27 inch monitors

souha13 said:
On a sidenote. Is it worth upgrading from a 22 inch Samsung T220? I've had it like 6 years but the size feels natural and doesn't scare of visitors (girls). But maybe the quality can be improved a lot by gaining a new one? Or is it better to just save the money for a GPU update or a couple of restaurant visits? :)
Click to expand...

I have upgraded from a 22" to a 23" EIZO IPS monitor to a normal Samsung 27" TFT. IMHO size does matter. I have to admit though that the IPS display had a significantly better image quality, so the switch was like a hit with a hammer at first.

A problem with 27" TFTs is that 1080p is a bit too low for that size if you're sitting close to the display. (1080p fits with 24".) But Higher resolutions demand a faster graphics card. Anything below 1080p is no longer an option.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
I have 24" 1080 monitors at work and 27" 1080 at home and they are both nice. For dual I prefer the 24", at home I prefer the single 27". 1080 looks fine to me at 27".
 
My last TV/monitor was a 32" 60hz 1080p screen, and while it looked pretty darn good a year ago, as time went on I began noticing the flaws in the picture. I was only sitting a few feet away so it was noticeable.

Now using the 4k display, if you watch something in 1080p it looks almost like if you were watching something in standard def (relative comparison to 4k resolution). So, imagine the leap from standard def to high def, and you'll get an idea of what the 4k resolution will look like.

I find that a 48" screen in 4k from a few feet away looks great in 4k resolution. I guess 4k resolution is ideal for larger screens.
 
I'm using a 27" + 22" dual monitor setup. There's no way I'm going back to single display.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
32" 2560x1440P here.

Love my screen, but I took a massive performance hit going from 1080 to 1440. I didn't expect it to be that big, honestly. It's not a problem with older games, as they used to be mostly just polygons and textures - which doesn't take much to scale higher. But modern games use a shit-load of effects that are all affected by resolution, so it's very expensive.

I don't even want to think about the kind of hit I'd take with 4K resolution, so I'd stay far away from such a screen if you care about smooth performance in modern games.
 
32" is massive for a computer monitor. I'd have to get a new desk just to be able to use one that size. :)

What's the refresh rate on that?

As far as 4K is concerned, it's little more than a marketing gimmick right now.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,422
Location
Florida, US
JDR13 said:
32" is massive for a computer monitor. I'd have to get a new desk just to be able to use one that size. :)

What's the refresh rate on that?

As far as 4K is concerned, it's little more than a marketing gimmick right now.
Click to expand...

60Hz

http://www.benq.com/product/monitor/BL3200PT/specifications/

It barely fits on my desk - as I have tilted walls on the side ;)

It's not a gaming monitor - but it has a decent response time and a fantastic image. I love gaming on it, but I might not be too picky about certain details.
 
DArtagnan said:
60Hz

http://www.benq.com/product/monitor/BL3200PT/specifications/

It barely fits on my desk - as I have tilted walls on the side ;)

It's not a gaming monitor - but it has a decent response time and a fantastic image. I love gaming on it, but I might not be too picky about certain details.
Click to expand...

Do you reduce the resolution of games down to 1080p on that monitor? If yes how does that looks since its not the native resolution?

I am thinking of spending the money and buying good 27inch 1440p monitor. However I won't be able to upgrade my graphics (770) card for another 6 months so I was thinking of running demanding games at 1080p for now.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
lostforever said:
Do you reduce the resolution of games down to 1080p on that monitor? If yes how does that looks since its not the native resolution?
Click to expand...

I've tried that, but it looks like ass. I'd never do that to my gaming :)

I am thinking of spending the money and buying good 27inch 1440p monitor. However I won't be able to upgrade my graphics (770) card for another 6 months so I was thinking of running demanding games at 1080p for now.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't recommend it.
 
JDR13 said:
32" is massive for a computer monitor. I'd have to get a new desk just to be able to use one that size. :)

What's the refresh rate on that?

As far as 4K is concerned, it's little more than a marketing gimmick right now.
Click to expand...

How so?

I have a 21:9 3440x1440p monitor and there's a noticeable crispness and increased detail also the extra screen real estate offered by the higher resolution is very nice.

I will admit that it's probably not worth the cost right now to get it running smoothly but it's a tangible improvement. So I can think of what would be gimmicky about it?
 
DArtagnan said:
I've tried that, but it looks like ass. I'd never do that to my gaming :)



I really wouldn't recommend it.
Click to expand...

Ah bugger! Looks like I am better off waiting and save up some more money and buy the monitor and graphics card at the same time.

I take it you are on GTX 970? Is it enough to run Witcher 3 with most bells and whistles at 1440p?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
sakichop said:
How so?

I have a 21:9 3440x1440p monitor and there's a noticeable crispness and increased detail also the extra screen real estate offered by the higher resolution is very nice.

I will admit that it's probably not worth the cost right now to get it running smoothly but it's a tangible improvement. So I can think of what would be gimmicky about it?
Click to expand...

I think his point about it being "little more" could be that only very few people would be willing to sacrifice the performance or costs involved.

Conclusively, I don't think your position necessarily represents the norm.
 
DArtagnan said:
I think his point about it being "little more" could be that only very few people would be willing to sacrifice the performance or costs involved.

Conclusively, I don't think your position necessarily represents the norm.
Click to expand...

It rarely does.:lol:
 
Well, if you can afford 3 rigs with dual Titans X in SLI… then 4k gaming is for you :D… in case of slow down you can always steal two titans from other rigs and make a quad SLI setup…
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
sakichop said:
How so?

I have a 21:9 3440x1440p monitor and there's a noticeable crispness and increased detail also the extra screen real estate offered by the higher resolution is very nice.

I will admit that it's probably not worth the cost right now to get it running smoothly but it's a tangible improvement. So I can think of what would be gimmicky about it?
Click to expand...

IIRC, you have pair of Titans right to run games at that resolution?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
Even with dual Titan Xs - I wouldn't go 4K. It's simply not worth it to me in terms of performance.

Then again, I do tend to obsess a bit about performance.

I actually regretted going with 1440, to be honest.
 
lostforever said:
IIRC, you have pair of Titans right to run games at that resolution?
Click to expand...

Titan x's. Just upgraded from Titans.

DArtagnan said:
Even with dual Titan Xs - I wouldn't go 4K. It's simply not worth it to me in terms of performance.

Then again, I do tend to obsess a bit about performance.

I actually regretted going with 1440, to be honest.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth it but I've never really cared about 60 or 120 fps. I play mostly single player games so as long as it runs smoothly super high fps isn't important to me.

If it is important to you though I can understand your position. The release of pascal should make it a viable option or maybe even games supporting dx12.
 
GothicGothicness said:
Well, if you can afford 3 rigs with dual Titans X in SLI… then 4k gaming is for you :D… in case of slow down you can always steal two titans from other rigs and make a quad SLI setup…
Click to expand...

I just imagined that I have million pounds and I still won't buy get myself to buy dual titans! May be just 1 :lol:

I don't come from rich background however I am resonably well off now. However my mum got it in my head from an early stage the value of money and we should only spend it on stuff if we really need them else save. She did this since our dad used to work really hard etc. So these days even though I have money, due to my mum's brain washing gaming gear doesn't pass the "really need" test for me! Parents can really ruin their children :lol:
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
I think it's worth it but I've never really cared about 60 or 120 fps. I play mostly single player games so as long as it runs smoothly super high fps isn't important to me.
Click to expand...

I don't care about 120, but I do care about 60. You won't be playing games at a steady 60 for long, and I'd be willing to bet you can't run something like Star Citizen AC, Metro or perhaps even Witcher 3 at a constant 60+ frame rate at max details at 4K.

That said, you might actually believe you can - and that's often enough ;)

If it is important to you though I can understand your position. The release of pascal should make it a viable option or maybe even games supporting dx12.
Click to expand...

There's a long way from release to implementation. By the time DX12 is used well in games, we'll be talking about entirely different GPUs.

I'm talking about the present :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom