|
On January 09 2011 08:50 peekn wrote:
I think that anything greater than 24" is too much for gaming (coming from a FPS background), but that's just me.
I can see how that might be right if you are really competitive, but it also has to do with how far you sit from the screen. I would personally think that bigger is always better, as long as you adjust your distance-to-eyes accordingly.
That said, regardless of what's optimal for the most competitive gaming, I can tell you that playing on at least a 48" screen is insanely fun =] (got to borrow a friend's huge ass monitor once)
|
I use a monitor with 25,5 inch @ 1920*1200. Mostly for gaming and watching movies.
|
On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. It derails the topic when people like you reply just to start arguments and spew pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". It would continue to derail the thread if I continued to argue with you, so I will not. The bottom line is 2560x1600 is better in every way, and "HD" is likely the lowest resolution you'll ever find on a monitor 24 inches or bigger. When I purchased my monitor the price ended up being less than if I had gone with a low resolution "HD" monitor. Granted, that was partially due to buying my computer at the same time. Just trying to provide useful info to the OP.
2560 x 1600 on 24 inches? Are you serious? If you can find me a reasonably priced 24 inch monitor at that resolution I'll buy it.
|
On January 09 2011 08:56 Element)LoGiC wrote:
telfire, maybe you should tell them the better resolutions that are available at 23+ inches for monitors instead of just saying it's extremely low, which is an exaggeration. I believe the better resolution is 1920x1200, which is actually significantly larger than "HD", almost 12% larger. But most monitors are actually "HD" now, even at 24 - 27 inches. I was even having a hard time finding a 26 inch with a larger resolution than the relatively low "HD" resolution.
I don't know what all the resolutions are exactly, I don't see how it would help though. I mentioned mine and now you've mentioned 1920x1200, the point is 1080 is smaller than large monitors usually are (or at least were before the "HD" fad). And yes, more and more "HD" monitors are popping up and it's becoming harder to find the ones that are not, which is a HUGE leap backward for technology. That is why I am trying to help inform people that HD is actually not a very good resolution at all for a computer monitor.
On January 09 2011 09:00 Element)LoGiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. It derails the topic when people like you reply just to start arguments and spew pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". It would continue to derail the thread if I continued to argue with you, so I will not. The bottom line is 2560x1600 is better in every way, and "HD" is likely the lowest resolution you'll ever find on a monitor 24 inches or bigger. When I purchased my monitor the price ended up being less than if I had gone with a low resolution "HD" monitor. Granted, that was partially due to buying my computer at the same time. Just trying to provide useful info to the OP. 2560 x 1600 on 24 inches? Are you serious? If you can find me a reasonably priced 24 inch monitor at that resolution I'll buy it.
Yes, that was the resolution of my last monitor (may not be exact, it wasn't a standard 16 ). I'm sorry but I'm not going to do your market research, in fact I'm not even going to hang out in this topic much longer, but in the past I have for myself and the price difference isn't that great, it may just be a bit harder to find now with the "HD" fad crap. I wish you luck there are a TON of sites out there with different deals not to mention computer shops across the world lol. Just takes a little time to find the right deal, and that is all I'm recommending you do.
|
On January 09 2011 09:00 Element)LoGiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. It derails the topic when people like you reply just to start arguments and spew pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". It would continue to derail the thread if I continued to argue with you, so I will not. The bottom line is 2560x1600 is better in every way, and "HD" is likely the lowest resolution you'll ever find on a monitor 24 inches or bigger. When I purchased my monitor the price ended up being less than if I had gone with a low resolution "HD" monitor. Granted, that was partially due to buying my computer at the same time. Just trying to provide useful info to the OP. 2560 x 1600 on 24 inches? Are you serious? If you can find me a reasonably priced 24 inch monitor at that resolution I'll buy it.
Newegg doesn't offer one in that resolution for under $1000, and the smallest size is 30 inches. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) as a 24" monitor in that resolution.
|
On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. Edited my post to be more clear I hope... But sorry, you are wrong. 1080P is very low and has been for about 5 years on monitors this large. I thought the purpose of the thread was he wanted recommendations on a new monitor? I'm just trying to help him out, stating the inarguable fact that "HD" is not actually a very good resolution if you're buying a monitor this large. I'm just making the recommendation that he get a decent resolution monitor if he's going to buy one this big, because I fail to see the purpose of a huge monitor that displays barely more pixels than my phone screen. The derailing happened when people argued with me and started spewing pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". I'm not currently in the market for a monitor, and I'm not about to do a bunch of research to prove myself to a couple clueless forum trolls, but I know HP and Dell offer 2560x1600 monitors and the prices would depend when/where you got it. I would of course recommend spending some effort to find a good deal regardless, if it costs full retail it's a bad deal.
1920 x 1080 is not a 'low" resolution. I have no idea where you are getting this from. There are SOME monitors that are higher, 1920 x 1200, etc. Those monitors tend to be VERY expensive, which most normal people wouldn't need a few extra pixels anyways.
1920 x 1080 is perfectly fine for a 24 inch monitor or less, anything more would just be overkill.
What computer monitor do you deem "decent" or even very good? Id really, REALLY like to know, because i will eat my socks if it is a good price(less than $500)
You must be thinking of a 52 inch (example)1080 p monitor/TV. Then yes i would agree that a higher resolution would be in store.
I dont get how you can come off calling other people "forum trolls".
When people buy computer monitors, they look for something that is a nice size, but isnt too big. Most people, when buying a computer monitor would spend less than $500.
The monitors that fall into this category are 22' - 24' 1920x1080 res monitors AND they are far from bad, like you seem to make it sound. If you dont agree with this, post an example.
|
On January 09 2011 09:04 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 09:00 Element)LoGiC wrote:On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. It derails the topic when people like you reply just to start arguments and spew pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". It would continue to derail the thread if I continued to argue with you, so I will not. The bottom line is 2560x1600 is better in every way, and "HD" is likely the lowest resolution you'll ever find on a monitor 24 inches or bigger. When I purchased my monitor the price ended up being less than if I had gone with a low resolution "HD" monitor. Granted, that was partially due to buying my computer at the same time. Just trying to provide useful info to the OP. 2560 x 1600 on 24 inches? Are you serious? If you can find me a reasonably priced 24 inch monitor at that resolution I'll buy it. Newegg doesn't offer one in that resolution for under $1000, and the smallest size is 30 inches. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) as a 24" monitor in that resolution.
Well your knowledge is incomplete, and as long as that is the case you shouldn't go around calling people liars because you've never heard of something.
Last time I try to offer helpful advice.
|
On January 09 2011 09:05 Marcus420 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. Edited my post to be more clear I hope... But sorry, you are wrong. 1080P is very low and has been for about 5 years on monitors this large. I thought the purpose of the thread was he wanted recommendations on a new monitor? I'm just trying to help him out, stating the inarguable fact that "HD" is not actually a very good resolution if you're buying a monitor this large. I'm just making the recommendation that he get a decent resolution monitor if he's going to buy one this big, because I fail to see the purpose of a huge monitor that displays barely more pixels than my phone screen. The derailing happened when people argued with me and started spewing pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". I'm not currently in the market for a monitor, and I'm not about to do a bunch of research to prove myself to a couple clueless forum trolls, but I know HP and Dell offer 2560x1600 monitors and the prices would depend when/where you got it. I would of course recommend spending some effort to find a good deal regardless, if it costs full retail it's a bad deal. 1920 x 1080 is not a 'low" resolution. I have no idea where you are getting this from. There are SOME monitors that are higher, 1920 x 1200, etc. Those monitors tend to be VERY expensive, which most normal people wouldn't need a few extra pixels anyways. 1920 x 1080 is perfectly fine for a 24 inch monitor or less, anything more would just be overkill. What computer monitor do you deem "decent" or even very good? Id really, REALLY like to know, because i will eat my socks if it is a good price(less than $500) You must be thinking of a 52 inch (example)1080 p monitor/TV. Then yes i would agree that a higher resolution would be in store. I dont get how you can come off calling other people "forum trolls". When people buy computer monitors, they look for something that is a nice size, but isnt too big. Most people, when buying a computer monitor would spend less than $500. The monitors that fall into this category are 22' - 24' 1920x1080 res monitors AND they are far from bad, like you seem to make it sound. If you dont agree with this, post an example.
I do not agree, and I will not post an example, because I'm too lazy and I've nothing to prove. I have had 3 monitors in a row that were at least 2550x1500 and it's not like I'm rich, I've never spent more than $500 on a monitor. I know that for a fact so I'm done here. I don't have to prove anything to your douche ass.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 09 2011 09:08 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 09:04 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 09:00 Element)LoGiC wrote:On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote:On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/ What do you mean that doesn't have HD? HD is a resolution.. all monitors have a resolution. HD just happens to be a low one. And last I checked there was little price difference between a big monitor with a decent resolution and a big monitor with a terribad resolution, mostly because uninformed individuals like yourself mistakenly believe "HD" is good in some way. What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. It derails the topic when people like you reply just to start arguments and spew pure misinformation like "HD>not HD". It would continue to derail the thread if I continued to argue with you, so I will not. The bottom line is 2560x1600 is better in every way, and "HD" is likely the lowest resolution you'll ever find on a monitor 24 inches or bigger. When I purchased my monitor the price ended up being less than if I had gone with a low resolution "HD" monitor. Granted, that was partially due to buying my computer at the same time. Just trying to provide useful info to the OP. 2560 x 1600 on 24 inches? Are you serious? If you can find me a reasonably priced 24 inch monitor at that resolution I'll buy it. Newegg doesn't offer one in that resolution for under $1000, and the smallest size is 30 inches. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) as a 24" monitor in that resolution. Well your knowledge is incomplete, and as long as that is the case you shouldn't go around calling people liars because you've never heard of something. Last time I try to offer helpful advice.
You've succeeded in completely derailing a perfectly legitimate help thread on monitor information, now I'm going to put it plain and simple for you. Post your sources. You have yet to post one source that backs up your wild claims that 1080p is a horrible resolution for any monitor 24" and up. I never said that 1080p is the absolute best resolution. It's far from it. But it is certainly the best for the average consumer, and you would be a fool to try and argue against that.
|
I rather get a smaller monitor with more resolution i can't push monitors 5 feet away from me to get a proper view of the thing.
|
On January 09 2011 08:58 telfire wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:50 peekn wrote:
I think that anything greater than 24" is too much for gaming (coming from a FPS background), but that's just me. I can see how that might be right if you are really competitive, but it also has to do with how far you sit from the screen. I would personally think that bigger is always better, as long as you adjust your distance-to-eyes accordingly. That said, regardless of what's optimal for the most competitive gaming, I can tell you that playing on at least a 48" screen is insanely fun =] (got to borrow a friend's huge ass monitor once)
I sit pretty close, a little more than 2 feet.
|
Every resolution above 720 is considered HD so saying HD is a bad resolution makes you look like a retard.
And there's no such thing as a 24" with a 2560 x 1600 to my knowledge. The pixel density of it would make it unbearable to read text.
|
21" LCD 1600X900. Sure I would love 1920x1080, but...meh...
|
Hyrule19017 Posts
23" 27" 23"
Well....at least that's the plan. I need a bigger desk before I can fit the left 23".
|
I use a 22" (16: 10, 1920x1200) Lenovo Thinkvision L220X as my main monitor, with a secondary 24" (16: 9, 1920x1080) Acer S243HL. They work pretty well together despite the difference in size, since the aspect ratio makes the vertical sides line up quite well. I would have preferred two L220Xs (for better color accuracy and matching appearance), but unfortunately the model was discontinued before I could get my hands on another one.
I can't really give you any specific suggestions without knowing how high your budget is, but I can tell you one thing from personal experience: once you try a dual monitor setup, you can never go back to having just one. You mentioned wanting more screen space (something I can relate to), so I thought I'd underline this, because it really makes a huge difference. As for screen size, I'd say that 22"-24" is optimal, depending on personal taste, aspect ratio, viewing distance, etc.
|
15.4 inch laptop screen and a 1920x1200 24" monitor on the side
works pretty well for most things
|
On January 09 2011 08:10 Pokebunny wrote:
22" 1680x1050.
this
|
|
|
LMFAO @ telfire. "HERP DERP YOU GUYS ARE ALL WRONG AND I HAVE HAD PLENTY OF 2560x1600 MONITORS BUT I WONT SHARE ANY MODEL NUMBERS WITH YOU BECAUSE YOURE ALL DOUCHEBAGS!!"
I'm running a BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 with 2ms response time. Perfect monitor for the average consumer who will only really use it to watch movies and play games on.
|
On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote:On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote:
24" of 1080p beauty. :D On that note, I would highly, HIGHLY recommend the OP to stay WAYYYYY away from "1080p" or "HD" monitors. That is actually an extremely low resolution for a monitor that big (not saying they are bad, but if you're gonna spend that much money get more pixels!) So you're saying go spend twice as much money to get a monitor like your's? For normal people not converting their computer into a home entertainment center, or doing some sort of high precision graphic design, a 24" HD monitor is fine for an average budget. Not everyone wants to go spend $250 on a 27 inch monitor that doesn't have HD =/
What do you mean "doesn't have HD" HD is the resolution. If it has a higher resolution wouldn't it be H('er)D? Or do you just want the sticker BestBuy puts on it to make you feel justified in your purchase?
The person you quoted is saying, if you are looking to spend the money dont settle for 1080p which is a common mistake consumers make thinking they are getting top of the line. While that is top of the line for a TV it is not for a computer monitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
