What is the recommended resolution on a 21" monitor?
- Thread starter MGOAS
- Start date
I would say 1280x1024 and up. 1024x768 looks pretty massive on my 19" monitor, so it would look like 800x600 does on a 21", probably!
My own preference is 1600x1200, this seems to give a good compromise between work area size and actually being able to read what is displayed on the screen. At the end of the day as mentioned it is personal preference, but the cost in spectacles might well outweigh the cost of the monitor if you go too small.
I suggest either 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200 depending on your preference and how your monitor can handle the said resolutions.
Depends on the horizontal scan frequency of the monitor you are interested in.
The biggest mistake I see people do is purchase a high performance 121Khz or 130Khz monitor and run it at low resolutions like 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and driving it at 65Mph. A 121Khz monitor for example is optimized at 1920 x 1024 resolution. Also if you run the monitor at the manufacturers recommended resolution it should not need hand tuning, because this often is the resolution they use to align the monitor at the factory.
For example:
A monitor with a 70 - 85Khz HSF is optimized for 1024 x 768 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 92-97Khz HSF is optimized for 1280 x 1024 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 107 - 110Khz HSF is optimized for 1600 x 1200 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 121Khz HSF is optimized for 1900 x 1024
Also there is a direct correlation between HSF and price. As the HSF goes up, the resolution capability goes up and so does the price.
As far as what resolution you like, thats strickly a personal choice. I'm currently running 3200 x 1200 at 85Hz using dual 21" monitors.
Good Luck
Jim at http://www.monitorsdirect.com
The biggest mistake I see people do is purchase a high performance 121Khz or 130Khz monitor and run it at low resolutions like 1024 x 768 or 1280 x 1024. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and driving it at 65Mph. A 121Khz monitor for example is optimized at 1920 x 1024 resolution. Also if you run the monitor at the manufacturers recommended resolution it should not need hand tuning, because this often is the resolution they use to align the monitor at the factory.
For example:
A monitor with a 70 - 85Khz HSF is optimized for 1024 x 768 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 92-97Khz HSF is optimized for 1280 x 1024 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 107 - 110Khz HSF is optimized for 1600 x 1200 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 121Khz HSF is optimized for 1900 x 1024
Also there is a direct correlation between HSF and price. As the HSF goes up, the resolution capability goes up and so does the price.
As far as what resolution you like, thats strickly a personal choice. I'm currently running 3200 x 1200 at 85Hz using dual 21" monitors.
Good Luck
Jim at http://www.monitorsdirect.com
I don't understand how you can stand to look at something running at 85hz. I run my 19" at 800x600 @ 160 hz. Any lower than that and I get headaches.
Charles
Most 17" monitors fall into the 70 - 85Khz range.
Ipno
Everyones eyes are different, you may need 160Hz, most us do not however. I would say how can you stand running only 800 x 600 resolution for example. The panning and scrolling would drive me crazy.
Most 17" monitors fall into the 70 - 85Khz range.
Ipno
Everyones eyes are different, you may need 160Hz, most us do not however. I would say how can you stand running only 800 x 600 resolution for example. The panning and scrolling would drive me crazy.
What I don't understand is how did 1280x1024 become an "official" resolution?? All monitors that do this res. also do 1280x960, which is the correct 4:3 aspect ratio...
This is what I remember about the 1280 x 1024 standard.
It all started with the Ramdac. The Ramdac is the chip (often embedded) in the graphics chip that has driven the resolution standards. The Ramdac is the chip that converts the parallel digital signals from the memory chips to the analog serial bit stream (video).
Note: Ever notice that all resolutions are divisible by 8? Since computers and memory chips use hexadecimal (Base 16) logic, the resolutions must be divisible by 8. Also most CRT's are 4:3 aspect ratio. When the resolutions where calculated this was a factor.
History:
Ramdacs are very difficult chips to design and as video speeds increased over the years the complexity also increased. The chipmakers designed the Ramdacs to meet certain resolutions. One of the first standards I remember was 135Mhz. OK I'm dating myself. As chip technology improved frequencies progressed to 170Mhz, 220Mhz, 250Mhz and today we can find Ramdacs that run 320Mhz up to 360Mhz. Many names, pixel clock, dot clock, video rate, and video bandwidth commonly call these frequencies.
The chipmakers realized they could mass-produce 135Mhz chips economically and reliably with good yields. Then the marketing guys got involved. They said what is the maximum resolution a 135Mhz Ramdac can produce at a reasonable refresh rate. The answer is 1280 x 1024 at 75Hz, great in those days. The next step was 170Mhz. To get 85Hz at 1280 x 1024 you need a 157.5Mhz pixel clock, 170Mhz fit the bill nicely. All of these resolutions and refresh rate standards can be traced back to the designers of the Ramdacs on the video controller boards. How do I know? I used to design video cards.
You can also contact the VESA committee and ask them http://www.VESA.org
GoLeafs
It all started with the Ramdac. The Ramdac is the chip (often embedded) in the graphics chip that has driven the resolution standards. The Ramdac is the chip that converts the parallel digital signals from the memory chips to the analog serial bit stream (video).
Note: Ever notice that all resolutions are divisible by 8? Since computers and memory chips use hexadecimal (Base 16) logic, the resolutions must be divisible by 8. Also most CRT's are 4:3 aspect ratio. When the resolutions where calculated this was a factor.
History:
Ramdacs are very difficult chips to design and as video speeds increased over the years the complexity also increased. The chipmakers designed the Ramdacs to meet certain resolutions. One of the first standards I remember was 135Mhz. OK I'm dating myself. As chip technology improved frequencies progressed to 170Mhz, 220Mhz, 250Mhz and today we can find Ramdacs that run 320Mhz up to 360Mhz. Many names, pixel clock, dot clock, video rate, and video bandwidth commonly call these frequencies.
The chipmakers realized they could mass-produce 135Mhz chips economically and reliably with good yields. Then the marketing guys got involved. They said what is the maximum resolution a 135Mhz Ramdac can produce at a reasonable refresh rate. The answer is 1280 x 1024 at 75Hz, great in those days. The next step was 170Mhz. To get 85Hz at 1280 x 1024 you need a 157.5Mhz pixel clock, 170Mhz fit the bill nicely. All of these resolutions and refresh rate standards can be traced back to the designers of the Ramdacs on the video controller boards. How do I know? I used to design video cards.
You can also contact the VESA committee and ask them http://www.VESA.org
GoLeafs
LoL I run mine at 1152x864. I have good eyes and everything but I like seeing things BIG. Also my dad has bad eyes. I like running mine at 100hz also.
Yeah, whatever's comfortable for your eyes. I'm running 1600x1200 on a Viewsonic PF815 / Matrox G400max and it's really solid. I've tried higher resolutions, but have found that I prefer the higher refresh rates available at the lower (-ha- lower) 1600x1200 rez.
I did have a Viewsonic 21PS and ran it at 1280x1024 for the same reason.
I did have a Viewsonic 21PS and ran it at 1280x1024 for the same reason.
Gosharkss, is there an easy way to figure out what the optimal resolution based off of the HSF is? You obviously know some system in order to make up that list and just curious if it's a simple equation or whatnot. My monitor is listed as having a 137kHZ HSF and was wondering what optimal resolution fits that HSF. From your list it looks like 137kHZ would be around 2048 x 1536.
Lately I've been obsessed with better image quality over performance and such so this is some great info thanks!
Lately I've been obsessed with better image quality over performance and such so this is some great info thanks!
<< What is the recommended resolution on a 21" monitor? >>
I recommend, and run, 1600x1200 95Hz @ 32bit
There is a relatively simple way to calculate the maximum refresh rate of a monitor. You need to know the following. The maximum horizontal scan frequency, and the resolution. In your case 137Khz. The formula below will give you an approximate refresh rate, to calculate the exact refresh rate the math gets harder and you need to know more details about the monitor such as the exact horizontal and vertical blanking time.
(1 / Horiz Scan Freq) * (Number of Vertical lines + 50) = x
(1 / x) = Refresh rate
So in the case of a monitor with 137Khz it has a (137,000) horizontal scan rate. Lets assume that you want to run 2048 x 1536 resolution. What is the maximum theoretical (calculate) refresh rate? Remember your mileage will vary.
(1 / 137000) = .000007299 * (1536 + 50) = 1586
Note: Add 50 lines to the total number of lines to account for vertical blanking time.
.000007299 * 1586 = 0.01157
1 / 0.01157 = 86Hz maximum calculated refresh rate. Amazing how the number comes out so close to 85Hz, do you think the designers new this when they specified 137Khz, you know they did.
Ok now you have a monitor capable of 2048 x 1536 at 85Hz, not bad, but you have one more problem. Your video card will need a 380Mhz-video output from the RamDac in order to take advantage of your 137Khz monitor. I do not know of any video card on the market with a 380Mhz-video output. Anyone???
BTW because your monitor has this extra capacity for resolution, does not mean the image quality will be better.
Good Luck I hope I did the math correct.
Jim Witkowski
Chief hardware Engineer
Cornersstone / Monitorsdirect.com
(1 / Horiz Scan Freq) * (Number of Vertical lines + 50) = x
(1 / x) = Refresh rate
So in the case of a monitor with 137Khz it has a (137,000) horizontal scan rate. Lets assume that you want to run 2048 x 1536 resolution. What is the maximum theoretical (calculate) refresh rate? Remember your mileage will vary.
(1 / 137000) = .000007299 * (1536 + 50) = 1586
Note: Add 50 lines to the total number of lines to account for vertical blanking time.
.000007299 * 1586 = 0.01157
1 / 0.01157 = 86Hz maximum calculated refresh rate. Amazing how the number comes out so close to 85Hz, do you think the designers new this when they specified 137Khz, you know they did.
Ok now you have a monitor capable of 2048 x 1536 at 85Hz, not bad, but you have one more problem. Your video card will need a 380Mhz-video output from the RamDac in order to take advantage of your 137Khz monitor. I do not know of any video card on the market with a 380Mhz-video output. Anyone???
BTW because your monitor has this extra capacity for resolution, does not mean the image quality will be better.
Good Luck I hope I did the math correct.
Jim Witkowski
Chief hardware Engineer
Cornersstone / Monitorsdirect.com
I have a tough ime running 1600 x 1200
I usually run at 1280, just cause it's a little easier to read stuff.
I usually run at 1280, just cause it's a little easier to read stuff.
Fuzzmuncher
You might try 1400x1050, supposedly it works pretty well.
I'm still running a POS 15" at home, though, so I haven't tried it myself.
Viper GTS
You might try 1400x1050, supposedly it works pretty well.
I'm still running a POS 15" at home, though, so I haven't tried it myself.
Viper GTS
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter