The LG Flatron W2053TQ mocks you with its aspect ratio.
(Credit: Corinne Schulze/CNET)A couple of months back, I asked what I thought was a pretty good question about the need for a 16:9 aspect ratio on a 20-inch monitor.
While I still feel there's little need, if any, for 16:9 on such a small screen, that doesn't mean said monitors can't be useful in their own right.
This week I take a look at the HP 2009m and the LG Flatron W2053TQ. Both are 20-inchers. Both include a 16:9 aspect ratio, which translates to 1600x900 resolution. Both also transform into kid-size robots and battle it out for your entertainment.
OK, the last one was a fib ("Transformers" on the brain this week), but if you really wanna know what I think of these two check out the reviews. Also take a look at the LCD computer monitor hub, for all things, well, LCD computer monitors.
On Sale Now: $138.95 - $189.04
View the latest prices for HP 2009m
On Sale Now: $149.99 - $153.97
View the latest prices for LG Flatron W2053TQ
(Credit:
CBS Interactive)
I have a question: is having a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor (as opposed to 16:10) really all that beneficial? The answer is, "It depends."
If we're talking strictly about resolution benefits, the specific size of the screen matters greatly. For example, a 16:9, 21.5-inch monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1080, whereas a 16:10, 22-incher tops out at 1680x1050. That's an extra 309,600 pixels you'd have at your disposal on the 21.5-incher. Gaming, movies, Photoshop--virtually all apps would benefit from more pixels. Yes, even porn. Or so I hear...ahem.
On the flip side, a 16:9, 24-incher's max resolution is 1920x1080; however, a 16:10, 24-inch monitor has a higher native resolution of 1920x1200. To complicate matters a bit, Dell's smaller, 16:9 SP2309W is a 23-inch display with a 2048x1152 resolution.
So, clearly, for certain screen sizes there are resolution benefits to 16:9. Also, with a monitor capable of 1080p (1920x1080) resolution, you'll get to watch 1080p, high-definition content without it getting stretched or shrunk to fit the screen.
So that long-winded setup brings me to the HP 2009m: a 20-inch, 16:9 monitor with a maximum resolution of 1600x900. As a rule, 16:10 monitors at 20 inches have a max resolution of 1680x1050. So with a monitor this small, what's the real benefit in going to 16:9? Sure, high-def content (1080 and 720p) will fit better, but will there really be a huge difference in quality and in the experience you have?
Now, I just got the HP 2009m in this week and, while it's definitely pleasing to the eye, it doesn't boast many improvements over the HP w2007 we reviewed a couple years back--unless you consider 16:9 on a 20-inch monitor an improvement, since the w2007 had a 16:10 aspect ratio and 1680x1050 resolution. On HP's site, the newer 2009m costs $20 more. Are we really expected to pay $20 more (yes, a small difference, but still) for a lower-resolution monitor?
OK. Now, to be fair, I haven't tested the monitor yet. There could be many hidden benefits I'm not yet privy to--performance and power consumption being chief among the possibilities. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any of those boons when I review the monitor in a couple of weeks. For now, check out the slideshow.
- prev
- 1
- next
