![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
This post is for those of you who want a 24 in widescreen, but think that their video card is underpowered. Do you think a 21in widescreen running at 1680x1050 is more reasonable? I am in the same boat as you with a 6800GT AGP and looking to buy a new monitor. I was about ready to buy a 20in or 21in widescreen, not because of the money, but because of my now midline videocard.
However, after doing some basic calculating (trigonometry and algebra), I seems to me that if one were to get a 24in widescreen, and run said 24in widescreen at 1680x1050 at a 1:1 pixel ratio (no scaling), the actual viewable screen area would be 21in.
24in monitor: W 20.3 x H 12.7 Res: 1920 x 1200
21in monitor: W 17.8 x H 11.1 Res: 1680 x 1050
For a 24in widescreen:
If you have (20.3/1920)in/pixel in width. Then (20.3/1920)*1680=17.8 in in width
If you have (12.7/1200)in/pixel in height. Then (12.7/1200)*1050=11.1 in in width
Therefore, if price IS a factor for choosing a 21in monitor over a 24in monitor, more power to you.
However, if price is not a huge factor (seeing that the 2405 is only a little more expensive that the gateway fpd2185w), choosing the 20 or 21 in monitor because of your videocard would seem illogical because you could run the 24in monitor at a 1:1 pixel ratio (without scaling) in games and essentially have a 21in lcd. When not running games, you could bask in the glory that is 24in. Also, when you do indeed choose to upgrade your gaming system, you would not be stuck with a 21in monitor and could take full advantage of your 24in monitor.
Are my calculations grossly inaccurate? Some have chosen a Dell 2005 or other 20 or 21in widescreen monitor becuase their system could not handle the 24in, but if you run a 24in monitor at 1680x1050 without scaling, you get a 21in lcd without any ugly scaling artifacts. And when not gaming, you can have a ton of desktop real-estate. Its the best of the both worlds.
Ross
However, after doing some basic calculating (trigonometry and algebra), I seems to me that if one were to get a 24in widescreen, and run said 24in widescreen at 1680x1050 at a 1:1 pixel ratio (no scaling), the actual viewable screen area would be 21in.
24in monitor: W 20.3 x H 12.7 Res: 1920 x 1200
21in monitor: W 17.8 x H 11.1 Res: 1680 x 1050
For a 24in widescreen:
If you have (20.3/1920)in/pixel in width. Then (20.3/1920)*1680=17.8 in in width
If you have (12.7/1200)in/pixel in height. Then (12.7/1200)*1050=11.1 in in width
Therefore, if price IS a factor for choosing a 21in monitor over a 24in monitor, more power to you.
However, if price is not a huge factor (seeing that the 2405 is only a little more expensive that the gateway fpd2185w), choosing the 20 or 21 in monitor because of your videocard would seem illogical because you could run the 24in monitor at a 1:1 pixel ratio (without scaling) in games and essentially have a 21in lcd. When not running games, you could bask in the glory that is 24in. Also, when you do indeed choose to upgrade your gaming system, you would not be stuck with a 21in monitor and could take full advantage of your 24in monitor.
Are my calculations grossly inaccurate? Some have chosen a Dell 2005 or other 20 or 21in widescreen monitor becuase their system could not handle the 24in, but if you run a 24in monitor at 1680x1050 without scaling, you get a 21in lcd without any ugly scaling artifacts. And when not gaming, you can have a ton of desktop real-estate. Its the best of the both worlds.
Ross
.