Personally, i don't think so. I just bought a new rig 4 months ago and while i had the money to upgrade to larger displays I decided it wasn't worth it. I have dual 19" WS 1440x900 which i paid 150$ each for 2 years ago. Given the super long life of Dell monitors i figured I'd wait till one of them takes a crap before upgrading to 22" but that may be another 5 years or so. I enjoy gaming at my native resolution and my HD 6850 doesn't even break a sweat at 1440x900 which will also extend it's overall lifespan.

Lol, my 1440x900 has been working perfectly since 2003.

...my actual 19' Samsung monitor (1680x1050) and my Geforce 9600GT have a current lifespan of 4 (nearly 5) years, and I haven't had the slightest problem with any of them so far, so I don't quite get your point.

I enjoy gaming just fine at my low native resolution so it wasn't worth it to me to replace my perfectly good monitors with something larger. I was just sharing my own personal experience and opinion. Why do I have to have a point?

I meant with the lifespan...

The life span of my monitors was one of the deciding factors in my decision not to upgrade and it's a known fact that the less you tax your GPU the longer it will last which is just a bonus for me.

So, you'll use "less" your GPUs in order to gain lifespan? Sorry, but that's just silly. Stress difference is minimal regardless of you use it at it's max capacity or not. By the time it breaks up, it's ancient technology anyways.

In my office we had a Pentium II 400 which was used non-stop for more than 13 years, and by the time we changed it it was still functioning normally. And believe me, in ALL that time it wasn't precisely used only to run the Notepad.