1920x1200 Monitors

[IBI]

I'm going to replace my 1280x960 CRT this year so I thought I'd go for the next resolution up (1600x1200) and widescreen (1920x1200) which comes out at a 23"-28" monitor. Space isn't an issue but while I'd like a 30" I can't afford £1000.

Does anyone have any recommendations, thoughts or experience with this size of monitors?

[iMav]

For WUXGA(1920x1200) displays, there is really only one monitor out there worth having.

And that's the Dell 24" 2408WFP.

[ashort]

I don't know, I've got a different 1920x1200 display that I really like:

http://www.apple.com/imac/

[karlito]

i own a 2405wfp dell and I have no regrets. it can display great 4:3 ratio 1600x1200, 16:9 (1080p) 1920x1080...

Most other LCDs have fked up resolutions... i mean wtf is 1280x1024 (it's not 4:3!) and 1650x1050 what ever retard invented those resolutions needs to be shot.

However, if anyone made a good 1600x1200 21" monitor anymore I would recommend getting 2 of those (or 3). Microsoft did a study and found that people are 50% more productive when they have 3 monitors vs 1 and with my limited experience using 2 1600x1200 displays I have to admit it would be pretty damn nice... but this is a moot point as no manufacturers produce monitors with sane resolutions anymore other than 1920x1200.

[iMav]

My 30" LCD (2560x1600) gives me significantly more desktop real estate than even two 1600x1200 displays.  (2560x1600=4096000) > (1600x1200x2=3840000)

[IBI]

For WUXGA(1920x1200) displays, there is really only one monitor out there worth having.

And that's the Dell 24" 2408WFP.

Unfortunately, this is pretty much the only one I'd ruled out so far, as a keen online gamer the 64ms input lag seems a little too much when every other monitor has half that or less.

I don't know, I've got a different 1920x1200 display that I really like:

http://www.apple.com/imac/

Well, the iMac as a PC is no good for me but the Hazro HZ24W apparently has the same panel.

However, if anyone made a good 1600x1200 21" monitor anymore I would recommend getting 2 of those (or 3). Microsoft did a study and found that people are 50% more productive when they have 3 monitors vs 1 and with my limited experience using 2 1600x1200 displays I have to admit it would be pretty damn nice... but this is a moot point as no manufacturers produce monitors with sane resolutions anymore other than 1920x1200.

I hadn't considered three 1600x1200 displays although the only problem there is price, I know some of them like the dell 2007FP are £300 and at that price three of them would be well out of my budget. I'll havevto find out what price range they go for. Three displays becaused I wanted widescreen for the wider field of view when gaming and two monitors don't seem like they'd work terribly well for that.

[karlito]

Unfortunately, this is pretty much the only one I'd ruled out so far, as a keen online gamer the 64ms input lag seems a little too much when every other monitor has half that or less.

I game on my 2405fpw all the time. ghosting is rarely noticeable and it depends a lot on the level.  de_dust2 you see a red ghost sometimes when looking around but honestly it doesn't bother me.  cant say I've noticed ghosting at all in COD4... keep in mind though i haven't gamed on a CRT in at least 6 years so I probably don't really notice ghosting all that much anymore. However, I do own a Samsung 204b (5ms refresh not gtg) and despite significate less ghosting (honestly i see any ghosting on that monitor) I would take my 2405fpw for gaming any day because S-PVA looks so much better than a-si   TFT/TN. Also note that the 204b is a 20" monitor so it's pixel pitch is much smaller 0.255mm vs 0.27mm (for a 21" or 24" dell). I much prefer 0.27mm.

[karlito]

My 30" LCD (2560x1600) gives me significantly more desktop real estate than even two 1600x1200 displays.  (2560x1600=4096000) > (1600x1200x2=3840000)

Oh i hear you but what i've noticed on my 24" monitor is that is have Firefox open so it only takes up 1/2 the screen and then when i go to click the scrollbar or close button i accidentally click a window behind firefox.  To me it's much less annoying to just run everything maximized which doesnt work at all on a 24" monitor.

There are negatives to both set ups (huge 24" or bigger vs 2 or 3 monitors). From a purely productive stand point I would vote for 2 or 3 monitors. From a versatility stand point I would vote for 24" or larger. You can watch movies or HDTV on a 24" monitor from 10 feet away and it's still enjoyable... Movies suck on a small 20"-21" 4:3 ratio monitor.

NOTE: running 3 monitors also requires a special video card set up such as NVidia SLI or ATI Crossfire.

[ashort]

Well, the iMac as a PC is no good for me but the Hazro HZ24W apparently has the same panel.

I'm no expert (anymore) but I think the iMac makes a great PC.  =-D  It's not run much but OS-X since it was pulled out of the box, and I've since deleted and reclaimed the 20GB I gave to boot camp when I first installed it, but it seemed to run great the couple of times I had to go there.

[iMav]

PC does not equal the nasty.

[ashort]

(in my best John Lovitz voice)

"I KNOW"

[IBI]

ghosting is rarely noticeable and it depends a lot on the level. [...] Also note that the 204b is a 20" monitor so it's pixel pitch is much smaller 0.255mm vs 0.27mm (for a 21" or 24" dell). I much prefer 0.27mm.

Input lag, not response time. I've heard these days the ghosting on LCDs is pretty much unnoticible.

I would like the pixel pitch to be as high as possible since I can't have the monitor terribly close (maybe three feet, 90cm, at the closest) but that also means higher costs.

NOTE: running 3 monitors also requires a special video card set up such as NVidia SLI or ATI Crossfire.

This bit I looked at since I thought about running three 22" monitors. While crossfire works now, with SLI turned on you can only have one monitor.

Although that's probably knocked on the head the idea of running three 1600x1200 monitors, I don't think I could afford a crossfire setup to run that many pixels (as 1920x1200 is still considered high resolution for gaming).

I'm no expert (anymore) but I think the iMac makes a great PC.  =-D  It's not run much but OS-X since it was pulled out of the box, and I've since deleted and reclaimed the 20GB I gave to boot camp when I first installed it, but it seemed to run great the couple of times I had to go there.

I have tried one and I think it'd make a fair PC for normal use if you could live with the poor ergonomics. Unfortunately it makes a poor gaming PC which is what I'm after - for the same price as a fully specced up iMac I could get a quad-core with 8gb of memory, dual 8800GTS cards, a blu-ray drive and and x-fi sound card.

[karlito]

Input lag, not response time. I've heard these days the ghosting on LCDs is pretty much unnoticible.

never heard of input lag and i read tomshardware everyday and anandtech almost weekly... maybe i just stopped paying attention to monitor reviews?

[karlito]

fancy that
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3302&p=12

input lag... add that to the endless jargon u need to know.

[iMav]

Sounds like you can either have a great looking display, or a really low input lag...not both.  

FWIW, I agree with the reviewer (on anandtech) that even the "horrible" input lag of the S-PVA panels is likely not noticable...even to regular gamers.  I think you'd have to be stubborn about input lag to a fault to make that the primary driver for you display purchase (especially considering the fact that it is, primarily, the crappy TN displays that offer the best input lag...so you are sacrificing color, brightness, viewing angles, etc)

[Freyth]

Why not get a Hazro 24" Monitor or an NEC 2490WUXi-BK monitor? Both of them are IPS panels - great colour reproduction, if that matters a lot to you.

[IBI]

FWIW, I agree with the reviewer (on anandtech) that even the "horrible" input lag of the S-PVA panels is likely not noticable...even to regular gamers.  I think you'd have to be stubborn about input lag to a fault to make that the primary driver for you display purchase (especially considering the fact that it is, primarily, the crappy TN displays that offer the best input lag...so you are sacrificing color, brightness, viewing angles, etc)

Well, I can definitely notice the difference between servers with pings 60ms apart (or an offline game and a 60ms server) and I've not heard any reason why monitor input lag is going to be less noticible than internet latency (it may be more noticible as it fluctuates more) which puts the dell off my list. I can just about notice 60ms so I think 30ms would be acceptable and 15-16ms should almost certainly be.

Why not get a Hazro 24" Monitor or an NEC 2490WUXi-BK monitor? Both of them are IPS panels - great colour reproduction, if that matters a lot to you.

The NEC 2490WUXi isn't availible here in the UK and the 2690WUXi has lots of professional artist features with the price to match, if I could get the same model without them then that'd be perfect since I don't really want to pay lots of money for extras I don't need and won't use.

The Hazro looks like my best choice at the moment, it's a shame that the HZ26W lacks a couple of features the 2690 has that are good for ordinary use (like backlight adjustment, HDCP and an adjustable stand). I might try and wait for the revision that's supposed to be along, being able to use it in standby with vista would be a big advantage too.