New Monitor opinion/advice

Make sure it has superior IPS panel. No color shifting at angles and picture looks much better. Also look for low input lag. If you want 24" ill go for Dell U2412M or HPZR24W and if you want 22" take Dell 2209WA. All of these monits had low input lag. Low response time advertised on cheaper monitors (TN panels) is fake and, in fact, modern IPS monitors are faster.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

I know the trend in monitors is towards 1920X1080. Why?

Because they want to only make TV panels, and if they can make monitors all be the same as cheap TVs, then they can make the monitors cheaper.

TVs want to be 1080 high to show films, which are usually even wider than that, so even on a 1920 * 1080 display films have black lines above and below.

It's all about aspect ratios, of which there are many:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

Thanks to all for the excellent comments/advice. I am getting educated.

My variation on the original question now is: What are the pros and cons of 1920X1080 versus 1980X1200. I know the trend in monitors is towards 1920X1080. Why? Again, I am primarily inteterested in flight simulations (COD, ROF, A10, and others), plus some First Person Shooters like the other COD (Call of Duty:MW series).

FYI, at this point in the discussion I am definitely turning towards a 24" monitor, TN rather than IPS because even the "economy IPS" monitors are at least twice the price of TN monitors, and I think I'd want the faster 2MS response time over the IPS 8MS response. I also note that the recommended IPS monitor (Dell U2412M) has dynamic ratio of 2,000,000:1 versus the TN monitor's 30,000,000:1 ratio....that must mean something, right?

Any further advice will be appreciated. Thanks again.

Like i said before (and yakaddict did so as well), if you do some reading up on how most of these specs are measured you'll see that they are not definitive, far from it.

The dynamic ratio is the ratio of full-blast white to pitch-dark black. It's supposed to be a measure of how good the monitor is at color variation but it's easy to manipulate to the manufacturer's favor due to the way the specs are defined: get a monitor with bad black colours, pump up it's white to the level it's burning holes in the customer's retinas and voila, according to specs your monitor has an incredible contrast ratio, but in reality it's a monitor that displays washed out black colours and annoyingly bright whites

Also, make sure you know if the response times are black to white or gray to gray (g2g). On the same monitor, a g2g response time is slower than the black to white one, guess which one most panels quote in their specifications, another marketing trick

However, a black to white response time is the least useful metric between the two. Imagine that the liquid crystals are shutters that manipulate how much light from the monitor's backlight lamp reaches the user and then think about the usual amount of colour variation you need a monitor to display during everyday use. It's not that often we get alternating frames of totally dark to totally bright colours, right? In fact, most of the time our monitors have to display variations between a middle range of colours and brightness values. In other words, g2g response time is what weighs more in how "fast" your monitor is during everyday use, unless you are running epilepsy-inducing screensavers

A 8ms gray to gray response time is nothing to scoff at, a 2ms black to white response time however while impressive on paper tells you nothing about how the monitor performs in everyday use.

Another thing against TN panels is that most (if not all of them, i just don't know if it has been improved in the meantime) are incapable of true 32-bit colour depth. They can only do 24-bit colour and to create the illusion of 32-bit colour they swap pixels between different colours to come up with the ones they are missing.

The main reason to go for a TN panel is cost and yet, some of the so-called "gaming monitors" with TN panels are almost as expensive as IPS ones. If you really want to go for a TN panel for cost reasons my suggestion would be to get one with no "fancy" features like 120Hz refresh rates to really play up their advantage of lower cost: if a TN panel is approaching IPS prices, either get the IPS or a cheaper TN one.

Finally, keep in mind that different manufacturers may use the same panels in many of their models and if you are willing to shop around you can find the same panel (aka same image quality) at cheaper prices, due to differences in ergonomics (stand, etc) and connectors/plugs supplied by each manufacturer.

For example, my Dell 2209WA uses an IPS panel made by LG. A couple of months after i bought it, LG released a model of their own using the exact same panel that was cheaper. How? Well, my Dell simply had a better stand and a bezel with an integrated USB hub, while the LG had a cheaper one.

In that sense you could try to find similar panels between Dell, LG and Hazro monitors and see what you are willing to give up to get a better price. One model might have more connectors or even a USB hub and be more expensive, the other one might lack a couple of input jacks and be cheaper, another one might be similar to the previous but have a 1 year warranty instead of a 3 year one, etc.

Take a look at the ones suggested by Tvrdi for a start. As long as input lag is low and g2g response time is 8ms or less you have nothing to fear in terms of ghosting.

[DoolittleRaider]

Again, thanks for the education Blackdog, and others.

Pressing forward/deeper, I'd like opinions in terms of Gaming...COD, ROF COD:MW, A10...What Aspect ratio (and native resolution) would be best for that set of software/games?

Generally I'm still not clear on advantages of 16:10 versus 16:9 monitors and aspect ratios, vis-a-vis Gaming.

I do watch *avi movies/TVepisodes, DVD ripped movies, on my PC Monitor. Would it matter in any way whether I had a 16:9 or a 16:10 native resolution Monitor?

Any clarification/advice will be appreciated.


P.S. I found these comments in a review of the Dell U2412M: "The Dell U2412M is not a true gaming monitor – no IPS panels offers that experience – but for most gaming, even semi-fast gaming, I see it as a fairly good solution. If you are a serious FPS or racing enthusiast I suggest you look for a 120 Hz TN panel instead" @Blackdog...this seems to run counter to your opinon. Any comments?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by DoolittleRaider

Generally I'm still not clear on advantages of 16:10 versus 16:9 monitors and aspect ratios, vis-a-vis Gaming.

I do watch *avi movies/TVepisodes, DVD ripped movies, on my PC Monitor. Would it matter in any way whether I had a 16:9 or a 16:10 native resolution Monitor?

Hm, I don't play those games. I do play a lot of games, but they tend to be older games than those.

I think the thing about monitors and games is, the smaller the resolution of the monitor, the easier it is for graphics cards to draw images on it.

If all you cared about was games, the smaller the resolution the better (within limits: 800 * 600 was better for weak graphics cards, but boy was it ugly, but even that was much better than 640 * 480). However, if you want to look at text, then the more depth you have, the better. On the other hand, if you want only to look at cinema movies, then the width is paramount, up to a certain point, for movies the extra depth of a 1920 * 1200 screen is wasted. For old TV shows, the aspect ratio was 4:3, and height becomes an advantage. You tube movies were often in 4(width):3(height), and probably looked bad full screen on any size screen, but then again I'm judging that on animated GIFs which are all I've seen.

In the end, you have to decide what matters to you.

[DoolittleRaider]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Link the comment's origin? If its a comments section on a review, could be wrong, but either way, I'm interested!

See under "Response Time and Games" near end/bottom of Review, and also 3rd paragraph of "Conclusion"

[Zaltor]

I have 3 of these in crossfired eyefinity at 5760x1080

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824005230

[Blackdog_kt]

With regards to the aspect ratio, flight simming was a factor in my decision to get my 22" IPS. It runs a somewhat lower resolution than most monitors (1680x1050) which makes it easier on the graphics card and it's 16:10.

That wasn't much of an advantage in IL2, but in flight sims with true widescreen mode like CoD it does give a bit of usable extra vertical space that i find useful: easier to check the sky above or keep tabs on the target in a banking turn during a dogfight.

[SFF_Karhu]

Hi.

Any opinion on this Hazro27 monitor( IPS, 6ms, low input lag and the PRICE!)

Can my GPU, amd radeon 6970, handle the resolution 2560x1440? Or must I buy a 6990 or nvidia gtx580?

Has anyone 27 monitor with resolution 2560x1440 and playing Clod smoothly?