What happened to 1920x1200 monitors?

[xthetenth]

For productivity, I prefer the narrower aspect ratios as it brings my side monitors closer in, and the side monitors themselves can be smaller. As an example, at work my 19" 1280x1024 is almost the same vertical height and PPI as my 24" 1080p display but is only 66% of the width. I can get 19+24+19 on my desk, but couldn't with 16:9s. Since the side ones are usually used for email, PDFs, etc, there's no real reason to have all that extra horizontal space.

That can work, but I find that's one place where a 21:9 really shines as a replacement to the whole of a setup like that. It's not half again as wide as a 2560x1440, but it gives two good sized windows side by side, and if you just narrow windows down to their content, three or four columns are easily possible. I've got an RDP window 3440x1440 open right now with four columns, two code in the middle, a set of terminal windows on the left and a narrow directory hierarchy view on the right. Trying to fit that sort of arrangement on a pair of 2560x1440s is a royal pain, because rather than the edges being 1720 pixels away from the middle and having 3440 pixels, on a pair of 2560x1440 a similarly wide screen area is 1280 pixels away on one side, and 2160 pixels plus two bezel widths away on the other. The near half of that second screen is far enough from the middle to be annoying to use, let alone the far half. I can also pop that window onto two thirds of the screen and have most of the use of that as well as being able to easily use my own system.

 

[exar333]

I also miss my boat anchor (FW900)

I got a LG 34" UM95 to compensate

before I went ultra wide I was in the 1200p or nothing camp as well, I was running dual 24s that did 1920x1200. i took the chance with the catleaps running 1440 and TBH it was fine. 16:9 is not a real issue when you get to that vertical rez. my suggestion would be to pick up one of the many 1440p monitors that exist

LOL, same exact situation here. I actually had 3x1200P in portrait. Going from 1920 to 1440 vertical wasn't an issue. The UM95 provides amazing flexibility for both vertical and horizontal usage. With the 34'' size, text and general Windows usage also feels perfect. Not too big, not too small. Without better DPI scaling, I would definitely want a 4K display no smaller than 35'' for my uses.

 

[Centauri]

Is my FX-8350 and MSI OC R290 good enough to push 1440?

Much more than enough.

 

[pauldun170]

Read this post on a Samsung 245bw (1900x1200) and then looked at my other desk with a NEC 2090UXi (1600x1200)

Damn these things are getting old

 

[exar333]

That can work, but I find that's one place where a 21:9 really shines as a replacement to the whole of a setup like that. It's not half again as wide as a 2560x1440, but it gives two good sized windows side by side, and if you just narrow windows down to their content, three or four columns are easily possible. I've got an RDP window 3440x1440 open right now with four columns, two code in the middle, a set of terminal windows on the left and a narrow directory hierarchy view on the right. Trying to fit that sort of arrangement on a pair of 2560x1440s is a royal pain, because rather than the edges being 1720 pixels away from the middle and having 3440 pixels, on a pair of 2560x1440 a similarly wide screen area is 1280 pixels away on one side, and 2160 pixels plus two bezel widths away on the other. The near half of that second screen is far enough from the middle to be annoying to use, let alone the far half. I can also pop that window onto two thirds of the screen and have most of the use of that as well as being able to easily use my own system.

:thumbsup:

 

[xthetenth]

Pity that's my work setup or I'd show pics of how good a job you can do fitting stuff on this sort of thing.

 

[XiandreX]

I am thinking about saving a bit longer and just getting this or something similar.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014372

Is my FX-8350 and MSI OC R290 good enough to push 1440?

It would depend heavily on the game, some yes others not if you want to keep most/all settings on.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I am holding onto mine for a reason.

 

[exar333]

Definitely keep in mind older 1200P's do gobble power...I tracked-down an older post from a couple years ago comparing my 2408 and 2413 power usage. The 2408 was ~$7/month, just sitting there. The 2407 and 2405 are even higher...

I literally saved $5-10/month when I went from my 3x 1200P setup to my 1440P display.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307345&highlight=kill+watt&page=9

 

[Makaveli]

Definitely keep in mind older 1200P's do gobble power...I tracked-down an older post from a couple years ago comparing my 2408 and 2413 power usage. The 2408 was ~$7/month, just sitting there. The 2407 and 2405 are even higher...

I literally saved $5-10/month when I went from my 3x 1200P setup to my 1440P display.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307345&highlight=kill+watt&page=9

You pay alot for power where you are?

I don't think my 1200p monitor has changed anything on my power bill.

Probably also helps that for 18 out of 24 hours in a day the monitor is sleeping during the week as I'm at work or in bed.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Definitely keep in mind older 1200P's do gobble power...

Nothing like my plasma TVs do. It is all relative.

 

[Makaveli]

Nothing like my plasma TVs do. It is all relative.

lol no doubt but sooo worth the picture quality, I still have people say wow when they come over the first time and see it.

Samsung PN64E8000

CNET Labs: Operational power consumption
133.58 Watt
CNET Labs: Calibrated power consumption
264.46 Watt
CNET Labs: Power Save Mode power consumption
133.75 Watt

 

[exar333]

lol no doubt but sooo worth the picture quality, I still have people say wow when they come over the first time and see it.

Samsung PN64E8000

CNET Labs: Operational power consumption
133.58 Watt
CNET Labs: Calibrated power consumption
264.46 Watt
CNET Labs: Power Save Mode power consumption
133.75 Watt

The 2408 (24'' mind you) is about 105w calibrated. So 3x these use more than your plasma. Its crazy...

That was kind of my point. Older LCDs use a TON of power...probably as much or even more than some plasmas. Keeping an older plasma has more benefits vs. an older LCD because of it's innate positives. For LCDs, you can sell the older ones and get newer, more efficient, and smaller/lighter and still not 'give up' anything.

 

[MrTeal]

lol no doubt but sooo worth the picture quality, I still have people say wow when they come over the first time and see it.

Samsung PN64E8000

CNET Labs: Operational power consumption
133.58 Watt
CNET Labs: Calibrated power consumption
264.46 Watt
CNET Labs: Power Save Mode power consumption
133.75 Watt

Heh, my 65ST50 uses a ridiculous amount of power and in a darkened viewing room it's worth every watt.

 

[exar333]

Heh, my 65ST50 uses a ridiculous amount of power and in a darkened viewing room it's worth every watt.

:thumbsup:

All things equal, its nice to choose the efficient part. But if there isn't an efficient option as good, you have to go with quality. This applies to computers (GPUs especially) displays and speakers. Some things are just worth the extra juice.

 

[poofyhairguy]

For LCDs, you can sell the older ones and get newer, more efficient, and smaller/lighter and still not 'give up' anything.

Except 120 rows of pixels on the bottom.

 

[xthetenth]

Except 120 rows of pixels on the bottom.

I think you mean gain 240 rows of pixels and about 600 columns. :awe:

 

[riversend]

Have you thought about opening up the monitor to see if you have any bad capacitors? Might be a $10-20 fix + time and some minor skill with a soldering iron. Cheaper if that is the problem. Badcaps.net has a forum with folks who might be able to assist.

 

[exar333]

Except 120 rows of pixels on the bottom.

True, but you can get a 2413 for pretty cheap. Probably one of the last really good 16:10 1200P displays.

Or just get a 27'' 1440P. Pretty much just as good of an experience, or better in most use cases. Or go wider, 3440x1440.