Should I go widescreen?

[Project86]

I'm upgrading my faithful 19" CRT, because it's colors are starting to fade. I was at Costco looking at LCD's, and the prices on 22" widescreens is within my budget. I'm not sure if that is the right choice for me though: I have an Opteron single core at 3ghz, with a 6800GT AGP. I don't get much time for gaming these days, but when I do I run them at 1024X768 with most setting fairly high, and it looks good to me. However, I am concerned that if I have to do 1650x1050 to match the native res on a 22" widescreen, by system would not be able to keep up. Also I do a lot of gaming with emulators, and those games are all designed for 4:3. Other than gaming it's just the usual email, internet, pics and the occasional movie.

So should I go for the large widescreen, or just stick with the regular 19" 4:3 at 1280x1024, which my system can certainly handle?

Or the third option I guess would be a compromise between the first two: a 19" widescreen that does 1440x900.


EDIT to add: I don't really upgrade my system very often, and this Opteron is fairly new. So don't suggest the 22" thinking I will pick up an 8800 anytime soon.

 

[Ulfhednar]

1440x900 resolution is actually smaller than 1280x1024, so I would go with that as a nice compromise for going widescreen.

 

[Project86]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
1440x900 resolution is actually smaller than 1280x1024, so I would go with that as a nice compromise for going widescreen.

What do you mean "smarter"?

 

[Ulfhednar]

Erm, I said smaller.

 

[defiantsf]

Get the widescreen LCD (as large as you can afford). You can always down-res with 1:1 pixel mapping if the game is too tough for the 6800GT. I have the same gfx card myself atm with a 23" WS LCD and 19" LCD in dualview mode. Once you go WS and dualview (with you CRT) you'd wonder how you made due with just one monitor hehe.

 

[Ulfhednar]

1:1 pixel mapping has been broken for ages on my end.

 

[Project86]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Erm, I said smaller.

Oops, that's what I get for reading too fast. So the 1440x900 is actually a bit of an easier load for my system... that's good to know.

As for 1:1 pixel mapping- I thought I was clear on what that meant, but I'm not sure how it can be applied to "down-res" in a game. So I guess that means I don't really understand!

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: Project86

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Erm, I said smaller.

Oops, that's what I get for reading too fast. So the 1440x900 is actually a bit of an easier load for my system... that's good to know.

As for 1:1 pixel mapping- I thought I was clear on what that meant, but I'm not sure how it can be applied to "down-res" in a game. So I guess that means I don't really understand!

It would mean in this case that if you wanted to play a game that didn't support widescreen, you could still play at 1024x768 using black bars on the sides for the unused pixels, instead of having to stretch the 4:3 image to 16:10. 1:1 pixel mapping would mean that your display is literally displaying the exact number of pixels to match the source image.

And yes, it's broken for me too on my VG2230wm. Grrr....

 

[Project86]

Oh, I see, thank you. I'm not exactly sure how to tell though... I guess I have to research each moniter and see if anyone reports it one way or the other?

http://www.costco.com/Common/Category.a...t=1680&eCat=BC|84|1680&whse=BC&topnav=

Anybody have any knowledge on any of the widescreen models here, as far as 1:1 pixel mapping goes?


On another note, I also need to spend more time staring at the widescreen 19" models to see if I like it. I use 19" 4:3 models here at work (5 of them!) so I'm used to this... the wide 19" look a bit small right now but I could maybe get used to it. The 22" looks very good.

 

[defiantsf]

There shouldn't be any reason why 1:1 low-res mapping isn't supported on a WS LCD. That's simpler (in circuitry terms) to do than scaling up to full screen. But I have only bought one WS LCD (HP 2235) thus far. Just can't believe it wouldn't be a standard feature.

 

[Mem]

Project86: You can do 1:1 via Nvidia drivers(Nvidia Control panel) if you are using XP and a Nvidia card,that's what I did when I was using XP.

 

[Noema]

Anybody have any knowledge on any of the widescreen models here, as far as 1:1 pixel mapping goes?

Most LCD's don't do their own pixel mapping...at least not budget priced ones. However your video card should be able to handle it without problems even if the monitor can't do it itself.

'Should' being the operative word here...depends on your video card and drivers.

Sometime it works, sometimes it doesn't (at least in my case with my 7800GS AGP).

 

[Project86]

I am using XP, and I am using an NV card. So U guess that problem is no longer a problem. Thanks!

That being said, is there any other opinions about 4:3 v widescreen? It seem like few people really prefer the 4:3 "square" these days...

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Project86
I am using XP, and I am using an NV card. So U guess that problem is no longer a problem. Thanks!

That being said, is there any other opinions about 4:3 v widescreen? It seem like few people really prefer the 4:3 "square" these days...

I love WS gaming and could never go back to a boring 4:3 LCD.

Btw check this site for WS hacks for a lot of games.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: Mem
Project86: You can do 1:1 via Nvidia drivers(Nvidia Control panel) if you are using XP and a Nvidia card,that's what I did when I was using XP.

People keep saying this but it doesn't seem to work properly in recent drivers, the setting goes back to default.

I wish I could get it working because I have a lot of old games that don't support any widescreen resolutions.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: Mem
Project86: You can do 1:1 via Nvidia drivers(Nvidia Control panel) if you are using XP and a Nvidia card,that's what I did when I was using XP.

People keep saying this but it doesn't seem to work properly in recent drivers, the setting goes back to default.

I wish I could get it working because I have a lot of old games that don't support any widescreen resolutions.

I've been using Vista since end of Jan so maybe it has changed with Nvidia drivers,I know I had no problems back then with XP and 1:1.

Sidenote,I would try a WS hack and if that does not work I would drop down a res ie 1680x1050 to 1280x1024 and run that sctretched if I have too.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
1440x900 resolution is actually smaller than 1280x1024, so I would go with that as a nice compromise for going widescreen.

that is what i did when my 19" CRT failed

it's about the same height as your 19" CRT [18" "Viewable"] ... with about an inch on either side

works fine for my rig in sig for all new games

older games don't look as good if they are stretched

 

[gramboh]

LCD scaling is broken for G80 cards in all Windows XP drivers. At least for my config (Dell 2407 + 8800 GTS on DVI) it is, it's a known issue on Nvidia/here forums and I've emailed Nvidia about it. They claim it will be fixed in the next driver release. Very annoying.

FWIW scaling worked fine on my 6800GS AGP using DVI port, can't remember what drivers though, older ones in XP.

 

[BernardP]

If you can afford the 22-incher, get it by all means. Don't under-spec your monitor because you have an older system.

Would you under-spec a new system because you have an older monitor? Didn't think so

Native resolution on a 22-inch is 1680x1050. You can downrez this to 1280x800 or 1280x768 (which will be easier on the videocard than 1280x1024 on a 19-incher) without worrying about 1:1 pixel mapping: The monitor will stretch the lower rez to fill the screen...and picture will still be very good.

You 22-incher will still be more than adequate when you upgrade your system.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BernardP
If you can afford the 22-incher, get it by all means. Don't under-spec your monitor because you have an older system.

Would you under-spec a new system because you have an older monitor? Didn't think so

Native resolution on a 22-inch is 1680x1050. You can downrez this to 1280x800 or 1280x768 (which will be easier on the videocard than 1280x1024 on a 19-incher) without worrying about 1:1 pixel mapping: The monitor will stretch the lower rez to fill the screen...and picture will still be very good.

You 22-incher will still be more than adequate when you upgrade your system.

there are two ways to look at it

my CRT died and i was enjoying 11x8/12x9 ... IF i got an expensive LCD that featured Pixel mapping to get 1:1 it would be OK ... but i would still be limited by my system for gameplay and i'd probably play at 14x9 with black bars

OTOH, i picked up a really cheap 14x9 LCD that is matched perfectly to my system ... and next year when i upgrade to quad core and Xfire i can use it as my 2nd display ... right next to my new 16x10 --or higher - LCD ... which will also be cheaper and more full-featured then

 

[BernardP]

OK, let's see how things compare: 19" CRT (18-inch vieweable) vs 19" wide LCD vs 22" wide LCD:

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=18-19ws-22ws.jpg

 

[apoppin]

cool ... thank-you ... i bookmarked that site

i actually measured and set all three side-by-side when my CRT was dying

the 22" IS really nice
--for a lot more $ for me

So i went for the cheap display till my rig is powerful enough to run dual LCDs
--then i might go for 24" ... maybe not, i am still kinda nearsighted

i would suggest to Project86 to do what i did and buy *both* ... check their return policy ...

--return the one that doesn't 'fit'

 

[duragezic]

See if you can find a WS LCD with monitor scaling. I've never had to see if my video card scaling works since my 2005FPW provides it.

Plus, if the video card scaling options are only 'monitor scaling' or 'stretch/full' or '1:1', that isn't much help if your monitor doesn't support scaling. Because say you are playing a new, demanding game that you can only run at 1024x768 (or a 16:10 resolution of similar pixel count), then if you don't want it stretched, you'd turn on 1:1 scaling (assuming it works). Then you have a little 1024x768 image center in your screen with wasted space on the sides and top/bottom!

The 'Aspect' scaling option on my 2005FPW is what I use most. That way, it'll keep the aspect ratio, but scale to fill the top/bottom, leaving just black bars on the side. Like for 1280x1024, you have a little bit of top/bottom blank space with a x1050 monitor, so Aspect scales it to x1050 and the corresponding width. Of course, I don't like 1280x1024 anyway cause 1360x1024 is 4:3.

And personally, I'd probably rather see a 22" WS with a higher resolution than the 20.1" WS LCDs. I guess there isn't a standard resolution between 1920x1080 (24") and 1680x1050 (20/22"). I guess that's the same thing as 17" and 19" LCDs with 1280x1024. I prefer a higher resolution. If fonts are too small, I'd rather increase them a little bit in return for the extra desktop space.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: apoppin
cool ... thank-you ... i bookmarked that site

You can compare any screen size you want at:

http://www.tvcalculator.com

I just made a printscreen of it and uploaded on TheImageHosting.com

 

[apoppin]

even better


thanks!

*updated* bookmarks