• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

LCDs that can do 1600x1200?

G

Gantry

Member
I'm having a tough time finding 17 or 19 inch LCDs that have a native resolution of 1600x1200. Does anyone know of any? I find it very strange that you can buy a Dell Laptop with a 15.1" that runs natively at 1600x1200, yet you cannot get that resolution on a 19" LCD...

Thanks in advance for the help...
 
Hmmm, well according to a quick search on Dell's site, the 2000fp has a "Prime Mode" of 1280x1024, so I assume that is equivilant to native resolution....

You ever used this Dell in 1600x1200? I've seen a few 19" LCDs that do 1600x1200 non-natively, but I (perhaps falsely) assume if you go above the native resolution, it'll look bad...
 
It sure does, but a little steep on the ol' pocketbook...

Hoping to find 1600x1200 in the 17-19 inch variety...
 
There are some notable differences between Laptop LCD?s and desktop LCDs. The major item is the video interface used. Most laptops use a custom video interface where desktop LCDs use DVI or VGA.

Desktop LCD monitors tends to have higher contrast ratio because they typically use better/more fluorescent backlights. More backlights means more power consumption thus shorter battery life in a laptop. More backlights also improve the brightness uniformity of the screen.

Desktop LCD monitors typically have better viewable angles because laptops are meant to be used close up by one person.

Desktop LCDs typically have faster pixel response times for better animation and games.

Also some of the cost of the LCD can be hidden in the margins of the system. This is a very common tactic of the system manufacturers.

These are some of the reasons desktop LCDs are more expensive than equivalent resolution laptop LCD?s.
 
Jim:

All the items you brought up make perfect sense, but concerning last part:

--> These are some of the reasons desktop LCDs are more expensive than equivalent resolution laptop LCD?s. <--

If the equivalent resolution desktop LCDs are more expensive and uses better/higher quality parts, why can't they attain the 1600x1200 resolution of the cheaper laptop LCDs? I can see the equivalent 15" desktop LCD not being able to do 1600x1200 like the 15" dell laptops can, but why can't a 17 or even 19" desktop LCD hit this resolution?
 
It may simply be a supply and demand problem. A 1280 x 1024 panel has 3.9 million transistors. A 1600 x 1200 panels has 5.7 million transistors. A 15? 1600 x 1200 panel needs a pixel pitch in the 0.19mm range. The yields of these panels (reasonable amount of dead pixels for example) and the supply of mother glass simply is not yet to the point where they can produce mass market 1600 x 1200 desktop monitors. The big guys like Dell (for notebooks) take all of the available panels. BTW there is more margin in notebooks than desktop monitors thus higher profits. It is a combination this and of the extremely tight pixel pitch and the extra 1.8 million transistors that make it so difficult.

It is only fairly recent (within the last year or so) that 1280 x 1025 17 ? 18.1 panels became plentiful enough to serve the larger desktop market at a price point that is acceptable.

Are 1600 x 1200 15 / 17 / 19 monitors on there way. Yes, but don?t hold your breath.

The trends that I see are a move to 17? and 19? LCD monitors, following their CRT cousins. 18.1? IMHO will be squeezed out by the 17 and 19? competition, you can already see it happening with the 1280 x 1024 panels.


To my knowledge SGI has discontinued the 1600sw.
 
The Dell 2000fp has a native resolution of 1600x1200. I know this because I am using one right now at that resolution, driven by a DVI cable (connected to a LeadTek geForce3 ti500).

This monitor is amazing, even if you ignore the price. If you take the price into account (I paid $1330), it's probably the greatest monitor deal in the history of the world. Go on PriceWatch and try to find a 20" LCD with a native resolution of 1600x1200 that supports DVI and even S-Video connections and you'll see what I'm talking about...they're all over $2000.

I've written numerous posts here about how much I love the monitor...search for them for more info on how I feel about it.
 
Running 1600x1200 on a 17" screen will make things look extremely small.

The Princeton Senergy 75 (17.4") can run 1600x1200 in analog mode, though its native resolution is 1280x1024. It has analog and digital inputs. It looks ok in 1600x1200, but everything is so small!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top