Widescreen Gaming Forum

Hmmm... There's really no advantages with the 16:9 though since its 21.5" compared to the 22" of the 16:10, so even if I'm watching 16:9 content on a 16:10 with black bars, its still the same size image as with a 16:9 right?

And 16:10 seems more versatile since it would probably work better for web browsing. Also there are a few games that don't work well with 16:9... So I would think 16:10 would be the better option.

Anyone had any experience in the Samsung 2253BW? It's the cheapest Samsung available here.

No better way to point out what I'm talking about concerning 16:9 movie fit than to compare the width of a 21.5" 16:9 to a 22" 16:10. I found a site with a handy calculator that makes it easy.
http://a.ntivir.us/screensize/calculate.php?diagonalSize=22&aspectRatio=sixteenTen

21.5" 16:9 dimensions:

Width = 18.74"
Height = 10.5"

22" 16:10 dimensions:

Width = 18.66"
Height = 11.66"

As you can see, though the 21.5" display is .5" smaller diagonally, it's nearly 1/10th of an inch wider. A letterbox movie would probably show about the same height on both screens, but have much bigger black bars on the 16:10. By the time you zoom half way between normal size and full screen on a letterbox movie, you'd be losing a fair amount of image at the sides with the 16:10.

The fact is it's best to go full screen on an LCD because even LCDs are susceptible to burn in to some degree. It's common to see manufacturers recommend not leaving black bars on screen for more than 2 hrs at a time. It's your call, like I said I prefer 16:9 and wish there were 16:9 S-IPS monitors with optional HD tuners built in.

Bottom line, I think a 21.5" 16:9 is more efficient use of screen space. I really don't think it would be a problem web browsing either. You can always use the screen zoom feature in your browser to adjust the fit.

So 21.5" 16:9 isn't really that much higher than my current 19" 16:10, it's just much wider...

Hmm. Not too sure. A 24" 16:9 would be ideal but I can't really afford that.

I'm also unsure of whether my 512mb 8800gt would be able to run newer games at 1920x1080...

I wouldn't trust an 8800GT to run games well at 1920x1080, esp if it's not the G92 type. You could probably run them at 1280x720 OK though, until you can afford a GPU upgrade. At 1280x720 your pixel pitch would be quite a bit larger though. It jumps from about .28 to .42, so quite a bit grainier at desktop viewing distances. You need to realize though that a 21.5" display at 1920x1080 would be just as hardware demanding as a 24" at the same res. It would look better at 1280x720 than the 24", but still fairly large pixel pitch at .37. A 21.5" @ 1920x1080 is a very tight .25 pitch, about the same as a 30" @ 2560x1600.

1680x1050 would be less demanding wouldn't it? I don't see myself upgrading GPU any time soon. I really think the 16:10 would be a better option for me. I could probably also get a better quality screen if I went 16:10, like a Samsung or something.

I haven't read through the whole thread but for 99% of people pixel density is a non issue basically unless you know that you need a monitor like that then I would not worry about it what so ever.

In my opinion you would be better off just getting a 16:10 22" or way better yet just jumping right up to a 24" 16:10/16:9.

1680x1050 would be less demanding wouldn't it? I don't see myself upgrading GPU any time soon. I really think the 16:10 would be a better option for me. I could probably also get a better quality screen if I went 16:10, like a Samsung or something.

Yeah, a lot less demanding, and look better on a 22" vs 24". People have differences of opinion on pixel density but I always advoate trying to stick under .3 pitch because even if you sit farther away from one with larger pitch the jaggies are more noticable as the pitch goes up and AA is hardware demanding just as larger resolutions are. I don't know what you mean by "quality", but given there's only TN as a panel type choice in 22" displays, they vary more in features than quality.

[quote]1680x1050 would be less demanding wouldn't it? I don't see myself upgrading GPU any time soon. I really think the 16:10 would be a better option for me. I could probably also get a better quality screen if I went 16:10, like a Samsung or something.

Yeah, a lot less demanding, and look better on a 22" vs 24". People have differences of opinion on pixel density but I always advoate trying to stick under .3 pitch because even if you sit farther away from one with larger pitch the jaggies are more noticable as the pitch goes up and AA is hardware demanding just as larger resolutions are. I don't know what you mean by "quality", but given there's only TN as a panel type choice in 22" displays, they vary more in features than quality.

Surely a 22" Samsung would have better picture quality than a 22" AOC or Acer? Or should I just go for the cheapest 22" I can find?

Surely a 22" Samsung would have better picture quality than a 22" AOC or Acer? Or should I just go for the cheapest 22" I can find?

At this point honestly I just go with newegg reviews, when hundreads of people like a product there its usually pretty good I mean theres hardly any differnce between the 22" monitors anymore, between them the most popular ones only use a handful of panels anyway.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000190020%201309822582%201109917865&bop=And&Order=RATING
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2000190020%201309822582%201109917843&name=1920%20x%201080

Well then I think I'll get the Samsung 2253BW since it's got VERY good reviews on Newegg and is reasonably cheap.

I have decided against 16:9 for a number of reasons, the main ones being that the higher resolution would be harder for my graphics card to drive and that it wouldn't look as big as a 16:10.