it's weak XD yeah I'd go 1280x or skip right to 1920 for flatscreens- no point in 1680 been like that for a couple years now.. was a good res for the old crts though 1600x1200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg 720p = 1280x720 WSXGA+ = 1650x1050 1080p = 1920x1080 WUXGA = 1920x1200 WSXGA+ screens are still definitely worth buying, I would still happily be using one if I hadn't found an awesome deal on my 26" Samsung...
the new 1920x1080 screens are pretty cheap now based on 23in screens. The 1680x1050 res really was a poor idea, but useable.
I don't understand, why was it a poor idea? Back when you could only buy monitors in the more preferable 16:10 aspect ratio, it was just a halfway house for 22" monitors between smaller 19/20" 1440*900 screens and the larger 24" 1920*1200 screens, and was therefore perfectly sensible. Only with the recent releases of 22/23" 1920*1080 monitors has the 1680*1050 resolution looked a less attractive proposition where pixel pitch and TV/movie media are concerned, and I would never feel comfortable compromising the extra vertical resolution of 16:9 monitors versus 16:10 ones, i.e. 1920*1200 (although you have to pay a little bit more for a 24" monitor for that, but is well worth it IMHO).
I have a 21" Samsung 1680x1050 monitor, to be honest I'm quite happy with it - I game at that resolution and watch TV/movies. Picked up the monitor in January for £115 and can't complain. The screen size is big enough for my desk and doesn't leave me wanting. It is also well driven by my GTX260.
100% agree, 16:10 for desktop computing and gaming is much more suitable than the vertically crippled 16:9 monitors. at least this makes sense for 24inch. for 23/22 inches, it may be worth it to get a 1080p full HD instead of 1680x1050. but that's only because of the support for full HD, if it wasn't for the consoles and the hype for HD, 1680x1050 is a perfectly good resolution.
1080p video looks just fine when scaled to 1680x1050, it's not a deal breaker IMO if you found a good price on a monitor with that res. 1920x1200 monitors have about 30% more pixels than the 1680x1050 ones, and for modern mid-range graphics cards, that's about the res limit that you can run modern games on 'high'.
For 20-22" displays I think 1680*1050 was anything but pointless. 1920*1440 is too fine a dot pitch for small displays imo, and these 23" 1080p jobs are a bit much too imo. Where's my heigh dammit?!
totally agree with that. Whats wrong with 1680x1050, it was common some years ago before every went crazy for the 1080p+ resolution. My 20.1 inch dell that i sit here with now uses it and has been doing so for 4 years now i do believe. Quit your bitching people, some of these new monitors spouting 1080p res's are shockingly turd as far as screen quality is concerned because they compromise quality to give a little bit more screen real estate along with that higher resolution. to answer the question on the thread... a decent resolution for widescreen displays! peace fatman
I just don't see the point in buying it new nowdays.. unless you had older hardware you were trying to match it to- they are so cheap at 1080p anymore I liked 1600x1200 on the crt's.. and 1024x720 for crysis (can game full up dx10) new 1600 monitor though xD sure
Had my old PC (now sold) running through a 20" Philips monitor at 1680x1050 for a good couple of years and it certainly served me well playing lots of BF2. As I'm looking to build again in the near future I'll probably still seek out a good 20-22" 1680x1050 monitor than one of the new 16:9 monitors.
