EPTWhat size monitor do you use?
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
As for cramped/stretched/squished UIs, it's the resolution you set that affects that, any monitor can look bad if you have the wrong resolution. | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
CommanderFluffy
Taiwan1059 Posts
VW-224U 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor - 1680x1050, 5000:1 Dynamic, 16:10, 2ms, DVI, VGA | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
| ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
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!) | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
Phelix
1931 Posts
| ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:07 telfire wrote: 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 =/ | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote: 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 =/ Bingo. I'm perfectly happy with my monitor. 1920x1080 is plenty big res imo. I have no need to get a 3" larger monitor. Plus HD>not HD. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote: 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 =/ On January 09 2011 08:31 TheAngelofDeath wrote: Bingo. I'm perfectly happy with my monitor. 1920x1080 is plenty big res imo. I have no need to get a 3" larger monitor. Plus HD>not HD. No, I'm not saying spend twice as much money, ore even more money. Last I checked the price differences were negligible. Also, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about, just by the way you're phrasing things which doesn't make sense... My monitor doesn't "not have HD"... it's higher resolution, AKA better in every way than HD. "HD>not HD" statement kind of proves my point (and your ignorance). That is simply a blatantly false statement, and while I have nothing against ignorance, I do have something against spreading misinformation when you don't know what you're talking about. Please stop. To summarize: Monitors that advertise themselves as "HD" are most likely not a good deal and the manufacturer is looking to profit off your ignorance. The sole purpose of my post was to help remove that ignorance, but apparently you'll have none of it. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
| ||
|
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
upgrading to 20" LCD next week. | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:33 telfire wrote: 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. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote: 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. | ||
|
Kamais_Ookin
Canada4218 Posts
| ||
|
Espion9
Canada25 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote: 24" of 1080p beauty. :D same here | ||
|
sawedust
United States506 Posts
As far as gaming goes, I prefer a monitor where I can see the entire screen without having to move my head or use my peripheral vision. The 22" monitor is perfect for my preferences. | ||
|
peekn
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
| ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
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) | ||
|
NcK
Germany51 Posts
| ||
|
Element)LoGiC
Canada1143 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote: 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. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
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: 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. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:00 Element)LoGiC wrote: 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. | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote: 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. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:04 RoosterSamurai wrote: 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. | ||
|
telfire
United States415 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:05 Marcus420 wrote: 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. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:08 telfire wrote: 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. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
peekn
United States1152 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:58 telfire wrote: 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. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
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. | ||
|
FreekSharkHD
United States26 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule19017 Posts
Well....at least that's the plan. I need a bigger desk before I can fit the left 23". | ||
|
Neveroth
71 Posts
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. | ||
|
peidongyang
Canada2084 Posts
works pretty well for most things | ||
|
ionlyplayPROtoss
Canada573 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:10 Pokebunny wrote: 22" 1680x1050. this | ||
|
LanTAs
United States1091 Posts
| ||
|
Kang19
Canada102 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:23 RoosterSamurai wrote: 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. | ||
|
O2taku
Canada19 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:11 telfire wrote: 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. Wow, just wow. I've rarely posted in the last few years, but this troll is just too much. Let's see: What monitor's support 2560x1600? ONLY 30" monitors, and that's a fact. You have a 27"? Then it's either 1920x(1080/1200), or 2560x1440. You spent less than $500 and had at least 2560x1600? What, did you find an IBM T220 in a pawn shop? Five years ago, 1280x1024 was the standard. Maybe you're referring to 1024p, but you sure as hell don't seem like it. You make 1920x1080 sound like 1024x768. All I read from your post is trying to convince the OP to find "at least" a $700+ monitor, but at $250. Your statements make no sense to anyone who is even half informed regarding PC hardware. Yes, you'll likely tell me to stop trolling, but it's pretty obvious who's the troll. I'm not here to call anyone a "douche ass." I'm just stating the facts. You have nothing to prove? No kidding, that's why you're wrong. And to the OP: 21.5 - 24" 1920x1080 monitor I suggest. They're ridiculously cheap nowadays, and is a very high resolution for anything. It supports "full HD," and any higher will cost a huge amount more (2560x(1440/1600). There was a 2048x1152 23" monitor from Samsung that was relatively cheap, but that was discontinued a while back. | ||
|
us.insurgency
United States330 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:08 telfire wrote: 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 guys need to leave telfire alone, hes the victim here. He`s just trying to give advice by calling people ignorant and not posting any real helpful information. | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:53 Kang19 wrote: 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!!" Might be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Thank you sir! :D | ||
|
Molybdenum
United States358 Posts
If you're on a budget (or tight on space), you can get a 20" 1600x900 refurbished monitor for $100 or so. Mine is refurbished, but has been going strong for more than a year now. | ||
|
zgl
United States1055 Posts
 | ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
| ||
|
Neveroth
71 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshimi
United States163 Posts
1680 x 1050 | ||
|
Sayer
United States403 Posts
| ||
|
Lyzon
United Kingdom440 Posts
Brilliant monitor, great viewing angles (ips) amazing colour and no noticable input lag (i play motorstorm on it and feel no lag!) Reccommend it to anyone actually looking to get another one for a dual monitor setup | ||
|
de7dv
Sweden8 Posts
I like the height of the 16:10 ratio. | ||
|
bakedace
United States672 Posts
| ||
|
Seth_
Belgium184 Posts
For a desktop, I'd probably go 2 x 22" or higher. | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
I've had my 24" for 5 years now. When I upgraded to it in 2005, from a 17", it was ridiculous. Even today it's holding a good value. I daresay it is the best purchase I made in my 10 years of building PCs. | ||
|
PeterDLai
United States924 Posts
| ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
There was a 2048x1152 23" monitor from Samsung that was relatively cheap, but that was discontinued a while back. That one yup. Fucking tight and was only 180 when I got it. | ||
|
mardi
United States1164 Posts
| ||
|
Maetl
United States93 Posts
| ||
|
jax1492
United States1632 Posts
| ||
ZeromuS
Canada13387 Posts
| ||
|
Kamais_Ookin
Canada4218 Posts
On January 09 2011 09:53 Kang19 wrote: I use the same monitor as my main, it's the real deal! 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. | ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
Perfect for me. I use it for gaming, blu ray movies, tv and every other everyday use. And for its quality much cheaper than anything else ive seen | ||
|
Legat0
United States318 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote: 24" of 1080p beauty. :D This. I'll probably get a second monitor soon though. | ||
|
ChrisXIV
Austria3553 Posts
On January 09 2011 17:56 eu.exodus wrote: benq 24'' 1080p is what im using right now. I like that it has 2 inputs so i have my pc and my ps3 hooked up to it. 24'' IIYAMA 1920x1080 I also hooked up PC and PS3. | ||
|
nufcrulz
Singapore934 Posts
| ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
i google shopped it, and for some reason they say it's like $700+. i did not pay that when it first came out, i have the receipt right here from 2007 and i paid $350. you know what, on the receipt it said i got the 22" 226bw. but i have the box, and on my monitor itself it says 245bw. so i think they messed up lol. | ||
|
Zurachi
Canada289 Posts
| ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
But I play on 1280x800 | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.pccasegear.com/images/p2770hdss.jpg) I use a 27" Samsung P2770HD. While technically a TV the reason I got it is because it has all the inputs of a TV meaning: - DVI - HDMI - RCA - YPbPr - Optical out - Headphone out I have my computer, Xbox 360 and Gamecube all connected with the monitor handling video and audio with the monitor set to use external audio. This way all I have to do is flip "channels" on my monitor (remote <3) and I can be playing my Xbox or Gamecube with audio coming out of my good speakers. It also has a HDTV tuner built in but I don't have much interest in watching TV. So much better than my old setup where I had a extra sound card and an annoying switchbox to achieve the same thing. 1920x1080 resolution so it's great for gaming and watching movies as well as general PC use and work. I'm not sure what type of panel it uses but it has miles better contrast than my old 24 inch TN Asus. On top of all that it was less than $500 AUD... the convenience and quality has made it a worthwhile purchase for me. http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=558_1092&products_id=14759 | ||
|
Fir3fly
Australia251 Posts
love it. also, there seems to be a lot of idiots not knowing what HD and higher resolution is. "HD" is just a term for a resolution higher than 1280x1024 TVS used to have a 1024x768 resolution, thats why theres 768p and 1080p. my 22" is the same resolution than alot of people's 24". it just means that i have a higher dpi than them. which i love, cause everything looks super cripsy. also, this monitor only costed like $220AUD | ||
|
pirouni
Greece31 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i432.photobucket.com/albums/qq44/mpam888/myscreen.jpg) 24"x3, 3240x1980 and really love it | ||
|
Shinshady
Canada1237 Posts
| ||
|
mardi
United States1164 Posts
On January 09 2011 19:30 pirouni wrote: 24"x3, 3240x1980 and really love it I'm jealous lol. | ||
|
TSM
Great Britain584 Posts
 | ||
|
jnkw
Canada347 Posts
.. or 15.6". 1080p all the way | ||
|
Hubble
Germany248 Posts
| ||
|
Tonkerchen
680 Posts
| ||
|
SgtAwesome
3 Posts
| ||
|
TheDoK666
France179 Posts
| ||
|
arthur
United Kingdom488 Posts
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. This I mean, I bought my monitor 2-3 years ago now? Paid £260ish, 1920x1200 resolution. The monitor costs about £150 now. £150 doesn't seem expensive for a 24" monitor to me? @OP just make sure you shop around and get the highest resolution, lowest response time in your budget etc etc | ||
|
Dakk
Sweden572 Posts
| ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3693 Posts
I have my ANCIENT Dell inspiron 6400 15.4in display. That's right, 1 5 . 4 inches! | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2982 Posts
| ||
|
Neveroth
71 Posts
On January 09 2011 19:30 pirouni wrote: 24"x3, 3240x1980 and really love it What model is that? Not sure if I'd want to play games on a setup like that, but it certainly looks impressive. | ||
|
zDUST
Finland165 Posts
On January 09 2011 07:50 KevinIX wrote: I'm planning on buying a monitor, and I'm wondering what you guys think is the best sized monitor for the price. I'm upgrading from a very old 17" non-widescreen monitor. My non-widescreen monitor makes all my game UI's look cramped. I need more screen space. here's some good deals http://www.logicbuy.com/subcategorydeals/13/Computers/36/LCD_Monitors.aspx happy hunting and gaming! | ||
|
pirouni
Greece31 Posts
On January 09 2011 23:29 Synistre wrote: What model is that? Not sure if I'd want to play games on a setup like that, but it certainly looks impressive. its Samsung BX2440 and its pretty sick for FPS and MMO imo but for sc2 i play windowed mode | ||
|
Blackrobe
United States806 Posts
![[image loading]](http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/24-001-280-S01?$S300W$) I am currently using 3 of these, 24" 1920x1200. They also have hookups for TV/etc, so I have the left one also hooked up to a cable feed, and the one on the right a PS3. | ||
|
Bigpet
Germany533 Posts
On January 09 2011 19:19 vek wrote: I use a 27" Samsung P2770HD. While technically a TV the reason I got it is because it has all the inputs of a TV meaning: - DVI - HDMI - RCA - YPbPr - Optical out - Headphone out I have my computer, Xbox 360 and Gamecube all connected with the monitor handling video and audio with the monitor set to use external audio. This way all I have to do is flip "channels" on my monitor (remote <3) and I can be playing my Xbox or Gamecube with audio coming out of my good speakers. It also has a HDTV tuner built in but I don't have much interest in watching TV. I have the H model of this without the analog stuff and the TV tuner because of the better response time. Also for all the bigger resolution is better dorks: theoretically yes, but you have to keep in mind that if you watch/play games on a non-native resolution (not on the highest possible) your uber-res screen is blurrier than a cheaper one displaying the content on its native res. So keep in mind that you need to have the graphics card that can handle games at the native resolution if the screen. I just usually buy mid-range graphics cards. So my choices are: -play SC2 looking crisp on high 1920x1080 on a screen with 1080p native res -play SC2 looking blurry on high 1920x1200 on a screen with 2560 x 1600 native res -play SC2 looking crisp on mid 2560 x 1600 on a screen with 2560 x 1600 native res edit: forgot to adjust resolution for 16:10 ratio | ||
|
StayFrosty
Canada743 Posts
1680x1050 | ||
|
Adaelden
Canada43 Posts
| ||
|
piskooooo
United States351 Posts
way too big imo | ||
|
gulati
United States2241 Posts
Planning on upgrading to a 30" soon instead of a new LED TV (I don't really watch TV so I am considering a big monitor instead), and thinking of going with this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176177 Thoughts? | ||
|
mrk1
91 Posts
Is there any serious effect on SC2 between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 or for games overall? Or is it just a matter of preference? The 1080p ones are cheaper around here, but still finding it hard to decide between the two. | ||
|
Kalpman
Sweden406 Posts
Love it. | ||
|
Enzyme
Australia183 Posts
Watching the GSL on a 50" TV in your room is kinda awesome | ||
|
TaiYang
Canada128 Posts
Edit: http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236069 forgot the paste the link xD | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11549 Posts
| ||
|
sjschmidt93
United States2518 Posts
| ||
|
uSiN
United States208 Posts
On January 10 2011 05:56 mrk1 wrote: 17" LCD, gonna upgrade though. Is there any serious effect on SC2 between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 or for games overall? Or is it just a matter of preference? The 1080p ones are cheaper around here, but still finding it hard to decide between the two. There is no big difference its mainly preference. The 1920x1200 looks more squire because the it has a aspect ratio of 16:10 instead of 16: 9 for the 1920x1080. I prefer the 1920x1200 because I use to play scbw on a 4:3 monitor and I like the extra vertical space. Main: ASUS 25.5" 1920x1200 Secondary: ASUS 23.6" 1920x1080 | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
All sizes are just relative to what you have been using before. I was on 15.6 inch monitor for 3 years, so jumping to a 23-inch monitor was really a sore to my eyes and difficult to cope with at the beginning. | ||
|
BeefyKnight
United States127 Posts
Edited for accidental smiley lol | ||
|
k20
United States342 Posts
| ||
|
Agh
United States902 Posts
Got this monitor because it has multiple inputs for everything. (HDMI/DVI/VGA/Component/Composit/S-Video/USB) 3 ms response. Don't have model # unfortunately but it's made by gateway and I got it ~2 years ago. (well under $300 retail afaik) | ||
|
Nilitsu
Canada442 Posts
I feel that 27" is too big, thinking of getting a 24". | ||
|
Anobix
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
WindOw
Sweden407 Posts
| ||
|
ffswowsucks
Greece2294 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:10 Pokebunny wrote: 22" 1680x1050. this! | ||
|
phamou
Canada193 Posts
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236075&cm_re=asus_monitor_23-_-24-236-075-_-Product is the resolution good? refresh rate? I am wondering because i don't know anything about monitors, and wanted a 23'' minimum with LED backlight..the asus was one of the cheapest i found.. i am still awaiting it to be shipped, do you guys recommend this monitor or should i refund it? | ||
|
WindOw
Sweden407 Posts
On January 11 2011 01:51 phamou wrote: just bought this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236075&cm_re=asus_monitor_23-_-24-236-075-_-Product is the resolution good? refresh rate? I am wondering because i don't know anything about monitors, and wanted a 23'' minimum with LED backlight..the asus was one of the cheapest i found.. i am still awaiting it to be shipped, do you guys recommend this monitor or should i refund it? Look okay... Resolution is fine so is refresh rate but i dunno about the quality TN panels are kinnda meh, but for the price its reasonable. | ||
|
Dark.Pyro
Canada94 Posts
I'm planning on upgrading to a dual monitor (2 x 24 inch) because then i can watch vids while playing sc2 while working and msning  But in all seriousness, it'll be nice to upgrade... only upside to this 19 inch is that it has cables for me to plug my 360 into as well and switch inputs | ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19017 Posts
On January 10 2011 05:56 mrk1 wrote: 17" LCD, gonna upgrade though. Is there any serious effect on SC2 between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 or for games overall? Or is it just a matter of preference? The 1080p ones are cheaper around here, but still finding it hard to decide between the two. ![[image loading]](http://h-1.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif) 16:10 = 1920x1200 16: 9 = 1920x1080 Since 1080p is native, you actually get to see more. | ||
|
boredrex
United States137 Posts
Too bad my computer doesn't have a powerful enough graphics card.... Since the iMac can function as an external monitor, I'm going to build a tower eventually and use it like that. | ||
|
s2pid_loser
United States699 Posts
| ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On January 10 2011 09:14 Torte de Lini wrote: I use 23-inches. To be quite honest, I believe it is too big. All sizes are just relative to what you have been using before. I was on 15.6 inch monitor for 3 years, so jumping to a 23-inch monitor was really a sore to my eyes and difficult to cope with at the beginning. Give it a few months and you'll be wanting a bigger monitor again. I thought 24" was the sweet spot until I got 27" | ||
|
zyglrox
United States1168 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 11 2011 09:33 vek wrote: Give it a few months and you'll be wanting a bigger monitor again. I thought 24" was the sweet spot until I got 27" I had a 26" for a month traded it in for a 22" 1920x1080 i don't sit that far from my monitor i just need the pixels not the size. | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On January 11 2011 11:07 semantics wrote: I had a 26" for a month traded it in for a 22" 1920x1080 i don't sit that far from my monitor i just need the pixels not the size. Yeah I suppose it does depend fairly heavily on how far you sit from your monitor. Mine is fairly far back so I can fit a tablet, keyboard etc in front without it being cramped. 27" works great for me | ||
|
PheNOM_
United States417 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 11 2011 16:31 PheNOM_ wrote: I was wondering how much of a difference 2ms is from 5ms? When if comes to response times on monitors of course. ^^ in LCD monitors the response time usually means gray to gray or black to white pixel response which reduces the after image ie ghosting that a few people can pick up on. Short of a high speed camera anything under 8ms is really hard to pick up on. the pixel response doesn't have much to do with the actual input latency of the monitor. Although if you are one of those people view sonic sells 120hz which have across the board better response times then the avg monitor, or you can buy the 1ms monitor, but it's likely under a gaming preset that turns off some things and really dips in the image quality. to me i rather spend that kind of money on a ips monitor from them and get better viewing angles and color accuracy. | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
| ||
|
PheNOM_
United States417 Posts
On January 11 2011 16:38 semantics wrote: in LCD monitors the response time usually means gray to gray or black to white pixel response which reduces the after image ie ghosting that a few people can pick up on. Short of a high speed camera anything under 8ms is really hard to pick up on. the pixel response doesn't have much to do with the actual input latency of the monitor. Although if you are one of those people view sonic sells 120hz which have across the board better response times then the avg monitor, or you can buy the 1ms monitor, but it's likely under a gaming preset that turns off some things and really dips in the image quality. to me i rather spend that kind of money on a ips monitor from them and get better viewing angles and color accuracy. So it really isn't worth the money for a 2ms monitor over a 5ms? Unless you have the extra cash? | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
| ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On January 11 2011 16:45 PheNOM_ wrote: So it really isn't worth the money for a 2ms monitor over a 5ms? Unless you have the extra cash? What hes saying is a lot of manufacturers skew the stats on pixel response times by measuring different things, grey to grey is different from black to white. It's very hard to just sit there, make a comparison, and say for certain that one is better than the other. Really... as long as the monitor you buy is a decent brand (Asus, Acer and Benq are some safe ones) and was manufactured in the past year or so you will be fine. Unless you do a lot of graphics work I would just stick with cheaper TN panels because in general they have better response times. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RpkpI.jpg) The 1ms gray to gray viewsonic on the left and a Dell U2711 on the right which is a larger IPS avg of 6ms gray to gray. Most now only show gray to gray it's not so much manufacturing skewing that result it's just that they skew everything else dealing with picture quality. Like i said short of a high speed camera you're unlikely to notice. What you would notice in a side by side, is color, brightness, bleed though and viewing angles which not all monitors are so numb to. the 1ms viewsonic although may be fine for games it's just really washed out in the color department partly due to the bleed though and no matter how much you tweak it will never be just right. I way saying although the speed is measurable it's not very important in good quality picture which is what you buy a monitor for, i rather invest in one with a good stand that doesn't just tilt, one that can hit the colors properly with minor tweaking, one who doesn't have too much light or not enough in it. Also most monitors at the sub 300 range by default are so bright they burn your eyes out if you didn't have a well lit room all the time. | ||
|
LoCaD
Germany1634 Posts
Only Gripe I have thats why I do not necessary recommend this Monitor nowadays you only have 1 VGA Port and 1 DVI thats it no HDMI and i have to use lotse adapters for the DVI Port I finally got a Switch Port so I can change between PC use and PS3 without having to change the Cables everytime arround and its really compfy. | ||
|
Esjihn
United States164 Posts
Gotta rock that crt for sc1 baby | ||
|
BoonSolo
United Kingdom74 Posts
What do you guys think? | ||
|
Esjihn
United States164 Posts
| ||
|
Herpadurr
Monaco151 Posts
| ||
|
SushilS
2115 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:45 telfire wrote: 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. Wow! Thanks man. Didn't know that really. Grats... | ||
|
MrKibbles
United States19 Posts
One weird thing with this monitor is that occasionally it has a pretty big input lag, and then later in the day the lag will magically go away without me doing anything about it O.o Kind of wish I knew why it was doing that so I could make it have no lag whenever I want | ||
|
selboN
United States2523 Posts
| ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
Thinking of upgrading my 19", it's getting kinda old. But still works wonders for StartCraft 2! | ||
|
zYwi3c
Poland1811 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:03 TheAngelofDeath wrote: 24" of 1080p beauty. :D And whats the point using 1080p on that small screen ? U cant even see the difference between 720p and 1080p on 32-38" screens. 22" Dell 2209WA with s-IPS ( best for games ) here. | ||
|
zingmars
Latvia189 Posts
EDIT: Then again, if you're buying a monitor, go for 1920x1080 one. They usually don't destroy your bank balance completely, and you'll certainly will have more than enough space on your desktop (providing of course, that you got the hardware capable to support everything you want on that resolution). | ||
|
.Enigma.
Sweden1461 Posts
| ||
|
kajba
Sweden16 Posts
| ||
|
AnodyneSea
Jamaica757 Posts
| ||
|
NewbieOne
Poland560 Posts
| ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
The slimness is a blessing and a curse; I actually wish it was less slim. Very light so there's no wobbling, but even picking it up you can see the screen bend a little bit, I would be very very scared to take this to any LAN parties. Edit: By the way, when deciding on size, consider how far away you sit from your monitor. 23" is actually too big for me to play SC2 on, but my desk is very deep, so I can just push the screen back and it's like playing on a 21". The extra size is good for movies and poker though. | ||
|
drooL
United Kingdom2108 Posts
| ||
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&ma2=35&mo2=827&p2=10200&ph=1 | ||
|
mannyi
Germany8 Posts
| ||
|
NewbieOne
Poland560 Posts
On January 12 2011 23:06 Cel.erity wrote: I have a 23" AOC ultraslim monitor, and it is the absolute sex. It looks way better than the 23.6" ASUS, and certainly better than any LG or Acer. The slimness is a blessing and a curse; I actually wish it was less slim. Very light so there's no wobbling, but even picking it up you can see the screen bend a little bit, I would be very very scared to take this to any LAN parties. Edit: By the way, when deciding on size, consider how far away you sit from your monitor. 23" is actually too big for me to play SC2 on, but my desk is very deep, so I can just push the screen back and it's like playing on a 21". The extra size is good for movies and poker though. Yeah, many monitors are far too fragile to carry them around. The leg under my 24'' LG is so fragile it's scary but the older 20'' thing from HP has a sturdy leg you can hide a keyboard in: Google link | ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
Picked it up on Black Friday for $140 and free shipping from Newegg. | ||
|
_KiM_
Canada498 Posts
Wish I spent the extra $150 and got the 23". | ||
|
tpyo
32 Posts
| ||
|
BlueLobster
Singapore205 Posts
On January 09 2011 08:42 Marcus420 wrote: What are you talking about? What resolution are you talking about? 1080P HD is the most common HD computer monitors. 1080P is perfect. HD is not "low" or "terribad" If youre saying only 2560 x 1600 is the only way to go, please show us something that isn't ridiculously expensive. You sound like the one that is uninformed, plus youre completely derailing this thread. I have a Dell U2311H. One of the best computer IPS monitors on the market that is 300$ or less if you can get it on sale. +1 for del U2311H. great IPS monitor. | ||
|
purecarnagge
719 Posts
| ||
|
StewKer
United States301 Posts
| ||
|
Nuttyguy
United Kingdom1526 Posts
IMO go in the store and look at them and pretend you're playing SC on it then go home and buy it online = save money! | ||
| ||
