Intel vs. AMD

Most of the films I have are widescreen now, I'm at a disadvantage with 5:4 monitors (which 17" and 19" LCDs are, not 4:3 like 15" and 20") and games actually look better in widescreen, when you figure out how to get them working (it's usually not too hard)

 

Just bumming around and saw this baby

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001234

Not a bad unit if I do say.

The lowest price I found for the huge 2560 x 1600 displays like you have is $1200-$1300. Kinda not worth my money for a monitor that costs as much as a fairly high-spec PC.

Unless you or I can find me one for the <$900 range I either have to start saving or just take a step up to something like that Samsung there. Honestly, though, I don't have desk space for a 30" cinema display.

Edit: yes, you're right. 5:4. I was thinking TV aspect ratio.

Now I am starting to wonder about operational life. Is there a particular brand known for longevity or durability?

 

You were right on the DVDs, they'd be 4:3, but the monitor's 5:4
As for the samsung, it's quite nice, but having owned one of these, I can say they're excellent
http://cgi.ebay.com/DELL-ULTRASHARP...ryZ86706QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

I'm looking at it but then I see the resolution. Now I ask you. Is it that much improvement if I get a bigger monitor but stay at the same resolution? Mind you that's a very nice monitor.

 

1920x1200? Same as the Samsung you posted, and the same size.

 

No, the one on eBay says 1280 x 1024. Was the one you had 1920 x 1200?

I was looking through some old links and stuff. I found out before the old X2s were stopped for AM2 the 1MiB L2 models came with heatpipe coolers as opposed to heatsinks. But my 4400+(lucky to get it) came with the heatsink cooler. Can anyone confirm this and the fact I got a weird one?

 

sorry, off topic i know but...well...

@sam

what kind of fps range can you get with your 1900xt @ full res on your screen?

i cant imagine an 88gtx has enough power to push out enough pixles to fill that screen much more than 30 times a second, never mind an older tech card or do you drop the res when your playing games? more to the point i guess it depends on the game you play, most rts style games could be played at 15 fps nevermind 60+.

 

The one on ebay says 1920x1200, look closer.
Marsey: Depends what game, Doom 3 around 50, UT2004 around 80, Counter Strike between 60 and 200, Supreme commander about 30, FEAR around 25. This includes max detail and anti-aliasing if it's in the options.

 

Estuansis,

Why? I would never go back to a 4:3. Games, Movies and everything else are so much better on the widescreen. Nothing gets stretched except maybe a desktop screen, and there's ways around that (to a degree)! The biggest thing I don't understand is why they keep putting a crappy amp and crappy speakers in them. I don't even know if mine work! LOL!! I've never connected them! LOL!!! Lose the damn speakers and amp and save us some money!!

As far as games go, Quake Arena looks magnificent in widescreen, and if anything it's too fast! Most games I've seen all seem to have a widescreen setting.

Clock On,
theone :>}

 

All games except for those made by EA now support Widescreen. it's EA's policy explicitly not to provide widescreen support for games. Nobody really knows why that is, you have to use programs that edit the game code in order to do it, a bit dodgy. So if you're a Need for speed fan, best avoid widescreen, but for anything else, go for it!

 

Sam & Estuansis,
I would rather have this one!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824112009

Twice the contrast ratio at 2000 to 1, and 2ms for the same price. I've had mine for over a year now and still love it as much as I did when it was new. I don't know how they do it but even this forum page isn't stretched, it's just wider!

Clock On,
theone :>}

 

1680x1050? Bah, that's low res!

 

sammorris,

OK wise a$$! LOL!! We're not all rich like you! ROFL!!

Actually, I was just pointing out that the Sceptre has better specs and is faster for the same money as the 22" Samsung!

Clock On,
theone :>}

 

yeah but we were discussing the 24" monitor, that's why I commented such.

 

sammorris,

Besides, as the screen gets larger you have to go higher on the resolution to maintain the same pixel pitch (dot pitch on CRTs)! Far more important to picture quality than just resolution! That's why my old Dell 19" CRT is still around, it's .26 dot pitch makes the picture quality so good, it's worth keeping! My roomie loves it!

Clock On,
theone :>}

 

The dot pitch of a 22" 1680x1050 is far worse than both a 24" 1920x1200 or a 20" 1680x1050, so that would be the worst size to choose!

 

sammorris,

The most decerning eye could not tell the difference. Don't forget that we are talking diagonal measurement here so the difference between the 20.1 and the 22 would be maybe 1/2" all around in width and height. Technically the 22 would be slightly worse at 1680x1050. I doubt that anyone could readily see the difference, even side by side! At 1920x1200 on a 24 they would be about equal picture quality wise as it would need that resolution to fill the 24" screen at roughly the same pixel pitch. It would be larger but about the same in quality. That's why the native resolution is recommended, to maximize the picture quality, because it maximizes the effect of the pixel pitch, which is optimized for the native resolution. CRTs usually do a better job with different resolutions for that very reason. That and phosphor persistence which you don't get with the flat screen LCDs. That's why the older laptops like a Dell C810 make the screen smaller when you raise the resolution. It would look like crap at full screen if it didn't. Text and things like that would look horrible!

Clock On,
theone :>}

 

I like the Sceptre. In fact, it's one of the first I looked at. But it's just too low res for gaming with an 8800GTX. I'm looking at 1920 x 1200 or 1600 x 1200 at the very least.

I like the Dell but I'm not going to trust an eBay page with two different resolutions listed. It says 1280 x 1024 on top and 1920 x 1200 on the bottom

I'll take a look at the official Dell page.

EDIT:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4335

Look about right? I see now that it is indeed 1920 x 1200.

Price isn't a huge issue as I'm planning on using credit... but I need to watch it precisely because I don't have the cash on-hand.

I usually get all my newegg stuff paying fully right away or paying most of it and then finishing up the payments on the next payday. Just right now I haven't been a penny pincher lately so I only have about $300 or so. It's wicked hard to save up a lot when you earn minimum wage for 20 hours a week


sam,

I dunno why I waited for you to mention it before I started seriously looking at monitors. I want to buy soon so I'm glad I already have a credit line with Dell

The UltraSharps are some of the best made. So I know I'm grtting quality. And, honestly *looks at sam's monitor* isn't 2560 x 1600 a bit overkill for most games? Only one I can think of with good enough graphics to justify that size is Oblivion or BF 2142(borderline).

 

Estuansis,

Let me see if I can explain this properly! It's not the resolution, but rather the definition within the given resolution. To take the 1680x1050 of the 20.1" widescreen and duplicate the definition of it on a 24 inch screen, you have to increase the resolution to maintain approximately the same density. It's not like blowing up a photograph with an enlarger! There, the definition falls off the larger you go. With an LCD monitor, the opposite is true! That's why they recommend using the native resolution. as you lower the resolution of any LCD monitor, the visual quality goes down! In essence you have to fit the foot to the shoe, not the other way around. It's the only way you can maintain the quality of the definition! That's the reason that 17" widescreens are just as clean and crisp as a 20.1, a 22 or any larger size. It's not an enlargement but rather a larger version of the same definition.

The reason flatscreens look so bad at lower resolutions is because it's a fixed matrix you are seeing. X amount of pixels x X amount of pixels for a given screen size. That's why CRTs do more resolutions better than LCD flatscreens do. With any LCD monitor the native resolution does nothing more than fill the pre-defined size of the field. The detail remains pretty much the same as pre-defined by the pixel pitch of the given monitor, which has to work within the area defined by the screen size. On a CRT, the dots are fixed just like the LCDs, but the LCD doesn't scan in the traditional way that the CRT does. There is no Phosphor persistence to help smooth out the picture as in a CRT, which is what helps make the lower resolutions look better on a CRT than they do on a LCD! The CRT's still lack detail, but the lack of definition is not as harsh on the eyes as with an LCD!

Simply put, it's not the resolution that dictates picture size, it's the picture size that dictates the resolution needed for maximum picture quality at a given screen size. The larger the screen, the higher the resolution needed to maintain the same picture quality of a smaller one! That's why lower rez games have such crappy looking text on an LCD monitor! It can't smooth out the screen the same way a CRT can. There's no more picture quality with a 24" than a 17", the picture is just physically larger! It's just more of the same! The two things that most determine picture quality on an LCD monitor are the Pixel Pitch and the Contrast Ratio. The lower the pixel pitch and the higher the contrast ratio, the better the picture quality!

I'm sure you've noticed that the native resolution of all LCD Flatscreens is determined by the size of the screen. There are no 1680x1050 19" lCD monitors! Why? Because it's too large to fit the 19" screen! Again it's like the foot and the shoe! The whole thing is dictated by the design of the screen and what sort of matrix the designer uses. That's why most 20 to 22" widescreens are 1680x1050, most 17" and 19" are 1280x1024. You will find some different resolutions for 19" like 1440x900. I guess they display certain widescreen DVDs better. I don't know! This is because the design matrix is completely different. You used to see some 20" flatscreens with lower native resolutions, but if you checked the specs, they had a larger Pixel pitch because they had to spread the pixels out more so the picture quality was worse!

Anyway, I hope that explains it!

Best Regards,
Russ :>}

 

The Dell line of monitors are brilliant, I know of 6 or 7 around at my LAN party, and not a single one has a sole dead pixel. The image quality is superb.

Russ, trust me, I think the picture on 22" monitors looks rubbish compared to 24s for that reason, maybe it wouldn't to you, but for me it seems a big difference.
Also note that there are 1920x1200 17" laptop screens. They look AMAZING.

Estuansis: Overkill? Perhaps, but far from unnecessary. The vast resolution even makes games that look rubbish look good! I was amazed when I started running games I'd been using at 1280x1024 at 2560x1600. Even Worms Armageddon looks good!