22" 1680x1050

[firewall597]

Or is it just another way for people to feel superior CUZ THEY HAZ MOAR PIXELS? I see peeps all over like OMGLAWLURSTILLUSING1680!!!

I thought I was The Sh*t when I upgraded to my 22" Samsung a couple years back. I just recently upgraded my system thanks to some steals and deals at a successful gaming lan, but kept my 22".

Am I missing out on some huge graphical revelation by not moving up to 24"? Everything looks just peachy to me, I dont see what the big deal is. I dont see the reason to drop $200-300 on a new one.

 

[dguy6789]

1680x1050 is fine. Of course 1920x1200 is better and 2560x1600 is better than that.

 

[PurdueRy]

I have no problem with 1680 x 1050. It allowed me to get a top of the line display rather than a decent 24".

 

[PingSpike]

I didn't really want any more pixels. I'd have to buy a graphics card with more memory and squint to read the text. Personal preference I guess.

 

[hclarkjr]

i have one and do not regret getting it

 

[faxon]

i will tell you in a week when my 27.5 inch monitor gets here

 

[yh125d]

The reason people always try to recommend 1920x1080+ these days is because the price gap between 1920 and 1650 monitors has closed significantly. A couple years ago everyone bought 1650 because 1920 was still prohibitively expensive, but now you can step up from a 22" 1650 to 22" 1920 for like 20-30 bucks

 

[OCGuy]

Yea I got my 24" Dell 1920X1080 cheaper than my 22".....

There is just no reason to buy into the TN/Non-TN panel hype if you are strictly a gamer.

 

[dguy6789]

I don't buy the anti TN panel hype either. A good 22" monitor looks great and plays games great TN or not.

 

[Dkcode]

If your happy with it then who cares?

I use 2560x1600 and its brilliant for desktop use. Gaming is great but there are drawbacks. Mostly GPU power to run everything on. Also my eyes get fatigued with such a big screen and fast moving games.

But i would never go any lower. Not now i can have two full browser windows open and still have space round the edges.

 

[Eureka]

I ran with a 1680x1050 because it was a good pricepoint. $200 for a 22" LCD 2 years back? I don't really care that much for quality or accuracy. The 22" has served my needs, the picture is better than a CRT and I can game comfortably on it. And its still enough room for 95% of what I do on it.

 

[valnar]

I personally hate any pixel size less than 0.28, so 1680x1050 on a 22" is perfect for me. I don't subscribe to the higher rez = better. I don't like squintavision.
http://lcdtech.no-ip.info/en/data/pixel.size.htm

 

[njdevilsfan87]

20'', 8-bit MVA, glossy - it looks beautiful. Cost me $230 2 years ago. I don't have any intent of buying anything bigger anytime soon, even though a 1920 monitor goes for less than what I paid for my 1650 monitor 2 years ago. At my sitting distance of 3 feet or so, it's perfect.

However, I do wish I had a larger display for my 360. However, I'll leave that for some monstrous flat panel in the future.

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: njdevilsfan87
20'', 8-bit MVA, glossy - it looks beautiful. Cost me $230 2 years ago. I don't have any intent of buying anything bigger anytime soon, even though a 1920 monitor goes for less than what I paid for my 1650 monitor 2 years ago. At my sitting distance of 3 feet or so, it's perfect.

However, I do wish I had a larger display for my 360. However, I'll leave that for some monstrous flat panel in the future.

There's that 40" LCD going for $500 in hot deals..

 

[NA1NSXR]

I'm of the opposite opinion to valnar. My main gripe with my 1680 22" has been the relatively large pixel pitch and while it once felt spacious I am starting to feel cramped at 1680. I am definately moving to 24" @ 1920x1200 sooner or later (waiting for next gen video cards).

 

[deputc26]

Originally posted by: NA1NSXR
I'm of the opposite opinion to valnar. My main gripe with my 1680 22" has been the relatively large pixel pitch and while it once felt spacious I am starting to feel cramped at 1680. I am definately moving to 24" @ 1920x1200 sooner or later (waiting for next gen video cards).

better buy now if you want 1920x1200, profit margins are higher at 16:9 so that is where panels are going. (I think 16:10 is already a little too wide, just my opinion).

 

[Winterpool]

A lot depends on what kind of content you're viewing. 'Full HD' movies are 1920x1080, though there isn't a lot of 'computer' content in that size (if you're connecting a Blu-ray drive, that's different). If you do want to see every pixel of such a video, you'll need a 24-inch display (though I think there may be a few 22-inch 1920x1200/1080 displays?).

Personally I felt conflicted about getting my 22-inch LCD monitor (Dell 2209WA). I should have preferred more pixels and smaller dot pitch (the old 23-inch Apple Cinema Display had a lovely dot pitch, being 1920x1200). I can always play with font sizes, but images and videos are another matter -- I'd like them to be as 'smooth' as possible. I was set on an IPS display (yes, I'll admit to anti-TN snobbery), but I couldn't justify the steep price for an NEC LCD2490WUXi, and I wasn't sure about the HP LP2475w (it seems like it's still possible to get one with significant uniformity issues). The 22-inch Dell was my compromise, made more palatable by the fact I don't yet have a Blu-ray drive in my computer. The $200ish price also made it easier to swallow.

I tend to feel hemmed in by the lack of vertical space on widescreen displays, so I'm tempted to get 24 inches for the additional 150 vertical pixels (I'm also disappointed by the move towards 16:9 computer monitors for this reason). I suspect I'll be trying out the HP LP2475w before the end of the year.

 

[octopus41092]

I have a 22" and I think its fine. I've also seen my friends 24" and with gaming it doesn't matter all that much. I think its mostly playing 1080p movies and the desktop space where you can fit more stuff but then again... I have dual 22" monitors which is better than a single 24".

22" monitors seem to be at the best price point now too. You can usually find a decent one for $150 if not less.

 

[MagickMan]

I don't like 1920x1XXX on a 22" monitor, but for a 24 it's just fine.

 

[FalseChristian]

I have a 22" 1680x1050 Samsung 2253BW and the resolution is a good balance for image quality and speed. I remember not so long ago that people were finally gaming at the then massive 1024x768 resolution and they were saying, "Who need AA at this high resolution?".

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I use a 32 inch 13x7 tv as a monitor just fine... Higher resolution is better, but not necessary.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I had been using a 22" Westinghouse 1680x1050, and a 20" Samsung 1680x1050, and they were just about perfect. But I jumped on a hot deal for two 26" KDS 1920x1200 LCDs for $280ea shipped, and I'm using one of the same at my friend's house right now, and it's a big, beautiful display. Slight issues with the size though, there is a grey fade when you look at the bottom, moving towards the top. It's a TN angle issue, with such a large display and sitting so close, the angle gets a bit magnified. You don't notice the issue when watching from across the room.

Forums look nice, plenty of space, gaming is immersive, 1080P video watching is awesome.

Still, for similar money, I wonder if I should have picked up some 22" 1680x1050 LCDs that were 120Hz, for the FPS shooters.

 

[QueBert]

I'm a CRT nutt, but my CRT was going out, and the one of the spares I bought won't turn on and the other makes a weird hissing. I was out looking at LCD's today. I managed to get a 24" Acer for about $10 more than the 22". I didn't think any of the 22's looked bad at all, but I will take 2 extra inches + more resolution. My GF has a 22" Westinghouse and the picture is pretty nice and the resolution looks fine.

 

[Corporate Thug]

I have a 22" 1680x1050 and I think it's great. Allows me to game without having top end hardware. My 8800GT has run everything just fine (except crysis) at 1680x1050

 

[Candymancan21]

I have no problem with 1680x1050 either. My Monitor is a high quality 19" LCD monitor costs as much as a 24", yes 19" can do 1680x1050 nowadays. The problem with Owning a Huge monitor is the pixel pitch. If you own a 22" Monitor with a 1680x1050 resolution then the distance between the pixels gets bigger. Making the picture seem bleh, with a 19" that has a 1680x1050 resolution the picture quality is double that of a 22". The Pixel pitch is around .22-.24 on my 19", on the 22" its about .28-.29 which is really big. The way to understand what im talking about to actually see the monitor for yourself.

Its the same thing with 22" that has 24" resolution. The 19x12 resolution on a 22" will make the picture much much more clear and sharp. The 24" will look bleh TBH. You are basicly taking the same amount of pixels the 24" has and putting them on a 22" so thats how the pixel pitch gets smaller because the distance between the pixels gets smaller.

Think of it like this. You take a square 10x10 and fill it with a handfull of sand and spread it out evenly. The sand has to be really thin in order to be spread out and you can still see the wooden bottom, if you make the box smaller the sand can be thicker fillin in any gaps you had before.

Another Benefit to having a smaller screen with a bigger screen's resolution is there is actually more on the picture. You would think with a bigger screen there is more on it but thats not true. I have more viewing area on a FPS game on 19" vs a 22" using 1680x1050. The problem however is things are smaller, in order to get that view and smaller pixel pitch the picture is smaller making text harder to read and stuff like that.

Some of you probably wont belive a thing i said here but all you have to do is get your CRT monitor out that probably has a .19Dotch pitch or something, and compare it to your LCD with its .28pixel pitch and you will see what i am talking about when i say its sharper and more clear. Thats one reason why people say CRT's look better, its not just the color's but the dot pitch is much much smaller then the average LCD.


I know when i upgrade from this monitor in the years down i will get a 22" with a 19x12 resolution. Not a 24", simply because the picture will be better.