Intel vs. AMD

sammorris,
I know what you are saying, but even up 2 equal quality monitors will look the same regardless of their size. The larger one will be more impressive, because it tends to jump out at you more, because you can see more. More of a good thing! The definition is easier to see, because there's more quality picture to see with larger, quality objects. More DPI! The detail increases because objects are larger, and you can see more. Add the quality your Dell has and you have a winner!

22s were always a small compromise as they stretch the boundaries a bit of the 1680x1050 resolution, just so the manufacturers could have 22s out there. Some of the earlier 20.1s looked horrible because they lacked the ability to run 1680x1050. It all boils down to the design quality. People wouldn't buy your Dell for that kind of $, if that weren't true! I know several doctors who have your 3007WFP, and it is a magnificent monitor. It's range of resolutions is better than any other LCD I've ever seen! That's why it costs the big bucks!

I'm hoping that some day we will have DLP monitors. Now that would really be something!

Clock On,
theone :>}

 

it's great, but truthfully, comparing a 22" 1680x1050 to a 24" 1920x1200, the picture looks not only better, but clearer too, perhaps you're right, it's in the build quality, if so all the more reasons to get an Ultrasharp!

 

I have decided on the Ultra Sharp. Should I go for it? It's at a good price brand new with a 3 year warranty

I've seen nothing but quality from every Dell product I've ever owned(aside from some of the prices) and I'm expecting that their LCDs reflect that. I've heard only good things about them so here's hoping...

 

Sorry >.< double post

 

Their LCDs are the best part of the company, surpassing their PC systems in my opinion. Go for it, you'll love it! I take it you're going with the 2407WFP?

 

Yes, I'm going for the 24" 2407WFP. It's perfect for me.... right in my price range and a considerable step up in size(both measurement and resolution.)

I understand screen quality vs actual screen resolution. I'm playing at 1280 x 1024 and can only hit anything higher with my old CRT. So it would be nice to be able to play without having to pump up the FSAA just to get a decent picture quality.

As to text. At lower resolutions I've never noticed any blurriness. Must be due to the actual quality of the Sceptre line. But, then again it just might be luck as most Sceptre products I've seen have gotten terrible reviews. Both on online retailers and actual review sites.

I love my X7g Naga but it did develop a stuck pixel within a week of ownership. A bright blue one on the bottom right. Not terrible but I definitely notice it when playing games and watching movies with dark colors. I've tried all sorts of programs to unstick/repair it but nothing works.

 

Like I say I've never had an Ultrasharp with a dead pixel, nor seen one with one, and I've seen a few Ultrasharps in my time.
With your graphics card you will LOVE 1920x1200, it makes things so much better!

 

The good news is that I will now at least have two LCDs so I don't have to lug around my crappy CRT. It's a good screen but I swear it weighs a hundred pounds >.>

And for the moment my AMD is getting the most use since I don't feel so wasteful using the Sceptre on it... maybe a little though.

I mostly just don't want to go through the hassle of reinstalling Steam on my Intel... such an annoying program >.<

 

Estuansis,

I know exactly what you mean. You could pop a nut picking up my Dell 19" at about 60 pounds! Why do I keep it? 0.26mm dot pitch and the ability to do 1600x1200! The screen looks better than any other 19" I've ever seen. I have a friend who has a brand new 19" NEC FE-992 which is 0.25mm dot pitch and they are absolutely equal at 1600x1200 side by side. At 1280x1024 the Dell blows it away! His is brand new and it cost him $239, the Dell will be 8 years old in August! Oh yeah, I paid $50 for it used 3 years ago! LOL!! Magnificent watching a DVD or playing Quake Arena! If it breaks, I'll pay the money to get it fixed!

Clock On,
theone :>}

 

BTW Odered my Dell 2407WFP I'm excited but... it's stange... I'm excited for a Dell. lol

I agree on the quality of CRT displays. If it works it works. No dead pixels, no stuck pixels, and much better picture quality on cheap CRTs vs cheap LCDs. I have now finally noticed some blurry text in MSN. But only if I really look close.

My CRT is a 20" Dell... kinda old, going on 5 years now and the picture quality is just beautiful.


I'm having high hopes for my new LCD though. Ive only ever heard good things about Dell monitors. They'd make a fortune if they marketed their LCDs more aggressively.

EDIT: Other than already being one of th biggest companies in the world...

Just noticed something weird. My 256MB X1800XT can play Doom 3 and Quake 4 at Ultra... aren't only 512 MB cards supposed to be able to do that?

 

My Viewsonic E92f+ failed rather spectacularly after 2 years and needed replacing, so CRTs aren't always absolutely reliable, but the ability for a 19" to do 2048x1536 was awesome. At 60hz though, only 1600x1200 or less was useful without giving you a headache so you could have 75Hz!

 

You kid me not... that 19" went that high?

I'm stunned 0.0

 

Yup, at 2048x1536 the text was just about legible, it was awesome!

 

I feel so horribly off topic... but theres no news from Intel or AMD... I wanna see AM3 performance charts!

But I feel comfortable with my (relatively) modest OC so I can rest assured that I at least fast enough for a few years. lol

Chances are that AM3 will be a close competitor to the Core 2 Duo and my overclocked processor will still remain hellishly fast... but what if AM3 is a new ground-breaker and I'm suddenly slow? Technology is always a gamble. A fun one at that.

@sam, I have to wonder. If I run my desktop res on the new one at 1920 x 1200 will I be able to read text? Does the huge size even out the huge resolution?

 

The pixel density of a 24" is only slightly greater than that of a 17" monitor I think (95 to 90) so you should have no trouble reading text.

 

Is it the same thing if you run your monitor at full res?

I'm figuring that the huge size evens out the smaller text by making the text and tool bars bigger due to overall screen size. But if you try running high resolutions on something like a CRT the toolbars and text are noticeably smaller because of the unlinked screen/resolution.

Am I right or is this just nonsensical babble?

 

Well yeah, it's simple size isn't it. Make text smaller and put it on a bigger screen and it becomes the same size again.

 

It's pretty clear-cut then... But do bigger monitors suffer in text clarity due to stretching or is it the other way around because of smaller pixel density on smaller screens?

 

Only if what you're looking at is stretched (i.e. not a widescreen res. Run things at 1920x1200 and it'll look awesome. 1600x1200 and you'll get some issues)

 

I see... so I'm safe to assume that overall picture quality will be better just due to the higher res itself?

On another note. I noticed that when you scale pictures down on a CRT they generally have better quality but on an LCD they seem to be worse quality due to the presence of actual pixels... hmm. Can't they just make bigger and thinner CRTs? lol

They would be more expensive but they would sell due to the infinitely higher picture quality