If I go from a 24 inc monitor to a 32 inch one does it tax my graphic cards more?

I know, what the heck am I doing with a 32" monitor (actually it's a Phillips 1080 lcd TV that can do 1950 X 1080 resolution for gaming). I won it off of ebay at a ridiculous price (only $280.00, which includes the price of shipping). It's been working great for several months now.
My son in law claims that whether you're doing 1950 X 1080 resolution on a 24" or a 32" it doesn' t tax the graphic cards any more since both monitors are running at the same resolution. He tried to tell me that the pixel size is the same for both monitors if they're set at the same resolution :confused. It seems to me that going to a larger screen would tax the cards more since they're putting the graphics on a larger screen. If I'm right and it would tax the cards more then can you explain it (even if you have to use technical terms) so I can tell him. I told him that I was going to post this for an answer and he's says any one can just agree with you. It doesn't mean they actually know what they talking about. So can someone who knows the answer explain it in a way so he can't say it's BS. Thanks

 

This may help you,

http://www.howstuffworks.com/graphics-card.htm

http://thescreamonline.com/technology/monitor/monitor_res.html

 

I am inclined to agree with him. The graphics card will output exactly the same signal regardless what monitor it is plugged into. It is up to the monitor to map the image to the screen hence why you have an optimum screen resilution. If your monitor has 1950x1080 pixels and you feed it a 1950x1080 signal then you end up with a 1 to 1 pixel mapping and the montior doesnt have to do any processing. If you feed it a different resolution then the monitor will up/downscale the image but that is all done by the monitor.

 

If both monitors have a screen resolution of 1950 x 1080 then both will tax a graphics card equally.

It's as if the smaller screen was stretched to fill the space of the larger screen without altering the pixel count. You still have 1950 little squares going across the screen in each column and 1080 going down in each row, but they fill a larger space by dint of their being physically larger.

 

I suppose the key point is that the monitor wont tax the CPU at all. The only taxing is done by the GPU which will give the same output what ever monitor is plugged in.

 

There are some types of 30" lcd monitors, which can have a resolution of up to 2560 x 1600, then yes, your GPU will be harder pushed. But, these are $1200+. Or you can buy, for the same price, a 42" 1920 x 1080. Personally, I'd go for the higher resolution.

 

correct but the increase in load results from the GPU outputting a higher resolution not because the monitor is bigger. Theoretically you could still run the large moitor at 1950x1080 (even though it supports higher res) and the loading would be the same as with the smaller monitor. ie the load wont change unless GPU settings change