ASUS VW246H VS. ASUS MK241H

[jjolin]

I am having a hard time chosing between these two monitors, and i would like some opinions from people. I will be using the monitor for tons of gaming, some movie watching and some internet browsing. Costwise, the MK241H is ten dollars more. They both come with speakers, but the MK241H has a built in webcam and mic which i could get some use out of. The MK241 has really awesome color from the reviews i have read, but it has some troubles with black. The VW246H is an all around good monitor, but the webcam and microphone, along with the awesome color, and even with the trouble with black colors on the MK241H, it is very temping. I would appreciate any input by anyone, or any suggestions on a better 24 inch monitor for around 300 dollars with shipping.

ASUS VW246H

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049

ASUS MK241H

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236033

 

[Dion]

Well the first thing that i noticed was the Asus VW246H is 16:9 while the other one is 16:10.

I would go with the Asus VW246H for that reason alone.

 

[GJSNeptune]

I wanted 16:10 too, so I got the VW266H. Little more expensive though.

Guess you just need to decide which resolution you want.

 

[CamaroZ28]

I'd go with the MK241H, for only 10 dollars more you get a webcam, mic, and .2M pixels more of resolution. I've always prefered 16:10 to 16:9 for computers, especially if you play any older games they might not run 1920x1080 without some added tinkering with settings or files.

 

[Dion]

I'd go with the MK241H, for only 10 dollars more you get a webcam, mic, and .2M pixels more of resolution. I've always prefered 16:10 to 16:9 for computers, especially if you play any older games they might not run 1920x1080 without some added tinkering with settings or files.

Most old games don't support 16:9 or 16:10 so idk if that's a great way to make a choice about it. Anyways all movies are in 16:9 format. Games support both. And monitors are starting to become 16:9. 16:10 is becoming less and less these days. Also you have a bigger field of view with 16:9 which is better for gaming anyways. (Horizontal that is)

 

[nubi2009]

Most old games don't support 16:9 or 16:10 so idk if that's a great way to make a choice about it. Anyways all movies are in 16:9 format. Games support both. And monitors are starting to become 16:9. 16:10 is becoming less and less these days. Also you have a bigger field of view with 16:9 which is better for gaming anyways. (Horizontal that is)

Sadly (or should I say gladly) that is a common misconception - movies are NEVER 16:9 unless it was a made for TV movie. Movies are anamorphic usually 2.85:1 or 2:35:1 or something like that. HDTV shows are 16:9 so if you enjoy many shows then 16:9 is the way to go. If you enjoy videogames (I can't speak for PS3) Xbox 360 NXE supports 16:10 I believe. So I guess it just matters if you watch a lot of TV. Also you have a larger field of vision with 16:10 as compared to 16:9 (count the pixels to the resolution you mentioned).

 

[Dion]

Sadly (or should I say gladly) that is a common misconception - movies are NEVER 16:9 unless it was a made for TV movie. Movies are anamorphic usually 2.85:1 or 2:35:1 or something like that. HDTV shows are 16:9 so if you enjoy many shows then 16:9 is the way to go. If you enjoy videogames (I can't speak for PS3) Xbox 360 NXE supports 16:10 I believe. So I guess it just matters if you watch a lot of TV. Also you have a larger field of vision with 16:10 as compared to 16:9 (count the pixels to the resolution you mentioned).

You're confusing res with aspect ratio. A 16:9 aspect ratio is bigger horizontally then a 16:10 aspect ratio. Yes 1680x1050 res is a bigger res then 1600x900. But its not a bigger view space. You can test this with games you will see it. But you are correct that most movies are 2.85:1 or 2:35:1. Movie companies crop it to fit a 16:9 aspect. But they are still 16:9 filled with black space. If you convert dvd's to avi's alot you would know this :O And some movies are actually 16:9. 16:9 is the better choice overall.

 

[nubi2009]

You're confusing res with aspect ratio. A 16:9 aspect ratio is bigger horizontally then a 16:10 aspect ratio. Yes 1680x1050 res is a bigger res then 1600x900. But its not a bigger view space. You can test this with games you will see it. But you are correct that most movies are 2.85:1 or 2:35:1. Movie companies crop it to fit a 16:9 aspect. But they are still 16:9 filled with black space. If you convert dvd's to avi's alot you would know this :O And some movies are actually 16:9. 16:9 is the better choice overall.

16:9 does have a wider viewing space but I was thinking resolution not dimension. If they were the same size diagnolly then yes 16:10 would have a larger viewing area. Even if DVDs are made for 16:9 they still have black bars so regardless of 16:9 or 16:10 we would have black bars. Some other features include: 16:10 can do 16:9 not vice versa. Plus most games natively support 16:10.

I guess if black bars bother you that much than definitely go for 16:9. Most of this is also moot if you have 1:1 pixel mapping . But you can't say one is BETTER than the other unless you're using it for specific situations (like movies or office work). There are advantages to both sides, it just depends on your needs.

I personally would prefer a TV be 16:9 but my computer 16:10

AND back to the topic I was looking at the ASUS MK series too this past week. It looks like a pretty solid monitor and it has dropped in price considerably from the 500s to like 250 this past week.

 

[Dion]

16:10 has no advantage over 16:9. Other then losing more viewing space. Not gonna try to explain it again. But whatever. Curious to hear what the OP got.

 

[jjolin]

I went with the ASUS MK241H. Ordered it last night on newegg, open box, for $183. for $90 cheaper than a retail one, i had to bite.

 

[noble1]

I need advice. I have a two monitor setup and was wondering if i should get one VW246H and one MK241K or just buy two of the same. Will having two different monitors cause any problems transitioning from screen to screen?

 

[perra]

I went with the ASUS MK241H. Ordered it last night on newegg, open box, for $183. for $90 cheaper than a retail one, i had to bite.

Are you happy with the monitor..?

Anyone got some info how this monitor is in real life....pros..cons...?

 

[King of Heroes]

16:10 has no advantage over 16:9. Other then losing more viewing space. Not gonna try to explain it again. But whatever. Curious to hear what the OP got.

16:9 is 1920 x 1080

16:10 is 1920 x 1200

I'm going to have to call bullshit on your claim unless you can explain how you're losing viewing space by going with a larger resolution.

If you're talking about black bars, all that does is reduce the 16:10 resolution to 16:9. How don't see how that causes you to lose any viewing space (assuming the image is 16:9 itself).

 

[Tudz]

16:9 is 1920 x 1080

16:10 is 1920 x 1200

I'm going to have to call bullshit on your claim unless you can explain how you're losing viewing space by going with a larger resolution.

If you're talking about black bars, all that does is reduce the 16:10 resolution to 16:9. How don't see how that causes you to lose any viewing space (assuming the image is 16:9 itself).

With two monitors both being 24", the 16:9 one has more horizontal viewing area, even though its the same number of pixels. However, you wont actually get a larger field of view like Dion mentioned unless the game scales like that and as far as I know most games wont increase your FOV unless you actually have more horizontal pixels.

But it doesn't make sense why a 16:10 would have less "viewing space". Basic maths says the maximum area for a rectangle with a fixed diagonal length is a square. So a 16:10 24" has more area (both resolution wise AND area wise) than a 16:9 24", and a 4:3 24" has even more area again, because its closer to a square.