More dumb questions I'm afraid. Can someone explain to me how some PC monitors can display 1920 x 1200? I thought the maximum was 1920 X 1080, or does that only apply to TV's? Does the extra make a difference to gameplay or any software? How about Blu-Ray films ( I only know Blu-Ray due to being a PS3 owner and thought the only other format to be HD DVD which is no longer used, although I'm not sure if there's any others) do they play at 1200 or only a maximum of 1080? The more I read the more questions I find, but thankfully you guys have been very helpful without being patronising, so I thank you for that
1920x1080 is 1080p, currently the highest commercially available resolution. PC Monitors go much higher, theres nothing limiting resolution except size and money. Movies will play at the ratio they originally would, or will stretch to fit the screen, your choice.
The difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 is just the aspect ratio, 16:9 is the ratio which your widescreen TV's have but 1920x1200 is a 16:10 widescreen aspect ratio, in other words all 16:10 is is a 16:9 monitor but taller, no Blu-Ray sources output at 1920x1200 because the standard is to use 16:9 instead of 16:10, 16:10 is used for monitors to provide extra height for stuff like word processing, with 16:10 it's easier to view 2 A4 pages side by side, etc. You don't get any benefit really on gaming, some say go for a 16:9 monitor for the extra width but then others say 16:10 is more supported in games but tbh when you get down to it, it really doesn't matter if you go for a 16:9 resolution or a 16:10 resolution. Also there will never be a max resolution only hardware limitations But currently the max for a PC monitor would be a 30" screen at 2560x1600 and the most for a TV is 1920x1080 currently. Hope I haven't sounded too confusing. EDIT: Ninja'd =\
Thanks for the replies. I will be looking at having a 24" monitor at full HD, when I finally agree on other components, and just wondered if the 1200 resolution would enhance any games or software that I may use. That's one less thing to worry about now so thank you.
1920x1200 is the widescreen equivalent of 1920x1080 so you will get a little more viewable screen. So I say it's worth it if you can get it all the games I've played can output to 1920x1200. It also allows you to play movies in widescreen aspect (more like the movie theatre). DVDs and BluRay will have to be stretched or upscaled a little, but the quality penalty won't be noticeable on a 24inch. Hmmm, 2560x1600 sounds tasty
example... http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/30-D...2560x1600-30001-(DC)-370-cd-m-8-ms-HDMI-4Mpix 2560 * 1600, now thats some screen area
There's also GPU limits. And I think that at one point you'd need 2+ DVI cables to run it. (2560x1600 needs 2, so what about 6120x3200?)..
Displayport has a higher bandwidth if i remember correctly, so could probably Run 2560x1600 on its own. We Currently have a possible Quad SLi, thats 8 DVI Ports, GPU wont limit the Resolution for a long time.
DisplayPort can definitely handle that. Monkeytennis, personally i recommend you get a monitor that is 1920x1080 because its is TRUE HD, will ful the entire screen with zero distortion. 1920x1200 will stretch it, and it IS noticeable for a LOT of people, and many do not like it. If the monitor supports 1:1 mapping then you would get black bars at the top and bottom, probably around an inch or so big if you're using a 1920x1200. If you're tolerable to black bars AND your the monitor supports 1:1 mapping, then by all means go with the 1900x1200. Keep in mind this applies to everything.... XBOX 360/ps3 = max res 1920x1080 Blue ray = same HD DVD = same Black bar power!
1900x1200 is definitely nice to have versus 1900x1080, also cheaper to manufacture with the same 1080p claim
It's a little annoying because BluRay, the latest and most amazing thing in the TV world is only 1920x1080, so the mainstream and even enthusiast TV market will be dragging PC gaming back a bit. I say 'only' because my PC screen is 1920x1200 over 24inches, so a 50inch screen is more expensive for a poorer 'real' resolution. Tbh it's annoying that they use resolution because it's innacurate, resolution is the "number of blahs ber blah" not just "the number of blahs" as it's currently used.
Of course, if you go for the 22" "Full HD" monitors (ie the 1920x1080 ones), every review I've read of them in CPC says "The pixel pitch seems much tighter than on a standard 16:10 aspect ratio monitor, so anti-aliasing isn't as necessary". If you're playing games at that resolution, and you don't have some crazy graphics solution (ie multiple cards), being able to knock down anti-aliasing is a MASSIVE bonus to frame-rates. Just my £0.02...
