[Phantom87]

Right now i have a LG L192WS monitor on a EN8600GTS video card. The monitor is connected thru a VGA adapter to the video card. Also is there really a difference between VGA and DVI?

I'm thinking of upgrading to a 22" because i wanna be able to sit far off and read websites and texts as well as watch my movies, music videos, play my games and watch tv through my tv tuner.

So would be 22" much more helpful in terms of bigger fonts and a bit more clearity?

I have a budget of about $300 cdn and these are the choices of monitors that i'm looking at Canada Computers - Your Neighbourhood Computer Store and Service Centre - PC Systems and Hardware Components, Notebooks, Electronics, and more.

 

[Punnisher]

I've never noticed a difference between dvi and vga.

Text will be the same size on your monitor unless you change the font size on your browser, which will work better on a larger monitor of course.

22" is good for gaming and movies, imo. Plenty of space.

 

[tpc41]

when i want to sit back and read websites (firefox), i just press ctrl and + and it bumps up the font size. Works great on my 22 in monitor

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I'd say just keep saving up an grab a 24" when one comes up at a good price. To me the difference from 22 to 24 is much more significant than that from 20 to 22, and not just because of the increased resolution, but the sheer square inch advantage.

 

[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd say just keep saving up an grab a 24" when one comes up at a good price. To me the difference from 22 to 24 is much more significant than that from 20 to 22, and not just because of the increased resolution, but the sheer square inch advantage.

Another reason for the more noticeable difference from 22" to 24" is that 20" and 22" both have a maximum resolution of 1680 x 1050. Better off getting a 20" for better clarity. Now upgrading to a 24" on the other hand nets you 1920 x 1200 resolution. 1080p Hi def, and then some. I'm on a 20" dell monitor right now and planning to upgrade to a 24" dell 2408wfp. 24" as said above will make a load more difference. and if you shove a HD tv tuner card in as well that you will get crisp clear images that outdo 40" plasma and LCD tvs.

As for bigger fonts. Just right click your desktop display properties and change your dpi. Also going into ur fonts menu in control panel should be able to choose a larger size if you wish.

 

[Al4x]

Quote:

Originally Posted by renugaid /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another reason for the more noticeable difference from 22" to 24" is that 20" and 22" both have a maximum resolution of 1680 x 1050. Better off getting a 20" for better clarity. Now upgrading to a 24" on the other hand nets you 1920 x 1200 resolution. 1080p Hi def, and then some. I'm on a 20" dell monitor right now and planning to upgrade to a 24" dell 2408wfp. 24" as said above will make a load more difference. and if you shove a HD tv tuner card in as well that you will get crisp clear images that outdo 40" plasma and LCD tvs. As for bigger fonts. Just right click your desktop display properties and change your dpi. Also going into ur fonts menu in control panel should be able to choose a larger size if you wish.

1680 on 22" that must look bad!

my 17in laptop is at 1920 and thats jsut right for me

 

[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al4x /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1680 on 22" that must look bad! my 17in laptop is at 1920 and thats jsut right for me

It doesn't necessarily look bad. But it's not ideal. It's the equivalent of having a slightly too thin layer of butter spread over a slice of bread. Some people prefer the extra physical space. Others prefer the clarity. So it depends on personal preference really. Either way. 1920x1200 is definitely the standard of now. Looking to the future youd maybe consider a 30" monster from dell. 2048? x something. Don't know the specifics. All i know is... You use that reso and you're gonna need some big juice to power it in any kind of game. But when you do, there is just no matching it when combined with an extraordinary set of headphones, a 5.1 receiver (or 3d positional audio compliant soundcard) and a good headphone amp when it comes to realistic gameplay. I envy the one who can afford such a rig and still have both kidneys and all limbs.

 

[Al4x]

my dell xps m1710 is the maxed out one, the 2.83ghz core duo with the 7950GTX card, 500gb of space spread across 2 drives, ones in the optical bay, itll play crysis on medium, thats its limit, but the res has to be turned down a bit!

 

[floux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al4x /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1680 on 22" that must look bad! my 17in laptop is at 1920 and thats jsut right for me

No not at all. 1920 on a 17 is just way too small.

I own an Acer 22" monitor that i have had since september of last year. Its a great monitor and i wouldnt go any smaller , im actually thinking about buying a 24" or possibly a 32" TV and use it as a monitor.

So , yes , a 22" Monitor is worth it.

 

[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al4x /img/forum/go_quote.gif my dell xps m1710 is the maxed out one, the 2.83ghz core duo with the 7950GTX card, 500gb of space spread across 2 drives, ones in the optical bay, itll play crysis on medium, thats its limit, but the res has to be turned down a bit!

hahaha its ok. Nothing should use crysis as a means of measuring display power. It only prefers 2 cpu cores and my 8800gtx (fastest single gpu solution if not considering the ultra which is the same thing with steroids) still lags on any resolution. I run it on 1280x800 which makes it blurry but also smoothens some aliasing. Having a 24" monitor will strain that card even more. Crysis really should've been more optimized. IMHO the UE3 engine is a better route than Cryengine 2 if you are a videogame developer. Superb performance with high fidelity graphics. Hats off to Epic Games.

 

[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by floux /img/forum/go_quote.gif No not at all. 1920 on a 17 is just way too small. I own an Acer 22" monitor that i have had since september of last year. Its a great monitor and i wouldnt go any smaller , im actually thinking about buying a 24" or possibly a 32" TV and use it as a monitor. So , yes , a 22" Monitor is worth it.

Using a tv as a monitor is a bad idea. Not only will you have driver problems getting it to run in the right aspect ratio, but you will be restricted to the measly 1280x720 resolution on a 32" HDTV IF you are able to get the right driver tweaks for it. 24" in monitor displays is gold. 20" is silver. 30" is platinum. 22" is silver and then some or slightly less depending on your preference of physical space or clarity. Laptops have the luxury of running 17" at 1680 x 1050. The only problem with that is that you have to spend way more than a desktop set up to get a killer mobile GPU that would take advantage of that on the first grade games releasing these days.

 

[CLock3]

1680x1050 on a 22" isn't bad at all. That's what I use. I have a Samsung SyncMaster 225bw, and I love it. I think mine at least, has really good picture. Crisp detail, etc. My computer consists of an intel C2D e6700 overclocked to 3GHz, 2GB Patriot 800MHz extreme performance memory (soon to be going 4GB), 2 x 250Gb Samsung spinpoints, Creative X-Fi Platinum, and an eVGA 8800 GTS 512mb (the G92 chip version), all on an Asus P5N32 SLi SE Deluxe mobo. Can max out any game I throw at it besides Crysis of course. Crysis plays on all High comfortably, rarely dipping below 30fps.
Here's a screenshot of my desktop by the way. Not sure if it really does anything considering it might look different depending on the monitor you looking at it on, but I think it's nice and crispy. Also, no offense renugaid, I'm not trying to start anything or come off as rude, but your 8800gtx isn't really the fastest anymore. My GTS is comparible with it (i'm not saying it's better, but it's real close in some cases), not to mention the 9800GTX which is more powerful than the 8800GTX, and then there's the new GTX280 which is due to be released in the following weeks.
Click image to see full size:

EDIT: Photobucket kind of kills the quality after all due to their 1mb size limit, so the picture is pretty pointless. Oh well, haha.

 

[Al4x]

Quote:

Originally Posted by floux /img/forum/go_quote.gif No not at all. 1920 on a 17 is just way too small. I own an Acer 22" monitor that i have had since september of last year. Its a great monitor and i wouldnt go any smaller , im actually thinking about buying a 24" or possibly a 32" TV and use it as a monitor. So , yes , a 22" Monitor is worth it.

my fav bit of the 1920 on ,my 17in is that 2 full firefox windows can be opened at once, makes EVERYTHING so easy

damn laptops and theyre limite dgrapics, the models higher than mine are far too big

 

[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLock3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1680x1050 on a 22" isn't bad at all. That's what I use. I have a Samsung SyncMaster 225bw, and I love it. I think mine at least, has really good picture. Crisp detail, etc. My computer consists of an intel C2D e6700 overclocked to 3GHz, 2GB Patriot 800MHz extreme performance memory (soon to be going 4GB), 2 x 250Gb Samsung spinpoints, Creative X-Fi Platinum, and an eVGA 8800 GTS 512mb (the G92 chip version), all on an Asus P5N32 SLi SE Deluxe mobo. Can max out any game I throw at it besides Crysis of course. Crysis plays on all High comfortably, rarely dipping below 30fps. Here's a screenshot of my desktop by the way. Not sure if it really does anything considering it might look different depending on the monitor you looking at it on, but I think it's nice and crispy. Also, no offense renugaid, I'm not trying to start anything or come off as rude, but your 8800gtx isn't really the fastest anymore. My GTS is comparible with it (i'm not saying it's better, but it's real close in some cases), not to mention the 9800GTX which is more powerful than the 8800GTX. Click image to see full size: EDIT: Photobucket kind of kills the quality after all due to their 1mb size limit, so the picture is pretty pointless. Oh well, haha.

Nope. 8800gts 512mb may be comparable without Anti Aliasing. But with it turned on the 8800gtx/Ultra still reigns supreme and lets be real, you don't buy a high end GPU to run without AA anyway. And in benchmarks the 9800gtx just doesnt quite reach 8800gtx. Its only by about 3 fps but it still isn't quite there. The 9800gtx is more of a G92 experiment. The 9900 series will show the real successors to the 8800gtx.

 

[john_jcb]

We were at Fry's a couple of weeks ago looking for a second monitor. Ended up getting a 28" 1920 x 1200 resolution beauty. Best picture I have ever had.