I have a Samsung Sync Master 940N, I think its burning out or something. Lines are going down the screen and colors are bleeding across, so I'm looking for a new one. I've always had non widescreen monitors, I was looking for some 1280x1024 monitor, like the one I have now, just one that isn't going to die on me in 3 months(this is the second time I got this monitor, and had the same problem both times, other monitors work fine on the computer).
Move on to widescreen world, m8. I was worried about it jsut like you are now, but as you may have already noticed, pretty much all monitors are widescreen these days. And after just a little while you are not gonna miss the non-WS. And really time to move on bigger screen.
Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-11-29 07:40:19)
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
that res. sucks. In 09 we use mostly 1920x1200
1280x1024 is native res. below 20" I think. Do you really want to go that "small"?
1280x1024 is native res. below 20" I think. Do you really want to go that "small"?
WS ftw.
/want
/want
Still using this comp???: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=90209
IMO, 22in+. Samsung is recommended by most.
Just remember the paste goes on the back side of the monitor, not the front.
Just remember the paste goes on the back side of the monitor, not the front.
Yeah same one, haven't had anymore problems with paste or passwords, and it can play anything but Crysis maxed out, I got a 19in WS up in the attic somewhere, I guess I'll go dig it out.nickb64 wrote:
Still using this comp???: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=90209
22" monitors, while they are a nice size, typically have the worst pixel definition.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
IMO, 22in+. Samsung is recommended by most.
Just remember the paste goes on the back side of the monitor, not the front.
20" displays are usually 1680x1050.
24" displays are usually 1920x1200.
22" displays are usually 1680x1050.
You get a bigger screen than with a 20" - but you only get the same number of pixels. This means the pixels are blockier and less well defined. Giving 22" monitors the worst quality image.
Get a 20" or 24" VA based panel. TN panels are too crappy (imo) and IPS panels are too expensive (and often a bit slow).
I can thoroughly recommend the Dell U2410 - Ive been using mine for a few weeks now and its nothing short of gorgeous. It has various preset modes which work pretty well out of the box, one of which is a game mode which has been shown to offer 0 - 12 ms input lag, this is pretty damn good for gaming on a panel of its quality.
R.
R.
FYI: Current 22" aka 21.5" are 1920x1080.Bertster7 wrote:
22" monitors, while they are a nice size, typically have the worst pixel definition.The_Sniper_NM wrote:
IMO, 22in+. Samsung is recommended by most.
Just remember the paste goes on the back side of the monitor, not the front.
20" displays are usually 1680x1050.
24" displays are usually 1920x1200.
22" displays are usually 1680x1050.
You get a bigger screen than with a 20" - but you only get the same number of pixels. This means the pixels are blockier and less well defined. Giving 22" monitors the worst quality image.
Get a 20" or 24" VA based panel. TN panels are too crappy (imo) and IPS panels are too expensive (and often a bit slow).
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
What Cheez said.
My 24" is 1920x1200 and my 21.5" is 1920x1080.
My 24" is 1920x1200 and my 21.5" is 1920x1080.
