[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_jcb /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Yep! Anything below 40" that is a true PC monitor will easily trump a 1080p HDTV. Since 1080p at 40" is seen as the current standard in viewing definition then anything below 40" at that resolution (1920x1080p) will be nothing short of spectacular. Mind you, being 16:10 rather than 16:9 is actually a benefit in that you get the extra real estate on the top and bottom bars that are taken advantage of in most modern computer apps.

 

[CLock3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by renugaid /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

touché renugaid, haha

I'll take your word for it though, because like I said I'm not here to argue, and I do agree with you somewhat anyways. As far as the AA thing, though, I don't have any problems with it slowing down games I play, and I play all current games and such. The only game I don't use AA in is Crysis, which still looks real nice without it anyways, especially at a higher res like I play at. Overall though, yeah, the GTX is pure power, but the GTS is, in my opinion anyways, a really good bang for the buck with it's lower pricepoint. I was thinking the 9800 was the new beast though, until you said that, I went and looked up some specs and you're right, it isn't anything crazy compared to the previous gen. This is getting way off topic though, so I'm gonna stop before the OP's thread gets ruined with a bunch of GPU talk, when the topic is monitors, haha.

 

[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLock3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif touché renugaid, haha I'll take your word for it though, because like I said I'm not here to argue, and I do agree with you somewhat anyways. As far as the AA thing, though, I don't have any problems with it slowing down games I play, and I play all current games and such. The only game I don't use AA in is Crysis, which still looks real nice without it anyways, especially at a higher res like I play at. Overall though, yeah, the GTX is pure power, but the GTS is, in my opinion anyways, a really good bang for the buck with it's lower pricepoint. I was thinking the 9800 was the new beast though, until you said that, I went and looked up some specs and you're right, it isn't anything crazy compared to the previous gen. This is getting way off topic though, so I'm gonna stop before the OP's thread gets ruined with a bunch of GPU talk, when the topic is monitors, haha.

haha yeh its true that the gts 512 is definitely the best bang for buck card available right now and had it been available when i bought my gtx i would definitely have gotten it instead. Lets call it the SR-80 of the graphics world

. as for crysis, AA is definitely a valuable asset to its visuals but there is just so much in the game that it is impossible to run it with AA and expect smooth quality of any rate. Still stunning but crytek can do better with more time. As for monitors for movies I'd say that an 8600 will run anything from a 20 or 22" @ max reso no probs. For gaming I suggest that COD4 will be the best visual experience to run smoothly on your system at maximum quality with little to no anti aliasing. And thats no small feat when you consider how beautiful the visual fidelity in that game is. You may struggle with the max reso of a 24" display gaming wise but it certainly is the way to go if you are into High Def TV and Blu Ray media and an 8600 should be more than enough to handle video playback.

 

[Phantom87]

Quote:

Originally Posted by renugaid /img/forum/go_quote.gif haha yeh its true that the gts 512 is definitely the best bang for buck card available right now and had it been available when i bought my gtx i would definitely have gotten it instead. Lets call it the SR-80 of the graphics world . as for crysis, AA is definitely a valuable asset to its visuals but there is just so much in the game that it is impossible to run it with AA and expect smooth quality of any rate. Still stunning but crytek can do better with more time. As for monitors for movies I'd say that an 8600 will run anything from a 20 or 22" @ max reso no probs. For gaming I suggest that COD4 will be the best visual experience to run smoothly on your system at maximum quality with little to no anti aliasing. And thats no small feat when you consider how beautiful the visual fidelity in that game is. You may struggle with the max reso of a 24" display gaming wise but it certainly is the way to go if you are into High Def TV and Blu Ray media and an 8600 should be more than enough to handle video playback.

Wow, thanks alot Renugaid and everyone else. It defn8ly seems like a rip-off buying a 22" when u can get the same resolution for 20". There has to be more to the 22"'s worth though.
But as a student, i dont have a luxury of space or budget so a 24" might be out of the running (will have to do some measurements). Although i do want to get sumthing that would last me for atleast 2yrs.
I just increased the dpi to 125%. its defn8ly alot better, but everything looks so pixelated sort off. I guess its meant to be like that.

 

[renugaid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantom87 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow, thanks alot Renugaid and everyone else. It defn8ly seems like a rip-off buying a 22" when u can get the same resolution for 20". There has to be more to the 22"'s worth though. But as a student, i dont have a luxury of space or budget so a 24" might be out of the running (will have to do some measurements). Although i do want to get sumthing that would last me for atleast 2yrs. I just increased the dpi to 125%. its defn8ly alot better, but everything looks so pixelated sort off. I guess its meant to be like that.

There definitely is some merit to buying 22" if you value sheer viewing space rather than the best pixel per inch clarity. Either way you really can't go wrong. To me it isn't worth the extra 2" purely bcoz im a videophile and every bit of clarity matters and makes a difference in my eyes. But for sheer space, a 22" running High def movies or tv channels at 720p will still be better than a 32" HDTV doing the same. But there will be a lot of pixel stretching in the upscaling on both 20" and 22" as opposed to the 1080p on a 24" which fits perfectly pixel to pixel.

But if 24" is out of your price range, ask yourself whats more important:
a) clarity
b) viewing space

In terms of having to raise your dpi to compensate for smaller icons, 22" might be the better option as it would display the same amount of pixels as the 20" but to a larger scale due to be stretched over an extra 2" horizontal. You may still need to increase the dpi but having it slightly larger to begin with might negate any need for that too.

 

[Gh0s7]

I upgraded from a 20.5 to a 22 recently due to my old one dying. I was very happy with the increase.