1680x1050 VS. 1600x1200 resolution (20"-21" monitors)

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by trada101, Jun 10, 2006.

  1. It's time to upgrade my 3 17" LCD monitors to the newer 20"-12" monitors.

    I've noticed that there are mainly two variations on native resolutions at this size.

    I am interested in swiveling the monitors to be horizontal (tall).

    My question is which resolution is better for trading? Is there a noticeable difference? I figure more is better, 1600x1200 right? Just wondering why they would offer the strange 1680x1050 rez?

    Also, does anyone have any experience with the Samsung 204B? It seems to be much cheaper than the Samsung 214T but with similar specs.

    I've had a Benq, Sony, and Samung. I'm leaning towards the Samsung since the text and lines are razor sharp. I'm just real sensitive to having a sharp as hell possible screen.

    Thanks in advance for any input!
     
  2. the unusual resolution *usually referred to as widescreen* is not industry standard. most graphic cards and programs will work with it fine, but especially when using multiple monitor combos - why risk it?

    i would go with the standard resolution (1600*1200) for peace of mind vis a vis compatibility
     
  3. Would the contrast ratio have anything to do with sharpness...say 1000:1 vs. 500:1?
     

  4. It may, but I keep my constrast in the middle (factory settings) and lower the brightness to almost half of factory settings. I sit a little under 2 feet away from my screens.

    It probably doesn't help that I have 3 different monitors where I can see the difference. It's just that with small text it's very annoying when one monitor has slightly blurry lines (kinda looks like it was softened out) and another where it's just sharper.

    I guess the closest thing to simulating this if you have multiple monitors from the same company is to make one monitor display in ClearType and then switch between the two reading 6 and 8pt font text. The difference is not that big but enough to be annoying.
     
  5. 1650x1080 is becoming an industry wide screen standard. (I've read that was chosen because there is less waste at that size from the blank glass.)

    You'll want to make sure that whatever video card you have, it will display the native resolution of the LCD. Most newer cards have 1680x1050 as a choice.

    Most LCD's maximum brightness is overly bright, so higher nit ratings [>250ish] likely go unused.

    Higher contrast ratio = blacker blacks.

    Seems to me that Brightness = 250 nits, and Contrast = 1000:1, would be ideal.
     
  6. Adobian

    Adobian

    What's the best deal these days for 20 inch LCD monitors ?
     
  7. ziddey

    ziddey

    Yes, the two resolutions really depend on whether the screen is your regular 4:3 ratio (think normal tv's and monitors) as opposed to the 16:9 1680x1050 (think widescreen laptops, widescreen tv's, movie theaters, etc). If you're standing them vertical, then one will allow you to track more horizontal fields. but then, if you wanted to think of it that way, it's actually a "smaller" monitor in other respects. really all up to you.
     
  8. dell has the best deals. i picked up 4 20 inch top of the lines for $460 each 2 months ago as they're regularly $500 plus
     
  9. jumper

    jumper

    for trading, i much prefer the 1600 x 1200. you lose screen space with the wide format.

    also, you don't need the brightest screens for trading. i find that the brighter ones make my eyes more tired at the end of the day.

    however, the wide screen format lcds are always cheaper.
     
  10. Adobian

    Adobian

    I have been contemplating buying 6 of those, strip them and place them together to form one big wide screen 50+ inch screen.
     
    #10     Jun 11, 2006