Should I get a new monitor? 1680x1050

[Shephard]

this is my current monitor.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824001273

I have had it since 2009.

22inch 1680x1050 with 2ms response time.

I really have no complaints besides the bezel reflecting a bit.

If I had money I would get a 120hz monitor but I do not.

I see there are a lot of cheap 1080p monitors but I don't know what to choose.

I know you should not go above 24" for 1080p resolution. I have 22" inch at 1050p so I wonder how much better a monitor would look at 22" 1080p.

What else do I look for since I can't afford 120hz?

Speakers to me are useless because I have good quality headphones. I mean they might be nice touch but most monitor speakers are poor quality and the sound comes out the back.

thanks

 

[Fallengod]

I dont really have an answer as I dont follow computer monitors much.

The only thing ill say is, I just bought my 22" Viewsonic 120hz monitor just last year. I love mine.

I am not sure if you can still find them, but my 22" 120hz Viewsonic was only like $200.....

If you game at all, 120hz is definitely worth it.

 

[Shephard]

I know 120hz is worth it. I use to have an awesome Sony CRT and played CS at 120hz. There is nothing like it.

You need to get quality 120hz though. I know there is some cheaper Acer 120hz but it's poor quality and has ghosting.

I would prefer 120hz but the good ones are a lot of money.

So I want to know what I look for in a cheap 1080p monitor.

 

[Fallengod]

I know 120hz is worth it. I use to have an awesome Sony CRT and played CS at 120hz. There is nothing like it.

You need to get quality 120hz though. I know there is some cheaper Acer 120hz but it's poor quality and has ghosting.

I would prefer 120hz but the good ones are a lot of money.

So I want to know what I look for in a cheap 1080p monitor.

I think you are doing too much reading on it. My $200 120hz Viewsonic doesnt have any "Ghosting"... heh. Ive also heard those Acers are pretty nice so...

 

[lehtv]

Viewsonic =/= Acer. $200 is also way too much for the original 22" Viewsonic which is only 1680x1050. It's an old monitor, one of the first generation 120hz monitors. The other was Samsung 2233rz which I used to have until I upgraded to a 27" 1080p 60hz, and I game a lot. I much prefer my current monitor in almost every game - pretty much the only reason to use the old monitor was Quake Live where refresh rate was somehow particularly important, probably had to do with the game engine and netcode.

In your shoes I'd probably do the same again, i.e. upgrade to a 27" 1080p TN panel preferably with LED and height adjustability. If you don't have the budget for that, I suppose you'll have to settle for 23-24".

 

[toyota]

I would just stick with what you have until it gives you problems. also if going with a 16:9 screen then you want something bigger than 22 inches if coming from a 16:10 22 inch screen. not too mention all the 22 inch screens are really just 21.5 making them appear even way smaller height wise.

 

[riversend]

OP,
If your current monitor is not causing you any problems, and you cannot afford what you want, why not save up for when you can? Although 1920 x 1080 is not a huge increase (~20%) over your current it might come with some add'l GPU costs to keep up.

 

[tracerbullet]

^^^ Agreed.

You like your current monitor and don't have much money to throw at a new one. Case closed.

 

[Shephard]

isn't 27" 1080p not good? pixels would be much bigger?

I mean I can afford new monitor but not hundreds for 120hz. I am buying parts for my new computer right now, that is more important that monitor. I am just curious.

also everyone says IPS panel is the best. If you don't do 120hz then you need IPS.

my Samsung isn't IPS and people say Samsung monitors are no good. But I have nice colors, no dead pixels, and view angel is good even though that doesn't matter to me.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I would just stick with what you have until it gives you problems. also if going with a 16:9 screen then you want something bigger than 22 inches if coming from a 16:10 22 inch screen. not too mention all the 22 inch screens are really just 21.5 making them appear even way smaller height wise.

Have to agree here,my u2412m and its 16:10 honestly looks like its bigger then 24"" and more like a 26"' 16:9 then anything.

Also keep what you got till it fails,before this monitor i had a 17'' 1440x900 monitor and honestly loved how well my 7850 ran games at that resolution,but when it started to fail,i raced to replace my 7850 with a gtx670 as i planned to go big on the monitor replacement.

1680x1050 is a tad bit easier on the gpu and personally unless you got a beast gpu,you will miss the performance 1680x1050 offers over 1080p.:thumbsup:

 

[riversend]

OP, part of the problem is that you have not provided info as to why you want to change other than an improvement in reolution. What is important to you? TN panels will be less expensive with better response times generally. IPS has better colors, viewing angles, but generelly cost most.

My monitor is over six years old (Samsung 215TW, S-PVA I think) and I am still quite happy with it. Whenever I do get a new screen it will likely be IPS because I value the plusses of that display type.

 

[Shephard]

Like I said I don't really have any complaints.

I do want dual monitor setup. It would be nice if I could have 2 of the same, but I don't have the money for that.

I just want to know what all the hype is. I see all this talk about about IPS is way better than TN.

Then there are those Korean monitors that are apparently better than the top BenQ and ASUS monitors and they are cheaper!