TR Forums

So I really need a new monitor and ive been doing some researching. The thing thats been bothering me recently was why everybody seems to have/like 22" monitors. Everywhere around this forum people are recommending 22" or say they have a 22".

The thing is, a 22" monitor offers a resolution of 1650x1050 (at least all the ones ive looked at?) which is the same as the 20" moniotor. For me, this clearly means the 20" monitor will have a sharper picture, which is priceless in gaming. We run into the same issue with 17" and 19" monitors, I would chose a 17" any day over a 19" if we are looking at the same resolution, because when you can compare them you can clearly tell the 19" looks streched out.

So I dunno why people even buy 22" monitors. For me, its either a 20" 1650x1050, or up to a 24" for 1900x1200.

Speaking of which, any good deals on a 20" monitor out there?

Kulith wrote:

Everywhere around this forum people are recommending 22" or say they have a 22".

The thing is, a 22" monitor offers a resolution of 1650x1050 (at least all the ones ive looked at?) which is the same as the 20" moniotor. For me, this clearly means the 20" monitor will have a sharper picture, which is priceless in gaming. We run into the same issue with 17" and 19" monitors, I would chose a 17" any day over a 19" if we are looking at the same resolution, because when you can compare them you can clearly tell the 19" looks streched out.

So I dunno why people even buy 22" monitors. For me, its either a 20" 1650x1050, or up to a 24" for 1900x1200.

Speaking of which, any good deals on a 20" monitor out there?

Not me, but that is not because of the "sharper" image. Actually I find the smaller pixel size just about acceptible. The 22" may be just about right. My main objection to those 22" monitors are that alll of them are crappy TN panels.

As for deals, how about the Dell 2007WFP?

Given panels of equal quality, the smaller one isn't "sharper" it just has a higher DPI. If you sit a few inches further away, the larger one has the same apparent density (same number of pixels in the same area of your visual field). For visual quality, as Fox suggests, the type/quality of the panel is far more important.

Personally, I want nothing to do with those screens -- and not just because they're TN panels. I'm not interested in reducing my vertical resolution, and I have 1200 right now. And I don't know why you'd want to get 30 pixels less than 1080, either.

Simply because the larger ones are comfortable to use at a greater distance.

How about the 1920x1200 Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP-HC for $669? Image quality on this monitor is very good.

Here's a really cheap 1680x1050 monitor at Staples for just $150AR:
http://www.slickdeals.net/?permadeal=10 ... deal_10798
Staples is better than most places in honoring their mail-in rebates.
You would need a DVI to HDMI cable. This one for $15 should be okay.

UberGerbil wrote:

And I don't know why you'd want to get 30 pixels less than 1080, either.

Lol. Maybe I just don't like the number 1080?

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Here's a really cheap 1680x1050 monitor at Staples for just $150AR:
http://www.slickdeals.net/?permadeal=10 ... deal_10798
Staples is better than most places in honoring their mail-in rebates.
You would need a DVI to HDMI cable. This one for $15 should be okay.

Thats not bad at all, I might go for it. I would still rather have a 20" ^^

The Xbit Labs Fall 2007 LCD Buyers Guide is a good read.

Kulith wrote:

So I dunno why people even buy 22" monitors. For me, its either a 20" 1650x1050, or up to a 24" for 1900x1200.

Speaking of which, any good deals on a 20" monitor out there?

Like was said above, 22" is a little more real estate and you can slide it further back on the desk. Also they can be had for under $180 which is a pretty nifty monitor for the money.

Now though, 24" 1920x1200 monitors are $350, and 37" 1920x1080 monitors are $650 so its really a moot point if you are wanting more resolution cheap that is the way to go.

Here at work I am running 19" crt's on 1280x1024, and I can move to 22" wide at 16xx x 10xx and still have real close to the exact same detail and vertical size except just add about 30% real estate to the sides, and thats a very nice upgrade for $180 or so (saying nothing of power savings and desktop space savings), and its unlikely that I am going to spend over $1000 for 3 of the 24" 1920x1200.

cass wrote:

Here at work I am running 19" crt's on 1280x1024...

Common resolutions with 4:3 aspect ratio: 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1600x1200, 2048x1536. If you feed a 1280x1024 signal to a 4:3 CRT monitor, everything will be squashed and look shorter than it should.

cass wrote:

Now though, 24" 1920x1200 monitors are $350, and 37" 1920x1080 monitors are $650 so its really a moot point if you are wanting more resolution cheap that is the way to go.

Those ultra-cheap screens are all TN panels, though. You get what you pay for which, in this case, is not enough.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

cass wrote:

Here at work I am running 19" crt's on 1280x1024...

Common resolutions with 4:3 aspect ratio: 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1600x1200, 2048x1536. If you feed a 1280x1024 signal to a 4:3 CRT monitor, everything will be squashed and look shorter than it should.

Yeah, but there were a lot of 5:4 17" and 19" CRT models built back in the day, for that goofy 1280x1024 resolution IBM introduced. I'm assuming cass has one of those.

They both dell 1226h's currently they are both set on 1024x768....

I use mine some on the 1280x1024 and yes, its squashed, but not that noticeable when reading text... drawing circles will drive you up a wall though.

That was a good catch, I never ever thought about it. 1024x768 is what I use mostly and when you try 1280x960 on these things it requires a lot of centering and scaling, which is why I use th 1280x1204... I can read several more lines and don't have to screw with the manual adjustments.

That is laziness at its best.. it would take 30 seconds and I have never bothered.

*edit Eh... I just tried it and Now it came back to me... the adjustment knobs are broken on these junkers and its a slow painful process.

crazybus wrote:

The Xbit Labs Fall 2007 LCD Buyers Guide is a good read.

That's a nice link. Never really looked at that site before, I will from now on they seem to have some good reviews on there of products I couldn't find on reviewed on CNET. Thanks.

I'm not expert on LCD monitors but I was looking at THIS as a secondary monitor for my other DVI output.

It seems to have all the features and specs of other 19 inch name brand monitors out there. 5ms response time. Decent contrast ratio. Good pixel pitch and viewing angles. Pretty standard peak resolution. Even DVI connection. Other than being a less than respected brand what would be the drawbacks of this versus the next lowest which is about 60 bucks more. I see very little that would justify the increase. Would this be another instance of getting what you pay for?

I know there are bad brands out there. the V& (Staples brand) have a horrible track record. Being cheap seems to translate over to the build quality. This one I've seen in person and while it lacks advanced features it seems to be a lower end standard set up. Performance seems adequate for a non primary monitor. That being said I can't find too many neutral reviews to give me an idea what I'd see for long term results.

Well, it's going to be a TN panel (the viewing angle and response time give that away, even if the price didn't, and I don't think there's anything but TN panels left in the smaller sizes anymore anyway). As a secondary screen, assuming you're not expecting to do heavy photoshop or other precise image processing tasks, it could be fine. But I know nothing about the brand; likely it's just a rebadging of the exact same screen found under other names -- and they could all be fine, or all suck.

The brand is a major concern. I can hardly find anything about it. It is only secondary so the risk is minimal. I would prefer not have it die or start having strange problems after a short time or anything though. If anyone has one or information about it that would be helpful. First hand accounts would be nice.

I highly doubt you could tell the difference between a 20" and 22" of the same brand, model family, and resolution, besides actual viewing space. I have a Chimei 22" LCD and it's amazing. Picture is crystal clear, and games look beautiful on it. Although it does need a good cleaning...