|
LCD monitor 4:3 vs wide screen
|
View this Thread in Original format
| stren |
I'm not sure what to get, i was thinking 4:3 19', cause its more convenient for games. How is widescreen with games ?
i got about 480 $ to spend |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by stren
I'm not sure what to get, i was thinking 4:3 19', cause its more convenient for games. How is widescreen with games ?
i got about 480 $ to spend |
4:3 would be ideal for games for scaling reasons, but 16:9 and 16:10 are more common (16:9 being the most common). Widescreen is not the best for games, due to scaling reasons and some don't display resolutions that are not it's native resolution....very well. Many games aren't made for widescreen, and even the newer ones that offer the resolutions offered in widescreen don't scale right (i.e. you can't see the whole screen, part of it is cut off. In FPS it's usually part of the gun/character's arm). |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| I would get the widescreen, $480 will get you a huge one. Another option would be dual 19" 4:3s. It wouldn't really help much for games but I have it at work and its great for everything else. |
|
|
| TigerClaw |
| Go with Widescreen, Many of the latest PC games right now support widescreen resolutions. |
|
|
| factory81 |
No one has mentioned this but PC widescreen is actually 16:10 resolution in comparison to a T.V.'s 16:9 resolution.
Now the debate is yours as to weather you like 4:3 or 16:10 in this case.
Your 1600x1200 is now 1680x1050...how do you like 80 more pixels going left to right if you will on your monitor, and 150 less going up and down. Thus making it "wide".
It is easier to cascade windows vertically with a widescreen monitor, and you could fit ableton/reason for instance all on one screen.
If I was you I would spend $480 on (2) 22" monitors for $199 a piece.
Most everything supports 16:10 resolution for computers, but here is a drawback of purchasing anything larger then a 22" (that runs 1920x1080 that is or larger). If you play video games you tend to play in your native resolution. My 22" monitor has a native resolution of 1680x1050. Games look best at this resolution. My 8800GTS only plays the latest games (maxed visual settings) at 1680x1050 and struggles in a game or two even with that. If I was to run 1920x1080 as my native resolution (or have a 24" monitor or bigger), then I would be forced to turn down the eye candy in able to support the larger resolutions.
It is something to consider. |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TigerClaw
Go with Widescreen, Many of the latest PC games right now support widescreen resolutions. |
They support it, but I wouldn't say they support it properly. There's still part of the screen cut off. Bioshock has this problem, UT 3 has this problem..I don't think Crysis does though. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by factory81
If I was you I would spend $480 on (2) 22" monitors for $199 a piece.
|
i'd probably go this route too |
|
|
| stren |
i'm sure I don't want 2 monitors, don't have that much space on my desk.
What about playing older games on wide screen ? does it stretch everything to wide screen ? or does it cut it off not displaying the sides ? |
|
|
| mattW |
I suggest a 24" widescreen. I hope you have a good videocard...
:) |
|
|
| stren |
| i decided on a samsung's 22' widescreen. 24 is a bit too expensive. I don't have a good video card but i will in a few months |
|
|
| _Nut_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by stren
i decided on a samsung's 22' widescreen. 24 is a bit too expensive. I don't have a good video card but i will in a few months |
Is it the SyncMaster 226BW? I am using 2 of those at work and one at home. It is an amazing monitor |
|
|
| Lira |
This thing about dual monitors is very interesting to me...
I want to get an extra monitor for this computer, but I don't know how expensive that would be =/
(I'm already using a SyncMaster 750s) |
|
|
|
|
