Is there that much of a difference between a 21.5" and 24" monitor @ 1920 x 1080?

[JEDI]

Staples has a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 for $115 (after coupon)

Costco has a 24" 1920 x 1080 for $170

How much of a difference is there in 2.5" viewable?

 

[0roo0roo]

21.5" is 80% of screen area. so yes there is a difference. 2.5" = 20% less.

 

[corkyg]

Without a mention of the brands and models, quality cannot be assessed. But, from a size only perspective, the difference is as stated by Oroo Oroo.

 

[0roo0roo]

plus 16:9 is rather squat. you better go with 24" to get enough size.

 

[LCD123]

Text on 21.5" will be really tiny, even on a 24" itll be small. My mom is on a 24.6" 1920x1080 monitor that is running at 1280x720 and it looks decent, text is large and clear enough to read. Id try 1280x720 on those monitors in the store. Good price by the way!

 

[corkyg]

I've never understood why folks don't adjust their text size without changing resolution. LCDs should be run at native. If text is too small, go to CP/Display/Settings/Advanced and set DPI at 125%. Then when on the Internet, use the text size feature. You can also select more readable font.

 

[JackMDS]

The functional aspect of it depends on the specific individual there is Technological No rules for it. What ever is comfortable for one person might not be comfortable to an other and vice versa.

Find a store that displays both sizes, and see which one you are comfortable with.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: corkyg
I've never understood why folks don't adjust their text size without changing resolution. LCDs should be run at native. If text is too small, go to CP/Display/Settings/Advanced and set DPI at 125%. Then when on the Internet, use the text size feature. You can also select more readable font.

yea people stuck in the past. new os from osx/vista/win7 have guis that scale perfectly. change dpi everythings solved.

Originally posted by: LCD123
Text on 21.5" will be really tiny, even on a 24" itll be small. My mom is on a 24.6" 1920x1080 monitor that is running at 1280x720 and it looks decent, text is large and clear enough to read. Id try 1280x720 on those monitors in the store. Good price by the way!

its no smaller than a 17" lcd that was popular a few years back.. not small at all.
only laptop screens get really pixel dense.
in fact you want pixel density for the image quality.

 

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Staples has a 21.5" 1920 x 1080 for $115 (after coupon)

Costco has a 24" 1920 x 1080 for $170

How much of a difference is there in 2.5" viewable?

I would go with the larger 24" monitor for sure. The screen area of the 24 is a lot larger than the 21.5 despite 2.5" not sounding like much.

The price of $170 is excellent and I wouldn't pass it up. That $55 in extra cash really buys you a big upgrade in your ability to use and enjoy your computer.

 

[piasabird]

Helps to know the actual dimensions of the screen. With widescreen monitors it can be kind of tricky. You could look up the model numbers and look info up at the Manufacturers website to see what it is that you are looking at. Sometimes the 24" comes with better interfaces or Plugs.
i.e. HDMI, VGA, DVI, etc. Also look at the mounting design and adjustability and the retrun policy. Maybe also Size and thickness and heat dissipation, or how much it heats up. Some monitors get hotter than others.

 

[0roo0roo]

the actual dimensions are known. 16:9 + diagonal measure is all you need to figure out the rest

 

[oynaz]

The area of a 24" monitor is a LOT more than 20% bigger than a 21". Pythagoras, yes?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: oynaz
The area of a 24" monitor is a LOT more than 20% bigger than a 21". Pythagoras, yes?

not on a 16:9. its 20% for that.

 

[fffblackmage]

My primary is a 1920x1200 26" LCD and, for a few weeks, I had a secondary 1080p 22" LCD. I much preferred my 26" LCD over the 22". Everything was larger and just easier to read (and it's not like I'm old and have trouble reading small text). Frankly, the 16:9 22" looked tiny next to my 16:10 26" LCD, so I imagine the 24" would be worth it over the 21.5".

 

[Viper GTS]

not on a 16:9. its 20% for that.

It's more like 25%:

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?7021adadb18061de0015317319391b2f

Viper GTS

 

[dank69]

~20% smaller or ~25% bigger you are both right. Wording makes all the difference.

 

[Fayd]

i couldnt imagine using a 24" monitor isntead of the 28" i use now.

it would be tiny.

 

[Tbirdkid]

24 and up or go home... lol

 

[mmntech]

i couldnt imagine using a 24" monitor isntead of the 28" i use now.

it would be tiny.

lol. My TV is only 26''.

In this case, you're paying 47% more for 11% more viewing area. Assuming the specs and brand are identical, I'd go for the smaller one. All depends on what you're doing though.

 

[KentState]

Personally, I went with the 21.5", because I wanted a dual monitor setup. I found that the smaller monitors are much easier to view without moving your head to scan between monitors. For a single monitor setup, I would go with the 24" or even larger if possible.

 

[0roo0roo]

It's more like 25%:

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?7021adadb18061de0015317319391b2f

Viper GTS

?

the stats on that page show the 21.5" to have 80% of image area. so its 20% as i said.

 

[VirtualLarry]

My primary is a 1920x1200 26" LCD and, for a few weeks, I had a secondary 1080p 22" LCD. I much preferred my 26" LCD over the 22". Everything was larger and just easier to read (and it's not like I'm old and have trouble reading small text). Frankly, the 16:9 22" looked tiny next to my 16:10 26" LCD, so I imagine the 24" would be worth it over the 21.5".

Seconded. I also have a 26" 1920x1200, and I don't think I would want that same res on a 22" screen. It's just right for me at 26".

 

[Den]

lol. My TV is only 26''.

In this case, you're paying 47% more for 11% more viewing area. Assuming the specs and brand are identical, I'd go for the smaller one. All depends on what you're doing though.

Actually, if you look at screen area and not just diagonal, you are getting 25% more area not just 11%. See the calculator links above.

 

[pmv]

I'm using a 28" 1920x1200, which, granted, is not the finest quality monitor out there, but I do on balance think it was worth it over a 26" of the same res. Though I do sometimes wonder if I'm fooling myself - what's the difference between a larger monitor and just sitting slightly closer to a smaller one, if the resolution is the same?