Originally Posted by Pixelsmack
The entire IPS versus TN debate is so simple to solve. You just have to look at honestly what you use your rig for.
Me, it's gaming. It's this reason that I not only chose a TN panel but also a 20" instead of a 24"+. I hate running games at scaled resolutions and I ain't going to spend $$$$ on uber rig to drive a game at 1920x1200. So with the 20"WS you get a respectable 1680x1050. My system can push that resolution just fine.
The TN panel also rids me of the far more annoying LCD smear than an IPS can. And since when I play games I am focused front, the color shift of TN panels is nearly non-existant.
That's all I am saying.
Dude, ditto. That is why I got my SP2008WFP instead of a 24". I also turned down a 22" because the pixel pitch is bigger, i.e. same amount of pixels in more space.
True. 1440x900 still looks decent on a 1680x1050 monitor, at least on mine it does, for games like Crysis, lol.
What you would need, if you got a large screen, would be one that scaled extremely well because I know my monitor looks fugly when it isn't in 16:10/native resolution.
The *ONLY* bad thing about not getting a 24" is that with a smaller one you don't get the "full" quality of HD. They really need an in-between step from 720P to 1080P. Like 1050P,
Overdrive PC Core2.SLI:
Core 2 Duo E6600 @ ~3.5GHz,4GB of DDR2-770, 8800GTS 640MB @ 621/1836, Western Digital 640GB, LITE-ON 20X, CM Stacker 830, Enermax 620W, Vista Ultimate 64-bit
3DMark '06: 10,302
SuperPI 1M: 15.194s