1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Displays [update: Good news, everyone!] - New Dell U series coming Q3. A downgrade big time

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by GoodBytes, 10 May 2011.

  1. Parge

    Parge the worst Super Moderator

    Joined:
    16 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    12,948
    Likes Received:
    573
    Good point, nothing wrong with 16:9 as far as I'm concerned, if you want more pixels, buy a 2560 monitor. Also, if it drives the cost of IPS panels down, then fine by me!
     
  2. wyx087

    wyx087 Homeworld 3 is happening!!

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    11,045
    Likes Received:
    349
    24inch should never be 16:9. 23inch is the natural 16:9, for 24inch, it means its got larger dot-pitch and less for money.

    23" 16:9 to 24" 16:10 is same as 27" 16:9 to 30" 16:10. that is why everyone's fine with the 27inch, it's the same as everyone's fine with 23inch. spend less to get smaller screen, while the larger screen should have higher resolution.
     
  3. sotu1

    sotu1 Ex-Modder

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    26
    Excuse my ignorance, but what's the problem with 16:9? I'm looking to upgrade monitors soon so it would be good to have a heads up and know where to start
     
  4. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    sotu1, it's just people moaning about less pixels (1920x1200 versus 1920x1080) in the vertical axis. Beyond that, no difference.
     
  5. smc8788

    smc8788 ...at least I have chicken

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    5,970
    Likes Received:
    272
    It's not just 'less pixels', it changes the aesthetic properties of the screen and makes it feel smaller compared to a similar-sized or even a smaller 16:10 monitor. For most tasks on a PC 16:10 is a more useful aspect ratio, and 16:9 monitors always give me the feeling I'm peering through a letterbox.
     
  6. Steve.E.

    Steve.E. New Member

    Joined:
    11 May 2011
    Posts:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kind of agree. I like 16:9 because it is better for games and movies.

    This news should mean the defentive end for 1920x1200 monitors. I am not surprised because it that resolution is to close to 1920x1080. Just waste of money to produce such similar resolutions.
     
  7. DragunovHUN

    DragunovHUN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2008
    Posts:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    181
    You say that as if vertical desktop space was trivial or something. I don't want my windows to be 120 pixels shorter just because it's more convenient for the panel manufacturers.
     
  8. Jaybles

    Jaybles New Member

    Joined:
    12 Feb 2011
    Posts:
    981
    Likes Received:
    54
    facepalm. i was planning on purchasing one later this year :|
     
  9. r3loaded

    r3loaded Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    31
    I wonder where I've heard this moaning before...oh yes, it was when we shifted from 4:3 to 16:10! And is 120 lines really that big a deal? Besides, if the significant demand for 16:10 over 16:9 was significant enough, they'd continue manufacturing for 16:10 to address this demand (which is clearly not the case).

    Me, I enjoy my 1920x1080. It's many, many more pixels than I've ever stared at on any computer monitor that I've owned. And there's tons of space to do all the work I need. Would I appreciate an extra 120 lines? Sure would. Would I go out of my way and spend loads more on getting those lines, or wailing about it? Hell no.
     
  10. wyx087

    wyx087 Homeworld 3 is happening!!

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    11,045
    Likes Received:
    349
    r3loaded, you don't have a problem because you bought a 22inch, you got more than your money's worth in terms of pixels because 22inch used to be 1680x1050.

    but for 24inch, it makes more sense to be 1920x1200. 1920x1080 is suitable for 23inch, it's smaller with similar dot-pitch.
     
  11. Parge

    Parge the worst Super Moderator

    Joined:
    16 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    12,948
    Likes Received:
    573
    The solution then, is to buy a bigger and more expensive monitor. Its not a case on convenience, 16:9 panels are cheaper to manufacture, driving the cost of panels down, which of course, will eventually be passed onto you, the user.

    If you want more, you have to pay more.
     
  12. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    124
    It doesn't really take rocket science to see that a 24" 1920x1080 panel provides less screen real estate than a 24" 1920x1200 panel.

    For panel manufacturers the 16:9 aspect ratio is a boon. They can produce somewhat cheaper, mostly because it's the same aspect ratio used for TV sets, so it cuts down on the equipment retooling. Don't be sure those savings will be passed on to the consumer, however.

    Another problem is that you *cannot* really choose any longer. It's not so much a question of choice as it is of availability. If there aren't any 16:10 aspect ratio monitors available it's pretty hard to choose them, whatever the cost.
     
  13. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    Exactly. Want more than 1920x1080, you need to go and pay more to find one of the few 1920x1200 monitors that are still around, or man up and get 2560x1440. I'm still amazed you can buy a 23" IPS panel for under £250, I remember paying over a grand for a 22" 1680x1050 monitor years ago, so if they need to move to 16:9 to keep prices going down, then fine.

    16:9 is perfectly suited to viewing 1080p content (funnily enough), and as computers are increasingly viewed as media machines.
     
  14. NigelT

    NigelT New Member

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Glad I've just purchased a 24" 16:10 monitor. I'd be pretty pissed to lose the 120 pixels, my CAD setup would lose 2 menu bars, thus affecting my workflow.
     
  15. r3loaded

    r3loaded Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    31
    Good point actually. I bought the 22 inch model because it was £30 cheaper, took up a bit less space but had an identical screen resolution to the 23 inch one.

    Another thing just occurred to me - they are able to produce 1920x1080 panels for 15 inch laptop screens nowadays. Maintaining the same pixel pitch, why don't they produce 2560x1440 (or 1600 if you insist) panels at 24 inches? It's not much of a stretch in terms of production, and it's bound to be cheaper than 27 inch panels.
     
  16. Parge

    Parge the worst Super Moderator

    Joined:
    16 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    12,948
    Likes Received:
    573
    Maybe @24" its hard to tell the difference because pixel density is already so high, or the fact that you have to have a massively meaty GPU to push around that many pixels.
     
  17. azrael-

    azrael- I'm special...

    Joined:
    18 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,852
    Likes Received:
    124
    Personally, I believe the optimum resolution for a 22" is 1680 x 1050. While 1920x1080/1200 for a 22" sounds nice on paper I find the DPI a bit too high, and as Parge so rightly states, (in games) you need quite some GPU power to move those pixels at a reasonable speed.
     
  18. r3loaded

    r3loaded Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    31
    However, for non-gaming purposes, a Sandy Bridge processor GPU is more than enough to display that resolution and smoothly play HD video in fullscreen. Those who want to game at this resolution will either buy a top-end card, or will knock the resolution down a notch to play smoothly.
     
  19. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Exactly.. that is why the Dell U2410 is so freaking expensive compared to the U2311, which I am glad to pay for. So what's the problem. TN panels I can understand, but IPS/PVA monitors? really?

    And with Win8 ribbon bar on every folder... you reeeeaaaallly want 16:10. Maybe that's Microsoft strategy... people will find themselves confined with 16:9... and push 16:10 sales... Ah brilliant Microsoft. Sadly, I have a feeling I am wrong.:sigh:

    I think the next step is to get much higher resolution on 24inch, and start using a higher DPI settings in Windows. It's a shame that many programs break when you do this, as they were not tested for such settings.
     
  20. dave99

    dave99 New Member

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    464
    Likes Received:
    5

    Just for your information, here is a comparison video of a 16:9 and 16:10 monitor.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM9SbBB2ng0

    The 16:9 monitor is 23" while the 16:10 monitor is actually smaller at 22". The 23" is wider but the 22" screen is taller. To me the 16:9 monitor looks a bit letter boxy, but that is just my opinion. There is no right and wrong. Some like 16:9 some like 16:10. Go with what you like.:thumb:
     

Share This Page