Widescreen versus 4:3 LCD monitor

[zapionics<alt>]

I want to get an LCD monitor and I'm wondering whats best, widescreen format or standard? I wont be watching any HD on the monitor, just office apps and gaming.

I think the wide screen has the advantage of allowing two documents or pages to be viewed side by side, but what happens with games that dont support widescreen?

Also, if I do go widescreen should I get 16:9 or is any widescreen aspect ratio ok for my purpose? (Also I'm probably going for 19")

[FearFactory]

If you are getting an 19', i think it not worth to get a widescreen, it's better on 20' plus screens. Most games now have support for widescreen, and some others have a patch to support it, like Prey.

[Drufuss]

Nothing to bother you, but a funny fact is, that many moives are actually made in 4:3. So you get to see more when watching the DVD 4:3 version at home then in the cinema.

Greetings

Dru

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by FearFactory

If you are getting an 19', i think it not worth to get a widescreen, it's better on 20' plus screens. Most games now have support for widescreen, and some others have a patch to support it, like Prey.

Yeah, but what happens if the game doesnt support widescreen? Is it just played with black bars left and right or will it be s t r e t c h e d somehow?

I dont want to get a widescreen and discover all my favorite games look like cr*p.

[Rick_EE]

I have widescreen and I would not go back. However, mine is 22".
For spreadsheets, widescreen is really nice.
For documents, I like to be able to have word to one side and I can still see whatever I am referencing on the other.

As for games, Eve online is fine. I also ran a demo of Call of Duty fine.

[zapionics<alt>]

I'm looking at a 19" to keep the load on the vid card down by keeping the resolution lower. I'm using a ATI 1950 Pro AGP card on my gaming rig and a native resolution of 1280x1024 or thereabouts should be ideal as I'm sure my card will run most current games quite well at that res.

Anyhow a 19" LCD is a step up in terms of real-estate from my 17" flatscreen CRT.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by zapionics<alt>

Yeah, but what happens if the game doesnt support widescreen?

My HP senses whether a game is widescreen or not and adjusts automagically. It's a setting in the monitor's software that I had to enable, though.
If there is no widescreen support your game won't be stretched but it's likely that with some older games you'll see vertical black bars on either side of the game screen. On more recent non-widescreen games the bars aren't present. The picture fills the screen but it isn't true widescreen.

If you're not gaming in widescreen when available you truly are missing out...even non-widescreen gaming improves because, well, there's just more picture. Add the fact that everything coming out that you want to play will be in widescreen and it just makes sense to get one.

[FearFactory]

Originally Posted by zapionics<alt>

I'm looking at a 19" to keep the load on the vid card down by keeping the resolution lower. I'm using a ATI 1950 Pro AGP card on my gaming rig and a native resolution of 1280x1024 or thereabouts should be ideal as I'm sure my card will run most current games quite well at that res.

Anyhow a 19" LCD is a step up in terms of real-estate from my 17" flatscreen CRT.

If you choose a 19' widescreen, you will get a 1440 x 900 native resolution. I saw some guys on a guru3d forums having troubles to setup their video card with that resolution.

[ATINUT]

I would get a 20inch widescreen. What I really like about my 20in Viewsonic VG2030wm widescreen, is that it will automatically convert a 4:3 screen to widescreen.

With most 20inch widescreens, you will get a native resolution of 1680 X 1050 resolution, and a widescreen format of 16:10.

[SupDawg]

Originally Posted by Drufuss

Nothing to bother you, but a funny fact is, that many moives are actually made in 4:3. So you get to see more when watching the DVD 4:3 version at home then in the cinema.

Greetings

Dru

Not sure, perhaps you are referring to European movies, but 99% of Hollywood movies are made in 2.35:1 or 16:9.

[Rick_EE]

Old movies were in 4:3. Hollywood changed to the widescreen when TV's came out. They wanted a to create another reason to buy a ticket.

[simplyjoy]

Of course widescreen is better than the standard one , but sometimes the display has something to do with the physical aspect ratio . And some other key factors for display like the Screen Resolution, Response Time and Brightness ,Contrast Ratio .
Acer has a AL1917WAbd 19-inch LCD Multimedia Monitor , with quite good display quality :
Screen Resolution: 1440 x 900
Physical Aspect Ratio: 16:10 (Widescreen)
Response Time: 5 ms
Brightness: 300 cd/M2
Contrast Ratio: 700 :1
Horizontal Viewing Angle (Degrees): 150
Vertical Viewing Angle (Degrees): 135
This monitor got very good reviews from the users :
Customer Reviews Of Acer AL1917WAbd Black 19" 5ms DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 700:1 Built in Speakers - Retail
And the price is reasonable now, a recent deal on it is for $150,$40 dropped from it's retail price:
dealstudio.com :: View Deals - :: Deals, Coupons, Rebates, Freebies, Discounts, Bargains
If you just want it for your daily work , it is ok .

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by FearFactory

If you choose a 19' widescreen, you will get a 1440 x 900 native resolution. I saw some guys on a guru3d forums having troubles to setup their video card with that resolution.

Thanks for the heads up on that, last thing I need and thanks to everyone else for your advice.

I can choose between 20" and 22". I'm thinking that 22" would be too big to sit on a desk for gaming and office work and as I said the larger the screen the higher the resolution and consequent load on the vid card.

Seems like I'd be better off at 20" but I'm worried about that screen resolution. Have to do some more thinking...

Originally Posted by TQ

If you're not gaming in widescreen when available you truly are missing out...even non-widescreen gaming improves because, well, there's just more picture. Add the fact that everything coming out that you want to play will be in widescreen and it just makes sense to get one.

Widescreen looks better in movies than 4:3 no doubt about it, and I can appreciate how gaming would also be better for the same reasons, so my next monitor will be widescreen for sure.

My problem is that I dont want to upgrade my system just yet because I want to wait for the new chipsets and vid cards but I'm pushing it at resolutions above 1280 with this rig. Its not the vid card its the CPU/memory subsystem (875P/P4) and I do like to play with all graphics eye candy maxed out in games.

I'm playing BIOSHOCK and its flying no problems at all, but STALKER runs at about 20-60 fps depending on the location with everything maxed and I do like to play some STALKER now and then and Oblivion is just satisfactory.

My other option is to build an "interim" C2D system which I'm still considering ... an ASRock 4coredualVSTA and a couple GB of DDR2 and a E6420 and I can fit my AGP 1950 Pro into that which would allow me to run a 22" monitor nicely but I will want to upgrade again early next year so it seems a bit wasteful.

Sorry about wandering off topic (and its my own topic too!), , it seems the consensus is that widescreen is the way to go!

[TQ]

Originally Posted by zapionics<alt>

I want to wait for the new chipsets and vid cards but I'm pushing it at resolutions above 1280 with this rig. Its not the vid card its the CPU/memory subsystem (875P/P4) and I do like to play with all graphics eye candy maxed out in games.

I'm not sure you have to wait for the new chipsets. If you do and purchase a new one you'll just be getting the equivalent of a new car on its first year. Good as it looks on paper you can bet it's got some problems that will be fixed in the following year's model.

Right now Intel's Bad Axe II is fully matured, supports quad-core and all the processors at this link:
Intel® Desktop Board D975XBX2 - Supported Processors

You get a refined, powerful and reliable motherboard and you can get it right now, no waiting.
nVidia's new video cards are imminent and with all the competition there's never been a better time to buy a sound card. Intel's on-board audio is no slouch either, though being a fan of EAX in games I'd still go with an X-Fi-based part for audio. DDR 3 isn't yet a must-have (and won't be for a long while) and it's going to be expensive.

With my Bad Axe I-based game machine Stalker never runs any less than fluidly at 1680x1050 with all the available eye candy. BioShock - admittedly a brilliantly coded game - also runs hiccup free and looks stunning.

You really don't have to wait for the technology because it's here right now.

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by TQ

I'm not sure you have to wait for the new chipsets. If you do and purchase a new one you'll just be getting the equivalent of a new car on its first year. Good as it looks on paper you can bet it's got some problems that will be fixed in the following year's model.

Right now Intel's Bad Axe II is fully matured, supports quad-core and all the processors at this link:
Intel® Desktop Board D975XBX2 - Supported Processors

You get a refined, powerful and reliable motherboard and you can get it right now, no waiting.
nVidia's new video cards are imminent and with all the competition there's never been a better time to buy a sound card. Intel's on-board audio is no slouch either, though being a fan of EAX in games I'd still go with an X-Fi-based part for audio. DDR 3 isn't yet a must-have (and won't be for a long while) and it's going to be expensive.

With my Bad Axe I-based game machine Stalker never runs any less than fluidly at 1680x1050 with all the available eye candy. BioShock - admittedly a brilliantly coded game - also runs hiccup free and looks stunning.

You really don't have to wait for the technology because it's here right now.

I think you're making a good point there! I have an AGP vid card, so if I went down that path I would have to buy a PCI-e card as well which is a big outlay considering I will jump for a 9800 when they come out. (The "interim" solution I talk about above makes use of my existing AGP card and is fairly cheap upgrade @ about $500 AUD.)

I think its better if I wait for the new vid cards and build a system that will last me for a while. I'm leaning towards the new chipsets so I have future proofing and I remember before I bought my Canterwood board that people were saying to me why dont you just buy a good reliable P4PE board instead of the untested 875P? but in the end the 875P has really carried me for a long while now so it was a good decision! (OTOH, I was an early adopter of Granite Bay and that was a mistake).

The more I think about it the more the "interim" solution is making sense. I get a much improved gaming experience, and get to run a 22" widescreen with BIOSHOCK. The case I would put it into is quite nice still and the PS is a true blue at 480W, I could probably sell the system next year and recoup 600 or 700 for it, so really I wouldnt be losing on the deal.
Also I know someone who will buy the old board, CPU and DDR, so I would get some cash back there too. (BTW this is a different box I'm talking about upgrading than my 875P, I'm keeping that for some office apps I have).