Don't You Think It's Time For Higher Resolution Gaming?

[rainwilds]

I have been doing quite a bit of research lately on the ins-and-outs of monitors and it is clear that most enthusist gamers use a res of 1920x1080 on a 22/24' display. Personally I have been using a 1680x1050 res for some time and it does seem quite small. I choose that setup to reduce my expense on a video card. If you compare the res of the two there really isn't much of a difference so cannot justify upscaling.

However! I have in my net travels stumbled upon the luscious 27/30' panels which are just amazing. But don't be fooled; many of the 27' inch panels still run at 1080p which just means bigger icons but no extra real-estate. That is of course untill you get to something like the Dell U2711 which I'm sure a lot of you are familar with. It runs at the prized 2560x1440 res. Now if you compare the upscale from 1080p to that it is huge, just check the attached pic to find out.

So personally I would much prefer being able to work and play on a monitor like this knowing that they are technically professional so you miss out on super-fast response time and the new 3D vision stuff but who cares! The "real estate" outweighs the occansional monitor lag (if any). The new PLS technology Samsung is just about to release with their flagship SA850 27' beauty looks like it may have the goods. I'll consider getting it if reviews are positive, but will have to justify the money to myself getting a 6950 crossfire setup to run games.

What's your thoughts?

 

[Luger718]

i think ive seen monitors like these with very low response time (about 6ms) not better then 2 ms but isnt anything under like 8ms good enough for gaming, correct me if im wrong of course...

id kill for a 30" 2560x1600 monitor lol

 

[JCBenton]

I believe we should stay with the resolutions we currently have. We'd have far too much to keep an eye on with enormous resolutions, and I'd hate to think of what things'd be like if we ended up having too much going on in our peripheral vision. I'm certain higher resolutions would only benefit those with huge monitors that are a good distance away from them such as console gamers, families with standard entertainment systems etc. (Not that they'd appreciate it or anything...)

So yeah, in my opinion you really don't want too much desktop space. Save yourself the worry and stick with something 1920x1200 or lower.

 

[Rastalovich]

1920x1200 is really good.

The generation of 1080 monitors aimed at computers, are pushed out by manufacturers considering that users will be happy to watch their movies on them. It's really a compremise resolution that you probably couldn't have even thought of buying years ago.

20" standard being x1050 and 24" being x1200, giving squarer pixels rather than rectangular. I would imagine 1080 monitors are 1050 ones with less allocated initial scan lines.

 

[JCBenton]

1920x1200 is really good.

The generation of 1080 monitors aimed at computers, are pushed out by manufacturers considering that users will be happy to watch their movies on them. It's really a compremise resolution that you probably couldn't have even thought of buying years ago.

20" standard being x1050 and 24" being x1200, giving squarer pixels rather than rectangular. I would imagine 1080 monitors are 1050 ones with less allocated initial scan lines.

I've had 1050, 1080 and 1200. I'm really not sure what you mean by less allocated initial scanlines; you'll have to explain that to me, buddy. Anyways, the 1080 monitor I have right now is superb and in many ways superior to my Samsung 1200, so I believe it varies with individual designs.

 

[S_I_N]

no we dont need more YET lol I'm finally going 1920 x 1200 today lol my new monitor should be here today as its out for delivery

 

[Ya93sin]

1900x1200 ftw

 

[marsey99]

1900x1200 ftw

^^^^ this

tbh higher res just becomes too expensive, well it does for me. i have a 28" 19/12 screen and the next one up when i got it was the dell 30 incher at more than twice the cost, then you need much much more gpu grunt to fill those screens and a much beefier psu to fuel those gpu.

then a lot of games only have textures that look best @ 720 and max out at 1080 res because they are crappy console ports it makes it even more pointless to drop £1500+ on a screen, gpu and psu when the games are designed to run on a £150 console and £100 screen.

not saying thats the case for all games, i mean some ports are well done and we even get a few pc exclusives but as it stands today i feel the games publishers look upon me as a pc gamer as a pita.

 

[KING_OF_SAND]

I LOVE <3 my 27" 1920x1080 display. spending $200 more dolors for just an extra for 120 extra horizontal lines (1920x1200) is totally not worth it!

 

[Tortuga]

I LOVE <3 my 27" 1920x1080 display. spending $200 more dolors for just an extra for 120 extra horizontal lines (1920x1200) is totally not worth it!

Seconded.

 

[Rastalovich]

I've had 1050, 1080 and 1200. I'm really not sure what you mean by less allocated initial scanlines; you'll have to explain that to me, buddy. Anyways, the 1080 monitor I have right now is superb and in many ways superior to my Samsung 1200, so I believe it varies with individual designs.

Inherently when, if, you adjust the frequency on a monitor that would allow you to do so, similar to adjusting the v-hold on an ancient rgb unit, you will see weird colored lines before the screen you would identify as the viewing area would start.

An extra 30 lines I'm thinking is not beyond the capabilities of screen manufacturers to lessen in order to create the 1050->1080 visible area. I may be wrong, but it sure feels like what they've done with the explosion of the 1080 screens on the market.

1900x1200 ftw

+me too. Another thing that's an annoyance for me is that whilst happily gamin on the old Dell 20" at 1680x1050, all the associated text in the games were very clear. When you switch to 1920x1200 you find in many cases that suddenly the text is too small and they've not given you a way to adjust in. Some games do, perhaps they're newer ones.

I do find on occasion that even tho I mostly use now a 24" 1920x1200 screen, that a game involving text is easier to cope with if I use a lower resolution.

Bah game devs

 

[Grizzly]

For larger screens maybe like apples 27 inch displays that come with 2560 by 1440, but for smaller screens like my 22" I don't think I'd notice much of a difference unless my face was 1cm away from it constantly.

 

[Bungral]

1080 on monitors pisses me off royally....

I read when it became the norm it was for money reasons as they could squeeze a certain amount more panels out of a sheet than with the 1200 panels.

Think I might have even wrong an artical on here about it.. Will check in a minute.

Anyway, I've got a 1920x1200 and really couldn't use a 1080 for my home monitor. The extra height really does make a difference for me.

 

[JCBenton]

Back on topic, I reckon most of us should stick at a max resolution of no more than 1920x1200. The higher we go, the harder your system etc etc. Nothing against enthusiasts, though. Enthusiasts are fun.

 

[Stone]

I am very surprised to see that some people mention 1920*1200. Thats not a good resolution for gaming because it will give you smaller Field-Of-View. For gaming you should simply stick to 1920*1080 or get a 2560*1440 monitor.

 

[Luger718]

I am very surprised to see that some people mention 1920*1200. Thats not a good resolution for gaming because it will give you smaller Field-Of-View. For gaming you should simply stick to 1920*1080 or get a 2560*1440 monitor.

actually 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are giving you the same horizontal field of view but 1920 by 1200 gives you more vertical view

i think that give is showing the different ratios at way different resolutions

 

[stevebarnes15]

Most games allow to set the fov by the in-game console these days.

I think a lot of people,especially when gaming have to just find what works best for them as a lot of factors come into play when running games,especially online.

I've found that having to high a res can cause your ping to be a lot higher than it should be at times,so lowering the resolution and adjusting the fov in game actually works better,as it's less demanding on the system,and there's very little difference in picture quality.

Personally i run my games on 1024 x 768,with all the niceness on,antialiasing at full etc,which still gives a really nice look and feel to the games.

 

[Stone]

actually 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are giving you the same horizontal field of view but 1920 by 1200 gives you more vertical view

i think that give is showing the different ratios at way different resolutions

Well, obviosly you have missunderstood this.

Basically all games that are from 2008 or later are primarly made for 16:9 and have fixed height (some of them are even locked to 16:9). Therefor you get wider field of view with 16:9 resolution (same height as 16:10 resolution but wider) just as in the pic I posted earlier. In the case where the game is locked to 16:9 you will get black bars on 16:10 and 4:3 monitors.

If you are going to buy a gaming monitor its ratio should therefor be 16:9.

 

[froge_2003]

I have an LG 20WTQ (2ms) which works flawlessly after about four years.

 

[Stone]

2560x1440 for gaming would be nice but 1920x1080 is great too.