Is 1920x1200 really dead?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

greenhawk

Platinum Member
Feb 23, 2011
2,031
0
71
16:9 monitors are more cheap to produce because it has the same format as TV:s. They can produce bigger numbers.

A little off topic, but then this is a arguement that I find is loosing it's merits over time.

When the 16:9 vs 16:10 vs 4:3 debaits started, it had merit in that the LCD TV's on offer and computer monitors was about the same diagonal size (so possibly the same production line).

Now days, you look around at the LCD TV's on offer and the sizes of them and they are not the same as the going LCD PC monitors. The PC ones are noticablly smaller.

The benifit of the cheaper prices due to the same production is lost. If the size of the TV's are getting bigger, then why are not also the PC monitors as well? In a year or two it will be the old argument of "lack of demand for that size" that will see PC monitors get more expencive for a given size as no one wants a TV of that size (so less benifit from mass production for cheaper pannels).

Even a year ago looking at what was on offer in the PC monitor market range, ignoring the one off designs like the Dell's, the top asking price was less than $500AU (at the time, about $400US IIRC). prices has continued to fall from that time except for the introduction of a few features that some people want. For the average day to day user, these are pointless.

Display port
120Hz
OLED

Unless manufactures come up with something soon to make getting a new screen worth it, very few I feel will change what they have now (excluding the screen dieing).

I'm running a pair of 4:3 19" screens I purchased second hand for $300 AU each 3+ years back. (when 16:9 was starting to take over IIRC).

Not seeing any thing I "must" upgrade to, and it is enoying.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
its "losing merit" not "loosing"...
loose = not tight
lose = can not be found.

there are still plenty of 24" TVs being made:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_lpo_k...k%3A24+inch+tv

And the main "feature" of new monitors that people want is that they produce better images. (view angle, color reproduction, refresh rate, etc)
 
Last edited:

Wolves

Member
Mar 21, 2011
35
0
0
A little off topic, but then this is a arguement that I find is loosing it's merits over time.

When the 16:9 vs 16:10 vs 4:3 debaits started, it had merit in that the LCD TV's on offer and computer monitors was about the same diagonal size (so possibly the same production line).

Now days, you look around at the LCD TV's on offer and the sizes of them and they are not the same as the going LCD PC monitors. The PC ones are noticablly smaller.

The benifit of the cheaper prices due to the same production is lost. If the size of the TV's are getting bigger, then why are not also the PC monitors as well? In a year or two it will be the old argument of "lack of demand for that size" that will see PC monitors get more expencive for a given size as no one wants a TV of that size (so less benifit from mass production for cheaper pannels).

Even a year ago looking at what was on offer in the PC monitor market range, ignoring the one off designs like the Dell's, the top asking price was less than $500AU (at the time, about $400US IIRC). prices has continued to fall from that time except for the introduction of a few features that some people want. For the average day to day user, these are pointless.

Display port
120Hz
OLED

Unless manufactures come up with something soon to make getting a new screen worth it, very few I feel will change what they have now (excluding the screen dieing).

I'm running a pair of 4:3 19" screens I purchased second hand for $300 AU each 3+ years back. (when 16:9 was starting to take over IIRC).

Not seeing any thing I "must" upgrade to, and it is enoying.

You are definitely right that it would be good for productioncost if most TV:s had the same size as the monitors. Still as taltamir talks about there are monotor size TV:s made. I dont know but I could guess that the smaller TV:s are sold more to developing countries?

I also believe that the costs for drivers etc are lower for 16:9 monitors cause they dont have to worry about pixelmapping and such. But I think you are right when you say that these production costcuts are heavily exaggerated.

I don't believe that the real reason why 16:9 monitors nowadays are produced is productioncosts but that the limit of what is a TV and what is a monitor slowly is disappearing. People use their TV:s more and more like monitors and people use their monitors more and more like TV:s.
 
Last edited:

Morg.

Senior member
Mar 18, 2011
242
0
0
You're thinking the wrong way around, it's bigger PC screens we need rather than smaller Tv's ;)
(Yes I use a 40" TV 'cause there are no 40" "pc screens").
 

Wolves

Member
Mar 21, 2011
35
0
0
You're thinking the wrong way around, it's bigger PC screens we need rather than smaller Tv's ;)
(Yes I use a 40" TV 'cause there are no 40" "pc screens").

That's what I call a man!!:thumbsup:

Wait a few years. I will be up there. :)
 

Morg.

Senior member
Mar 18, 2011
242
0
0
Well I got that Phillips led backlit thingy - was about 680 euros total so it's not that much more expensive than a decent screen.
Pros : awesome for movies
Cons : I've got to get back to gaming to confirm ... had some strange impressions when I was gaming 50 cm from the screen, but on the other hand the last time I played MW2 it was perfect. (except those goddamn ATI drivers that like giving you stupid retarded underscan of doom).
 

abaez

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
7,158
1
81
I'll be damned if I will ever buy a 16:9 monitor. As a single guy in a small apartment, I use my PC monitor for both gaming/browing as well as my "TV" when I watch movies, so I have no problem spending a little more since the monitor will serve both uses. I had a 2407FPW 24" 16:10 Dell from years ago, and I just got my Dell U3011 16:10 30". I was lucky enough to have some Amex rewards points to pay for it that brought it down to $800 and change, but I would have had no issue paying the $1100 full price. Now I've got the best of both worlds - more real estate when browsing and no issues on playing 16:9 content (I don't care about black bars). IMHO going down the 16:9 road, even though it seems we're already heading down it, is just bad practice and bad for consumers.

I was going to sell the 24", but seeing how rare 16:10 24" screens are nowadays, I think I will keep it.

Although I am finding that 720p youtube videos looked fine on the 24" at 1920x1200, the lower bitrate really comes out when that goes up to 30" :(.
 
Last edited:

JimKiler

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2002
3,557
205
106
I am cheap and even though 1920x1200 is better my next monitor will be 1920x1080 to save money. then again I bought my first 24" when price fixing was still going on and the cost was $450.

The biggest issue is when i do switch to 16:9 I have to re crop all my backgrounds to 16:9 instead of 16:10. How many backgrounds does everyone have? I have 59 right now and growing.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
16:9 is here to stay. I image the next step up from 2560x1600 will be 16:9 aspect ratio 2848x1600 or 2880x1620 32-33" screens. I actually doubt we'll see any 16:10 displays larger than 30" 2560x1600.

Beyond 1600 vertical pixels we don't really need much more height for immersion, but the relative success of Eyefinity and Surround have definitely shown the demand for more peripheral vision in gaming is there. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we headed in an even wider aspect ratio direction as screens get larger.

1.85:1 looks like it would be the next step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

2960x1600 sounds pretty awesome IMO.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
16:9 is here to stay. I image the next step up from 2560x1600 will be 16:9 aspect ratio 2848x1600 or 2880x1620 32-33" screens. I actually doubt we'll see any 16:10 displays larger than 30" 2560x1600.

Beyond 1600 vertical pixels we don't really need much more height for immersion, but the relative success of Eyefinity and Surround have definitely shown the demand for more peripheral vision in gaming is there. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we headed in an even wider aspect ratio direction as screens get larger.

1.85:1 looks like it would be the next step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

2960x1600 sounds pretty awesome IMO.
Well, i am dumping my 1920x1200 display for a 1920x1080 to match my other two displays for Surround/Eyefinity.

Evidently Surround *requires matched* displays. OtOH Eyefinity will allow for 2 x 1920x1080 plus 1920x1200 as long as all 3 displays are set to 1080 resolution. Not so with Surround as the native resolutions must all match each other.
:'(
 

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
Well, i am dumping my 1920x1200 display for a 1920x1080 to match my other two displays for Surround/Eyefinity.

Evidently Surround *requires matched* displays. OtOH Eyefinity will allow for 2 x 1920x1080 plus 1920x1200 as long as all 3 displays are set to 1080 resolution. Not so with Surround as the native resolutions must all match each other.
:'(

you know that most 1920x1200 monitors can do 1920x1080 with 1:1 mapping, all you get are little black bars on top and bottom.
 

WhoBeDaPlaya

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,414
401
126
People are so dumb. They complain they can't see fonts right with small pixel pitch... uhh... use higher dpi fonts and they loot WAY better. But they're clueless, so the market continues to move in a direction that doesn't make sense.
To be fair, that feature never worked quite right in XP. Haven't tried it in Vista/Win7.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
you know that most 1920x1200 monitors can do 1920x1080 with 1:1 mapping, all you get are little black bars on top and bottom.
You must use three monitors who all have the same *native* resolution for Surround. Not for Eyefinity - as long as the three displays support a common resolution, you're good to go.

There is a difference and i just found out the hard way yesterday. So i can't do Surround (with my current 3 slightly mismatched displays) nor can i do Eyefinity off of a single HD 6990 until i get *another* DP adaptor.
:'(

It's OK, i am evaluating a new card with 3D Vision
- even at 1920x1080, 3D is pretty hard on performance
:whiste:
 

cocoreno

Junior Member
Feb 18, 2011
18
0
0
Interesting thread. IMO, 1920x1200/1080 are both dead.

You should be looking at 2560x1600, which are available at sub-30" sizes. It'd be nice to see 24-27" panels settle in here and let the 30"+ push a bit higher.
 

randomlinh

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,853
2
0
linh.wordpress.com
They complain they can't see fonts right with small pixel pitch... uhh... use higher dpi fonts and they loot WAY better. But they're clueless, so the market continues to move in a direction that doesn't make sense.

I've never had this work well. I assume this is more OS dependent than monitor dependent, to an extent? Windows XP was terrible with this, and trying it on Win7 was better, but it's blurry. Not to mention not everything scales well, some icons look like ass still.

On this side subject, is there anyway to scale to higher than win7's defaults (not for me, but older folks who have trouble)?
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Interesting thread. IMO, 1920x1200/1080 are both dead.

You should be looking at 2560x1600, which are available at sub-30" sizes. It'd be nice to see 24-27" panels settle in here and let the 30"+ push a bit higher.

How could 1920x1080 be dead? It's standard 1080p resolution :confused:

When it comes to 2560x1600...do any exist that can do 120Hz?
 

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
Its dead. LOL why would a popular computer resolution die just because theres 1080p comps

doesnt make sense. Its like might as well take away anti aliasing too,, wtf ya know..
 

Morg.

Senior member
Mar 18, 2011
242
0
0
Either way, the next standard resolution will be 2060p / unless somebody finds it funny to make it even wider (many of my 1080p's have black stripes on a 1080p TV .. wtf).