Associate
widescreen offers so much more room to play with, once you've gone widescreen you can't go back.
Do I actually need widescreen?
- Thread starter miracleboy
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,315
What's the best 20" WS for under £300 then?
Would you recommend either of these?
Dell Ultrasharp 2007WFP 20" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Midnight Grey (MO-011-DE) £293.69
Viewsonic VA2012W-2 20" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Silver/Black (MO-051-VS) £258.44
Viewsonic VX2025wm 20" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Silver/Black (MO-052-VS) £293.69
And what is this upcoming one like - any good? Worth waiting for?
Viewsonic VX2235wm 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Black (MO-060-VS)
Also don't quite understand the aspect ratios...which is better, 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 ?
Would you recommend either of these?
Dell Ultrasharp 2007WFP 20" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Midnight Grey (MO-011-DE) £293.69
Viewsonic VA2012W-2 20" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Silver/Black (MO-051-VS) £258.44
Viewsonic VX2025wm 20" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Silver/Black (MO-052-VS) £293.69
And what is this upcoming one like - any good? Worth waiting for?
Viewsonic VX2235wm 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor - Black (MO-060-VS)
Also don't quite understand the aspect ratios...which is better, 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 ?
I was looking at some screens tonight. I've been hanging on for the BenQ FP241W which is a 24". But I'm not yet convinced that widescreen is the way to go. For example if you're in the market for a 20" you could choose a widescreen with 1680 x 1050 or a non-widescreen at 1600 x 1200.
Not only is the resolution of the non-widescreen higher, but wouldn't it be a better resolution in terms of older gfx cards. What I mean by this is that if your card struggles then a 1600 x 1200 monitor could be dropped down to 800 x 600 with no loss of quality?
EDIT: Even when looking at 24" then the 20" non-widescreen still looks like a contender. For example you could buy a single Dell 2407 for around £700 or two Viewsonic VP2030B's for a total of £800. On paper they both look good for games (6ms and 8ms respectively), but the Dell 2407 will get you 1920 x 1200 while a pair of VP2030's will get you a total of 3200 x 1200. Obviously this is of most benefit to non-gamers as most games will only run effectively on a single screen.
I think I may be talking myself out of a BenQ FP241W
Not only is the resolution of the non-widescreen higher, but wouldn't it be a better resolution in terms of older gfx cards. What I mean by this is that if your card struggles then a 1600 x 1200 monitor could be dropped down to 800 x 600 with no loss of quality?
EDIT: Even when looking at 24" then the 20" non-widescreen still looks like a contender. For example you could buy a single Dell 2407 for around £700 or two Viewsonic VP2030B's for a total of £800. On paper they both look good for games (6ms and 8ms respectively), but the Dell 2407 will get you 1920 x 1200 while a pair of VP2030's will get you a total of 3200 x 1200. Obviously this is of most benefit to non-gamers as most games will only run effectively on a single screen.
I think I may be talking myself out of a BenQ FP241W
Any particular reason?Kreeeee said:
Last edited:
Associate
wiggy said:^^ As above, got my 19" acer today and couldnt agree more, games look awesome, as do dvds. I now know, what all the fuss is about. One problem with HL2 is i cant run at native res 14440x900, can anyone else?
Thanks
havent tried HL2 but can run CS @ 1440x900
Associate
Raymond Lin said:
Yup, I agree. Better screen res makes it worthwhile.
)