Widescreen performance

[Plan B]

Thinking about getting a widescreen LCD-monitor.

If you run an application on a widescreen monitor instead of a 4:3 monitor, under the same conditions and with the same *vertical* resolution, will that have a *big* negative impact on performance?

Seems logical to me that there's a direct relation between the extra pixels that need to be rendered and performance, but I'm just wondering how big of a performance hit I should expect.

Don't think I want to go through with it if I have to drastically lower my resolution.

[FragaGeddon]

I run both my lcd's at 1680 x 1050. Don't really notice any performance issues. Haven't really done any gaming on it, besides the xbox360. The monitors are both Samsung 206BW, and my video card is a BFG GeForce 6800 GT.

[obsidian]

I have a dual monitor setup, a 20" 1600x1200 and a 24" widescreen 1920x1200.

Desktop usage, there is no performance difference, particularly so since I'm running both monitors simultaneously (3520x1200!!!) and do a lot of graphics work.

For gaming, if you set the resolution to be higher, there will be a small performance hit. But this doesn't have anything to do with dimensions, just number of pixels it needs to process in general. More pixels = more work. It's the same thing as going from a 1024x768 to a 1600x1200 screen, there will be a performance hit. That said, you don't necessarily need to run games at your screen's native resolution. There will be some downsampling, but pretty negligible.

In my case, swapping from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200 as a primary monitor, I certainly didn't notice any performance difference.

[Plan B]

...

In my case, swapping from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200 as a primary monitor, I certainly didn't notice any performance difference.

That's exactly what I plan on doing, so that's good to hear.

And I realise, of course, that having to process more pixels will not *improve* performance
I was just wondering whether the performance hit caused by only widening your dimensions would be less severe than when you would also increase them vertically, even when the number of extra pixels would be the same.
Seems a strange thought now...a processed pixel is a processed pixel.

Anyway, guess I'm just overthinking this, just going to have to try and see.
Widescreen goodness, here I come.

Thanks.

[obsidian]

Which monitor are you getting?

[Plan B]

Probably the Samsung Syncmaster 245BW.
I want a 24", it's relatively cheap and I have good experiences with Samsungs.

What do you have?

[AmIdYfReAk]

i've got the dell 2405FPW, and the 245BW is basically... litterly.. the same.

they are a great monitor.

[obsidian]

Dell 2407WFP and a Viewsonic VP201s.

My brother has a the same 2405WFP like Amidy, we're the kind of siblings that tries to always one-up each other's gadgets whenever we visit. I got the 20", he gets the Dell 24" and so I bought the newer model of the Dell when it came out.

That Samsung 245BW seems like a good price ($500 on Newegg). I got my Dell for about $600 on sale.

The Dell has more inputs (s-video, component, composite, USB hub, memory card reader) but typically a little more expensive, not sure if any of those connections are important to you. Both monitors have fantastic picture quality (as Amidy pointed out, they are using the same panels), but I've found the contrast on the Samsung is tweaked a bit on the high end by default. If you're doing a lot of graphics work on it, you may want to calibrate it when you pull it out of the box.

Other than that, looks like a fantastic monitor to go for. You'll love working off of a 24".

[Plan B]

I may have made a mistake.

The store didn't have the 24" Samsungs on stock, but in my consumer frenzy eagerness to have the monitor *this weekend*, I bought a 24" Acer.
I knew Acer is an inferior brand, but it was even cheaper and I thought 'what the hell, as long as it displays 1920x1200'.

This it *does*, and I really love working in 1920x1200;
I recently upgraded so was already running everything in 1600x1200, which was a revelation, where older applications that I used to run in 1024x768 got an entirely new appeal.
Now with the extra width, even working a database has become immersive


There are two things that slightly bother me about the Acer, though:

1) It only has D-sub input and no DVI. I wonder if that really matters, although I read that especially at higher resolutions this becomes noticable.
But I wouldn't know, because I can't compare.

2) There seems to be a slight 'fade' from the top of the screen to the bottom.
I run XP in Windows classic-mode, and where the background used to be an uniform blue, there now is a slight gradient.
It's not noticable in applications, just when there is a uniform background.
I read that this is probably due to a cheap panel used in the Acer.


Lol: When typing this (I'm at work) I thought of checking out the pathetically tiny LCD-monitor they force me to work on here.
It's a 15" 4:3 Dell and, lo and behold, it *also* has the 'gradient' going on

is this a common phenomenon in (cheaper) LCD's?

[obsidian]

I don't think it's a cheaper LCD panel that is the cause of this (IIRC, all 1920x1200 screens are manufactured by the same source), more likely to be a cheaper backlight which doesn't illuminate the screen evenly. On some monitors, it's more apparent when you turn off the lights, you may be able to actually see the light "bleed" from the edges of your screen.

Hopefully, your store offers a decent return policy if you're not happy with the monitor, or perhaps let you exchange it for the slightly more expensive Samsung that you wanted in the first place.

[Plan B]

Yeah, if it already bothers me now it will only get worse, where I obsessively look for its flaws.

It's going back and I'll order the Samsung.

Thanks for bearing with.