Displays 1920x1200 Monitor - Worth the cost for gaming?

Hi all.

Having just got a new GTX 680 I thought the next thing I might do is upgrade my monitor. However, I was wondering is it really worth forking out almost £400 for a 1920x1200 Dell U2410?

I'm keen to get a 24" display but there seem to be so many cheaper options at 1920x1080. Its going to be mostly used for gaming but I may watch the odd movie on there. I'm not going to be doing photo editing or anything fancy like that!

Would be interested to know your thoughts and any recommendations?

Thanks in advance.

 

U2412M is 1920x1200 and only £230.

Best of both worlds.

£230 @ Amazon

In the custom PC elite as well.

 

For gaming you'll really not miss the extra vertical space if you want to save some cash, but we're geeks, we always want more pixels than we have

 

Also you may consider one of the Korean 27" ips 2560x1440 like an Achieva Shimian. They are actually cheaper than many 24". I just got one, but still waiting for it to be delivered.

 

You bought a 680 and you are UPGRADING to a 1920x1200 screen? You've put your money in the wrong place. The cash you spent on the card would have got you a 1920x1200 monitor. You don't need a 680 at such a low res, and you certainly didn't need one if your current screen is even lower res than that.

It never fails to both amuse me, and fill me with despair the way people always put the monitor last on the list of priorities.

 

^^^ This^^^ got that monitor myself. Very nice and good value for money.

But as Pookey implies you should be looking at least a 27" screen, like the Dell u2711, to get that card to run at any where near its full potential.

£516 on Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003A4H1...de=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B003A4H17S

 

I have recently discovered that the most important factor for me is not physical size but resolution - I find that my 20" 1600x1200 feels VERY similar to my 24" 1920x1200 despite being physically smaller, and it's a PVA screen so the panel quality is very high. In short, it ticks all the boxes for me.

To answer your question, I would say that it's not worth paying extra for the additional pixels (eg 1200 vs 1080) however it most certainly is worth paying extra for the panel quality of a higher res screen. If 1080p doesn't bother you, get a Dell U2312HM; if you would rather 1920x1200, get a U2412M as per Crapbag's suggestion.

@ Pookey is your 2007FP PVA or IPS? As far as I know they started with one and then changed to the other.

 

Mine is IPS... it suffers quite badly from backlight bleed... not black glow (that's endemic in IPS panels) but actual backlight bleed... it's all patchy. I think it's probably just mine. It was well used, but only cost me £20, and as it's sole purpose in life is displaying Photoshop toolbars and the odd website while playing MMORPGs, it suits me fine. I'm tempted to get another while 1600x1200 are still plentiful used, as the patchiness bugs me. In fact, two would be nice.. one on each side.

 

Wow you call 1920x1200 a low res geez.

1280x800 on my laptop thats low res , netbook does 800x600 your spoilt, please observe the humour

 

Sorry, that sounded elitist... I didn't mean that. I mean it's low res for that GPU. It's overkill.

 

I have triple Dell Ultrasharp WFP 2408 monitors, each with 1920 X 1200 resolution, and I absolutely love them. Got my first in 2008 for almost $700. It's still running strong despite daily use for more than FIVE years!

I believe that the extra screen size with 1920 X 1200 over 1920 X 1080 is well worth it.

 

Agreed. Don't like to feel like I'm looking through a letter box.

 

I'm alreaady gaming at 1920 X 1080 on my 40" Sony TV! I just want to move everything into another room and was wondering if 1200 is worth paying for.

I also got the 680 for £330 of ebay which I think is a pretty good bargin!

Thanks for your help anyway.

 

Mine is an early one, manufactured 2006 and Rev A00. I've always assumed it was PVA but I was wrong... it's S-IPS. It always looked very different to my U3011 but I guess that's because it was never calibrated, nor could it be. The panel itself is amazing - no backlight bleed or problems with uniformity, and it's far too small for black glow to be a problem.

 

Get 3x 22 " monitor ?

 

Which ones?

 

I Just picked up a Shimian Achieva 27 inch 2560 x 1440 for £190 off ebay. if you don't need loads of inputs I would highly recommend it. Really nice IPS screen, but cheap bezel, and no OSD.

I went for the Glass screen version which is quite reflective, but does look awesome...

BF3 looks the nuts!

 

yeah but is it worth it when you get stung for custom tax and VAT ?

 

Not sure why you guys are saying he needs a bigger screen for a 680... I am on a dell u2711 and one 670 wasn't enough for bf3. Ok I could get good fps with the game set to medium but I wanted high/ultra etc.

 

Love my U2412M, its a beautiful monitor for that price. I bought mine release week for pretty much full price and never regretted it.

Still get that little buzz of pleasure everyday from using it.

Whatever you do, go 16:10. For me, 16:9 is the most pointless and soul destroying ratio ever. Too narrow for films and too wide for anything else.

Also, remember that the area of a rectangle is greater the squarer it is (for a given diagonal dimension). What I mean by this is that a 24" monitor in 16:10 has a noticeably bigger screen area than a 24" 16:9.