1920x1200 performance hit vs 1900x1080?

[Pia]

That's not really true, there's still a lot of games that have issues with being vert- you only need to go over to somewhere like the WSGF and check compatibility and there's a lots of problems.

I actually did go to WSGF and searching for vert- confirmed what I said earlier: practically no new games are vert-.

1920x1200 can of course fit 1920x1080 inside by simply setting the scaling in drivers to 1:1 to get a perfect picture with black bars, so since 1920x1200 can do at least everything that 1920x1200 can do, but more, it's a better resolution.

It's a waste and the black bars also look bad. Unless you play old games, there is little reason to go 1920x1200. And even then a 1440p 16:9 screen would be better since you'd have even more resolution to integer scale the few games helped by that.

I'm speaking from experience. I have both a 1920x1200 display and a 1080p video projector.

 

[KingFatty]

I think, based on these impressions, that the new, ah, those really wide monitors 21:9 or something? I think those have a good chance.

Wouldn't all these arguments apply to those extra wide monitors? I think it's more practical than multiple monitors, and the wider aspect would be nice in games, seeing how most are not vert-?

Ideally I'd like a 21:9 for widescreen gaming, and a 16:10 (e.g., 1600p) for web browsing and productivity. I think I could live with those 2 monitors on my desk.

 

[postmortemIA]

I actually did go to WSGF and searching for vert- confirmed what I said earlier: practically no new games are vert-.
It's a waste and the black bars also look bad. Unless you play old games, there is little reason to go 1920x1200. And even then a 1440p 16:9 screen would be better since you'd have even more resolution to integer scale the few games helped by that.

I'm speaking from experience. I have both a 1920x1200 display and a 1080p video projector.

If you do only gaming, go ahead, but PCs were always about being more than gaming. Extra vertical pixels come in handy for any kind of work.
With 1200P you got more pixels. It is another story that game makers optimize display for 1080P, and not for 1200P.
does the bezel look ugly on the display? it also has black bars all around.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I actually did go to WSGF and searching for vert- confirmed what I said earlier: practically no new games are vert-.

There are still a lot of games, both new and a huge library of old ones that have this problem, you're trying to downplay the issue and you cannot because it's a well known problem with games, even some modern ones.

It's a waste and the black bars also look bad.

Subjective opinion, it's not a "waste" if you're trying to achieve and 16:9 if it matters so much to you, and of course how good or bad you think it looks is really just your own opinion, it's still do-able so my point remains valid.

Unless you play old games, there is little reason to go 1920x1200. And even then a 1440p 16:9 screen would be better since you'd have even more resolution to integer scale the few games helped by that.

Depends entirely on user preference, you could go 2560x1440 but 2560x1600 can also fit this 16:9 resolution just as 1920x1200 can fit 1080p

I'm speaking from experience. I have both a 1920x1200 display and a 1080p video projector.

So what, I have a 24" 1920x1080 monitor as my main, a 1080p projector, a 2560x1600 30" IPS and a 1920x1200 IPS panel in my office, they're all capable of 16:9 1920x1080 and my 30" can do 1440p if needed.

There's no good justification for going 1080p other than maybe some fringe cases like lack of good 120hz 1920x1200 panels which is why my main gaming rig now has a 1080p screen.

 

[Pia]

If you do only gaming, go ahead, but PCs were always about being more than gaming. Extra vertical pixels come in handy for any kind of work.
With 1200P you got more pixels.

With 1600p, you have 11% more pixels than with 1440p but +50% cost. That's a not great value. However, it is at least defensible because 1600p is top of the range. 1200p compared to 1080p is also +11% pixels, also about +50% cost, which is terrible value even assuming you can make full use of the extra res you get. If you need extra res on top of 1080p, why wouldn't you buy 1440p instead? The one thing I think 1920x1200 makes sense for is pivoted in portrait mode; while there are 1440p displays with pivot, they really are too large for that.

 

[Pia]

There are still a lot of games, both new and a huge library of old ones that have this problem, you're trying to downplay the issue and you cannot because it's a well known problem with games, even some modern ones.

I'm curious: what are the "lot of" modern games "that have this problem"? Can you come up with ten names of major 2012 releases? Can you come up with even five?

Meanwhile, practically everything is horz+ or fixed 16:9 res.

Subjective opinion, it's not a "waste" if you're trying to achieve and 16:9 if it matters so much to you, and of course how good or bad you think it looks is really just your own opinion, it's still do-able so my point remains valid.

Running 1080p on a 1200p display or 1440p on a 1600p display is waste; there's nothing subjective about that. If you run in the lower res 90% of the time, then those extra pixels are 90% wasted.

Depends entirely on user preference, you could go 2560x1440 but 2560x1600 can also fit this 16:9 resolution just as 1920x1200 can fit 1080p

You pay about 50% more for 11% more pixels, which will furthermore only be a benefit in maybe 10% of new game releases (and that is a wildly optimistic estimate). If money is no object, and you don't care about black bars, then sure, get 1600p. But 1200p screens are pretty much never a rational choice for gaming, and rarely for anything else either.

 

[Pia]

I think, based on these impressions, that the new, ah, those really wide monitors 21:9 or something? I think those have a good chance.

Wouldn't all these arguments apply to those extra wide monitors? I think it's more practical than multiple monitors
...
Ideally I'd like a 21:9 for widescreen gaming, and a 16:10 (e.g., 1600p) for web browsing and productivity. I think I could live with those 2 monitors on my desk.

It's not helpful for the decent amount of games that are designed for 16:9 rather than horz+. It gives you only a measly 30% wider view in horz+ games compared to 16:9. It is heavily size limited because the picture is in one flat plane; apart from the black bars, forcing the 1600p (or just as well, 1440p) display to emulate a shorter aspect ratio when you play horz+ games would be just as good as the "extra wide" screen, because the "extra wide" screen can't actually be physically wider.

A multiple screen setup is different; it gets around physical width limits by wrapping around you, can show a ton more and is more immersive.

Shame there are no modern, high quality displays with 1600 or 1440 width. A 1600p or 1440p display flanked by two pivoted displays with matching height would be beautiful both for productivity and gaming. 1440p display with flanking 3:4 pivoted displays would have 29.5:9 total aspect ratio, a 1600p display with flanking 3:4 pivoted displays would have 31:10 total aspect ratio, and both display configurations would be excellent for most kinds of work.

 

[KingFatty]

Good point, I know currently at work I use one portrait display and one landscape display. That way I can move work to the appropriate display, it's very handy and I don't have to take the time to physically pivot any of the displays.

So if you have that set up with the flanking displays, you could toss stuff onto them that is best suited for that aspect ratio/orientation.

I guess it would be best to check out one of the funky 21:9 displays in the store at least to get a feel for it.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm curious: what are the "lot of" modern games "that have this problem"? Can you come up with ten names of major 2012 releases? Can you come up with even five?

http://www.wsgf.org/mgl

Massive list of games that don't support Horz+ correctly, there's even more on the forums this is just a list of games with reports, the forums list way more.

http://www.wsgf.org/forums

Running 1080p on a 1200p display or 1440p on a 1600p display is waste; there's nothing subjective about that. If you run in the lower res 90% of the time, then those extra pixels are 90% wasted.

It's not a waste if you specifically want 1080p for gaming, if for whatever reason you absolutely must have it, yet want to work on a traditional PC monitor which was designed with a 16:10 screen that is useful for the millions of other applications that PCs have.

You pay about 50% more for 11% more pixels, which will furthermore only be a benefit in maybe 10% of new game releases (and that is a wildly optimistic estimate). If money is no object, and you don't care about black bars, then sure, get 1600p. But 1200p screens are pretty much never a rational choice for gaming, and rarely for anything else either.

That's because most 1080p screens a crap panels, and most of the remaining 1920x1200 screens are actually pretty decent IPS panels, I'm not going to go into pros and cons of each, suffice to say that there's a reason some panels are more expensive, it's because in a free market you get what you pay for, and the reason 1080p are the most popular panel type is because that's the cheapest way to achieve "HD", TN are also the most popular panel type and demonstrably the worst for a lot of things.

Kinda like arguing that McDonalds is cheaper than a 5 star restaurant, it might be right but it's a stupid argument. Yes they're cheaper, they're cheap pieces of crap

You've limited your scope to ONLY GAMES, and ONLY GAMES IN 2012 and completely ignored not only all the other games out there that people play but also the multitude of other things people do with their PC.

1080p is just a fad it's the new kid on the block that happens to be cheap so it sold well in the PC space due to sheeple buying up anything cheap (kinda like TN panels), meanwhile 16:10 was the already well established aspect ratio for many years and all widescreen gaming started out on 16:10 panels. Been around long enough to know that fads never bring much to the table, original standards are used for a good reason

 

[KingFatty]

I for one recently installed the very old original XCOM game from 1994. It's nostalgic and pixelated, but...

It fully fills out my 16:10 aspect ratio 1920x1200 display. So I maximize the usable screen real-estate for that display, compared to a 16:9. But it's a really old game.