1920x1080 is higher resolution...
1080p for gaming... Why?
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Quote:
1920*1200 = 2304000 pixels
1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels
1680*1050 = 1764000 pixels
That is ~15% more pixels with the 1080p resolution!
That is ~24% more picels with the 1200p resolution!
16:10 monitors are currently being phased out though for 16:9 monitors, but 1200p will offer ~230k more pixels compared to 1080p, and ~ 540k pixels more than 1050(p?)
Originally Posted by Chimeracaust  I see people over and over recommending 1920x1080 monitors for gaming in place of or to replace 1680x1050 monitors. Why is this? If my math is correct, the image quality will be just about the same on a 1050 vs a 1080 monitor, because the vertical resolution is almost the same. I would think that a 1080 monitor might be less desirable for gaming, because it makes your video card draw 240 extra scan lines horizontally while not increasings you image quality, it will cost you in performance. Am I crazy? Or are there just a lot of confused OCN'ers? (Not here to slam 1080 monitors or those who have them, just don't understand why they would be desirable for some one considering a purchase over a 1920v1200 etc) |
1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels
1680*1050 = 1764000 pixels
That is ~15% more pixels with the 1080p resolution!
That is ~24% more picels with the 1200p resolution!
16:10 monitors are currently being phased out though for 16:9 monitors, but 1200p will offer ~230k more pixels compared to 1080p, and ~ 540k pixels more than 1050(p?)
Quote:
I've heard, though I may be mistaken, that many games lob off the top and bottom of the screen for 16:9 from 16:10 mode.
Originally Posted by DesertRat Wider FOV and slightly better pixel density on larger screens come to mind. |
Quote:
Yeah but it's only in width, so it should not change the image quality, right? Is there something here I am missing? I know you get a bit wider screen with a 16:9, but because the vertical resolution is the same, the image looks the same, save maybe wider?
Quote:
I get you. But then it would make sense to go 1920x1200. Basically I would think if you wanted a big monitor, go for that, as it would look much much better. 1920x1080 shouldn't look better than 1680x1050. At least not significantly?
Originally Posted by xxicrimsonixx 1920*1080 = 2073600 pixels 1680*1050 = 1764000 pixels That is 15% more pixels with the 1080p resolution! |
Quote:
Originally Posted by tagurtoast maybe they want a bigger monitor? Size is a big thing for alot of people. (no rude jokes) |
2
Quote:
This is what I want to know, too. Why is having 230,400 fewer vertical pixels considered a good thing for any application besides high-def movies and/or TV?
![]()
Originally Posted by Chimeracaust just don't understand why they would be desirable for some one considering a purchase over a 1920v1200 etc) |
2
Quote:
Sharper image as the image is now being displayed over more pixels?
Having less pixels on the screen requires less resources at a cost of quality, while more pixels require more resources to display at the cost of performance.
Originally Posted by Chunky_Chimp This is what I want to know, too. Why is having 230,400 fewer vertical pixels considered a good thing for any application besides high-def movies and/or TV?
|
Having less pixels on the screen requires less resources at a cost of quality, while more pixels require more resources to display at the cost of performance.
2
Quote:
that's what she said
had to
![]()
Originally Posted by tagurtoast maybe they want a bigger monitor? Size is a big thing for alot of people. (no rude jokes) |
had to
2
Quote:
I don't think that people with the actual money to spend on a 1920x1200 would ever pick a 1080p over the 1200.
But the fact of the matter is, 1200 monitor are often double the price of the 1080p counterpart. Is twice the price worth those vertical pixels? That is something only a individual can decide. I personally went with the 1080p, and I am very pleased with it.
Originally Posted by Chunky_Chimp This is what I want to know, too. Why is having 230,400 fewer vertical pixels considered a good thing for any application besides high-def movies and/or TV?
|
But the fact of the matter is, 1200 monitor are often double the price of the 1080p counterpart. Is twice the price worth those vertical pixels? That is something only a individual can decide. I personally went with the 1080p, and I am very pleased with it.
2
Quote:
Exactly, and this completely depends on the panel underneath. If you use a TN panel oriented toward gaming, don't expect it to have a sharp, color-accurate image. If you use an S-PVA monitor, or (if you have the gift of money) an H-IPS monitor, you're going to get VERY sharp and accurate images at an unnoticable loss in gaming performance; that is, unless you're using an older Chi Mei Optoelectronics MVA (or a variant thereof; AU Optoelectronics will have AMVA5 panels out next year, per the news I posted some time ago; these new panels should be even better than PVA), which bottom out around 16ms; even this is unnoticable to all but the sharpest FPS-tuned retinas.
Edit:
Quote:
Eloquently put, I agree. But if you can cover the premium, why deny higher quality and more pixels?
Originally Posted by om3n It has nothing to do with screen size, it's how much picture detail you get within that screen size. |
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by corky dorkelson I don't think that people with the actual money to spend on a 1920x1200 would ever pick a 1080p over the 1200. But the fact of the matter is, 1200 monitor are often double the price of the 1080p counterpart. Is twice the price worth those vertical pixels? That is something only a individual can decide. I personally went with the 1080p, and I am very pleased with it. |
2
Quote:
But you are only getting more pixels in width. It's like saying I am getting taller when I am in fact just getting fatter. Right?
Originally Posted by xxicrimsonixx Sharper image as the image is now being displayed over more pixels? Having less pixels on the screen requires less resources at a cost of quality, while more pixels require more resources to display at the cost of performance. |
Quote:
Actually, the higher the resolution, the less need there is for AA. There is already more pixels per square-inch if you compared 1680x1050 and 1920x1080, each on 22" monitors (the standard pretty much nowadays).
Originally Posted by ELmo1989 More pixels More Detail(Which than leads to seeing zig zag lines which leads to wanting High AA which Needs More powerful card. |
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
