27 inch 1080p monitor? Who here has one?

[Shephard]

Who has one of these? The biggest complaint is that 1080p for a 27" is not good. The pixels look too big?

Well does anyone have one, can you confirm this?

I am running my 22" inch 1680x1050 Samsung 2ms right now.

Eventually I want a second monitor. A 1440p would be nice, but then I couldn't max games with my gpu anymore.

23.6 16:9 doesn't seem like a great upgrade over 22 1680x1050 16:10.

I was thinking a bigger screen would be really nice.

 

[omeds]

For gaming its fine imo, but not so pretty on desktop..

 

[NotAgOat]

I am using an ASUS 27"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236091

Honestly the pixel density is fine imo. The larger the screensize the worse your gaming performance will be. The more you have to move your mouse and shift your eyes the less accurate you become. The best thing to compensate for this is to have the screen sit further away, which as a bonus side effect makes individual pixels more difficult to see.

If you are really that worried, why not look at some 27"/30" screens with 2560 x 1440/2560 x 1600 resolutions?

 

[Shephard]

as I said a larger resolution aka 1440p would put more strain on the gpu. I can max every game I have played. If I got a 1080p monitor it would only be around 8-10% difference, so still maxing every game. 1440p on the other hand is a huge hit. I wouldn't be able to max any game with playable framerate.

This was more of a question I am not set on this.

I just don't see a huge difference between my current monitor which is 16:10 22" vs a 16:9 23.6 (24").

I just want 2 good quality monitors.

 

[postmortemIA]

I have 27" 1200P. Yes, pixels are bigger than average, still not too bad. In a long run, it is easier to read on it. Especially after long work days on the computer.

 

[Destiny]

I am using an ASUS 27"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824236091

Honestly the pixel density is fine imo. The larger the screensize the worse your gaming performance will be. The more you have to move your mouse and shift your eyes the less accurate you become. The best thing to compensate for this is to have the screen sit further away, which as a bonus side effect makes individual pixels more difficult to see.

If you are really that worried, why not look at some 27"/30" screens with 2560 x 1440/2560 x 1600 resolutions?

I lay claim to this lurker! =D

and @ OP: I have a 28" 1920x1200 and does not look as good as my 27" 2560x1440...

 

[manko]

It was a nice upgrade for me coming from a similar 22" like yours. I didn't have the budget for a better screen and more expensive GPU to drive it. All the complaints about giant pixels are nonsense. It's still nice to have a large picture.

Still, if you can afford to stretch your budget, it is worth it to go for higher rez. I'm sure I'll pick one up in the future when the screen+GPU prices come down to mid-range levels. (Probably when 4K screens start to get popular.)

 

[moonbogg]

Got an Asus VG278 and love it. Perfect gaming monitor.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

1080p is fine with 27". But you will probably end up with a 20-30% performance hits not 8%. Realistically at least 15-25% minimum hit in all cases.

 

[Bateluer]

Why go with a 1080p 27in monitor? Look into one of the Catleaps or ShiMians. 27in, but with 1440p resolutions. Usually run from 300-500 dollars, far less than Newegg, Dell, HP, etc. Use the money saved to bump up the video card.

 

[Shephard]

I just bought a new video card... my monitor is like 4 years old.

 

[kasakka]

I'm not a fan of 1080p for anything but TVs. I find they have too little desktop real estate as generally the Windows taskbar takes enough space that 1920x1200 makes for a more comfortable resolution. So for 27" I would definitely go for 2560x1440.

Running games at less than native resolution is not actually bad at all as long as you are using a quality display scaler. I use a 2560x1600 Dell 3008WFP at 1920x1200 for many games as my GPU can't handle everything at 2560x1600 with decent framerates. The display's own scaler makes a marked difference in image quality: using GPU scaler (Nvidia) is blurry, using display scaler is basically like adding a bit of antialiasing - not a huge difference from native as long as you don't put the res too low.

 

[Shephard]

rescaling looks bad. I have rescaled on my 1680x1050 before. Black bars suck. Stretched is even worse it looks blurry and pixelated. Not nice if you want to play games at the highest graphics.

 

[alcoholbob]

Dual screening at 1080p with a 27" Dell and a 32" LG TV. I like it, hell I'm used to a 47" at 1080p as a desktop computer. You get used to it.

 

[bystander36]

I have a 27" 1080p 120hz monitor. I'd never go back to 24". While pixel density may not be as good as 1440p, it is a lot easier to read without issues with programs not meant for 1440p. ClearType makes reading easy, as it smooths out the jaggies and gaming gives much better performance to take advantage of the 120hz monitor. 3D Vision is nice too.

I'm sure at the desktop that 1440p may look sharper, but 1080p isn't bad, and in gaming, it helps keep the performance up.

 

[Jimzz]

I have a 26" 1080p and is fine IMO.

 

[Jaskalas]

HP 2709m, I love this puppy...

 

[MajorMullet]

I have an ASUS VG278HE. I don't mind the "large pixels" at all and it's awesome for gaming.

I've been doing more side work lately though so my gaming time has been decreasing. Given that, I definitely wish I had more real-estate for productivity.

 

[2is]

I'm not a fan of 1080p for anything but TVs. I find they have too little desktop real estate as generally the Windows taskbar takes enough space that 1920x1200 makes for a more comfortable resolution. So for 27" I would definitely go for 2560x1440.

Running games at less than native resolution is not actually bad at all as long as you are using a quality display scaler. I use a 2560x1600 Dell 3008WFP at 1920x1200 for many games as my GPU can't handle everything at 2560x1600 with decent framerates. The display's own scaler makes a marked difference in image quality: using GPU scaler (Nvidia) is blurry, using display scaler is basically like adding a bit of antialiasing - not a huge difference from native as long as you don't put the res too low.

Problem with monitors with scalers is a significant increase in input lag.

 

[dpodblood]

I went from a 20" 1680x1050 to a 27" 1080p. Yes the pixel density is not as good, but it certainly doesn't look bad by any stretch of the imagination. You definitely notice the density more-so with general desktop usage than in gaming, but overall it is a good compromise between size and sharpness.

 

[Yuriman]

I just ordered one. The tradeoffs of extra cost and higher GPU demand don't justify a 2560x1440 screen for me right now.

 

[moonbogg]

I just ordered one. The tradeoffs of extra cost and higher GPU demand don't justify a 2560x1440 screen for me right now.

Yep, its still hard to run games at 1440 or 1600p unless you go with dual titans or lower quality for the newer games, and even the titans won't keep up for long. 1080p is still where its at for me. Once higher res becomes more practical performance wise then i'll go for it. I would like a tighter pixel pitch to be honest. Bring on the mainstream 4k monitors! The GPUs will follow.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Most games run fine for me maxed out at 1440p with 60+ fps provided I don't use msaa. And I would anyday take 1440p no msaa over 1080p 4x msaa. Some games like Crysis 3 far cry 3 tomb raider etc can't run at 1440p and newer games may or may not run at 1440p. But the best of 2012 and half of 2013 so far does fine.

 

[Shephard]

yes but there is also a huge price difference between 1080p 27" and 1440p. Who wants to play a nice looking game like Tomb Raider on less than ultra graphics?

What is the best 27" 1080p monitor? I want to do some comparisons.

 

[AustinInDallas]

Love my asus 27 1080p. Basically stole it from Frys because it was an open box with no stand though.
All depends on price. If you are paying 300 for a 27 1080p, the ips 1440p at 400 doesn't seem like a stretch.