1280 x 1024 on a 19" TFT vs a 17" TFT

[Ruggerbugger]

Apologies if this has been covered in another thread (I can't find one), but is there a significant difference between 1280 x 1024 on a 17" TFT and a 19" TFT? I want the larger size (currently using a 19" CRT), but not if the extra cost is meaningless.

I'm considering this at the moment, but I'm a little sceptical about the claimed 8ms response time.

[daverobev]

17 inch TFT is about the same physical size as a 19 inch CRT (not much smaller, anyway), and the only difference between a 17 and 19 inch TFT is the physical size - the pixels on the 19 incher are slightly larger. "Meaningless" except if you have bad eyesight!

On the other hand, Dell 20 inchers are 1600 by 1200....£457 or something...yum.

[davidstone28]

Wouldn't say that there's a hugely significant difference between 1280x1024 on 17" or 19". The obvious difference is that everything looks smaller on the 17". Although, its a fairly subjective, I prefer the 19" because unless you have the screen very close to you ie notebook distance (or near enough), things can look very small, particularly for desktop / document work where you need alot of information on screen at the same time. Also films tend to look better on a bigger screen. Try it out. It's just going to be a matter of personal preference.

You're also right to be sceptical about the 8ms response time. Most manufacturers specify 'typical' response times in their specs. The actual response times will vary considerably across brightness and contrast ratios. There are a few threads on this on the forum.

[Taz]

One of the reasons that I would favour a 19" is that you can wall-mount some of them (depending on model) to release even more desk space. I have a fairly large desk at home but it's still fairly cluttered. A wall-mounted 19" would be around 3-ft away from me - a distance that would make a 17" at 1280 resolution too small for comfort.

[exAndrzej]

From a manufacturer's point of view - nice looking, low cost TFTs that handle 1600x1200 with fast response times would be nice

Some of the mags/sites are doing group tests of these now - so maybe you can do some research to see if it is something that you want to consider

Games look great at high resolution (1600x1200) with the eye candy (AA/AF) turned on

Surveys on Hexus (http://www.hexus.net/includes/polls_...BvbGxfSUQ9MjI=) tell us that more people consider upgrading their graphic card than their screen (with a new card ever 12-18 months being the most popular answer)

If you think that you will have your screen for 2-4 years...

...but may have a new card before the end of 2005...

...then maybe you should consider how you want to be driving those pixels before you buy the screen

Hope this helps

[Ruggerbugger]

Thanks guys. Are there any good 19"ers doing 1600 x 1200 for £400? Bear in mind I'm using a 9800 Pro, so I'd imagine it would struggle at that res (in games). I've heard interpolation is crap, so I'm reluctant to use it.

[Taz]

I'm not sure about running games at 1600 resolution in the real world. I think most PC's would struggle at that resoultion. I know that many review sites compare cards at 1600 but they run them on very high-end PC's (quite often FX55's) - something that most users simply cannot afford. I always look at the 1280 frame-rate comparisons to get real-world information.

Thus is a 19" TFT had a native resolution of 1600 then it probably wouldn't look good at playing games at 1280 on an average PC. It may look great for Windows work though.