Need a new Monitor

Discussion in 'Technology' started by bfun, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. This morning my monitor wouldn't light up so I think I need a new one. Looking for a 1920x1200. Right now the Dell U2412M $320 is at the top of my list. Any others I should look at? The HP ZR24w is supposed to have a better panel but the U2412M is LED and shouldn't fade over time. At least I think it wont.
  2. do you have a strong video card?? if so you need to get a 120hz one. makes games go at 12fps rather than 60fps... if you don't have a 200 dollar+ vid card I wouldn't bother. IMO 1900x1200 only helps in fps and isn't worth a $200 premium.
  3. How has your hunt been? It seems 1920x1200 monitors are few and far in between nowadays. Everything moved to 16:9
  4. You upgraded to Vista finally, I see.

    I'd buy 1920x1080 now and 2560x1440 whenever those are priced to move. 16:9 is the future.
  5. 16:9 can kiss my ass.

    I think I've seen 3 IPS that are under $400. So really my choices are pretty limited. 16:10 TN panels are about the same price as the low end IPS. I might consider a TN panel but I'd want to see it first. There are some really good ones out there and some really bad ones.
  6. What the hell you talkin bout? You drunk again?
  7. gaming 101: a vsynced game (most of them if you don't want screen tearing...) can only render as fast as your monitor can sync, 60hz up until now. So that means with vsync on you won't get more than 60fps, that's why we turn vsync off to benchmark.

    Modern (3D) monitors can sync at 120hz instead! Forget the 3D, just having the extra smoothness of a scene rendered at 100fps+ (without screen tearing) is indeed a thing of beauty!

    No I'm not drunk, 120fps make a HUGE difference in 2d, but it also makes a difference in 3D too. It can't quite make you better in fps' like a 16:10 resolution, but your eyes will thank you for it... and not just in fps'...
  8. Ah. You wrote 12fps. 120 makes more sence.
  9. I just checked this today and it makes me sad that there are actually people still using 1024x768.
  10. mmm yeah, 12 it's the new 120...if your SO very insistant on 16:10 I'd consider stepping down to 19". I think a 16:10 resolution there may not dictate a 100%+ price gouge. That is, just if you care about money...
  11. Yeah your right. The 16:10 monitors suck on the price. I'm even considering a TN monitor.

    What about this 25" one?

    For a 24 inch this seems pretty good.
  12. I'd never go larger than 24" if all you can get is 1920x1080. Anything larger I'd just get a TV. OFC that fits my lifestyle better as I don't give a shit about the best quality and I don't generally have a lot of space, I also enjoy having a ton of connections :).

    If you however, have very sensitive eyes and things like screen tearing and ghosting are evident to you than I'd take a look at this amazing deal!
  13. Unfortunately there are only a few 24 monitors that do 120 and there is a 50% premium for them. It's not such a big deal anyways. Even with a high end card most new games wont go over 60fps at 1080p unless the PC is using SLi or Crossfire. I've never seen the 2D improvements but I can't imagine it matters much.
  14. All cheap ASUS monitors I've seen have been horrible. Got a 23" one for work and it took a hell of a lot of calibrating to get it looking anywhere near acceptable.

    I'm with you on the 16:10 thing, for productivity and general use anyway. 16:9 has me turning my head as i move from one side of the screen to the other in what I'm doing. If I move the monitor back it's nowhere near as big height wise as I'd like. I think I'll be going with a 27" Dell in the future though, just for the higher res and IPS panel.
  15. I've got an 1080p ASUS on my desktop right now. It's okay. It has all the typical TN issues. I've been trying to game in the 1080p resolution and I'm totally surprised with how much it has thrown me off coming from a 1200. I have to keep adjusting my mouse.

    I have to admit that the field of view does seem wider in games on the 1080p. That didn't make sense to me at first because 1920 is 1920 so it must be the way the game developers are designing the games.
  16. Flash games and TV/ Video watching obviously benefit's the most. Such things as Aero will benefit also, not nearly of to the same affect, but MUCH the same Effect as an SSD, things load more smoothly. (what I mean is not nearly as much... but it will look smoother if not shave a second or two... it is refreshing twice as fast :)). Since I watch TV on my PC (every Baseball season!!) it's a no brainer for me!
  17. I thought that too, but it's not the case. Developers use horizontal FOV usually, so you will never see more on the vertical aspect as it is locked.

    Here, take a look for yourself,



    Notice how the vertical FOV is exactly the same, but the aspect determines how much you see for the width? So with 16:9, you see the same amount on vertical and more on horizontal. This is partially why I'm giving in and planning on getting a 16:9 monitor, albeit with a higher resolution.
  18. That's exactly why I'm reconsidering the 16:9 as well. These days my PC is only used 30% for gaming but it might still be worth it. A higher resolution would be great for the desktop but it might be too much for my GPU for gaming.
  19. I narrowed it down to the 16:9 25" TN panel HP 2511x and the 16:10 24" IPS panel Dell U2412M. I never got to see the 2511x but I did see a 2311x in Best Buy and I thought it was the best monitor in the store. Ultimately though I decided to order the U2414M because of its IPS panel and hight adjustable stand. The 1920x1200 resolution will continue to live on.
  20. are you a sloucher? if you are, read the reviews that talk about viewing angles. I hate my TN panel's viewing angle. it's the devil.