[resolved] G-Sync or resolution?

[p1t1o]

Hi All,

Been doing some browsing and have narrowed my options down to a couple of pathways.

My current monitor is a >10yr old 20inch, 1680*1050 model.

I can either:

Get a decent 1920*1200 monitor

OR

Get a monitor with a lower, 1920*1080 resolution but with nVidia's G-Sync technology. G-Sync dynamically alters the refresh rate of the monitor to match each frame as it is produced, this has multiple effects on image quality and by all reports is quite effective.

 

I am torn between enhanced image technology and increased resolution - up until now I have always regarded resolution as the most important factor in image quality.

Right now my main attraction to greater resolution is greater viewable area rather than quality - 1920*1080 is still more pixels than I have now, but Im not all that fussed  about having a *wider* screen over a *larger* one.

 

But choosing 1920*1200 I am missing out on G-Sync, a potential waste of capability and basically free quality improvement.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks!

 

 

***original post***

Hi all,

The next upgrade I want to make to my computer is a new monitor. The one I have now is an ageing (>10yrs) 1680*1050 Dell 20incher. I'm relatively au fait with computer components and the like, but as you can see I havn't bought a monitor in quite some time and there are a lot of new words floating around, such as "OLED", "IPS" etc. Basically I would like to know what I should be looking for in a new monitor. I don't need it to be huge, I have selected 1920*1200 as a target resolution (I can't be having with all this "HD" BS, thats for TV's and Xboxes...).

Are there any display technologies I should look out for? (IPS, AMOLED etc.)

Which buzzwords should my new monitor have on the box? ("SPLENDID Video Intelligence Technology"!!!, HDCP?)

What are the most respected brands in the display world?

Are there any brands (or anything else) that i should avoid like the plague?

Lots of monitors now have some BS about "blue light control" or somesuch, is that just marketting speech?

Which stats are the most important, and what are considered "good" or "great" values? (eg: response time, brightness, contrast ratio, refresh rate etc..)

Thanks!

Edited March 29, 2016 by p1t1o

[pincushionman]

Keep in mind with 1920x1200 you're not actually getting "extra resolution," you're getting "more screen height" (the dot pitch is the same). 1920x1080 is the resolution of a TV and fhas an aspect ratio of 16:9, but the other one has an aspect ratio of 16:10.

Your current monitor is 16:10.

What you want depends on what you're going to do most. Videos are mostly a native 16:9 aspect ratio. Games, minor difference in aspect ratio is less important, but would benefit from the G-sync. Work work? I would kill for a 1600x1200 monitor (4:3) rather than the 1680x1050 second monitor they gave me at work. An extra 120 vertical pixels would be very valuable, but extra width is kinda worthless, especially when using Word where screen width is essentially wasted. Even in Excel it's only one column.

Edited March 22, 2016 by pincushionman

[moogoob]

1920 x 1080 does have the benefit of matching 1080p content at native resolution - AKA compatibility might be greater, especially with movie and youtube content, and some games that refuse to match up to less-common resolutions.

My next monitor will likely be 120hz and 3Dvision compatible.

[p1t1o]

Basically I have been torn between the larger viewable area of 1920*1200 and the added features of a 1080p monitor with G-Sync.

I'm taking the plunge and going for the G-Sync, I think that it will be more "future-proof" than a monitor with more pixels, in terms of graphics power, and since I've had my current monitor for more than a decade, I hope to get that much use out of a new one.

My biggest wrankle has been the wider screen which has never really been a priority - in the sort of games I play (Flight Sims, Strategy-types, KSP, XCOM etc) vertical space is just as much a premium as horizontal, but given that the 1920*1080 still represents an increase in both dimensions, Im not exactly losing out, and I can't bear to leave G-Sync capability unused. I'd like the extra headroom of the 1920*1200 because right now I have the processing power to take advantage of it, but in another 3 years or so it would take its toll. With the 1920*1080 screen there are obviously fewer pixels, which will push the time where I need to upgrade power items (CPU, GPU...) further back, also the G-Sync will help when frame rates start to drop as well, pushing it back further.

I just hope that KSP doesn't look too stoopid looking at it through a letterbox....

Edited March 22, 2016 by p1t1o

[p1t1o]

Just to conclude -

I went for the 1980*1080 monitor with "G-Sync".

Pretty happy with my choice:

1980*1080 is a plenty big monitor, the extra 120 pixels of height would have been nice, but only an incremental difference.

1980*1080 is pretty good for watching TV/movies, naturally.

The model in question has a 144Hz refresh and a 1ms response time. The refresh rate at least, makes things perceptively smoother, even down to mouse movement in windows.

The G-Sync feature works very well, tearing and flicker are entirely eliminated and there is a perception of increased frame rate - some probably due to increased refresh rate offering higher peak frames, but the whole thing seems "smoother" all around.

Added bonus - now I have dual monitors! Useful for many things

NOTE - monitor manufacturers clearly compromised on panel technology in order to fit other gubbins in at a sane price point, ergo it is a "Twisted Nematic" panel (read: "old skool" LCD) which has poorer colour reproduction and viewable angle than newer technologies. Next to my old monitor it looks noticeably "faded". Probably would be that noticeable if I didn't have the monitors next to each other and makes hardly any difference to games.

Have a nice day!

[Tex Mechs Robot]

On 3/22/2016 at 6:35 AM, pincushionman said:

An extra 120 vertical pixels would be very valuable, but extra width is kinda worthless, especially when using Word where screen width is essentially wasted. Even in Excel it's only one column.

My only rebuttal on this is when using the review or search/outline features in Word. They populate on the right and left sides of the actual document and it makes a 16:9 resolution very valuable.

[pincushionman]

11 minutes ago, Tex Mechs Robot said:

My only rebuttal on this is when using the review or search/outline features in Word. They populate on the right and left sides of the actual document and it makes a 16:9 resolution very valuable.

I guess that all depends on your preferred zoom level. At 100% on my (1600x1200) monitor, I fit an entire single 8 1/2x11 page vertically, with review, navigation pane, and styles pane vertically, and there's still space to each side.

But some people prefer to zoom in. You gotta work how you gotta work.