Those 1920x1080 22" monitors...

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 07 Dec 2008, 05:48

Any got any experience with them? I'm talking about things like the Viewsonic VX2233WM and BenQ T2200HD/E2200HD.

How is the resolution for gaming? Is text easy to read? I'm thinking about either the Viewsonic or BenQ mentioned above. Any opinions?

Thanks!

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 13 Dec 2008, 10:00

66 views and no replies? Come on!

packerfan · Post by **packerfan** » 13 Dec 2008, 18:30

I didn't even realize that 22" 1080p screens were out, the only 1920 wide 22" screen I heard was a WUXGA one from lenovo a while back. I would imagine they are a TN panel, text may be slightly small.

I think I recollect you run a 19" widescreen which has about 89.4DPI or pixels per inch. On one of these 22"ers it would be about 100DPI so text would be a little smaller but stuff should also appear sharper.

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 13 Dec 2008, 20:27

I want to see a 1920x1080 26" S-IPS monitor. BenQ makes a 24", but it's just a TN. And yes the above are likely TNs. No one makes a 22" that isn't.

While I like that BenQ is trying to convince people 16:9 makes more sense for monitors due to the cost effectiveness of buying panels mass produced for the TV industry, I don't want to see them convincing people that a TN type panel is well suited for multipurpose use, which it isn't.

It's odd that you can fairly easily find out what panel types monitors use, but TVs almost never have such spec listed. About the only way to tell is to make a guess by noting their viewing angle.

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 14 Dec 2008, 00:05

Thanks for the responses!

What drew me to them is that they are so cheap, much cheaper than 16:10 equivalents. My main worry is that the 16:9 ratio won't work well for internet browsing and desktop use since it would be really wide!

The fact that its a TN panel shouldn't matter for me. From what I've read, TN is best for gaming since it has less ghosting. I don't care too much about colour accuracy. Also at this pricepoint TN is probably the only option.

AnandTech seems to like the BenQ http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3449&p=4

"There are still other 22" LCDs that provide better color accuracy and color gamut, but if we had to pick one 22" LCD to purchase right now it would be the BenQ E2200HD."

No reviews on the Viewsonic yet.

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 14 Dec 2008, 02:49

Here's one that's highly regarded if you want to consider a 16:10:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001273

...and here's a pretty good 16:9 not on your list:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236051

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 14 Dec 2008, 03:45

Here's one that's highly regarded if you want to consider a 16:10:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001273

...and here's a pretty good 16:9 not on your list:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236051

The ASUS isn't available in New Zealand and the Samsung is significantly more expensive than other monitors.

I'm not too sure whether I want 16:9 or 16:10... What are the main disadvantages of each?

This is where I'm getting my options from: http://www.pricespy.co.nz/cat_5.html

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 14 Dec 2008, 07:42

I have bad luck with those I'm trying to help turning out to live overseas with no access or affordability on the models I suggest lately, oh well.

Whether you prefer 16:9 or 16:10 is partly personal preference, partly intended use. Movies play better on 16:9, obviously because they fit better. I use KMPlayer for watching DVD's via my internal DVD player with my HDTV as display.

Lots of movies are letterbox format. Those I zoom right in between the size of full screen and their original size. It almost fills the screen yet no text or characters are cut from view at the sides. With a 16:10 you couldn't do that. By the time you got zoomed that big you'd have noticeable loss at the sides of the screen.

A 16:10 is going to fit more game resolutions, but even there I think a 16:9 monitor would be about as nice for gaming. You really only have about a couple resolutions you'd use for the most part with either aspect ratio and 16:9 gives you more peripheral for gaming, which is particularly nice in shooters where enemies flank.

Keep in mind though the two most common 16:9 resolutions supported by games are 1280x720 and 1920x1080, so unless you go with a monitor that supports 1920x1080, you'll likely be playing most of your games at 1280x720. It looks like you're already set on going 1920x1080 though, which is good for gaming AND movies, as long as it's HDCP compliant.

A 16:10 will display two 8.5"x11" documents side by side. With a 16:9 you'd just have a bit of left over space at the sides. I really wish they'd kept WS monitors to 16:9 like HDTVs, it would have made more sense. Though there are 1080p 16:9 monitors, 16:9 for monitors has not been exploited nearly enough. They only go up to 24" and nothing but TNs.

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 14 Dec 2008, 10:14

Hmm right. Well I'm not sure. It would mean more scrolling on webpages wouldn't it? Since most of them are more verticle oriented...

Well if I were go to go 16:9, which would you recommend? The BenQ mentioned in my first post or the Viewsonic? They are the only 22" 16:9ers available in my country.

And if I went 16:10, what would be good from the website mentioned above? I don't want to go much over $400NZD.

Thanks!

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 14 Dec 2008, 19:33

If I were shopping 22" I'd go 16:9, simply because 22" only comes in TN anyway, and I prefer 16:9 aspect ratio. All the better if you can get 1920x1080. If BenQ and Viewsonic are the only ones in 16:9 in your area, I'd lean toward BenQ. Viewsonic's CRTs were good in the Graphic and Pro series (I have one of their Graphic series), but their LCDs are not so good IMO.

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 14 Dec 2008, 23:35

Hmmm... There's really no advantages with the 16:9 though since its 21.5" compared to the 22" of the 16:10, so even if I'm watching 16:9 content on a 16:10 with black bars, its still the same size image as with a 16:9 right?

And 16:10 seems more versatile since it would probably work better for web browsing. Also there are a few games that don't work well with 16:9... So I would think 16:10 would be the better option.

Anyone had any experience in the Samsung 2253BW? It's the cheapest Samsung available here.

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 15 Dec 2008, 20:21

No better way to point out what I'm talking about concerning 16:9 movie fit than to compare the width of a 21.5" 16:9 to a 22" 16:10. I found a site with a handy calculator that makes it easy.
http://a.ntivir.us/screensize/calculate.php?diagonalSize=22&aspectRatio=sixteenTen

21.5" 16:9 dimensions:

Width = 18.74"
Height = 10.5"

22" 16:10 dimensions:

Width = 18.66"
Height = 11.66"

As you can see, though the 21.5" display is .5" smaller diagonally, it's nearly 1/10th of an inch wider. A letterbox movie would probably show about the same height on both screens, but have much bigger black bars on the 16:10. By the time you zoom half way between normal size and full screen on a letterbox movie, you'd be losing a fair amount of image at the sides with the 16:10.

The fact is it's best to go full screen on an LCD because even LCDs are susceptible to burn in to some degree. It's common to see manufacturers recommend not leaving black bars on screen for more than 2 hrs at a time. It's your call, like I said I prefer 16:9 and wish there were 16:9 S-IPS monitors with optional HD tuners built in.

Bottom line, I think a 21.5" 16:9 is more efficient use of screen space. I really don't think it would be a problem web browsing either. You can always use the screen zoom feature in your browser to adjust the fit.

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 16 Dec 2008, 00:09

So 21.5" 16:9 isn't really that much higher than my current 19" 16:10, it's just much wider...

Hmm. Not too sure. A 24" 16:9 would be ideal but I can't really afford that.

I'm also unsure of whether my 512mb 8800gt would be able to run newer games at 1920x1080...

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 16 Dec 2008, 03:30

I wouldn't trust an 8800GT to run games well at 1920x1080, esp if it's not the G92 type. You could probably run them at 1280x720 OK though, until you can afford a GPU upgrade. At 1280x720 your pixel pitch would be quite a bit larger though. It jumps from about .28 to .42, so quite a bit grainier at desktop viewing distances. You need to realize though that a 21.5" display at 1920x1080 would be just as hardware demanding as a 24" at the same res. It would look better at 1280x720 than the 24", but still fairly large pixel pitch at .37. A 21.5" @ 1920x1080 is a very tight .25 pitch, about the same as a 30" @ 2560x1600.

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 16 Dec 2008, 04:16

1680x1050 would be less demanding wouldn't it? I don't see myself upgrading GPU any time soon. I really think the 16:10 would be a better option for me. I could probably also get a better quality screen if I went 16:10, like a Samsung or something.

DaFox · Post by **DaFox** » 16 Dec 2008, 05:27

I haven't read through the whole thread but for 99% of people pixel density is a non issue basically unless you know that you need a monitor like that then I would not worry about it what so ever.

In my opinion you would be better off just getting a 16:10 22" or way better yet just jumping right up to a 24" 16:10/16:9.

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 16 Dec 2008, 05:36

1680x1050 would be less demanding wouldn't it? I don't see myself upgrading GPU any time soon. I really think the 16:10 would be a better option for me. I could probably also get a better quality screen if I went 16:10, like a Samsung or something.

Yeah, a lot less demanding, and look better on a 22" vs 24". People have differences of opinion on pixel density but I always advoate trying to stick under .3 pitch because even if you sit farther away from one with larger pitch the jaggies are more noticable as the pitch goes up and AA is hardware demanding just as larger resolutions are. I don't know what you mean by "quality", but given there's only TN as a panel type choice in 22" displays, they vary more in features than quality.

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 16 Dec 2008, 07:23

[quote]1680x1050 would be less demanding wouldn't it? I don't see myself upgrading GPU any time soon. I really think the 16:10 would be a better option for me. I could probably also get a better quality screen if I went 16:10, like a Samsung or something.

Yeah, a lot less demanding, and look better on a 22" vs 24". People have differences of opinion on pixel density but I always advoate trying to stick under .3 pitch because even if you sit farther away from one with larger pitch the jaggies are more noticable as the pitch goes up and AA is hardware demanding just as larger resolutions are. I don't know what you mean by "quality", but given there's only TN as a panel type choice in 22" displays, they vary more in features than quality.

Surely a 22" Samsung would have better picture quality than a 22" AOC or Acer? Or should I just go for the cheapest 22" I can find?

DaFox · Post by **DaFox** » 16 Dec 2008, 08:04

Surely a 22" Samsung would have better picture quality than a 22" AOC or Acer? Or should I just go for the cheapest 22" I can find?

At this point honestly I just go with newegg reviews, when hundreads of people like a product there its usually pretty good I mean theres hardly any differnce between the 22" monitors anymore, between them the most popular ones only use a handful of panels anyway.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000190020%201309822582%201109917865&bop=And&Order=RATING
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000190020%201309822582%201109917843&name=1920%20x%201080

fraseyboy · Post by **fraseyboy** » 16 Dec 2008, 09:02

Well then I think I'll get the Samsung 2253BW since it's got VERY good reviews on Newegg and is reasonably cheap.

I have decided against 16:9 for a number of reasons, the main ones being that the higher resolution would be harder for my graphics card to drive and that it wouldn't look as big as a 16:10.

Widescreen Gaming Forum