2560x1440 vs 2560x1600 IPS Monitors or TFT Monitors

[Destiny]

Anyone have experience with these monitors?

Is a 1600p more noticable performance intensive than a 1440p on your video card?

I'm looking to get a GTX 680 or similar card soon and looking to get a 1440p or 1600p soon after...

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Not much, your fps will go down by about 10-12% or so! Basically an oc 680 on 1600p will trade blows with stock 680 on 1440p

 

[Ieat]

Yep 1600p is about 11% more pixels. Personally I find 1440p more then enough vertical pixels. In fact I wouldn't mind sacrificing some vertical pixels for more horizontal ones.

 

[Lonyo]

When it comes down to it,the missing pixels don'tmake that much of a difference because you've still got more than 1920x1200 or 1080, and the cost difference between 1600 and 1440 is so significant that it's almost silly to get 1600 unless you really have money to burn.

2560x1440 lets you comfortable have two things open full size on each half of the screen, and a bit of extra vertical won't improve things that much.

The main thing to look for is potential niggling issues with your choices.
I had an HP ZR2740w, and the anti-glare coating is ridiculous. Things like anti-glare coating, adjustment options (brightness, contrast etc) and input lag/ghosting are the things you should be concerned about.

Unless you really feel obsessive, spending an extra 50% to get 1600 over 1440 is pretty silly in many ways, there are much beter ways to spend that $300+

 

[Destiny]

Not much, your fps will go down by about 10-12% or so! Basically an oc 680 on 1600p will trade blows with stock 680 on 1440p

Yep 1600p is about 11% more pixels. Personally I find 1440p more then enough vertical pixels. In fact I wouldn't mind sacrificing some vertical pixels for more horizontal ones.

When it comes down to it,the missing pixels don'tmake that much of a difference because you've still got more than 1920x1200 or 1080, and the cost difference between 1600 and 1440 is so significant that it's almost silly to get 1600 unless you really have money to burn.

2560x1440 lets you comfortable have two things open full size on each half of the screen, and a bit of extra vertical won't improve things that much.

The main thing to look for is potential niggling issues with your choices.
I had an HP ZR2740w, and the anti-glare coating is ridiculous. Things like anti-glare coating, adjustment options (brightness, contrast etc) and input lag/ghosting are the things you should be concerned about.

Unless you really feel obsessive, spending an extra 50% to get 1600 over 1440 is pretty silly in many ways, there are much beter ways to spend that $300+

Thanks for the tips... for 160 more pixel lines it cost that much more? Also do all IPS panels have that anti glare coating?

 

[KingFatty]

Hey if you haven't heard, look for the various threads on Anandtech and other forums about catleap monitors. You can get them insanely cheap for 1440p resolution.

Are there 1600p catleaps? If not, it's to me a no-brainer to get the 1440p, the price is too low to justify going to a 1600p at full retail price.

 

[Lonyo]

Anti-glare coating is monitor specific, the HP coating is more aggressive than others. You can see the anti-glare coating on light coloured web pages etc.
Others will have a different AG coating that will probably be less aggressive.

For cost comparisons, on Newegg the HP 27" is $680.
The HP 30" is $1180, so $500 more for 160 extra vertical pixels. $3/line of pixels.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

But a u2711 is like 1000 and 1300 for u3011

 

[Gloomy]

Anti-glare coating is monitor specific, the HP coating is more aggressive than others. You can see the anti-glare coating on light coloured web pages etc.
Others will have a different AG coating that will probably be less aggressive.

For cost comparisons, on Newegg the HP 27" is $680.
The HP 30" is $1180, so $500 more for 160 extra vertical pixels. $3/line of pixels.

I think it's panel specific. It's LG's antiglare coating.

But a u2711 is like 1000 and 1300 for u3011

u2711 was 800 last I checked...

 

[KingFatty]

The 27" 1440p catleaps can be found for around $350 shipped.

 

[blastingcap]

The 27" 1440p catleaps can be found for around $350 shipped.

Yeah but the 30" Korean monitors are like $800+. Not worth it for just 160 more lines of pixels.

 

[Lepton87]

Yeah but the 30" Korean monitors are like $800+. Not worth it for just 160 more lines of pixels.

It's not just 160 lines of pixels but also 3' more diagonal. It's a rather significant difference in size. If you have the money go for 30 incher unless you like me actually prefer tighter dot pich to more size.

 

[blastingcap]

unless you like me actually prefer tighter dot pich to more size.

I do. That's kind of the point. Higher resolution per square inch matters to a lot of other people, too.

Also, 30" 16:10 ratio is only like 20-25% bigger in area, yet they are charging something like $830 vs. $330 for the 27". 20-25% more area, for 150% more cost.

EDIT: actually it's 29.8% bigger but 29.8% is still << 150%.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

27" to 30" shouldn't be 25% more area. Is it?

 

[kevinsbane]

You get a 3inch linear increase, but the area goes by the square (not quite, but similar) of the diagonal size.

In addition, you go from 16:9 to 16:10, and 16:10 always has a ~5% larger screen area for any given diagonal.

 

[blastingcap]

27" to 30" shouldn't be 25% more area. Is it?

As I mentioned in my post, there is a difference in aspect ratios (16:10 vs. 16:9).

In any case, I'm pretty sure a 16:10 30" panel is not 150% bigger than a 16:9 27" panel.

Edit: ok I guess 25% was an underestimate, it's more like 30%, but it's still not 150% bigger:

(30)^2 = x^2 + (1.6x)^2
900 = 3.56x^2
252.8 = x^2
x = 15.9
15.9*1.6(15.9) = 404.5 square inches for a 16:10 30" panel

We can do a similar calculation for 16:9 27" panel:

(27)^2 = x^2 + (1.77777777777x)^2
729 = 4.16x^2
175.24 = x^2
x = 13.2378
13.2378*1.777777777(13.2378) = 311.54 square inches for a 16:9 27" panel.

404.5 / 311.54 = 1.298

29.8% bigger.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

He meant 150% more expensive and 25% bigger

 

[Destiny]

The 27" 1440p catleaps can be found for around $350 shipped.

Yeah but the 30" Korean monitors are like $800+. Not worth it for just 160 more lines of pixels.

Are they shipped overseas from Korea?

As I mentioned in my post, there is a difference in aspect ratios (16:10 vs. 16:9).

In any case, I'm pretty sure a 16:10 30" panel is not 150% bigger than a 16:9 27" panel.

Edit: ok I guess 25% was an underestimate, it's more like 30%, but it's still not 150% bigger:

(30)^2 = x^2 + (1.6x)^2
900 = 3.56x^2
252.8 = x^2
x = 15.9
15.9*1.6(15.9) = 404.5 square inches for a 16:10 30" panel

We can do a similar calculation for 16:9 27" panel:

(27)^2 = x^2 + (1.77777777777x)^2
729 = 4.16x^2
175.24 = x^2
x = 13.2378
13.2378*1.777777777(13.2378) = 311.54 square inches for a 16:9 27" panel.

404.5 / 311.54 = 1.298

29.8% bigger.

Nice Algebra!

I currently have an I-inc 27inc 16x10 1920x1200p monitor and loving it for gaming - that is why I was considering a 16x10 ratio monitor with 2560x1600 resolution...

 

[Viper GTS]

http://tvcalculator.com/

If you want to argue over sizes at least save yourself the trouble of doing the math.

Viper GTS

 

[blastingcap]

Are they shipped overseas from Korea?



Nice Algebra!

I currently have an I-inc 27inc 16x10 1920x1200p monitor and loving it for gaming - that is why I was considering a 16x10 ratio monitor with 2560x1600 resolution...

Yeah I'm going by ebay prices for the "A-" grade Korean monitors you are talking about.

http://tvcalculator.com/

If you want to argue over sizes at least save yourself the trouble of doing the math.

Viper GTS

It's funner my way. They calculated 404.5 vs 311.2 square inches. I got almost exactly the same numbers despite doing a little rounding.

 

[iCyborg]

Since we're throwing numbers around:
I just realized that 2560x1440 = 1920^2
It's actually easy to see how this happens, ignoring the factor 10 2x on both sides, we have
256 = 16^2, 144 = 12^2, and 192 = 16*12

I stumbled on this when I wanted to see who delivers more pixels per $: a U2711 @ $750, or U2410 @ $430 (current prices on dell.ca). So I was doing ((2560*1440)/1920)/1080, and after the first division I got 1920, and though I did something wrong. Btw, it's a very narrow win for U2711...

 

[blastingcap]

Since we're throwing numbers around:
I just realized that 2560x1440 = 1920^2
It's actually easy to see how this happens, ignoring the factor 10 2x on both sides, we have
256 = 16^2, 144 = 12^2, and 192 = 16*12

I stumbled on this when I wanted to see who delivers more pixels per $: a U2711 @ $750, or U2410 @ $430 (current prices on dell.ca). So I was doing ((2560*1440)/1920)/1080, and after the first division I got 1920, and though I did something wrong. Btw, it's a very narrow win for U2711...

I got 5760x1080 for about $500 total half a year ago.

 

[Dice144]

Got my Catleap for 332.50 shipped. It is the best monitor I own and would highly recommend getting one. That being said the monitor stand is very bad. I replaced it with a VESA monoprice mount I got for around $17.

 

[iCyborg]

I got 5760x1080 for about $500 total half a year ago.

Well, 1080 is already wrong, I really prefer 16:10, and I'm guessing those are not 8-bit IPS panels
I realized a mistake: I should've divided by 1200 and not 1080 for U2410, that makes U2410 win.

 

[blastingcap]

Well, 1080 is already wrong, I really prefer 16:10, and I'm guessing those are not 8-bit IPS panels
I realized a mistake: I should've divided by 1200 and not 1080 for U2410, that makes U2410 win.

3x1080p could be set up in portrait mode if the monitors have VESA mounts or swivel mounts. Then that would be, what, a 3240x1920 = 1.6875 aspect ratio.

6-bit eIPS panels with AFRC is very hard to tell from 8-bit with the human eye. There was a minor uproar about this a while back when the truth came out about a Dell monitor as being 6-bit with AFRC; many people thought it was 8-bit and could not tell the difference until someone dug up technical proof.

In my own experience, unless I lean really closely and focus, I can't really tell the difference. They are all hardware calibrated and a nice step up from my old TN panels.

Besides, I have a 27" Korean monitor coming too; it is listed at 8-bit s-IPS. After some software color calibration it should do nicely for photo-editing.