I see more and more monitors coming out with the 1080 pixels on the vertical...is it a safer investments, say, if you want to invest in an eyefinity setup in the longrun? What would you go for?
1920x1080 (16:9) resolutions is to have the 1080p thing going on, as apparently it's good for movies (I still see black lines at the top and bottom.. because they are no aspect ratio standard for movies... some film are even filmed as 21:9 aspect ratio. It's good for TV's, as if you watch digital TV, then it's broadcast in 1080p. So in other words, this doesn't provide you with anything, and 1920x1200 is prices similarly. So, by going 1920x1080 it hurts you more (less pixels for your money, less work area for your desktop, and you still have black lines when watching movies...) Also, 1920x1200 is associated with higher-end level monitors. You will notice that most monitors using that resolution have a matte screen film, brighter, non-glossy monitor frame and usually have a adjustable stand, just to make your setup more ergonomic, and so that you can focus on our stuff, instead of yourself or the light source behind you or the window due to the high gloss.
I think in the past the x1200 have been TN panels (the crappy technology that looks washed out at angles etc.) and the x1080 have been IPS or other technologies. I don't know how accurate this heuristic is, or if it still holds true.
On reverse, yes.. but still not true. TN panels exists in both 1200 and 1080 flavor. IPS/PVA panels, as they are aimed for pro's they are most likely 1200.
1200, since ALL 24" IPS/VA panels use that format. That's not the true reason though, it's just that you get more pixels for the money.
I'd say the opposite! x1200 all the way. Why would anyone CHOOSE to have fewer pixels? I just don't see the point in them. Some of them aren't even cheaper than x1200 panels.
Why? You can watch films on a x1200 monitor just as well, and it's better for the computer as well. You can still use a Xbox in it. It will still all display at native res for full HD with no scaling. There's zero disadvantage to using a x1200 monitor, and nothing but advantages. With films, you still get black bars top and bottom with a x1080 screen because most films are in 2.43:1 anyway. Seriously, it's a cynical cost cutting exercise by the manufacturers. Since when has watching 1080p content been a concern for computer monitor buyers anyway? Even if it was, a x1200 monitor still works beautifully at native full HD res with no scaling, so quality is identical. The only difference is you get less desk top space and lower vertical res. Neither of which can be a good thing.
Don't see the point of going 1080 unless its a 22". the 1080p is only a marketing gimmik IMO. Since 24" are normally 1200 why would you want a smaller res? more pixals > screen size. Don't like the idea of 40" 1080p tv's either, Probally because my livingrooms too small for one =(
x1200 is much better for general PC work. x1080 panels are mainly around as panel manufacturers can use the same screens for TV's & monitors. They also get more screens from the same amount of glass.
Most of the higher end ones do, which now make up the majority of the x1200 res 24" monitors. But although most 24" TN monitors are now 1080p res, some of the cheaper 24" TNs like Samsungs don't have it, and having a look around they're one of the only manufacturers left even making 1920x1200 resolution TNs. I'm just playing Devil's advocate BTW, I would still go with the 1920x1200 myself
