|
I understand this isn't really a tech support thread, but I was hoping to get some feedback on hardware nonetheless.
I'm considering upgrading from my 21" monitor to something a bit larger. I've seen some of the newer 27" monitors, and while they look fantastic, I can't really imagine myself playing SC2 on them due to their large size.
Can you guys provide some feedback on your gaming monitors and what seems to be an ideal size?
If you have a 27" monitor or something comparable, I'd appreciate if you could provide some feedback on your SC2 experience on the larger screen.
Thanks - this information will certainly help me in my purchasing decision.
|
I have a 27"... It's pretty fantastic size and graphics wise but i have it about a metre away from me on my desk (my desk is huge and curved) so i can see every detail without physically moving my head. Still get great minimap awareness for SC2 which was my biggest concern so yea i'd definitely endorse a 27"
|
I'm really happy with my 25.5" monitor, and I doubt 27" would be much of a real difference. You can get used to a large monitor even though it will seem gigantic at first.
I actually remember years ago in the early days of PCs, I had a 13" monitor and my friend got a 18" and it just seemed gigantic to me, as if you had to turn your head from side to side to see everything.
I wouldn't go out of my way to spend the cash to get 27" though. 23 or 24 works just fine, and those have much more reasonable prices.
|
Obviously it depends on viewing distance as well as screen size.
Unless your setup mandates a relatively large viewing distance, I don't think there's much motivation to go with 27", unless you're getting a high-res model like 2560x1440. And if you were getting 2560x1440, that would be considerably more expensive.
Most tournaments seem to be run on 23-24", but their hardware selection is often a result of sponsorship and not particularly any indication of what anybody should be doing for themselves.
|
I've had a 27" monitor for the past seven years and I would never go back to smaller. I also have it about 18-22" from my face but the size has done wonders for the eye strain that I had been suffering from previously. To be honest though, I wouldn't get the monitor just for gaming purposes. I bought my monitor to help me with my work related tasks and my physical health, and this benefit on its own far outweighs any other consideration. I also know people who play on eyefinity and 3840 displays so 27" seems kind of small to me knowing that.
|
I have a 27" 2560x1440 res Korean monitor I bought on ebay. Can't go back to another monitor.
|
Yeah the pixel density on a 1080p 24" was terrible for me, I wouldn't touch a 27" 1080p with a 10 foot pole. Also, monitors above 22" or so that are TN have really noticeable gamma shift between the top and bottom of the monitor, which can be extremely annoying.
That being said my korean 27" 1440p ips monitor I obtained is dope, wouldn't go back to a lower res again.
|
I have 1440p 27" but I play sc2 with 1080p resolution with it bc it gets better fps that way. Its a great size for starcraft dont worry.
|
On April 19 2013 12:48 Rollin wrote:
Yeah the pixel density on a 1080p 24" was terrible for me, I wouldn't touch a 27" 1080p with a 10 foot pole. Also, monitors above 22" or so that are TN have really noticeable gamma shift between the top and bottom of the monitor, which can be extremely annoying.
That being said my korean 27" 1440p ips monitor I obtained is dope, wouldn't go back to a lower res again.
Me too.
There's a thread on overclock.net about the new Samsung PLS panel 2560x1440 27" korean PLSs, it seems like they're pretty nice for about $315 shipped and the first 100 from a certain seller is going to have free perfect pixel guarantee. That's probably all gone now though. They can be overclocked to pretty good refresh rates as well it seems.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
On April 19 2013 12:56 FinBenton wrote:
I have 1440p 27" but I play sc2 with 1080p resolution with it bc it gets better fps that way. Its a great size for starcraft dont worry.
How did you benchmark FPS? Of course it will be a ton lower at start of game (where FPS is probably 100-200 and you are gpu bound to some extent) but you shouldn't see any difference in midgame or endgame battles with a gpu at all suitable for 2560x1440
|
On April 19 2013 13:28 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 12:56 FinBenton wrote:
I have 1440p 27" but I play sc2 with 1080p resolution with it bc it gets better fps that way. Its a great size for starcraft dont worry. How did you benchmark FPS? Of course it will be a ton lower at start of game (where FPS is probably 100-200 and you are gpu bound to some extent) but you shouldn't see any difference in midgame or endgame battles with a gpu at all suitable for 2560x1440
It's raping my framerate too, although it's still doable. The strange thing is that it's not even under 100% load, and I think vram isn't fully used either. Although, my 560ti has been having issues for a while now, sc2 is the main graphically intensive thing I use it for.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
It's raping my framerate too, although it's still doable. The strange thing is that it's not even under 100% load, and I think vram isn't fully used either.
Yea, this happens with sc2 - again, check FPS during an endgame battle, not staring at workers, i can't see your minimums being different
|
I mean the game is at like 50fps or less for most of it now, as opposed to being closer to my capped 60fps mark. On a 2500k@4.4ghz btw, but since 1.5 my framerates have been horrible anyway.
And I mostly play random arcade games so I can't say what a typical 1v1 scenario would be like.
|
On April 19 2013 13:08 hellokitty[hk] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 12:48 Rollin wrote:
Yeah the pixel density on a 1080p 24" was terrible for me, I wouldn't touch a 27" 1080p with a 10 foot pole. Also, monitors above 22" or so that are TN have really noticeable gamma shift between the top and bottom of the monitor, which can be extremely annoying.
That being said my korean 27" 1440p ips monitor I obtained is dope, wouldn't go back to a lower res again. Me too. There's a thread on overclock.net about the new Samsung PLS panel 2560x1440 27" korean PLSs, it seems like they're pretty nice for about $315 shipped and the first 100 from a certain seller is going to have free perfect pixel guarantee. That's probably all gone now though. They can be overclocked to pretty good refresh rates as well it seems.
Yeah I spent some time digging through the threads and finally found some encouraging news that it is outputting 120Hz without dropped frames: http://www.overclock.net/t/1382348/post-your-pls-overclocking-results/60_20
So at least on the surface, if you missed out on the Catleap 2B's, these seem to be a fine consolation since they are not currently charging a premium on these.
To the OP - monitor upgrades are THE biggest upgrade, assuming you have no problems supporting the higher resolution 
2560x1440 is 77% more pixels than 1920x1080, so you will need to be mindful on having a proper GPU to drive your monitor.
|
I recently added a 27" 2560x1440 monitor to the pile of hardware on my desk, and I can safely say that if done right it is straight up superior to a 24" 1920x1200 (or 1080) monitor.
2560x1440 = 4x(1280x720), meaning you're GPU needs to push 4 times the number of pixels as 720p. On all low settings I've been able to play comfortably at 60fps with a single gtx460 (overclocked to hell and back).
If you've got the computer to power it at the settings you enjoy playing at, the extra level of detail and increased screen size is really nice. It takes a bit to get used to, just like any change in your setup it will effect your hand/eye coordination (mouse accuracy).
TL;DR:
Just got my 27" 2560x1440 monitor, took a few days to get used to it, but love it!
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
As long as you have a 1gb+ VRAM card, you shouldn't need much more than a 460 to run ultra - it's just FPS will probably be lower than expected in early to midgame, though it's probably the same minimum FPS (because minimum FPS is overwhelmingly decided by CPU on a decent system) so i don't think it's of much practical use to turn down settings to increase FPS unless there's a major difference (and it pulls you below 16.7ms frametimes (60fps) for a large amount of time you would not otherwise be there) and it's related to the GPU, but i wouldn't expect there to be a real gap or demand for power there.. any data? early game vs early game (just looking at probes, for example) and a maxed 1v1 or 2v2 fight on both resolutions + max settings, for example, i'd like to see how big the gaps are and how scaling is.
After i get Haswell CPU, i am skipping skylake probably, so 4 year CPU gap, my upgrades will be going to GPU and then to 2560x1440 or 1920x1080,144hz, so actually it would be interesting to see how powerful i have to go in terms of Maxwell GPU or AMD's competing offering
|
Awesome feedback guys. I really really appreciate it. I have a GTX460, and I'm thinking about doing a complete rig overhaul soon, so I'll have to think about this some more. I don't want to give up any FPS either so it looks I'll have to bump up my GPU as well.
Either way, this has been very helpful!
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
I don't want to give up any FPS either so it looks I'll have to bump up my GPU as well.
Oh shit its QTIP, thanks for the anti 1-1-1 guide :0
And yea, 460 is lower end by todays standards - probably not suitable for a lot of graphics intensive games at 2560x1440 especially on higher settings, but what i was arguing and i think is correct is that minimum FPS in sc2 would probably be the same on 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440 (especially if you have 1gb+vram card) because SC2 is so GPU-light in such fights
|
I don't understand why woudl anyone want to play SC2 on a 27" screen. I have a 22" and I consider it an absolute limit - I even refuse to play on my wife's 24", because it its just too big and there is not enough space on the table to put it far enough so I can see it whole at once. Yes, you can probably arrange your furniture so that it works, but is it really worth it? I don't see the gain in making the monitor large, but putting it far away and then throwing the possible gain in resolution away by making everything bigger, because you can't see the details from the distance anyway.
Could be usefull for work, when you put it closer as you don't need to see everything at once, but you can make a lot of use from having a lot of stuff displayed side by side, but for SC2, a game that specifically requires you to keep wtaching the very corner of the display while clicking in the middle, not so much.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
because it its just too big and there is not enough space on the table to put it far enough so I can see it whole at once.
Well, i use 24" 1920x1080 (it's actually smaller, because diagonal measuring and 1920x1200 native resolution) at like 20 inches viewing distance, i don't think it would be an issue for most people if you can push distance back even further, but it might be, same as some people played on 4:3 at GM level (axslav, babynight) because minimap was like half as far away from supply, etc (or they were just used to it)
If you have mouse muscle memory down and are using a more "correct" sensitivity (i'd say 450-1200dpi on 1920x1080, maybe 1600 if you are pushing it) without acceleration etc, you can be very aware of where the mouse is, and control it extremely well with peripheral vision or no vision at all, which makes it being out of your focus much less of a problem
|
On April 19 2013 16:36 opisska wrote:
I don't understand why woudl anyone want to play SC2 on a 27" screen. I have a 22" and I consider it an absolute limit - I even refuse to play on my wife's 24", because it its just too big and there is not enough space on the table to put it far enough so I can see it whole at once. Yes, you can probably arrange your furniture so that it works, but is it really worth it? I don't see the gain in making the monitor large, but putting it far away and then throwing the possible gain in resolution away by making everything bigger, because you can't see the details from the distance anyway.
Could be usefull for work, when you put it closer as you don't need to see everything at once, but you can make a lot of use from having a lot of stuff displayed side by side, but for SC2, a game that specifically requires you to keep wtaching the very corner of the display while clicking in the middle, not so much.
I think the bigger screen makes playing a bit easier actually, I play 27" 1080p with 70-80cm from my eyes and things are super easy to spot on the minimap, wayyyy easier than on smaller screens and my laptop. Though its mostly just getting used to certain type of screen.
The reason I dont play at full 1440p is that my GPU is 9800gt atm and its not giving good fps on higher res.
|
I have a 2560x1440 27" and I love it. But if I was mainly gaming I go with 24", 27" is a little too big for gaming, doable but sometimes overwhelming.
The extra room the 27" gives you is brilliant for browsing and using word.
|
On April 19 2013 11:59 QTIP. wrote:
I understand this isn't really a tech support thread, but I was hoping to get some feedback on hardware nonetheless.
I'm considering upgrading from my 21" monitor to something a bit larger. I've seen some of the newer 27" monitors, and while they look fantastic, I can't really imagine myself playing SC2 on them due to their large size.
Can you guys provide some feedback on your gaming monitors and what seems to be an ideal size?
If you have a 27" monitor or something comparable, I'd appreciate if you could provide some feedback on your SC2 experience on the larger screen.
Thanks - this information will certainly help me in my purchasing decision.
I have an 22" and don't like it bigger for SC2 because I am so close. So I guess there is no advice which fits any need.
|
Hi.
I use a 32 inch tv as a monitor and i can tell you its too big for competitive RTS.
In broodwar i find it to be actually really unconftable for my wrsit/hand to use the mice on such a large screen.
In other games however, the 32 inch is awsome...
Problem is my favorite game is broodwar :D.
Anyhow i think 27 is still in the safe zone.
|
I use the RL2450HT 24" 1920x1080 with "RTS" mode about 30cm away from me. its so perfect i cant even begin to describe it. even the dark parts of the minimap is so clear :G
I dont think 27" is better unless you are sitting really far away from the monitor :F
|
suggested monitor screens should be between 22-24 inches. although i play using a 32
inch tv. i have to distance myself from the screen to be able to the mini map.
|
1440p offers a lot more granularity in mouse selection as well, but you'll need to change your cpi by a factor of 4/3 to match your old monitor. In terms of viewability, sitting back further if your peripheral vision sucks is an option I guess. What everyone really wants is some nice 4k 24" screens  . Like the dpi on my 13" 1080p ultrabook is dope, if that was scaled to a 24" screen for a decent price I'd jizz myself.
If all you're playing is sc2, 1080p 21-24" is fine. If you're playing other games (like bf3), the higher the resolution the better.
|
for sc2 i use an asus ve228h, just a quick 21.5" TN panel. it's great. Much prefer this over my old 26" due to the fact of it being easier to see the minimap and your resources at the same time.
|
On April 19 2013 16:31 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote + I don't want to give up any FPS either so it looks I'll have to bump up my GPU as well. Oh shit its QTIP, thanks for the anti 1-1-1 guide :0 And yea, 460 is lower end by todays standards - probably not suitable for a lot of graphics intensive games at 2560x1440 especially on higher settings, but what i was arguing and i think is correct is that minimum FPS in sc2 would probably be the same on 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440 (especially if you have 1gb+vram card) because SC2 is so GPU-light in such fights
Hey man - glad to know that my guide had its uses. Your'e a blue poster, so I appreciate your contributions as well! ^^
Thanks for the GPU info! I'll definitely keep in mind.
|
On April 20 2013 03:50 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 16:31 Cyro wrote: I don't want to give up any FPS either so it looks I'll have to bump up my GPU as well. Oh shit its QTIP, thanks for the anti 1-1-1 guide :0 And yea, 460 is lower end by todays standards - probably not suitable for a lot of graphics intensive games at 2560x1440 especially on higher settings, but what i was arguing and i think is correct is that minimum FPS in sc2 would probably be the same on 1920x1080 vs 2560x1440 (especially if you have 1gb+vram card) because SC2 is so GPU-light in such fights Hey man - glad to know that my guide had its uses. Your'e a blue poster, so I appreciate your contributions as well! ^^ Thanks for the GPU info! I'll definitely keep in mind.
I think he's blue because wom got sick of seeing him ask why he wasn't blue when wom, skyr and myrm were first made blues . I can recall at least three occasions, but I think he said it a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
