27" @ 2560x1440, or 30" @ 2560x1600 for $300 more

[BlahBlahYouToo]

$824 for the U2711
$1124 for the U3011

is the extra 3" and 160px worth $300?

 

[soccerballtux]

1200 vert pixels is good enough for me. I can't drop below that, but I don't feel the need to go beyond it (both would be nice, but I don't need it).

It seems lots of games are going to 16:9 from 16:10 which is a shame...so you might want to get 16:9 for that reason. Or 16:10, depending on how you look at it.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

yeah, i don't like the 16:9 AR they're pushing out these days either.

can anyone with a 27" at that res comment on text legibility?

 

[soccerballtux]

I don't think it would be a problem, how is your eyesight? I've got 24" and 1920x1200. You can calculate the per pixel size and compare to the 27 if you like.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I don't think it would be a problem, how is your eyesight? I've got 24" and 1920x1200. You can calculate the per pixel size and compare to the 27 if you like.

currently using a 24 and 1920*1200 and i can read windows font and webpages at default 100% zoom.

 

[Throckmorton]

Windows 7 and Vista have good font scaling, so the readability isn't an issue. For images on the internet it does matter though because it's better to view them at native res.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Depends on usage. If gaming is priority go 16:9. And if gaming I hope you have a good enough rig to push those pixels.

If not gaming and you're not doing anything where the extra vertical pixels, high resolution, and IPS panel will benefit you then why burn the money on such a display at all.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Depends on usage. If gaming is priority go 16:9. And if gaming I hope you have a good enough rig to push those pixels.

If not gaming and you're not doing anything where the extra vertical pixels, high resolution, and IPS panel will benefit you then why burn the money on such a display at all.

yes gaming, currently on a gtx 260. will probably have to upgrade to at least a 460 1gb.
i like the extra pixels. i want the ability to view more on the screen at the same time (code, spreadsheet, browsers).

why is 16:9 good for gaming?
i thought it was a movie AR, which i won't be doing on the monitor since I have my pc outputting to my 50" tv.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Greater FOV. With 2560x1600 you don't see more vertically with those extra pixels. The sides (that you would see with 2560x1440) just get cut off. Though FOV is dictated by the game so it's not concrete and many people don't even notice the difference.

And a single 460 won't cut it for that res if playing modern games, unless you drop a lot of eye candy.

 

[Throckmorton]

Greater FOV. With 2560x1600 you don't see more vertically with those extra pixels. The sides (that you would see with 2560x1440) just get cut off. Though FOV is dictated by the game so it's not concrete and many people don't even notice the difference.

And a single 460 won't cut it for that res if playing modern games, unless you drop a lot of eye candy.

Fixed your typo

Well even if the game extends the view horizontally to fit the 16:9, it's basically a zoom-out effect, which is not necessarily good. With the more zoomed in 16:10 view, you're getting more vertical pixels for the same vertical view, so it would be easier to see things far away.

But the size is the biggest factor here. 30" gives you a really window into games. I had a Dell 30" that I got very cheaply on Craigslist, but I sold it because at the time I used XP which had bad font scaling, so it was too hard to read. I went back to a 24". But that thing was great for games!

 

[ilkhan]

I put my laptop in position 1, but a a generic comparison looks like this
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?ce6ed1eda8195cd1c17cc8b5ebfceca0
27" 16:9 isn't much taller than 24" 16:10.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Fixed your typo

Well even if the game extends the view horizontally to fit the 16:9, it's basically a zoom-out effect, which is not necessarily good.

It doesn't work that way, nor does it look zoomed-out. If it does it's just the difference in the size of the screens.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12762
Do the 16:9 shots look zoomed-out?

 

[Throckmorton]

It doesn't work that way, nor does it look zoomed-out. If it does it's just the difference in the size of the screens. Do the 16:9 shots look zoomed-out?

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12762

Imagine a 2560x1600 screen running a game. Now imagine you switch the res to 2560x1440 letterboxed, and the game gives you a wider field of view. Well you have the wider view, but now everything is smaller because the same vertical view is squeezed into 1440 pixels instead of 1600.

 

[Throckmorton]

Some games do the opposite. Battlefield 2 in widescreen mode chops off the top and bottom of the view, and give you the same horizontal view. The effect is like zooming in.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Some games do the opposite. Battlefield 2 in widescreen mode chops off the top and bottom of the view, and give you the same horizontal view. The effect is like zooming in.

Yeah unfortunetly many old games do not have proper widescreen support. But you'd be hard pressed to find a more modern title that does this.

Imagine a 2560x1600 screen running a game. Now imagine you switch the res to 2560x1440 letterboxed, and the game gives you a wider field of view. Well you have the wider view, but now everything is smaller because the same vertical view is squeezed into 1440 pixels instead of 1600.

Yes, like I said it's just the difference in the size of the picture. Using your example, scoot your chair forward a bit and the picture suddenly appears larger.

 

[BFG10K]

Assuming the panels have similar specs elsewhere, I’d go for the 2560x1600 variant.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Where are you seeing those prices???

I am leaning towards the U2711 myself.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=836190&t=2385953

you're welcome.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I put my laptop in position 1, but a a generic comparison looks like this
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?ce6ed1eda8195cd1c17cc8b5ebfceca0
27" 16:9 isn't much taller than 24" 16:10.

great site to put things in perspective, thanks.

 

[Idontcare]

$824 for the U2711
$1124 for the U3011

is the extra 3" and 160px worth $300?

I would not buy a 27" anything if for a mere $300 more I could have the real deal sitting on my desk.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I jumped on the U3011 deal. 25% off with no tax and free shipping was too good to pass up. It should last me the next 4 years I'm hoping.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Dell monitors are top rate so you should be happy, I know I am.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I would not buy a 27" anything if for a mere $300 more I could have the real deal sitting on my desk.

i dun did it.
pulled the trigger on the 30".

now i have to see how well the 'ol gtx260 216 holds up.

 

[RobertR1]

i dun did it.
pulled the trigger on the 30".

now i have to see how well the 'ol gtx260 216 holds up.

Not good unfortunately. I have a 3008wfp and a gtx260 216. The resolution isn't kind when it comes to newer games. You'll ideally want a GTX580 or the upcoming 6900 series (depending on reviews).

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Not good unfortunately. I have a 3008wfp and a gtx260 216. The resolution isn't kind when it comes to newer games. You'll ideally want a GTX580 or the upcoming 6900 series (depending on reviews).

well, hopefully it can hold up for a few months until the gtx570 comes out.
don't feel like dropping $500 on a video card.

i'm just playing SC2 and black ops. i'll drop the settings if necessary.