# Dell E190S. How good is it?



## blackedition91 (Aug 12, 2011)

Hi all. I'm looking forward to get a new non widescreen LCD monitor. I'm planning to get Dell E190S. I couldn't find any professional review. But most of the customer reviews rated it 5/5(most will be from noobs anyway ). I currently have a 17" crt. The main purpose is gaming. My budget is 6.5k. My graphics card is a 5770. However I have a few questions about this monitor.
1. It shows the response time as 5ms typical. What does that word typical mean there? Will it be good enough for gaming without ghosting issues?
2. Does anyone know if it has backlight bleeding issue?
3. Will 1280x1024 look good on 19" for desktop usage?
If any good review of the same is available, please link it. Thanks in advance


----------



## jsjs (Aug 12, 2011)

Get the Dell IN2020M at 6.2k, why dont you want a wide display?


----------



## saswat23 (Aug 13, 2011)

Yes, get the *DELL IN2020M*. Else another option is *SAMSUNG B2030*. Both are priced almost the same but the SAMSUNG model provides a DVI cable with the monitor where as DELL doesn't.


----------



## blackedition91 (Aug 13, 2011)

Thanks. I don't want to consider widescreens because, I'll be keeping this graphics card for two more years without upgrade. The widescreen monitors render additional content on the sides, there by giving unnecessarily lower frame rate. With The 5:4 monitors one can get 1024p quality graphics but still better framerate than 16:9 900p monitors.


----------



## jsjs (Aug 13, 2011)

^but square monitors are not the trend and again in sq. monitors gpu will have to render more on above n below; 1024 pixels instead of 900 pixels


----------



## Skud (Aug 13, 2011)

If the main purpose is gaming, get a Widescreen monitor. No point going for a square screen nowadays.


----------



## d6bmg (Aug 14, 2011)

blackedition91 said:


> Thanks. I don't want to consider widescreens because, I'll be keeping this graphics card for two more years without upgrade. The widescreen monitors render additional content on the sides, there by giving unnecessarily lower frame rate. With The 5:4 monitors one can get 1024p quality graphics but still better framerate than 16:9 900p monitors.



You can always use lower resolution in those wide screen monitors.
As Skud have already said, there is no point of opting for square monitor in this era of hardware.


----------



## blackedition91 (Aug 15, 2011)

Yeah, i know i can change the resolution. But anything other than native res reduces the picture quality. I've tested many modern games on 16:9, 16:10, 4:3 and 5:4. After doin that, i came to know that the vertical content rendered in all the modern games are same. Only the width changes, with 5:4 being least wide. I also came to know that the number of vertical pixels represents the image quality. I also saw the 1280x1024 looking a lot better than 1600x900. I really don't care about the extra real estate offered by widescreens. The only things i care about are good image quality combined with good framerate. That's why i narrowed down to square ones.


----------



## mayanksharma (Aug 19, 2011)

^^well said!
and, go for this model. Its all good.
About Widescreens vs Square ones, its a never ending argument. Different users various perceptions. Personal preference is most important.
IMO, square ones are more suited for professional usage. Widescreens on the other hand are suited for movies/games!


----------



## aniket.cain (Aug 19, 2011)

Other things being the same, how can a game at 1280x1024 look a lot better than 1600x900, image quality wise?


----------



## blackedition91 (Aug 19, 2011)

aniket.cain said:


> Other things being the same, how can a game at 1280x1024 look a lot better than 1600x900, image quality wise?



Because it's 1024p vs 900p essentially. The same exact image displayed on the screen will have 124 more pixels in case of 1280x1024, thereby making it look better. This can be better understood by considering the following. If 1600x900 is cropped to 1152x900, it becomes a 5:4 resolution but the only thing it loses is the extra real estate offered on the sides and not the image quality because it still uses those 900 pixels to make the same image and is still a 900p res. So, considering these two resolutions image quality wise is like considering 1820x1024 against 1600x900 or considering 1280x1024 against 1152x900 with 1024 being clearly better in both the cases. 1280x1024 is just like an 1820x1024 cropped to 5:4.

That is why 1600x1200 is known as UXGA and 1920x1200 is known as WUXGA, meaning both provide same image quality with the latter being a wide screen version of the former.


----------

