LCD larger size -- what for ??

[Beladi Nasrallah]

I have an 19" LCD monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900, and I play
such games as Half-Life 2 DM, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, FEAR, Dark
Messiah and Silent Hunter 4.

So far, I felt that the screen size (19") was al'right for the first-
person shooter (FPS) games, as I could hold all of the screen in the
periphery of my vision. Well, maybe I felt something slightly larger
(say, 20") could make game more exciting. The resolution seemed to be
al'right. I could not imagine going for a higher resolution (and yeah,
my graphics card was 7600GT).

But I heard many people said a larger screen (such as 24" or even
30") will make all the difference. I fail to see that. I presume a
19-20" screen is good for FPS, and a larger screen would be better for
simualtion or role-playing game (such as Civilization or Oblivion).
Maybe it was the kids' equivalent of a larger penis for a man.

I also wonder if a higher resolution (such as 1920 x 1200) will
improve _significantly_ the gameplaying experience. I used to play
HL2DM on a 17" widescreen 1680 x 1050. I think I can see the enemy at
the same distances.

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

 

[Schrodinger]

I have an 19" LCD monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900, and I play
such games as Half-Life 2 DM, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, FEAR, Dark
Messiah and Silent Hunter 4.

So far, I felt that the screen size (19") was al'right for the first-
person shooter (FPS) games, as I could hold all of the screen in the
periphery of my vision. Well, maybe I felt something slightly larger
(say, 20") could make game more exciting. The resolution seemed to be
al'right. I could not imagine going for a higher resolution (and yeah,
my graphics card was 7600GT).

But I heard many people said a larger screen (such as 24" or even
30") will make all the difference. I fail to see that. I presume a
19-20" screen is good for FPS, and a larger screen would be better for
simualtion or role-playing game (such as Civilization or Oblivion).
Maybe it was the kids' equivalent of a larger penis for a man.

I also wonder if a higher resolution (such as 1920 x 1200) will
improve _significantly_ the gameplaying experience. I used to play
HL2DM on a 17" widescreen 1680 x 1050. I think I can see the enemy at
the same distances.

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

I recently upgraded from a 19" LCD to a 22" widescreen and it was well worth
it. If I had loads of money I would have gone for a 24".

The biggest improvement was in Battlefield 2 - I presume because it is
easier to appreciate it in vehicular combat. TF2 is much improved and
watching movies is now a pleasure and viable alternative to watching on our
main, 32" LCD, screen.

 

[Tim O]

I have an 19" LCD monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900, and I play
such games as Half-Life 2 DM, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, FEAR, Dark
Messiah and Silent Hunter 4.

So far, I felt that the screen size (19") was al'right for the first-
person shooter (FPS) games, as I could hold all of the screen in the
periphery of my vision. Well, maybe I felt something slightly larger
(say, 20") could make game more exciting. The resolution seemed to be
al'right. I could not imagine going for a higher resolution (and yeah,
my graphics card was 7600GT).

But I heard many people said a larger screen (such as 24" or even
30") will make all the difference. I fail to see that. I presume a
19-20" screen is good for FPS, and a larger screen would be better for
simualtion or role-playing game (such as Civilization or Oblivion).
Maybe it was the kids' equivalent of a larger penis for a man.

I also wonder if a higher resolution (such as 1920 x 1200) will
improve _significantly_ the gameplaying experience. I used to play
HL2DM on a 17" widescreen 1680 x 1050. I think I can see the enemy at
the same distances.

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

I think you should go with the larger penis.

 

[Michael Pachta]

Schrodinger schrieb/wrote/escribió:

I recently upgraded from a 19" LCD to a 22" widescreen and it was well worth
it. If I had loads of money I would have gone for a 24".

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?), which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

M.

 

[Mark Morrison]

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

I wouldn't (and haven't) - I'm still on the 17" widesreen I bought
about 3 years back.

I'm happy with the screen size and resolution I play at. If I got a
bigger monitor, it would necessitate getting a new graphics card, just
to play the same game. If I upgraded to a 22" or similar, I'd have to
got a PCI-E powered system, meaning a new PC.

I will get a new monitor eventually, but only as part of a completely
new system.

 

[Conor]

But I heard many people said a larger screen (such as 24" or even
30") will make all the difference. I fail to see that. I presume a
19-20" screen is good for FPS, and a larger screen would be better for
simualtion or role-playing game (such as Civilization or Oblivion).
Maybe it was the kids' equivalent of a larger penis for a man.

You've hit the nail on the head. My bro-in-law bought a 24" because he
basically lives on Eve Online and was finding the restrictions of
smaller displays a problem due to the amount of menus he needs/likes
open at the same time.

 

[Schrodinger]

Schrodinger schrieb/wrote/escribió:

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?), which makes
the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.

They can sometimes look a bit softer, but I can't say I notice the
difference as there's so much else going on. After all, you'd probably want
to use FSAA at lower resolutions anyway.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics card
that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough. Otherwise
I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would result in bad
graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

I would certainly say that you need a card that can drive your games at,
say, 1680 x 1050 to make it worthwhile. Battlefield 2 is a good example
here as it doesn't support that resolution, but using another app -
widescreen fixer - the ratios look ok. Despite it not being in the native
resolution it still looks great.

I suppose it's very subjective. I haven't regretted changing from CRT even
though I did so several years ago.

Also, if you use your PC for other stuff the LCD is, IMO, easier on the
eyes.

 

[Lawrence Lugar]

That's what i'm saying...you're only atmost, what - 1 and a half feet away
from a computer monitor?

it's ridiculous, for the people who have 24"+ computer monitors on their
desks.

I have a 19" wide format LCD...and it's more than plenty large enough

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Michael Pachta:

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?),

interpolation (extrapolation is something different)

which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

No, basically you're right. However, the effects of interpolation was
much worse with the first generation of displays (usually 15" and 17"
displays with 1024x768 or 1280x1024) on which lower resolutions such
like 800x600 or 640x480 look really bad. But on modern high resolution
displays with 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 lower resolutions usually
don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays.

Benjamin

 

[Mr.E Solved!]

I have an 19" LCD monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900, and I play
such games as Half-Life 2 DM, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, FEAR, Dark
Messiah and Silent Hunter 4.

So far, I felt that the screen size (19") was al'right for the first-
person shooter (FPS) games, as I could hold all of the screen in the
periphery of my vision. Well, maybe I felt something slightly larger
(say, 20") could make game more exciting. The resolution seemed to be
al'right. I could not imagine going for a higher resolution (and yeah,
my graphics card was 7600GT).

But I heard many people said a larger screen (such as 24" or even
30") will make all the difference. I fail to see that. I presume a
19-20" screen is good for FPS, and a larger screen would be better for
simualtion or role-playing game (such as Civilization or Oblivion).
Maybe it was the kids' equivalent of a larger penis for a man.

I also wonder if a higher resolution (such as 1920 x 1200) will
improve _significantly_ the gameplaying experience. I used to play
HL2DM on a 17" widescreen 1680 x 1050. I think I can see the enemy at
the same distances.

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

If you don't understand the benefits of higher resolution in gaming yet,
you never will!

Just make sure the game has widescreen support, and does not stretch the
view to the resolutions.

BF2 is tricky that way, you might think you are getting a widescreen
image, but put two WS displays next to each other, one running BF2 in
the default WS resolution and the other running BF2 with a widescreen
patch and you can see the difference, but only look at the first image
and you would never know what you are missing.

 

[Ant]

If you don't understand the benefits of higher resolution in gaming yet,
you never will!

Just make sure the game has widescreen support, and does not stretch the
view to the resolutions.

Is there a way to prevent stretching with VGA connections? It only seems
to work with DVI.
--
"The ant's a centaur in his dragon world. Pull down thy vanity, it is
not man... Made courage, or made order, or made grace,... Pull down thy
vanity, I say pull down. Learn of the green world what can be thy
place... In scaled invention or true artistry,... Pull down thy
vanity,... Paquin pull down! The green casque has outdone your
elegance." --Ezra Pound's poem
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

 

[KlausK]

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

You don't have to. You could play FPS games on a 12" monitor. However, if
you played games at 1920x1200 or 1920x1080, you would want a bigger monitor
and a more powerful graphic card. I have a Sony 23" monitor (1920x1200) and
an LG 47" LCD TV (1920x1080). I thought 23" was all I needed until I started
to play games on the 47".

 

[Phil]

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Michael Pachta:


interpolation (extrapolation is something different)


No, basically you're right. However, the effects of interpolation was
much worse with the first generation of displays (usually 15" and 17"
displays with 1024x768 or 1280x1024) on which lower resolutions such
like 800x600 or 640x480 look really bad. But on modern high resolution
displays with 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 lower resolutions usually
don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays.

Benjamin

"don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays" - is
just as bad !!!
Any current LCD monitor is look as bad as the next one unless you run
game / windows at its native (and only) resolution - even in 2d Window
mode.

Now, here is a relationship that I can not understand: you spend a
bunch of money to get a nice 24" LCD; unless you spend another big
chunk of money to upgrade to to top of the line video card and faster
CPU inorder to play game (this is a game discussion group so I would
use game as sample, not a Windows 2d application group) some what
acceptable at its native resolution. Other wise, you would have to
lower the resolution and get a shitty image. Now, why spend extra
money to get the big screen but then playing game at a lower
resolution? What have you gain in game playing wise ?

 

[dizzy]

That's what i'm saying...you're only atmost, what - 1 and a half feet away
from a computer monitor?

it's ridiculous, for the people who have 24"+ computer monitors on their
desks.

I have a 19" wide format LCD...and it's more than plenty large enough

For you.

19" wide is a puny monitor.

 

[Lawrence Lugar]

you must be one of those people with the 20"+ rims on their car...

or one of those truck guys with big-ass monster tires.


needless to say, everything in Proportion - otherwise you look like a fool.

 

[Inglo]

"don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays" - is
just as bad !!!
Any current LCD monitor is look as bad as the next one unless you run
game / windows at its native (and only) resolution - even in 2d Window
mode.

Now, here is a relationship that I can not understand: you spend a
bunch of money to get a nice 24" LCD; unless you spend another big
chunk of money to upgrade to to top of the line video card and faster
CPU inorder to play game (this is a game discussion group so I would
use game as sample, not a Windows 2d application group) some what
acceptable at its native resolution. Other wise, you would have to
lower the resolution and get a shitty image. Now, why spend extra
money to get the big screen but then playing game at a lower
resolution? What have you gain in game playing wise ?

I have a 22" widescreen and I don't play Crysis at 1650. I think I'm
playing at 1280x720. It looks fine.

It's not incredibly cheap but you can get a 22" monitor for less than
$250 and you can get a 8800 GT for $230. With that combo and a half
descent CPU you can run just about everything but Crysis at native
resolution.

I also have a 46" HDTV that I play Xbox 360 games on in 1080P, that's
pretty awesome.

You don't really know what a big deal HD is until you've got it.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Phil:

"don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays" - is
just as bad !!!

Nope, it isn't. Interpolated resolutions look suprorisingly well, and
especially in games it's often difficult to note that the display is not
running on it's native resolution.

Any current LCD monitor is look as bad as the next one unless you run
game / windows at its native (and only) resolution - even in 2d Window
mode.

Nope. How bad interpolated resolutions look depend on several factors,
with the display native resolution being the main factor. The higher the
native resolution of a LCD is the better look interpolated images.

Now, here is a relationship that I can not understand: you spend a
bunch of money to get a nice 24" LCD; unless you spend another big
chunk of money to upgrade to to top of the line video card and faster
CPU inorder to play game (this is a game discussion group so I would
use game as sample, not a Windows 2d application group) some what
acceptable at its native resolution. Other wise, you would have to
lower the resolution and get a shitty image. Now, why spend extra
money to get the big screen but then playing game at a lower
resolution?

Simply because unlike you say interpolation isn't as bad on todays high
res monitors than it has been on the first generation low res TFTs.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Ant:

Is there a way to prevent stretching with VGA connections? It only seems
to work with DVI.

Basically, stretching is a function of the monitor (scaler unit) and not
of the gfx card. However, with DVI the scaling can be done by the GPU
alternatively as DVI is just a pixel stream.

So if your monitor's scaler unit can be set to avoid stretching you're
out of luck.

Benjamin

 

[mangyrat]

your starting to ask the question "do i need a larger LCD and in the back of
your mind you already know the answer".
you can come up with any number of reasons to prove to your self you need
one or you don't need one but in the end your going to get a larger LCD no
mater what.

my e-penises
1 - 19" lcd
1 - 22" lcd
1 - 24" lcd

 

[Backspace]

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

More screen real estate. I wouldn't go any larger than 22" though
because then you run into issues with trying to run games at too high of
a native res and the games will perform poorly. 22" uses 1680x1050 and
my 8800GT video card can handle that res with most games fine. Any
higher res and I think it would really start to degrade performance.