1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 resolution monitors

[Erwin]

While in the UK I want to get a bigger monitor as it's hard to ply or work on my 15" laptop.  However, all the monitors I see in the UK are 1920 x 1080 rather than the usual 1920 x 1200 I am used to (and which seem to dominate in the US).  T

 

That seems to be since the marketers assume people will watch movies in that format (rather than use em for games).

 

Are the 1920 x 1080 monitors scalable? - ie; what do games (esp. CM2) look like on them.  Anyone...?

[Pete Wenman]

I play at 1920 x 1080 and it looks like this. I've never had an issue nor felt the need to change it to anything else so leave the display setting as desktop.

 

[c3k]

1920 x 1080 seems to dominate sales, even here in the US.

 

I VASTLY prefer 1920 x 1200. (I'm currently using two, and I'm looking for a third.) Having said that, there's nothing wrong with 1080. (That's what HD TV's, projectors, etc., are (mostly).)

 

If you're looking for 1920 x 1200, they exist. You have to hunt a bit, though. (I like IPS over TN. The latest purchase I made was a pre-calibrated Asus, PA248q. Very happy with it. Many other brands exist.)

 

1920 x 1200 is 16:10 aspect ratio. Most screens are the narrower 16:9 (1920 x 1080, 2560 x 1440).

[rocketman]

I have a Dell 24 inch 1920*1200 (U2412M) that is a joy to play CM on. The extra space is great since the UI takes up a large part of the lower screen.

[kraze]

1920x1200 will offer you smaller FOV than 1920x1080 in 3D games. For some reason devs tend to treat 16:9 resolutions as horizontally extended compared to 16:10.

 

Like f.e. 1920x1080 is treated as 240 pixels wider vs. 1680x1050. Thus the next common resolution for 16:9 2560x1440 is basically an "extension" from 1920x1200 16:10

 

Note that ironically while technically 16:9 seem smaller pixel wise than what 'seems' like their 16:10 counterparts with the higher vertical pixel count - 16:9 resolutions cause higher performance hit due to that increased FOV.

 

So yeah it's a bit untechnical explanation for how things are but the bottomline is - for 3D games 1080p monitors are a lot better.

Edited May 26, 2015 by kraze

[c3k]

^^^

1:1 pixel rendering kind of argues against your statement. I'm not pretending to be an expert, but many times the screen LOOKS wider with 1080p because the aspect ratio is wider. But the left-most pixel of 1920 wide screen is the same as the left-most pixel of another 1920 wide screen. Ditto with the right-most pixel on both screens. The difference is the top-most/bottom-most vary whether 1200 or 1080 horizontal lines being rendered.

 

I don't know of any games which change the rendering based on screen height. (This is when someone more knowledgeable than I am will post a scathing rebuttal, complete with examples and links to screenshots.  )

 

Ken

[delliejonut]

[Mastiff]

I'm at 2560x1440 and it lags bad...

[Offshoot]

 

This is when someone more knowledgeable than I am will post a scathing rebuttal, complete with examples and links to screenshots.

Here you go (check out the FOV scaling methods section) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

Nah, I'm not more knowledgeable but was intrigued enough to go looking. I use my monitors mainly for work and will hopefully never have to use 16:9 as I like to have the extra screen space. I also have the Dell U2412M (IPS) and have been very happy with it.