[Letmekilluplz]

Right now I have one 22" 1680 x1050 monitor. I really am thinking about upgrading but I'm not sure the best path to take at this point. I could spend about $300 tops so I was thinking about buying 2 more 1680x1050 and having 3 or I could buy like 2 1980x1080. Any suggestions?

 

[De-Zant]

3x 1680x1050 is better. Loads better, since you can game on 3x monitors.

 

[derickwm]

For the card that you have in your rig, I would say buy 2 more 1680x1050

 

[XxRZxX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letmekilluplz Right now I have one 22" 1680 x1050 monitor. I really am thinking about upgrading but I'm not sure the best path to take at this point. I could spend about $300 tops so I was thinking about buying 2 more 1680x1050 and having 3 or I could buy like 2 1980x1080. Any suggestions?

It won't make a difference. Buy another 1680x1050 for some fun

 

[Letmekilluplz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by derickwm For the card that you have in your rig, I would say buy 2 more 1680x1050

Planning on buying another GTX 460 soon, forgot to mention that

.

For $300 what do you guys think the best I could get is? Probably 2x 1920x1080 or 2x1650x1080 and keep my other one for a total of 3

 

[rocstar96]

Also get a HD6950 2GB and unlock it

 

[pLuhhmm]

The only time 1080p is worth it, is when your screen is 32in or larger. Otherwise it's pretty useless as far as HDTVs go. Most monitors it won't matter either. Most good ones are 1080p+ anyway.

 

[tkrist]

Now that I have a 1920x1080 monitor, I really couldn't see myself going down any in resolution.

 

[derickwm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letmekilluplz Planning on buying another GTX 460 soon, forgot to mention that . For $300 what do you guys think the best I could get is? Probably 2x 1920x1080 or 2x1650x1080 and keep my other one for a total of 3

Ah yes I guess I should have assumed that since you'll have 3 monitors. I'd still stick with the 3x 1650x1050. Having different monitors with different resolutions is just awkward. Plus nVidia surround will be slick

 

[Letmekilluplz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by derickwm Ah yes I guess I should have assumed that since you'll have 3 monitors. I'd still stick with the 3x 1650x1050. Having different monitors with different resolutions is just awkward. Plus nVidia surround will be slick

Well I could always sell my current one, but I think 3x1680x1050 is better it seems. Any other suggestions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocstar96 Also get a HD6950 2GB and unlock it

Wouldn't 2x460 > 6970 for way cheaper anyway?

Edit: One more thing, how do you figure out the effective res when using surround? People posting like 2560x1600 and stuff like that.

 

[derickwm]

You add the pixels. If you're monitors are staying in the "regular position" than you would have 1680+1680+1680 x 1050. If you turn them to be vertical it'd be 1050+1050+1050 x 1680.

 

[JB12345]

It is just ridicolous to buy 1680*1050 when you can get 1920*1080 for the same price.

Obviously thats the way to go. That you have a monitor from the past is not a good argument to buy another monitor from the past.

If you buy a 24" inch screen your 1680*1050 screen will be good to use with it as second monitor.

 

[JB12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkrist;13054311
Now that I have a 1920x1080 monitor, I really couldn't see myself going down any in resolution.

Yes, I agree.

 

[SpeedNuggeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB12345;13058892
Yes, I agree.

1680x1050 is the 16:10 version of 1080P..

Your not losing pixels at all, just a different aspect ratio

 

[cuad]

I downgraded from 1080p to 1680x1050. No regrets. Of course, this monitor is special cause it can do 120Hz.

 

[JB12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedNuggeT;13058906
1680x1050 is the 16:10 version of 1080P..

Your not losing pixels at all, just a different aspect ratio

1680*1050 has alot of fewer pixels than 1920*1080.

1 680 * 1 050 = 1 764 000
1 920 * 1 080 = 2 073 600

2 073 600 - 1 764 000 = 309 600

309600 fewer pixels.

 

[Booty Warrior]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedNuggeT;13058906
1680x1050 is the 16:10 version of 1080P..

Your not losing pixels at all, just a different aspect ratio

You're thinking of 1920x1200. And even so, 16:10 (with the same horizontal pixel count) is always made up of more pixels than 16:9.

 

[JB12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by De-Zant;13059180
And therefore less pixels.

But anyways. The OP should get 3x1680x1050 because that will prove to be much more useful than 2x 1920x1080

Strange comparison.

2x 1920*1080 + 1x 1680*1050 would be much more useful than 3x 1680*1050

 

[De-Zant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB12345;13059193
Strange comparison.

2x 1920*1080 + 1x 1680*1050 would be much more useful than 3x 1680*1050

No.

If he gets 1x 1920x1080 + 2x 1680x1050, he's not gonna be able to run surround properly. Most likely can't get it to work, and if he can, it will have to be stretched or using black bars on the sides.

If he gets 3x 1680x1050, he can use nVidia surround without any issues most likely. He should get the same model monitors tho. They have to have the same sync polarity tho, so different model monitors not guaranteed to work in surround

People, think. Don't just randomly recommend stuff.

 

[JB12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by De-Zant;13059200
No.

If he gets 1x 1920x1080 + 2x 1680x1050, he's not gonna be able to run surround properly. Most likely can't get it to work, and if he can, it will have to be stretched or using black bars on the sides.

Still wouldnt buy 2 outdated monitors that cant handle 1080p.

It is just a matter of time before he regrets that decision.