Higher than 1920x1080?

[skace]

Do you use multiple GPUs?

1 GTX 295. (Which I guess is made up of multiple GPUs.)

 

[Elfear]

All games. As others have mentioned dot pitch can make a big difference in picture quality. Try looking at a game running on a 28" monitor at 1080p and the same game on a 30" monitor at 1600p. Level of detail is definitely worth going over 1080p.

 

[Soccerman06]

All of them!

I don't understand how people cannot understand the need for higher resolutions.

We had 2048x1536 back in the days of CRTs! How freaking long do we have to wait for resolutions to stop being held back?

A mere 1920x1080 being considered some kind of standard right now is downright embarrassing.
It's not progress, it's something that is worse than some CRTs 10 years ago!

The fact the home theatre market is going to be stuck with the tiny 1080p for a gajillion years to come thanx to Blu-Ray irritates me greatly, since it will no doubt cause the PC display market to continue to diddle around with shitty resolution displays for countless more years instead of giving us options to improve.
Console gaming makes it even worse, since most titles are designed for 720p, & no doubt the "next gen" will be an amazingly unimpressive 1080p, oh yay. D:

Dont go and blame blu-ray for the lack of progression in the near future. Just as a fyi, a 2hr video of the next version of HDtv (QFHD 3840x2160) would be about 50-60gb depending on compression. Dual layer br disc is 50gb and a theoretical max of 8 layers for 200gb per side, Pioneer even demoed a 16 layer disc a few years ago. I would put the blame of no higher resolution screens on R&D and profit margins of panel manufactures. There are 300dpi handheld screens (iphone) and we may see that tech scale eventually. Computers can handle the higher res, the medical community uses QFHD screens and you can buy them if you want. You may need dual 590/6990 to push anything above medium settings at that res with good framerates but its doable.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I have a 2560x1440 Dell U2711 and a 1920x1080 BenQ XL2410T.

As resolution goes up, there's a point of diminishing returns as far as gaming goes. The primary advantage when gaming on my Dell is that I find myself more easily noticing objects further off into the distance. This is useful say when sniping in a first person shooter.

But like I said before, there's a point of diminishing returns to where added image clarity isn't necessarily worth the hardware tax.

That being said, I game on my BenQ's 1080p resolution because the monitor is 120Hz and motion clarity is orders of magnitude more useful for my gaming than the increased image clarity of the U2711.


That being said it would be great to have the best of both, I eagerly anticipate the day when I can get a 24"+ screen that has a pixel density of 300ppi and can refresh at 100+Hz.

 

[kamikazekyle]

That being said, I game on my BenQ's 1080p resolution because the monitor is 120Hz and motion clarity is orders of magnitude more useful for my gaming than the increased image clarity of the U2711.

I really want to try to game on a 120Hz monitor some day. We use them a lot at work, but only for stereoscopic capabilities and not for motion display. So, the best I get to see is a Windows desktop. I do admit, even at the desktop, 120Hz offers a better experience than plain 60 Hz. I just find it hard going to TN panels after sticking with IPS for so long. I have a Dell 23" with very good PPI, but it's TN and has horrid vertical angles.

How degraded would the experience be if I didn't have a graphics card that could constantly push 60-120fps at the details I'd like?

That being said it would be great to have the best of both, I eagerly anticipate the day when I can get a 24"+ screen that has a pixel density of 300ppi and can refresh at 100+Hz.

Toss in IPS or better, and major *drool*.

 

[Childs]

I have a Dell U2711 (2560x1440), but I play windowed at 1080p. Mainly for recording purposes, but I find I actually miss a lot of stuff when at native resolution. Too much information I think. Also more eye strain. I'm actually in the market for a 32" 1080p TV that I want to use for gaming instead. I need the U2711's resolution for editing and what not, but for gaming I think a big 1080p TV would be great.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

How degraded would the experience be if I didn't have a graphics card that could constantly push 60-120fps at the details I'd like?

It would have reduced tearing effects but that's about it, it would be hard to recommend it considering the price premium unless you're extremely sensitive to both input lag and tearing.

To fully appreciate such a monitor you really do need a high end rig. And we're not just talking video card as when we consider frame rates in to the 100+ range we need a high end CPU as well.

Toss in IPS or better, and major *drool*.

I don't think we'll have any 300ppi desktop monitors based off of LCD tech considering higher end monitors like my U2711 are "only" 109ppi with the average consumer PC LCD monitor under 100. So yeah, I implied better than IPS LCD when I said that

 

[kamikazekyle]

It would have reduced tearing effects but that's about it, it would be hard to recommend it considering the price premium unless you're extremely sensitive to both input lag and tearing.

To fully appreciate such a monitor you really do need a high end rig. And we're not just talking video card as when we consider frame rates in to the 100+ range we need a high end CPU as well.


I don't think we'll have any 300ppi desktop monitors based off of LCD tech considering higher end monitors like my U2711 are "only" 109ppi with the average consumer PC LCD monitor under 100. So yeah, I implied better than IPS LCD when I said that

They should have the tech anagramed to OMG or something. Just cause.

Thanks for answering the question about 120Hz. I figured it might be a bit offtopic here, so I opened a new thread over in Graphics. I enjoyed the extra "fluidness" in mouse response time and window movement when I played around with one on the Windows desktop. But I don't really notice tearing in games unless I'm specifically looking for it, so I might pass. 'course, I might get one anyway since they're just over $300, and my HP IPS panel is a major pain with color artifacts and connectivity issues. I can't afford a U2711 and a GPU upgrade, but a $300 + GPU upgrade might be a bit more stomachable. I also don't fancy the existing IPS panels in the market right now, so meh. I like my gloss.

 

[themodernlife]

i have a dell 24" ips for 1920 gaming. I love the aspect ratio and find it MUCH better then 1080 on smaller screens. I do notice slight lag on certain titles but alot of that can be reduced by turning off vsync and triple buffer.

For large use i hook up my plasma over hdmi and game 1080 and when the screen is 42" you really don't mind the 1080. the 600mhz refresh is really astounding and reminds me of my old sony fw-900 crt

 

[dav9]

Any game I play on my 30" looks fantastic. You really never get use to the insane detail. I just played some old HL2 at 2560x1600, so enjoyable. I could never enjoy it at a measly 1080p. Playing css at this res is almost like cheating. You can see so much detail & its easier to aim in the distance with ak or M4.

 

[kamikazekyle]

i have a dell 24" ips for 1920 gaming. I love the aspect ratio and find it MUCH better then 1080 on smaller screens. I do notice slight lag on certain titles but alot of that can be reduced by turning off vsync and triple buffer.

For large use i hook up my plasma over hdmi and game 1080 and when the screen is 42" you really don't mind the 1080. the 600mhz refresh is really astounding and reminds me of my old sony fw-900 crt

I have a 32" 720p plasma hooked up to the PC, but it's mostly for previewing final video work or if I"m laying in the hammock watching something (I have a hammock strung up across the back of my office). It's a 1st gen plasma, so it does get burn in if I leave static images up. The modern generation 58" plasma in the living room, on the other hand... Oh how I wish plasma displays came in a 24" form factor. That or the Dell U2711 was cheaper

The Dell U24 series isn't bad, but I'm not a fan of matte displays. Maybe if I can get it on sale for $350 or so I"ll grab it to replace this ailing HP since it wouldn't be an upgrade, more of a drop-in replacement. I do prefer x1200 vice x1080 on a 24" form factor.

Hrm...maybe I could get a 32" plasma and mount that at eye level on the wal, scoot my desk back a bit, and use my swing-arm mounted monitor for desktop stuff. When mucking with games, swing the arm mounted one out of the way and game on the plasma. That way I can have my gloss and eat it too without having to go TN.

 

[themodernlife]

The Dell U24 series isn't bad, but I'm not a fan of matte displays. Maybe if I can get it on sale for $350 or so I"ll grab it to replace this ailing HP since it wouldn't be an upgrade, more of a drop-in replacement. I do prefer x1200 vice x1080 on a 24" form factor.QUOTE]

I know i bought my 2410 anticipating the price would drop so i could add 2 more for a nice eyefinity setup with my high end rig. . .but the price has been stable since i bought it last year this time. I ended up getting a 3d plasma to replace my eyefinity aspirations which i run off the second port with an hdmi out adapter over the dvi-. The blacks and color on the plasma are quite beautiful on newer games.

 

[Chaotic42]

Yeah, I'd definitely get a 2560 monitor if everything was a little more stable with work. I'm really waiting for them to get in gear and get the manufacturing processes optimized. The iPhone 4 has a 326dpi screen. That would be more than 8000 pixels wide on a 30" monitor.

Sounds awesome.

 

[Markbnj]

Been lurking with interest here. I work and game on a five year-old Dell 24" LCD. It's not near good enough any more, and I have wanted to upgrade for a couple of years now, but I hate, absolutely detest, the idea of losing 120 rows of pixels. It's ridiculous and I agree with the poster that blamed the current media->disk->player->panel technocracy for pushing us in that direction.

There is another point, though. We're really among the last people buying large monitors for desktop computers for home use. Laptops and mobile devices have much more of the current mindshare, and in fact an article in the NYT last week placed the desktop computer near the top of a list of all the tech you could toss if you went through your closets. Not saying I agree, at all, but there might not be the market there to push development of consumer-level displays with smaller dot pitches.

Lastly, put me in the camp of people who think higher resolutions are always better. You can't have too many pixels any more than you can change your car's oil too often. Every pixel in a display has to be set to a single color when a scene is rendered, and even 1920 x 1200 pixels are not even close to enough to accurately render distant details or prevent aliasing effects without GPU-intensive blending algorithms. Give me more pixels!

 

[Nebor]

1 GTX 295. (Which I guess is made up of multiple GPUs.)

That's what I have too. I'm considering getting a new gtx 590. The GTX 295 is the oldest thing in my computer, a 2600k i7 sandy bridge setup. But my monitor is only 1920x1200, and the only game I really play is borderlands. Have you thought about upgrading your GTX 295?

 

[TheVrolok]

I'm with reallyscrued - high pixel density and low dot pitch. My absolute maximum dot pitch anymore is a 24" at 1920x1200. I don't see how people can use these 28" 1920x1080p monitors for daily use on a computer. That's like having pixels so big you can handle them with chopsticks.

Totally agree. I'll game on my 42" 1080p TV from 5-8ft, but I can not stand using it as a monitor for normal use from any viewing distance. 1080p is simply too low res for the size of screen when using computer applications. I can't imagine using a 32" 1080p "monitor" at normal computer monitor viewing distance. Yikes.

 

[digitaldurandal]

You can get a i-INC 28" monitor that is 1920x1200 for around $260...

That is what I was using before the HP LD4200...

I would think that looks pretty nasty. over 26 inches should definitely be over 1920xY

 

[Emultra]

2560x1600 on a 24" IPS with 120hz would be nice.

 

[Anomaly1964]

Totally agree. I'll game on my 42" 1080p TV from 5-8ft, but I can not stand using it as a monitor for normal use from any viewing distance. 1080p is simply too low res for the size of screen when using computer applications. I can't imagine using a 32" 1080p "monitor" at normal computer monitor viewing distance. Yikes.

I really wish you could sit down at my monitor and tell me you can see pixels from 33-36" away, you must have awesome vision...

 

[kamikazekyle]

It's all relative to pixel density vs viewing distances. The further you sit from your monitor, the lower the density/higher dot pitch you can go. I normally sit ~24-28 inches from my computer monitor, so a 28" 1920x1200 would be pretty bad looking, and a 32" 1080p would be awful.

That said, if I were sitting further away, then that 28" 1920x1200 would look fine. Ideal viewing distance for full 1080p viewing and THX angles on a 32" TV, for example, is somewhere around 4 feet. I'd say at 3ish feet, a 28" 1920x1200 monitor would look fine since that's about the optimal viewing distance for a 28" 1080p TV.

I'm actually probably going to purchase the Asus 23" 120Hz monitor since I just jumped on that 5870 deal for a crossfire setup. I hate loosing the extra pixels, but I'm actually gaining in pixel density and smaller dot pitch compared to my current 1920x1200 24". That 24" is having color and CFL problems pretty bad nowadays (which renders the benefit of IPS moot), so if this Asus doesn't work out I might fall back to my 20" 1680x1050 NECs until I can save up for a month or so to get a U2711.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

2560x1600 on a 24" IPS with 120hz would be nice.

I'm not sure IPS is or ever will be fast enough for 120Hz. Technically even TN isn't fast enough for all pixel transitions to do 120Hz, as any pixel state transition that is greater than 8.3ms won't be fast enough (1000/120Hz), and 2-5ms pixel response time that TN boasts is the best case scenario.

what we need is OLED or whatever to hurry up and get here

 

[kamikazekyle]

I'm not sure IPS is or ever will be fast enough for 120Hz. Technically even TN isn't fast enough for all pixel transitions to do 120Hz, as any pixel state transition that is greater than 8.3ms won't be fast enough (1000/120Hz), and 2-5ms pixel response time that TN boasts is the best case scenario.

what we need is OLED or whatever to hurry up and get here

Bah, skip the eyes and jack that junk right into your brain, I say! Bypass silly things like eyes altogether.

 

[Anomaly1964]

I finally saw a 23 inch LG IPS monitor yesterday at Bestbuy; the colors were vivid but not enough to make me go "oh man, I will never own anything but IPS!"

 

[kamikazekyle]

I finally saw a 23 inch LG IPS monitor yesterday at Bestbuy; the colors were vivid but not enough to make me go "oh man, I will never own anything but IPS!"

The main draw from IPS is calibrated color accuracy rather than vibrant colors, along with a much improved viewing angle. TN panels can't display as many different colors as IPS panels without dithering.

Most likely that monitor had the brightness and contrast cranked to make it look vivid and sell better. Plus, just like any other monitor, not all IPS panels are good. There are crappy ones out there.

*That said*, the majority of people can't really tell much difference between a good calibrated IPS and a good calibrated TN unless someone put the two side by side with a proper reference image. IPS panels are marketed towards those that need/desire color accuracy or are otherwise bothered by a TN panels limitation. So, your average person doesn't even really need to know the difference.

Though if you *really* want to see a difference, flip a TN panel to portrait mode. There are also tests which emphasize the difference between a TN panel and an IPS or other panel. lagom.nl has some good tests. But like I said, for most people they won't notice or care about such things in day to day use.

TN panels have come a long way in color accuracy over the years. Likewise, IPS panels have dramatically improved their response times. I try to go by the mantra "if you're happy with it, that's all you need to care about."

 

[Skott]

You can get a i-INC 28" monitor that is 1920x1200 for around $260...

That is what I was using before the HP LD4200...

I bought mine at my local COMPUSA for $249 couple of months back. I think its the best 28" 1920x1200 monitor you'll find at that price. Everything else is much more expensive. I was just there yesterday and they had three or four of them on the shelf so it appears the product is going to stay around for a while. They were listed as $259 though. Still a great price for a 28" 1920x1200 LCD.