PDA

View Full Version : 24" monitor 1920 x 1200 res question.



zburns
03-03-2008, 01:37 PM
I am about to purchase a Gateway or Samsung 24" monitor with 1920 x 1200 resolution. The video card in my new (first) build is the evga 8800 GTS. I am not a gamer. I have not opened the box on the 8800 GTS.

But I would like to ask if anyone knows of a problem I might have because of the monitor size and resolution run from this video card. My impression is that it is not a problem; however, I have nothing but a "general feeling" and some older (less than a year) reviews to go on.

Do the specs on the 8800 GTS overwhelm the video "drive" requirements for the 24" monitor with the 1920 x 1200 res???

My rational is that I think the monitor drive requirements are in kHz and the video card specs are all in the mHz, so I assume there is no problem.

Thanks zburns

Amosmoses33
03-04-2008, 09:58 AM
i don't think you will have any problems, its a great card.

zburns
03-05-2008, 07:23 AM
Thanks Am 33 for your reply and confirmation. I have a "disconnect" between monitors and video cards. I have read only excellent reviews on the 8800 GTS; I have also read some "warnings" about large monitors and the requirements to drive them. I think I am ok with this card.
zburns

shyster
03-05-2008, 01:16 PM
Max Resolution 2560 x 1600

That is the thing you would look for when checking to see if you GPU can handle a monitor. That was just taken from neweggs tech specs tab. Your card will have no problem running the monitor.

I am not sure what things you have been hearing about monitors, but the main thing to consider when looking at a big monitor, is what you are going to be using the computer for. If you intend to play crysis on a 24" monitor then you might have to reduce some of the settings to medium. However if you were playing crysis on a 17-19" monitor you could put everything at high and some things on max. The bigger the monitor the more base work the GPU has to do. It is the difference between playing ping-pong, a sport where pretty much any fat guy who does not exercise at all can be as good as someone who is really physically fit, versus tennis where you have to be considerably physically fit to play.

Amosmoses33
03-06-2008, 08:02 AM
alot of times you wont use the higher res because it makes items on the desktop smaller, unless you have good eyes :)

zburns
03-06-2008, 02:03 PM
Shyster, your 2560 x 1600 comment says it all. That is for a 30 " monitor; that indicates plenty of bandwidth and power to run a 24". For games, I might have to worry about high speed images, maybe, but I am not a gamer.

Amosmoses33 concern about small images on 24" monitors; not so sure what you mean. Take a 4" x 5" color photo and scan it so that it shows up as an 8" x 10" image on a 17" monitor. If you change the monitor to a 20", use the same photo, same scan, it will still show up as an 8 x 10 image (actual measurements on the face of the monitor with a ruler). Change the monitor to a 24", same deal; the same size image, 8 x 10 will show up.

So the monitor sq. inch surface area is increasing but the scanned image size 8 x 10 shows up on all three monitors as measurable 8" x 10" images. Relative to the increasing monitor surface areas, the images seem smaller but they remain the same size. This is so because the pixels per inch horizontal and also vertical are almost the same regardless of monitor size -- about 94 pixels per inch horizontal, and the same number or a close number vertically. This statement applies only for 17, 20 and 24 inch monitors.

For 19", 22" and 26" monitors, the pixels per inch are in the range 88 to 89 pixels per inch, about 5% or so less than the 17, 20 and 24 inch monitors. The pixel size is larger on the 19, 22 and 26 monitors, most likely. For still images between a 17 and 19 monitor, the 17 should be sharper; 20" slightly sharper than 22, 24 slightly sharper than 26. If the images move (games), probably could never see a difference. At computer showrooms, the monitors have "moving" images on them sometimes; difficult to see differences. I will post a couple of "links" tonight that help explain further.

If you take the 4 x 5 photo example for the 17, 20,24 monitors, use the same scan on 19, 22 and 26, the measureable difference will be about 4% larger on these three monitors compared to the 17,20,24 monitors. Different "pixels per inch" at play. Apx 94 ppi for the 17, 20, 24 group; apx 89 ppi for the 19, 22, 26 group. These calculations for one brand of monitors.

zburns

shyster
03-06-2008, 04:03 PM
That was damn technical zburns. I only got about half of that information. :D

The important part however is that Amos was or so it would appear specifically talking about desktop Icons. Whose size does directly correlate to resolution size. If for example icons are sized at 50pixels x 50pixels the greater the resolution size the smaller they become because there is a larger abundance of pixels. The most practical way to see this is to just set your monitor resolution to 640x480 if you even can on your computer and watch how big the icons become.

And yes you are technically correct about pictures not getting smaller even if screen sizes get bigger, but again it goes to resolution size, if you are running a 17" monitor at 1260x1040 and you are running your 22" at 1920 x 1200 the picture is the same pixel size, but it would have a zoomed out look to it.

So in conclusion I am agreeing with you about monitor size increase, but going into possible semantics about resolution size increase. This is an important thing to consider, because if you buy a weaker monitor, one using a TN panel as opposed to the higher end panels, you cannot stray very far from native resolution size without some problems.

Amosmoses33
03-07-2008, 08:29 AM
thats what i mean ;) what shyster said.

zburns
03-07-2008, 01:27 PM
Amos, I apologize for not understanding what you meant. My present 17" CRT does not allow me a "desktop"; this is one reason for the new 24" monitor and a new computer build. I use 1280 x 1024 the highest resolution for this monitor and never go below it. I do not know for what reason I would use a lower resolution.

On the new 24" I have assumed I will use 1920 x 1200 and not use anything lower. The icons on the new monitor should be apx the same size on my very old monitor because the horizontal resolution is apx the same, about 94 pixels per inch. Old monitor hor dimen is 13.5", 1280 pixels long=94.8 pixels/inch; new monitor hor dimen 20.5", 1920 pixels=93.6 pixels/inch. zburns

bean
03-08-2008, 11:14 AM
I'd look for one with the lowest response time. My next criterion wouild be price.