Author Topic: Good Gaming monitor ?  (Read 35252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LifeIsGooD2

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 117
Good Gaming monitor ?
« on: Fri, 01 March 2013, 18:48:47 »
What is the best monitor 21-22' inches for ?

looking for something around 200-250$

Want something that will be very crisp and responsive for playing SC2.

Offline swagpiratex

  • Posts: 309
  • Location: Orange County, CA
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #1 on: Fri, 01 March 2013, 21:28:18 »
You will get a lot of feedback if you look at Newegg reviews. I think you'll be fine with an Asus monitor of your choice. I see them for sale from $150-200.

Offline TheQsanity

  • Posts: 1165
  • SmallFry Lovin'
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #2 on: Fri, 01 March 2013, 22:35:51 »
Most monitors are the same to the naked eye. For your price point you could get a much larger screen.
SmallFry! <3

Offline pby

  • Posts: 27
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #3 on: Fri, 01 March 2013, 23:35:26 »
Most monitors are the same to the naked eye. For your price point you could get a much larger screen.
That is quite a sweeping statement. If you've ever used different monitors side by side you can definitively say they're not the same to the naked eye. Whether it is viewing angles of TN vs IPS panels, 60 vs 120Hz refresh rate or latency.

@OP I don't think you'll find many great 21-22" monitors these days, manufactures have few models at that spectrum and none of them are particularly good for gaming. If you can stretch to $300 Asus makes a nice 24" monitor called the vg248qe. It is a TN panel but definitely shines for games.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236313

Offline LifeIsGooD2

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 117
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #4 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 09:26:10 »

Ok but I really wouldnt want to go past 23 inches because my current is 23 and its already a tad big

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-S231HL-23-Inch-Widescreen-Ultra-Slim/dp/B003N7P6TC


this is my current monitor ...

would a new 23 monitor be worthwhile mainly for starcraft ?

I want my monitor to be as crisp and responsive as possible

if so what would you reccomend

Offline IvanIvanovich

  • Mr. Silk Underwear
  • Posts: 8199
  • Location: USA
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #5 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 10:50:14 »
LG IPS224*-PN are pretty nice and fall under budget actually.

Offline pby

  • Posts: 27
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #6 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 15:05:21 »

Ok but I really wouldnt want to go past 23 inches because my current is 23 and its already a tad big

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-S231HL-23-Inch-Widescreen-Ultra-Slim/dp/B003N7P6TC


this is my current monitor ...

would a new 23 monitor be worthwhile mainly for starcraft ?

I want my monitor to be as crisp and responsive as possible

if so what would you reccomend
It is going to be hard to justify upgrading your current monitor as it has very good response times and input latency. I would avoid the LG IPS224 as it is a downgrade for your purposes.
You still have a few upgrade options but it really depends on your current system. If you're averaging more than 60 fps in sc then getting a 120/144Hz monitor can give you an extra edge. Otherwise the money is better spent on upgrading your graphics/cpu.

Offline IvanIvanovich

  • Mr. Silk Underwear
  • Posts: 8199
  • Location: USA
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #7 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 15:38:53 »
A downgrade, you must be joking right? It has IPS, so there is much better color and definition than anything similar price with TN and certainly much better than thier current Acer. Though the GTG is listed at 14ms, it has been more like 7ms in real life. Besides anything under 17ms can do 60fps just fine without lag or ghosting.
At the budget I would go for improved image quality over being able to draw frames faster and more poorly.

Offline Atakp

  • Posts: 88
  • Location: CT, USA
Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #8 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 15:42:53 »
A 120hz monitor was one of the least regrettable computer peripheral purchases I've made from a gaming perspective.

Although I would like to get an IPS since I've been moving away from gaming and more towards working with RAW picture editing
« Last Edit: Sat, 02 March 2013, 15:47:26 by Atakp »

Offline L4yercake

  • Posts: 188
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #9 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 15:46:12 »
ASUS VG248QE
- 144hz
- 23.6"

roughly $300

This and the BenQ 144hz use the same panel.

and if you have a good GPU/CPU set-up you can light-boost hack it too look/act like a CRT @ 120hz.
« Last Edit: Sat, 02 March 2013, 15:47:55 by L4yercake »

Offline pby

  • Posts: 27
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #10 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 17:55:07 »
A downgrade, you must be joking right? It has IPS, so there is much better color and definition than anything similar price with TN and certainly much better than thier current Acer. Though the GTG is listed at 14ms, it has been more like 7ms in real life. Besides anything under 17ms can do 60fps just fine without lag or ghosting.
At the budget I would go for improved image quality over being able to draw frames faster and more poorly.
Don't get me wrong here, I love my IPS panels and I totally agree that IPS is superior in color reproduction but we're talking exclusively about sc here. While you may value image quality but that isn't exactly the concern of the OP. Xel'naga caverns isn't going to look "wrong" because the monitor is a 6 bit panel, dithers colors and doesn't support wide gamut.
IPS has come a long with in terms of latency but there really is no match if you're comparing it with a 144Hz TN. The difference is quite day and night if your computer can handle the frame rates. I really don't think you cannot say definitively that IPS offers better image quality because they both have their pros and cons, like TN has better black reproduction than IPS etc etc

(not trying to nitpick but GTG is quite a misleading figure, almost as bad as contrast ratio. I blame the manufacturers)

Offline LifeIsGooD2

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 117
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #11 on: Sat, 02 March 2013, 20:12:55 »
so would you say that I should keep my current acer or that an upgrade would be worthwhile

again this is all mostly just for starcraft

but this IS with extra birthday money so its not going to destroy my pockets or anything

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #12 on: Sun, 03 March 2013, 07:49:40 »
Honestly there isn't really a reason to upgrade your monitor at all. It won't really make a difference when playing starcraft. You can have the fastest monitor and the fastest connection and the fastest mouse & keyboard there will still be latency. A monitor won't make a difference, to be honest. I've played sc2 (and all types of games) on a 2ms, 6ms and 7ms. There is no difference.

« Last Edit: Sun, 03 March 2013, 07:53:52 by Kuroneko »

Offline ApocalypseMaow

  • Kitteh Overlord
  • Posts: 1864
  • Location: Arkansas
  • Say WHAAT...
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #13 on: Sun, 03 March 2013, 07:55:09 »

Ok but I really wouldnt want to go past 23 inches because my current is 23 and its already a tad big

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-S231HL-23-Inch-Widescreen-Ultra-Slim/dp/B003N7P6TC


this is my current monitor ...

would a new 23 monitor be worthwhile mainly for starcraft ?

I want my monitor to be as crisp and responsive as possible

if so what would you reccomend
It is going to be hard to justify upgrading your current monitor as it has very good response times and input latency. I would avoid the LG IPS224 as it is a downgrade for your purposes.
You still have a few upgrade options but it really depends on your current system. If you're averaging more than 60 fps in sc then getting a 120/144Hz monitor can give you an extra edge. Otherwise the money is better spent on upgrading your graphics/cpu.
If OP is mainly playing SC2. Then 120hz is a waste of money. Not everyone fps only... You realize that right?
{WTT}HoffNudes(WTS)BLK LightSaverV2          SteamProfile
"#baby****fangerz" -Vesper 2015

Offline pby

  • Posts: 27
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #14 on: Sun, 03 March 2013, 10:15:56 »

Ok but I really wouldnt want to go past 23 inches because my current is 23 and its already a tad big

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-S231HL-23-Inch-Widescreen-Ultra-Slim/dp/B003N7P6TC


this is my current monitor ...

would a new 23 monitor be worthwhile mainly for starcraft ?

I want my monitor to be as crisp and responsive as possible

if so what would you reccomend
It is going to be hard to justify upgrading your current monitor as it has very good response times and input latency. I would avoid the LG IPS224 as it is a downgrade for your purposes.
You still have a few upgrade options but it really depends on your current system. If you're averaging more than 60 fps in sc then getting a 120/144Hz monitor can give you an extra edge. Otherwise the money is better spent on upgrading your graphics/cpu.
If OP is mainly playing SC2. Then 120hz is a waste of money. Not everyone fps only... You realize that right?
The 120/144Hz monitors have some of the lowest input latency for a TFT screens. Even then they aren't as fast as CRT monitors. Just before sc2 came out, in the pro sc scene plenty of pro players were still rocking a CRT. If it wasn't for the increase in FoV of the 16:9 ratio in TFTs I'm pretty sure CRT would still find a place because of the latency and refresh rates. If you're min-maxing then it really isn't a waste of money.

Offline L4yercake

  • Posts: 188
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #15 on: Sun, 03 March 2013, 15:26:40 »
If OP is mainly playing SC2. Then 120hz is a waste of money. Not everyone fps only... You realize that right?

Untrue, there is a huge advantage too mouse tracking with 120hz monitor compared to a 60/75hz.

Offline ApocalypseMaow

  • Kitteh Overlord
  • Posts: 1864
  • Location: Arkansas
  • Say WHAAT...
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #16 on: Sun, 03 March 2013, 19:24:52 »

Ok but I really wouldnt want to go past 23 inches because my current is 23 and its already a tad big

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-S231HL-23-Inch-Widescreen-Ultra-Slim/dp/B003N7P6TC


this is my current monitor ...

would a new 23 monitor be worthwhile mainly for starcraft ?

I want my monitor to be as crisp and responsive as possible

if so what would you reccomend
It is going to be hard to justify upgrading your current monitor as it has very good response times and input latency. I would avoid the LG IPS224 as it is a downgrade for your purposes.
You still have a few upgrade options but it really depends on your current system. If you're averaging more than 60 fps in sc then getting a 120/144Hz monitor can give you an extra edge. Otherwise the money is better spent on upgrading your graphics/cpu.
If OP is mainly playing SC2. Then 120hz is a waste of money. Not everyone fps only... You realize that right?
The 120/144Hz monitors have some of the lowest input latency for a TFT screens. Even then they aren't as fast as CRT monitors. Just before sc2 came out, in the pro sc scene plenty of pro players were still rocking a CRT. If it wasn't for the increase in FoV of the 16:9 ratio in TFTs I'm pretty sure CRT would still find a place because of the latency and refresh rates. If you're min-maxing then it really isn't a waste of money.
I hear you, but IPS got DAT COLOR!
Those BenQ 120hz are pretty nice though.
{WTT}HoffNudes(WTS)BLK LightSaverV2          SteamProfile
"#baby****fangerz" -Vesper 2015

Offline LifeIsGooD2

  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 117
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #17 on: Sun, 03 March 2013, 21:04:21 »
ahhh so many conflicting opinions im so confused

Offline RougeR

  • Posts: 224
  • Location: Channel islands, Jersey (sorta UK)
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #18 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 12:19:50 »
get an IPS something like the u2142m. also 16:10 is god tier
Buckling spring warrior!

Offline RougeR

  • Posts: 224
  • Location: Channel islands, Jersey (sorta UK)
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #19 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 12:20:10 »
also have a look at the monitor thread
Buckling spring warrior!

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #20 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 22:09:15 »
16:9 is better for Starcraft.


Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #21 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 22:11:19 »
16:9 isn't wider than 16:10.

16:9 is shorter than 16:10. You are getting less screen real estate with 16:9.

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #22 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 22:14:20 »
Yes, but most games today have their vertical view locked, including Starcraft II. So you will actually see less in a 16:10 resolution than you would in a 16:9 resolution. It scales the game up to how many veritcal pixels there are, in theory you would get more viewing space but the horizontal pixels stay the same so they just get cut off. I personally use a 16:10 monitor (u3011).

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #23 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 22:18:32 »
16 is the width aspect. You will see the exact same in the width as you would in 16:9. How do you technically see less vertically?

http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2012/10/22/16-10-vs-16-9-the-monitor-aspect-ratio/
« Last Edit: Tue, 05 March 2013, 22:21:06 by Bro Caps »

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #24 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 22:26:52 »
I'm talking about games. I've had both a 2560x1440 and a 2560x1600 monitor and I see less in the 16:10 resolution in almost every game I play. I know there are more vertical pixels but when you scale a game up with a vertical view locked it scales it from 1440 to 1600 (so you see the same exact thing on, it's just using more pixels to render it) the horizontal pixels will still have to be scaled too beyond 2560 (whatever makes 16:9 with a 1600 as the 9) but you can't view it past 2560, it simply gets cut off.

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #25 on: Tue, 05 March 2013, 22:31:04 »
but you can't view it past 2560, it simply gets cut off.

The max width resolution is 2560 for 30 inch monitors, so nothing would ever get cut off. It may be a personal preference for you that you 'feel' you are getting less, but technically, that holds no weight.

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #26 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 00:06:02 »
I really don't know how else to say this. I already posted evidence with the starcraft screenshots but I went ahead and took screen shots in 5 different games @ 1920x1080 which is 16:9 and 2560x1600 which is 16:10. I couldn't do 2560x1440 (16:9), i'm not entirely sure why. But the images are still 16:9 vs 16:10 nonetheless. You gain NO vertical view as these games have their vertical view LOCKED. The way it works is that it scales the resolution up rendering the same image, just with a larger amount of pixels. So when you use more pixels to render an image vertically, you also have to do it horizontally.

So let's say 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. Games that have their vertical view locked will just scale the image up to the 1200 vertical pixels so you see the same thing vertically. You can't scale the image just vertically, you also have to scale it horizontally but both resolutions have the same 1920 width. So the the game can't render anything past that and it get cuts off. If you don't understand what i'm saying then here are some pictures.

These are only from a games stand point, 16:10 is better at everything else aside from media and games. Media won't fill your whole screen, they will show black bars.

How are these images for weight?

I'll mention again, I don't know why I couldn't do 2560x1440. Might be because that resolution didn't exist when the u3011 was released or not, not even sure. At any rate, 1920x1080 is 16:9 and 2560x1600 is 16:10.

Call of Duty Black Ops II

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. But look at the patterned wall on the left side and the orange glass visor on the right side in the 16:9 shot. They are cut off of the view in the 16:10 shot.


Far Cry 3

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. In the 16:9 screen shot, you can see more of the mountain and the plant on the left side, which is simply cut off on in the 16:10 shot.

Dota 2
1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600: 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. The UI elements are shrunken down. You can only see half of the shopkeeper in the left side of the 16:10 shot but he is fully visible in the 16:9 shot.

Borderlands 2

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format.  Gun and rocks on the left side are cut off in the 16:10. Visible in 16:9.

Dead Space 3

1920x1080  16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. List on the left is cut off in the 16:10 shot. Visible in the 16:9 shot. Also refer to the train thing on the right. Cut off in 16:10.

It sucks for 16:10 users but it's not enough for me to ditch my 16:10 monitor.

Edit : Since OP just wants it for SC2, here are Sc2 screenshots at 16:9 and 16:10 even though I already posted a gif up there.

Starcraft 2

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. UI elements shrunken. Distance between gas geyser all the way to the edge of the screen is longer in the 16:9 shot.
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:01:54 by Kuroneko »

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #27 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 00:32:47 »
So you are only switching resolutions, not actually comparing it between an actual 16:10 vs 16:9 monitor? Still doesn't make for a good comparison. You are changing from a native resolution monitor of 16:10 to a non-native resolution of 16:9. It's not the same. Your argument of 'Media won't fill your whole screen' still make zero sense. Media IS filling your whole screen in every screenshot. All new games have native support for any of those resolutions, so you aren't losing anything in a 16:10. It's a larger image overall. I can see from your screenshots, especially in Far Cry, where the mini map is squished. So it compensates for this by squishing the image down, because 16:9 is not native to your monitor. Do you see more edge on 16:9? Slightly. Is it more overall picture than 16:10? No.

Offline noisyturtle

  • * Exalted Elder
  • Posts: 5260
  • comfortably numb
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #28 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 00:36:29 »
The comparisons both look the same to me. The 2560x1600  looks like it may be ever so slightly brighter I suppose  :confused:

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #29 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 00:42:15 »
So you are only switching resolutions, not actually comparing it between an actual 16:10 vs 16:9 monitor? Still doesn't make for a good comparison. You are changing from a native resolution monitor of 16:10 to a non-native resolution of 16:9. It's not the same.

Even if I pulled out my 16:9 monitor, the screen shots will be the same. It is the same. Physical size isn't even a factor here, it's the pixels.

Your argument of 'Media won't fill your whole screen' still make zero sense. Media IS filling your whole screen in every screenshot.

By media, I was referring to movies/tv shows. That's why I said also said games on the side.

All new games have native support for any of those resolutions, so you aren't losing anything in a 16:10. It's a larger image overall. I can see from your screenshots, especially in Far Cry, where the mini map is squished. So it compensates for this by squishing the image down, because 16:9 is not native to your monitor. Do you see more edge on 16:9? Slightly. Is it more overall picture than 16:10? No.

You must be blind. It is a bigger picture, yes, by size of pixels 2560x1600 is about 4 megapixels and 1920x1080 is about 2 megapixels. Sure, that is simple math. Now that is clear..

If you actually looked at the left and right edges of the screen, there is MORE view on the left and right sides. Look at the interfaces of Dota 2 and Starcraft 2. The UI is shorter in the 16:10 screen shot, as well as the field of view of the actual game. YOU SEE LESS in 16:10 than you do in 16:9 Look at the Dead Space 3 screen shots. You see more of the train on the right side and more of the list on the left side. Look at the black ops 2 screen shots. That yellow visor window thing on the left, it gets cut off in the 16:10 screen shot as does that wall on the right which isn't even on the screen at all in the 16:10 shot. In the far cry shot, you see more of the plant and the mountain on the left. In borderlands 2, you see more of the rock on the left side but in the 16:10 shot it gets cut off. It's a simple fact that you SEE MORE in 16:9 than you do in 16:10 if the vertical view is locked. If you can't even see that then I don't know what to tell you. I'll let you keep believing "it's not the same" because I just changed resolutions. Lol. I'll even edit my original post with descriptions.

What's your resolution? 1920x1200? 1650x1050?

I can post a screenshot of any of those resolutions and you can blow it up to full size and it will fill your entire screen. It's like I have to get my camera out and take actual pictures of my monitors to actually show you because "It's not the same".

I have provided all of the evidence and you have shown me nothing but statements saying "It's not the same".
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 March 2013, 00:55:44 by Kuroneko »

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #30 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 00:56:58 »


Even if I pulled out my 16:9 monitor, the screen shots will be the same. It is the same. Physical size isn't even a factor here, it's the pixels.



You are 100% wrong. Physical size is a factor because a larger monitor will have more pixels, especially a NATIVE 16:10 30" monitor vs a NATIVE 16:9 27" monitor. What about these clear facts do you not get? How on earth can you think a 27" monitor has more pixels and picture area than a 30" monitor? It doesn't. Your argument here is invalid.

By media, I was referring to movies/tv shows. That's why I said also said games on the side.


You must be blind. It is a bigger picture, yes, by size of pixels 2560x1600 is about 4 megapixels and 1920x1080 is about 2 megapixels. Sure, that is simple math.

But if you actually looked at the edges of the screen, there is MORE view on the left and right sides. Look at the interfaces of Dota 2 and Starcraft 2. The UI is shorter in the 16:10 screen shot, as well as the field of view of the actual game. YOU SEE LESS in 16:10 than you do in 16:9 and if I were to get an actual 16:9 monitor out the screen shot would be exactly the same.

What's your resolution? 1920x1200? 1650x1050?

I can post a screenshot of any of those resolutions and you can blow it up to full size and it will fill your entire screen.


You must be ignorant by not actually reading the information provided to you in my previous posts. Here, let me post this again for you, maybe you were blind and missed it:
http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2012/10/22/16-10-vs-16-9-the-monitor-aspect-ratio/

I already said "I can see from your screenshots, especially in Far Cry, where the mini map is squished. So it compensates for this by squishing the image down, because 16:9 is not native to your monitor. Do you see more edge on 16:9? Slightly. Is it more overall picture than 16:10? No." LOOK again at each screenshot. Your images are squished vertically to compensate from NOT being native.

My resolution is 2560x1600 on my Dell 3700WFP. Clearly you aren't grasping the simple concept native resolution. You aren't getting more pixels by moving to 16:9 ratio. Do you want to argue with that logic? Because it's a fact. And if you were taking screenshots from an actual 27" monitor, then you absolutely aren't getting larger overall screen real estate.

Keep it civil, don't resort to insulting if you want to have a healthy debate.


Offline SmallFry

  • ** Moderator Emeritus
  • Posts: 3887
  • Location: Wisconsin, USA
  • Leaving 6/15; returning 6/22 or so.
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #31 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:01:13 »
Erm, tone it down man. He may be wrong (I honestly have no clue, I'm using a 15" and a 17" that I got for free and have no clue what the aspect ratio/pixel density etc is) but that sounded very abrasive for a healthy debate.

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #32 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:03:35 »
What a joke. The vertical view is not even squished in any of the screen shots. You are blind and ignorant.
As far as larger monitor having more pixels..

Tell me why there are 22 inch monitors, 23 inch monitors and 24 inch monitors and even 27 inch monitors that have native resolutions of 1920x1080?

Not to mention 32 inch, 40 inch, 46 inch, 60 inch tvs that have native resolutions of 1920x1080...

They house the same pixels, it's just the 22 inch monitors have higher PPI (pixels per inch).

Quote
You are 100% wrong. Physical size is a factor because a larger monitor will have more pixels, especially a NATIVE 16:10 30" monitor vs a NATIVE 16:9 27" monitor. What about these clear facts do you not get? How on earth can you think a 27" monitor has more pixels and picture area than a 30" monitor? It doesn't. Your argument here is invalid.

1. Physical size is only a factor if the larger monitor has the higher native resolution. I get that fact. I don't understand where you are getting that I don't get that fact.

2. Pixels can actually get phsyically bigger and phsyically smaller too. Why do you think we have TVs that are 1920x1080? There aren't more pixels, the pixels are just bigger.
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:10:37 by Kuroneko »

Offline SmallFry

  • ** Moderator Emeritus
  • Posts: 3887
  • Location: Wisconsin, USA
  • Leaving 6/15; returning 6/22 or so.
Re: Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #33 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:06:45 »
What a joke. The vertical view is not even squished in any of the screen shots. You are blind and ignorant.
As far as larger monitor having more pixels..

Tell me why there are 22 inch monitors, 23 inch monitors and 24 inch monitors and even 27 inch monitors that have native resolutions of 1920x1080?

They house the same pixels, it's just the 22 inch monitors have higher PPI (pixels per inch).

Can't we just get along? -_-

Offline Jocelyn

  • Posts: 1608
  • Location: Orlando, FL
  • 조셀린
Re: Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #34 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:08:00 »
Tell me why there are 22 inch monitors, 23 inch monitors and 24 inch monitors and even 27 inch monitors that have native resolutions of 1920x1080?

Because 16:9 panels are a lot cheaper to produce and manufacturers have duped consumers into thinking 16:9 > 16:10 ;)

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #35 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:09:25 »
What a joke. The vertical view is not even squished in any of the screen shots. You are blind and ignorant. I am done.

As far as larger monitor having more pixels..

Tell me why there are 22 inch monitors, 23 inch monitors and 24 inch monitors and even 27 inch monitors that have native resolutions of 1920x1080?

The joke here is your inability to want to actually learn, and instead assume you are correct without researching the facts. This should settle it for you:

This is what actual pixels from your 16:9 look like on my monitor, in Photoshop:


This is what 16:10 actual pixels looks like on my monitor, in Photoshop:


16:10 Native = not squished circle


16:9 = squished circle


Quote
What a joke. The vertical view is not even squished in any of the screen shots. You are blind and ignorant. I am done.

As far as larger monitor having more pixels..

Tell me why there are 22 inch monitors, 23 inch monitors and 24 inch monitors and even 27 inch monitors that have native resolutions of 1920x1080?

Did you read the part where I stated "Physical size is a factor because a larger monitor will have more pixels, especially a NATIVE 16:10 30" monitor vs a NATIVE 16:9 27" monitor"? Guess you missed that part.

Offline SmallFry

  • ** Moderator Emeritus
  • Posts: 3887
  • Location: Wisconsin, USA
  • Leaving 6/15; returning 6/22 or so.
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #36 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:11:05 »
* SmallFry le sigh.
Guess not.

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #37 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:12:11 »
By your logic, a 55 inch 1080p TV will have more pixels than a 30 inch 2560x1600 monitor. Right..

The suqished circle isn't even the factor here. I will repost my screen shots on this page with descriptions.

Call of Duty Black Ops 2

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. But look at the patterned wall on the left side and the orange glass visor on the right side in the 16:9 shot. They are cut off of the view in the 16:10 shot.


Far Cry 3

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. In the 16:9 screen shot, you can see more of the mountain and the plant on the left side, which is simply cut off on in the 16:10 shot.


Dota 2
1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600: 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. The UI elements are shrunken down. You can only see half of the shopkeeper in the left side of the 16:10 shot but he is fully visible in the 16:9 shot.

Borderlands 2

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format.  Gun and rocks on the left side are cut off in the 16:10. Visible in 16:9.

Dead Space 3

1920x1080  16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. List on the left is cut off in the 16:10 shot. Visible in the 16:9 shot. Also refer to the train thing on the right. Cut off in 16:10.

Starcraft 2

1920x1080 16:9


2560x1600 16:10


The vertical view is exactly the same despite having more vertical pixels in a 16:10 format. UI elements shrunken. Distance between gas geyser all the way to the edge of the screen is longer in the 16:9 shot.
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:16:07 by Kuroneko »

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #38 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:15:38 »
By your logic, a 55 inch 1080p TV will have more pixels than a 30 inch 2560x1600 monitor. Right..

The suqished circle isn't even the factor here. I will repost my screen shots on this page with descriptions.

I am comparing similar sized monitors. A monitor with a native resolution of 2560x1440 (27") absolutely has less pixels and screen size than a monitor with a native resolution of 2560x1600 (30").

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #39 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:19:17 »
By your logic, a 55 inch 1080p TV will have more pixels than a 30 inch 2560x1600 monitor. Right..

The suqished circle isn't even the factor here. I will repost my screen shots on this page with descriptions.

I am comparing similar sized monitors. A monitor with a native resolution of 2560x1440 (27") absolutely has less pixels and screen size than a monitor with a native resolution of 2560x1600 (30").


Captain obvious here.

You can scale those 1920x1080 shots to 2560x1440
or the 2560x1600 to 1920x1200 won't make a difference.

Sure there are more pixels but if you are trying to tell me you see more in a 16:9 than you do in a 16:10 ratio then you are an idiot. The view in photoshop is irrelevant. I get it, the 2560x1600 is 4 megapixels. It's bigger, but you still see less. None of these images are distorted vertically. I don't see why you are saying they are "squished" to compensate. They aren't squished. they are scaled up.

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #40 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:26:08 »
I was going to write a lengthy explanation, but honestly, you aren't worth the time. I think I would have a better time speaking to a wall.

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #41 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:32:20 »
Probably because you don't have a good explanation.

Is 2560x1440 smaller than 2560x1600? Yes

Is 2560x1600 bigger than 2560x1440? Yes

Do you get to see more in a 16:10 monitor than you would in a 16:9 monitor? Yes, you can see more in photoshop, word, PDFs, ect. But not media that has a 16:9 locked ratio.

Games and media are made with 16:9 in mind.

Screen shot of Dark Knight Rises. It's a 1080p rip, so when you try to expand the image using a bigger amound of pixels..let's say 1200 for 1920x1200.



It actually comes out to be 2133 pixels horizontally but that's the bottleneck, the monitor is only 1920x1080 so those extra 213 pixels get cut off. It's the same thing that is happening in these screen shots.

But thanks though, your arguments have been hilarious and I've shot down every single one of them with evidence.
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:37:40 by Kuroneko »

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #42 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:38:19 »
But thanks though, your arguments have been hilarious and I've shot down every single one of them with evidence.

Actually, your failure to look at clear evidence I provided proves your ignorance, kid. What are you anyways, 12?

Offline Kuroneko

  • Posts: 50
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #43 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:39:05 »
That's irrelevant but, i'm 23, thanks.

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #44 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 01:40:12 »
That's irrelevant but, i'm 23, thanks.

Cool story.

Offline RougeR

  • Posts: 224
  • Location: Channel islands, Jersey (sorta UK)
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #45 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 10:23:55 »
cool story bro... 16:10 gives you more vertical pixels in no way does it give you less assuming native res. POV might play a factor sometimes.
-this coming from someone who has the following at home: 16:9, 4:3, 16:10, 5:4...i could test it all if i could be bothered...

so much varies on how the game is setup and handles it 16:10>16:9
especially if you set it up right
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 March 2013, 10:27:08 by RougeR »
Buckling spring warrior!

Offline Michael

  • Formerly Bro Caps
  • * Maker
  • Posts: 4625
  • #BROGANG
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #46 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 10:52:16 »
cool story bro... 16:10 gives you more vertical pixels in no way does it give you less assuming native res. POV might play a factor sometimes.
-this coming from someone who has the following at home: 16:9, 4:3, 16:10, 5:4...i could test it all if i could be bothered...

so much varies on how the game is setup and handles it 16:10>16:9
especially if you set it up right

I tried to explain it to him, but he just doesn't want to accept that. Thanks for clearing it up

Offline IvanIvanovich

  • Mr. Silk Underwear
  • Posts: 8199
  • Location: USA
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #47 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 11:28:23 »
The thing is most game have a fixed FOV which has no in game adjustment options, so even if you have the closest possible resolution in 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10, 21:9 the FOV dosen't change to compensate so you get scaling or cut off. Now if you go in the .cfg and manually correct that, you do see more in each step up whether it be more vertical, or more horizontal.

Personally I prefer to have more horizontal for gaming, as enemies are more likely to be in right left periphery than above or below so extra vertical has little advantage in most games unless it is a vertical scroller or something.
« Last Edit: Wed, 06 March 2013, 11:30:53 by IvanIvanovich »

Offline RougeR

  • Posts: 224
  • Location: Channel islands, Jersey (sorta UK)
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #48 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 17:46:54 »
cool story bro... 16:10 gives you more vertical pixels in no way does it give you less assuming native res. POV might play a factor sometimes.
-this coming from someone who has the following at home: 16:9, 4:3, 16:10, 5:4...i could test it all if i could be bothered...

so much varies on how the game is setup and handles it 16:10>16:9
especially if you set it up right

I tried to explain it to him, but he just doesn't want to accept that. Thanks for clearing it up

The thing is most game have a fixed FOV which has no in game adjustment options, so even if you have the closest possible resolution in 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10, 21:9 the FOV dosen't change to compensate so you get scaling or cut off. Now if you go in the .cfg and manually correct that, you do see more in each step up whether it be more vertical, or more horizontal.

Personally I prefer to have more horizontal for gaming, as enemies are more likely to be in right left periphery than above or below so extra vertical has little advantage in most games unless it is a vertical scroller or something.

i do understand where he is misinterpreting it, its just because games dont always alter FOV, but if setup right 1920x1200 (or any 16:10 res) will give you more viewing space, if not then the pixel will just add to the detail (higher PPI) and may cut off a tiny bit
Buckling spring warrior!

Offline pby

  • Posts: 27
Re: Good Gaming monitor ?
« Reply #49 on: Wed, 06 March 2013, 18:39:27 »
cool story bro... 16:10 gives you more vertical pixels in no way does it give you less assuming native res. POV might play a factor sometimes.
-this coming from someone who has the following at home: 16:9, 4:3, 16:10, 5:4...i could test it all if i could be bothered...

so much varies on how the game is setup and handles it 16:10>16:9
especially if you set it up right

I tried to explain it to him, but he just doesn't want to accept that. Thanks for clearing it up

The thing is most game have a fixed FOV which has no in game adjustment options, so even if you have the closest possible resolution in 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10, 21:9 the FOV dosen't change to compensate so you get scaling or cut off. Now if you go in the .cfg and manually correct that, you do see more in each step up whether it be more vertical, or more horizontal.

Personally I prefer to have more horizontal for gaming, as enemies are more likely to be in right left periphery than above or below so extra vertical has little advantage in most games unless it is a vertical scroller or something.

i do understand where he is misinterpreting it, its just because games dont always alter FOV, but if setup right 1920x1200 (or any 16:10 res) will give you more viewing space, if not then the pixel will just add to the detail (higher PPI) and may cut off a tiny bit
It depends on the scaling the game uses. Hor+ scaling is the most common where the vertical FOV is fixed. This is also why 16:10 can become cropped because of the fixed FOV height when compared to 16:9. Of course there are some games that use pixel scaling which means you do get to see more vertically but they are extremely uncommon in games these days otherwise everyone would be rocking 2560x1600 screens.

Widescreen gaming forum has a pretty comprehensive list on scaling used by games.

PS. I don't know why some of you guys are arguing about screen size. The game's FOV is independent to the physical dimension of the monitor.