCs. I've noticed that some of the contemporary DVI/USB 4-port switches (IOGEAR, StarTech) tout 1920x1200 capability in their specs.

That's just because single link DVI/HDMI usually only goes up to 1920x1200. You need dual link DVI or Displayport for 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 as apart from HDMI 2.0 most HDMI outputs in devices only go up to 1920x1200. So for a KVM switch you would need something that supports dual link DVI, HDMI 2.0 or Displayport.

1920x1200 is better for desktop use than 1080p but considering they are getting scarce and expensive you might as well get a decent 2560x1440 display, 27" is about the optimum size for those.

 

[Tohtori]

Just a thought on this, without being an irritant.

I'm no expert on flat-panel/LCD-LED displays. I used a cheap Hanns-G (on and off) since around 2010, and it died on me. So I had to choose whether to move up to 1440p or 4K now, or simply replace the Hanns with something less expensive (but better) now.

It had always been my experience that departing from the recommended resolution on a monitor had certain undesirable results. For instance, I used to use the Win 7 "Gadget" clock. Using other than the recommended resolution, the clock would be ellipsoid rather than round. Would that sort of thing happen when using 1920x1200? If a monitor is 1920x1200 "capable," is that the "recommended" resolution?

Choosing between a 4K monitor and a 1080p monitor is an important and fundamental choice. It would raise not only the factors of price, but also whether you're "ready" for it. But choosing between a 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 just doesn't seem to be a hilla-beans difference.

Some minority of us think it necessary or desirable to use as KVM switch -- deploying a single monitor across 2 or more PCs. I've noticed that some of the contemporary DVI/USB 4-port switches (IOGEAR, StarTech) tout 1920x1200 capability in their specs. That doesn't mean anything to me as long as they're 1920x1080 capable. And I will hold off buying a new KVM until they are either 4K capable, or the 4K capable KVMs don't cost between $400 and $500.

Frankly, in that latter respect, I won't move up to a 4K monitor until they become more prevalent among the offerings and the price declines somewhat.

When I do, I will have planned for the transition, and the planning . . . begins now . . . .

4K, lets open up another can of worms shall we?

For uneducated masses that means that horribad 16:9 3840x2160 that every TV and their mother will have. Then to make things perfectly clear there is this 4K DCI 4096x2160 19:10 resolution for movie industry. And ofcourse FOR COMPUTERS there is this lovely 16:10 aspect resolution of 3840x2400 so you can actually do some stuff without turning your head around, guess you don't want to hear my opinion of that ultra wide resolution abomination (21:9, seriously people, want neck injury?).

Dear god/FSM why o why does there have to be a gimped resolution for masses when professionals won't use it. Could it have anything to do with how panels are manufactured hmm?

 

[destrekor]

4K, lets open up another can of worms shall we?

For uneducated masses that means that horribad 16:9 3840x2160 that every TV and their mother will have. Then to make things perfectly clear there is this 4K DCI 4096x2160 19:10 resolution for movie industry. And ofcourse FOR COMPUTERS there is this lovely 16:10 aspect resolution of 3840x2400 so you can actually do some stuff without turning your head around, guess you don't want to hear my opinion of that ultra wide resolution abomination (21:9, seriously people, want neck injury?).

Dear god/FSM why o why does there have to be a gimped resolution for masses when professionals won't use it. Could it have anything to do with how panels are manufactured hmm?

Well as much I am in favor of 16:10, I can't argue against ultra-wide.

Why? I have 3x1080p displays. That's wider than ultra-wide. I wish they were 16:10 but at the time I wasn't in my right mind and also wanted good input lag times while also carrying decent color accuracy.

Ultra-wide has its place, but you have to accept the limitations.

Personally, I'd rather have multiple monitors as opposed to one ultrawide, because you don't get nearly as many snap-to angles. You can have 6 half-wide windows open in Windows, and you don't even have to touch your mouse to make it happen, no manual re-sizing needed. Just hit Windows Key + Left, Right, or Up/Down. Left/Right will cycle through half-wide and maximized windows on all attached monitors, and Up will maximize a window on the current display while Down will first windowize an application and then minimize with a second press.

I would, however, very much like a no-bezel triple monitor surround setup. You get your multi-windows when running standard resolution, and you get your surround display when running one ultra-wide resolution. Best of both worlds!

 

[xthetenth]

the 1920x1200 monitors are pricey enough to where it might just bump your price range up to 2560x1440 anyway.

I mean there was that HP 32" 2560x1440 monitor on sale for $399 come on now...

At the very least it's a price range where he should definitely consider 2560x1440, and if it's too much at least he considered it. That much extra space is very nice.

guess you don't want to hear my opinion of that ultra wide resolution abomination (21:9, seriously people, want neck injury?).

21:9 by the time you get to/above 1200 pixels tall is the single best resolution possible for working, and is vastly better than craning your neck around bezels. I've got 3440x1440 at work and 2x2560x1440 at home. Would you like to buy a 2560x1440? I'll sell you one for a good price (joking, I'm waiting till freesync 3440x1440s become available). Working on the 2x2560x1440 setup is way more painful. The farthest spot on the secondary is basically unusable for things that I need to check more than every few minutes because that is way too wide. The near spot on the secondary is worse than either side on the ultrawide because I can't scale windows to the work, I scale them to the monitor. On the ultrawide I generally have a split where the main working space is less than 2560 wide, so the off-window for reference or whatever is reasonably wide. I can fit an eclipse window with two pieces of code, the outline and navigator all up, and still have enough room to stuff a document or pdf on the side in 3440 pixels. From the middle point, that's 1720 pixels from the middle to the widest point. On the twin 2560s, it's 2560 pixels from the middle of the main screen to the farthest point just to be able to get the same three items up, plus the width of bezels. That's nearly half again the width and thus neck turn before bezels, and it's just being squandered on an inflexible form factor.

Personally, I'd rather have multiple monitors as opposed to one ultrawide, because you don't get nearly as many snap-to angles. You can have 6 half-wide windows open in Windows, and you don't even have to touch your mouse to make it happen, no manual re-sizing needed. Just hit Windows Key + Left, Right, or Up/Down. Left/Right will cycle through half-wide and maximized windows on all attached monitors, and Up will maximize a window on the current display while Down will first windowize an application and then minimize with a second press.

The LG ultrawides have a pretty nice software utility to let you get some really nice snap to performance out of them, and you can resize the regions pretty painlessly. Basically you can choose from a few default grid layouts, and dragging a window into a region maximizes it into that region (you're on an OS with a modern resizable command prompt so my only real complaint with regards to that is a non-issue). The really nifty bit is that if you resize a window, it dynamically resizes the regions. It makes dealing with windows painless and lets you take full advantage of not having any bezels.

I would not recommend a 1080 ultrawide though, just get a 2560x1440 for the extra height.