LED LCD monitor at 1920x1200?

I am failing to find any monitors that are LED backlit and 1920x1200. They are all mostly 1080p. I hate the 16:9 ratio. Is there any monitors that are LED and 1920x1200?

i know of some Apple Cinema displays fit that res and LED backlit but they are damn expensiveferret-gamer

i know of some Apple Cinema displays fit that res and LED backlit but they are damn expensiveferret-gamer

I can't believe you hate 1080p. it's only 110 vertical pixels less! Adam_the_Nerd

[QUOTE="Adam_the_Nerd"]I can't believe you hate 1080p. it's only 110 vertical pixels less! mattpunkgd

I can't believe you hate 1080p. it's only 110 vertical pixels less! Adam_the_Nerd

[QUOTE="Adam_the_Nerd"]I can't believe you hate 1080p. it's only 110 vertical pixels less! millerlight89

Do you see the word "vertical" in there?

Ya thats just him talking about the height difference and not the area difference.

reading comprehension ftw.

The reason you don't see many is because not many people want that resolution.. And there's a reason for that. xsubtownerx

[QUOTE="millerlight89"][QUOTE="Adam_the_Nerd"]I can't believe you hate 1080p. it's only 110 vertical pixels less! GummiRaccoon

Do you see the word "vertical" in there?

Ya thats just him talking about the height difference and not the area difference.

reading comprehension ftw.

[QUOTE="Adam_the_Nerd"]I can't believe you hate 1080p. it's only 110 vertical pixels less! millerlight89

Lulz.:P

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="millerlight89"] What is up with people no knowing how to calculate the amount of pixles on this board? It's a simple math problem. L x W = # of pixels. millerlight89

Do you see the word "vertical" in there?

Ya thats just him talking about the height difference and not the area difference.

reading comprehension ftw.

You can, but are you? No, no you aren't.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Do you see the word "vertical" in there?

Ya thats just him talking about the height difference and not the area difference.

reading comprehension ftw.

GummiRaccoon

You can, but are you? No, no you aren't.

Reading comprehension. You should learn it before criticizing other people.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="millerlight89"] Getting pretty tired of you spamming "reading comprehension." I can read, thanks though. ferret-gamer

You can, but are you? No, no you aren't.

Reading comprehension. You should learn it before criticizing other people.

You are wrong, sorry.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

You can, but are you? No, no you aren't.

GummiRaccoon

Reading comprehension. You should learn it before criticizing other people.

You are wrong, sorry.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] You are the one lacking in reading comprehension though. adam_the nerd said vertical pixels, not vertical lines. What adam_the_nerd said is that all he is missing is 110 pixels on a vertical axis. Now if he had said that it is missing 110 vertical lines then he would have been correct, as 1080p is missing 110 lines of vertical pixels.

Reading comprehension. You should learn it before criticizing other people.

ferret-gamer

You are wrong, sorry.

ignorance and denial is bliss.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] You are the one lacking in reading comprehension though. adam_the nerd said vertical pixels, not vertical lines. What adam_the_nerd said is that all he is missing is 110 pixels on a vertical axis. Now if he had said that it is missing 110 vertical lines then he would have been correct, as 1080p is missing 110 lines of vertical pixels.

Reading comprehension. You should learn it before criticizing other people.

ferret-gamer

You are wrong, sorry.

When he said 120 vertical pixels he was in fact being casual about his use of terms. While his statement was accurate, it is only 120 more vertical pixels, you are unhappy with his precision.

That's like getting mad at people for using the term 'decelerating' which when you really look at what it means, doesn't mean what people use it for. Acceleration means a change in velocity. Deceleration means the opposite of that, so realistically, if someone is decelerating, they are maintaining speed and the proper term someone should use is negatively accelerate "change velocity by way of slowing down"

However people are casual about the terms they use.

So, you are wrong.

i hate the 16:9 vs 16:10...wish everybody would go for 1 size i'd still prefer 4:3 if it's possiblefishing666

after using all 3 aspect ratios, I like 16:10 the best.

Especially in a multi monitor environment.

I'd be ok with 16:9 if they had options past 1920x1080

When I used to work the projector at a movie theater, we had some 25:9 or something like that crazy wide movies, like LOTR and such, it was pretty awesom for movies, but for desktops you really need height also.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

You are wrong, sorry.

GummiRaccoon

When he said 120 vertical pixels he was in fact being casual about his use of terms. While his statement was accurate, it is only 120 more vertical pixels, you are unhappy with his precision.

That's like getting mad at people for using the term 'decelerating' which when you really look at what it means, doesn't mean what people use it for. Acceleration means a change in velocity. Deceleration means the opposite of that, so realistically, if someone is decelerating, they are maintaining speed and the proper term someone should use is negatively accelerate "change velocity by way of slowing down"

However people are casual about the terms they use.

So, you are wrong.

Yeah, I agree with this guy. You all need to lighten up a bit.

It won't happen. 16:9 is the future. Get used to it :P

Why do you need LED?? This monitor destroys LED in everything as far as image quality is concerned.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-8277

The market has a product that suits your needs perfectly, dont get too carried away by marketing terms like "LED LCD". I also like 16:10 and have the 22" version of that dell, I have compared it side by side with a TN panel LED monitor and there is absolutely no comparasion, IPS panel is superior in everyway.

^ At that price it better damn well destroy "LED"..xsubtownerx

It''s still much much cheaper than the apple cinema display which was mentioned and it IS actually worth the price. Also I would like to point out that the apple cinema has 12ms response time which is just not enough for gaming.

Why do you need LED?? This monitor destroys LED in everything as far as image quality is concerned.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-8277

The market has a product that suits your needs perfectly, dont get too carried away by marketing terms like "LED LCD". I also like 16:10 and have the 22" version of that dell, I have compared it side by side with a TN panel LED monitor and there is absolutely no comparasion, IPS panel is superior in everyway.

Gambler_3

^ At that price it better damn well destroy "LED"..xsubtownerx

^ At that price it better damn well destroy "LED"..xsubtownerx

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Why do you need LED?? This monitor destroys LED in everything as far as image quality is concerned.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-8277

The market has a product that suits your needs perfectly, dont get too carried away by marketing terms like "LED LCD". I also like 16:10 and have the 22" version of that dell, I have compared it side by side with a TN panel LED monitor and there is absolutely no comparasion, IPS panel is superior in everyway.

hd5870corei7

Stop trying to justify having spent $300 on a TN monitor, it will never be in the same league as an IPS panel sorry.

[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Why do you need LED?? This monitor destroys LED in everything as far as image quality is concerned.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-8277

The market has a product that suits your needs perfectly, dont get too carried away by marketing terms like "LED LCD". I also like 16:10 and have the 22" version of that dell, I have compared it side by side with a TN panel LED monitor and there is absolutely no comparasion, IPS panel is superior in everyway.

Gambler_3

Stop trying to justify having spent $300 on a TN monitor, it will never be in the same league as an IPS panel sorry.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"] In terms of gaming, which is all that matters (in this forum especially) Samsung's XL2370 is a better monitor. The only monitor with better picture quality is the Dell Ultrasharp 27" inch which has a ridiculous 1440p resolution or something... so technically it should go against the 30" monitors that are on a different level with their 2560x1600p displays.ATLReppa770

Stop trying to justify having spent $300 on a TN monitor, it will never be in the same league as an IPS panel sorry.

And that was old times, dell IPS panels have 6ms and there is no ghosting at all. Exactly back when did you get it? The 6ms IPS panel that I have has been in the market for a long time now.

Have YOU ever compared the two? Back when I got my TN monitor, IPS had the worst response times (and to my knowledge, still do).ATLReppa770

[QUOTE="ATLReppa770"]Have YOU ever compared the two? Back when I got my TN monitor, IPS had the worst response times (and to my knowledge, still do).Makari

This man is right. IPS is by far the best.

I was actually just at best buy not 2 hours ago. I saw the wall of LCD monitors and I decided to guess what each were, there was a visible difference between the LED LCD monitors and regular LCD monitors, however, it wasn't huge like it is with TVs. And niether hold a candle to the IPS I use at my parents house.

[QUOTE="ATLReppa770"]Have YOU ever compared the two? Back when I got my TN monitor, IPS had the worst response times (and to my knowledge, still do).Makari

I can't believe you hate 1080p. it's only 110 vertical pixels less! Adam_the_Nerd

It won't happen. 16:9 is the future. Get used to it :P

middle-earth88

Why do you need LED?? This monitor destroys LED in everything as far as image quality is concerned.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-8277

The market has a product that suits your needs perfectly, dont get too carried away by marketing terms like "LED LCD". I also like 16:10 and have the 22" version of that dell, I have compared it side by side with a TN panel LED monitor and there is absolutely no comparasion, IPS panel is superior in everyway.

Gambler_3

Yeah? Try playing Guitar Hero, without changing any input settings. Compare the two (TN vs. IPS), where every millisecond (slightly exaggerated) matters.ATLReppa770

And if every millisecond matters go for a CRT which provides much better image quality as well.

And btw NamelessPlayer is the man when it comes to monitors.:P

Here is a 16:9 IPS with a greater than 1920x1080 resolution.

But I get your point. I think the largest OLED display I saw was like 11" and it cost nearly $4,000.

EDIT: whoops forgot to quote nameless.

Here is a 16:9 IPS with a greater than 1920x1080 resolution.

But I get your point. I think the largest OLED display I saw was like 11" and it cost nearly $4,000.

EDIT: whoops forgot to quote nameless.

GummiRaccoon

Here is a 16:9 IPS with a greater than 1920x1080 resolution.

But I get your point. I think the largest OLED display I saw was like 11" and it cost nearly $4,000.

EDIT: whoops forgot to quote nameless.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="ATLReppa770"]Yeah? Try playing Guitar Hero, without changing any input settings. Compare the two (TN vs. IPS), where every millisecond (slightly exaggerated) matters. And @Gambler_3: I've had this monitor for about 2 to 3 years. I stopped looking at IPS panels about 3 to 4 years ago.ATLReppa770

seeing IPS first hand next to TN, IPS is far far superior.

well 16:10 is on the way out except for people with big budgets. You can get them but expect a 1920 x 1200 monitor to cost the same as two 1080p monitors with both of them being the same quality. Because 16:9 works better for movies and games more people want 16:9. 16:9 isn't always less viewing space. 22" monitors were mostly 1680 x 1050 but now they are mostly 1920 x 1080 which give significantly more space. imprezawrx500

They are better for movies sure but the difference isnt big for games as I dont believe in "the wider the better" as far as gaming is concerned and especially not on small screens.

[QUOTE="Adam_the_Nerd"] I don't know about the OP, but the problem I have with 1920x1080 is simply this: It CANNOT fit a 1600x1200 image due to the lack of vertical lines. 1920x1200 can. I still play a lot of old games whose two highest resolution options are 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. I already have a monitor or two that do 1600x1200 at 95 Hz rather nicely, I might add. Being forced to downgrade to 1280x1024 after spending over $100 on a new monitor is a downgrade more than anything else-especially if the monitor is based on some cheap TN LCD, regardless of whether it has a CCFL or LED backlight. (Right now, the IPS LCDs are the only things I'd ever really consider as alternatives to high-end FD Trinitrons, and even then, I'd still be making tradeoffs.)NamelessPlayer

[QUOTE="ATLReppa770"] I remember reading a few reviews, back when I was looking for a new monitor, 4 years ago or so. And, most of the reviews always complained and pointed out the input lag on the IPS panels. So, maybe things have changed or, they were just lazy reviewers? I don't know, but I don't have any personal experience with IPS panels, only TN and CRT.Makari

[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"] I remember reading a few reviews, back when I was looking for a new monitor, 4 years ago or so. And, most of the reviews always complained and pointed out the input lag on the IPS panels. So, maybe things have changed or, they were just lazy reviewers? I don't know, but I don't have any personal experience with IPS panels, only TN and CRT.Animatronic64

seeing IPS first hand next to TN, IPS is far far superior.

well 16:10 is on the way out except for people with big budgets. You can get them but expect a 1920 x 1200 monitor to cost the same as two 1080p monitors with both of them being the same quality. Because 16:9 works better for movies and games more people want 16:9. 16:9 isn't always less viewing space. 22" monitors were mostly 1680 x 1050 but now they are mostly 1920 x 1080 which give significantly more space. imprezawrx500