30" Dell on a single 8800 GTS?

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: JAG87
more resolution is never overkill sickbeast, because with more pixels you have the option to run with less pixels with 1:1 mapping.

so if you run 1680x1050 on a 3007, you basically get a monitor that is slightly smaller than a 2007, since the pixel pitch on the 30 inch is smaller. And the same goes for 1920x1200. and for 2D you get the benefits of a huge desktop space. its a win-win situation, even if your graphics card is not powerful.

you just need the room for a 30 inch panel, thats all.

Wouldn't you rather 37" of 1920x1080 instead of 20" of 1680x1050?

I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would buy a 30" screen, only to game on it using only 20" of its size.

2560x1600 *is* too much right now. In the future it will be great; the graphics cards will be able to deal with it. The only use I see in it right now is in 2D work where people need that level of precision.

If you can afford two GTX's to drive the screen, then fine, but that's really too expensive for what you're getting IMO.

If I had to choose, I would take 37 inches at 1920x1080 with AA (and 60fps) over 30 inches at 2560x1600 with no AA (and probably less than 30fps) any day without hesitation. Plus, I would probably save over $2000 in the process.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: n7
JAG87, i have read your post like 5+ times, & i guess i'm just retarded.

I gather you are saying that the 3007WFP doesn't support true 1:1 pixel mapping, but rather a form of that?

What i can't understand is how you say it can run 1:1 within a 2560x1600 desktop assuming the video card supports "No Scaling" or "Centered Timings".

As i tested though, of my three displays, only the 3007WFP allows for 1:1 of any kind, which tells me that the monitor must also support a form of 1:1 pixel mapping for that to be the case.

So i basically you're saying the 3007WFP doesn't support a menu option for 1:1 pixel mapping, but will work with drivers set for that.

How is that any different than a damn menu option, since 1:1 pixel mapping only works on select displays that support it?

Ignore nV drivers for this please, since i believe that's what causing our misunderstanding.

ATi's "Centered Timings" only works on displays that have some form of 1:1 pixel mapping support; it does not work on just any random display.
I am really tired tonight, but i still can't figure out what you are trying to say.


Also, this:

For example, if you disable "Centered Timings" and send a 1600x1200 signal to the panel, you will clearly see that its impossible to display a 1:1 signal. The 3007WFP will just display it at a 1:4 ratio, resulting in an image that is bigger than the panel (and you have to pan the screen using the mouse pointer at the edge of the panel).

WTF?
That's not what happens.
It merely stretches 1600x1200 across the display (fits the screen but all stretched/distorted).

Just outta curiously, have you ever used an ATi card w/ your 3007WFP?
I've used three now, & what you say about them doesn't make any sense to me.

Ok, you are right about the mouse panning and 1:4 pixel ratio. That used to happen with my X800 card, but now with both a 7900gtx and an 8800 gtx, any resolution below 2560x1600 gets stretched and fills the screen.

But you still dont understand what I was trying to say about the 1:1. My point was that the 3007 cannot do 1:1 pixel scaling BY ITSELF, in the sense that you will need a graphics card that outputs a 2560x1600 with "centered timings", or "do not scale", while there are some monitors like the 2407 that will display any signal with 1:1 mapping as long as you select it in the menu of the panel. The 3007 has no such menu, nor such function.

In essence: you will never be able to 1:1 unless your graphics card does it! So if you think you can just output any resolution without using centered timings or do not scale and it will display 1:1, you are making a BIG mistake. On the other hand with a 2407, you can even use a 2mb PCI card and lets say you output 640x480, you can visualize that at 1:1 thanks to the BUILT-IN 1:1 mapping of the monitor.

is that clear? sheesh, this took way to many posts to get my thought across to you n7.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: JAG87
more resolution is never overkill sickbeast, because with more pixels you have the option to run with less pixels with 1:1 mapping.

so if you run 1680x1050 on a 3007, you basically get a monitor that is slightly smaller than a 2007, since the pixel pitch on the 30 inch is smaller. And the same goes for 1920x1200. and for 2D you get the benefits of a huge desktop space. its a win-win situation, even if your graphics card is not powerful.

you just need the room for a 30 inch panel, thats all.

Wouldn't you rather 37" of 1920x1080 instead of 20" of 1680x1050?

I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would buy a 30" screen, only to game on it using only 20" of its size.

2560x1600 *is* too much right now. In the future it will be great; the graphics cards will be able to deal with it. The only use I see in it right now is in 2D work where people need that level of precision.

If you can afford two GTX's to drive the screen, then fine, but that's really too expensive for what you're getting IMO.

If I had to choose, I would take 37 inches at 1920x1080 with AA (and 60fps) over 30 inches at 2560x1600 with no AA (and probably less than 30fps) any day without hesitation. Plus, I would probably save over $2000 in the process.

No thanks, 37 inches at 1920x1080 is HORRIBLE for computer use. Sure it looks great for movies and some games maybe, but not as my computer monitor. The pixel pitch is horrible. I would have to stay 5 feet away at least, or I would get nausea. I stay about 20 inches away from my 3007, and everything is crisp and clear.

Plus you are in no position to say that two GTXs plus a 3007 is too expensive for what you are getting. See it to believe it my friend. You would change your mind instantly. This is gaming nirvana.

 

[n7]

SickBeast, in spite of all the arguing JAG87 & I have been doing in this thread, i fully agree with him.

2560x1600 is not too big.

720p & 1080P content looks fabulous filling out 2560x1600 too.

In MPC, I actually have everything 720p or lower set to scale up to double the resolution, which means 720p becomes a very nice 1440p

I have never understood the attraction of a massive lower resolution TV vs. a 1600p 30" LCD...it's quite retarded actually IMO.

I do have an XGA projector which gives me a decent 70" (since my apt is so small) picture for viewing some stuff, so it's not that i don't understand the appeal of a large screen, but when taking a big 1080p TV vs. a still large 1600p 30" LCD, it's not much contest really...

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: n7
SickBeast, in spite of all the arguing JAG87 & I have been doing in this thread, i fully agree with him.

2560x1600 is not too big.

720p & 1080P content looks fabulous filling out 2560x1600 too.

In MPC, I actually have everything 720p or lower set to scale up to double the resolution, which means 720p becomes a very nice 1440p

I have never understood the attraction of a massive lower resolution TV vs. a 1600p 30" LCD...it's quite retarded actually IMO.

I do have an XGA projector which gives me a decent 70" (since my apt is so small) picture for viewing some stuff, so it's not that i don't understand the appeal of a large screen, but when taking a big 1080p TV vs. a still large 1600p 30" LCD, it's not much contest really...

If I were to hook up my 1080i satellite TV to it, would it scale it up to full screen, or would it leave it 1:1 in the middle with black bars? Does it have all the hookups it needs for things like videogame consoles?

The thing is, most people can't tell the difference between 1080p and something better when they're sitting 15' away on their couch. Not only that, but like I said, nothing is broadcast higher than 1080i, and blu-ray is 1080p. Does scaling it up to 2560x1600 really make it that much better?

I can get a 37" LCD HDTV for a little over $500. For me, the $1000 extra for the 3007 isn't worth it seeing as I would be getting something smaller. If my source video needed the extra pixels, I would see a reason for it. As it stands right now, only computer applications can actually use such a high resolution, and the graphics solutions for them are prohibitively expensive.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: tailwind
The native resolution is 2560 x 1600

The games I mostly play are Vanguard, WoW, maybe a little EQ. For the most part, sometimes Fear and HL2.

Thanks.

You'll be fine then. The reviews you're reading are most likely older, and none of the games you've listed are recent. I would be more concerned with ram with those games.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: n7
SickBeast, in spite of all the arguing JAG87 & I have been doing in this thread, i fully agree with him.

2560x1600 is not too big.

720p & 1080P content looks fabulous filling out 2560x1600 too.

In MPC, I actually have everything 720p or lower set to scale up to double the resolution, which means 720p becomes a very nice 1440p

I have never understood the attraction of a massive lower resolution TV vs. a 1600p 30" LCD...it's quite retarded actually IMO.

I do have an XGA projector which gives me a decent 70" (since my apt is so small) picture for viewing some stuff, so it's not that i don't understand the appeal of a large screen, but when taking a big 1080p TV vs. a still large 1600p 30" LCD, it's not much contest really...

If I were to hook up my 1080i satellite TV to it, would it scale it up to full screen, or would it leave it 1:1 in the middle with black bars? Does it have all the hookups it needs for things like videogame consoles?

The thing is, most people can't tell the difference between 1080p and something better when they're sitting 15' away on their couch. Not only that, but like I said, nothing is broadcast higher than 1080i, and blu-ray is 1080p. Does scaling it up to 2560x1600 really make it that much better?

I can get a 37" LCD HDTV for a little over $500. For me, the $1000 extra for the 3007 isn't worth it seeing as I would be getting something smaller. If my source video needed the extra pixels, I would see a reason for it. As it stands right now, only computer applications can actually use such a high resolution, and the graphics solutions for them are prohibitively expensive.

in order

No, it will only accept progressive signals as far as I know. I have never tested, but I am 99% sure it will not display an interlaced signal.

No, it has no hookups at all, just DL DVI.

The reason we maniacs get the 30 inch panels, is not to scale 1080p HD video to 2560x1600, but to run things NATIVELY at 2560x1600, which looks infinitely better than a 37 inch 1920x1080 panel. Do the math my friend, 4m pixels in 30" VS 2m pixels in 37". Which looks better? And as far as 1920x1080p material, nothing beats being able to watch all those pixels and still see your windows taskbar

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: n7
SickBeast, in spite of all the arguing JAG87 & I have been doing in this thread, i fully agree with him.

2560x1600 is not too big.

720p & 1080P content looks fabulous filling out 2560x1600 too.

In MPC, I actually have everything 720p or lower set to scale up to double the resolution, which means 720p becomes a very nice 1440p

I have never understood the attraction of a massive lower resolution TV vs. a 1600p 30" LCD...it's quite retarded actually IMO.

I do have an XGA projector which gives me a decent 70" (since my apt is so small) picture for viewing some stuff, so it's not that i don't understand the appeal of a large screen, but when taking a big 1080p TV vs. a still large 1600p 30" LCD, it's not much contest really...

If I were to hook up my 1080i satellite TV to it, would it scale it up to full screen, or would it leave it 1:1 in the middle with black bars? Does it have all the hookups it needs for things like videogame consoles?

The thing is, most people can't tell the difference between 1080p and something better when they're sitting 15' away on their couch. Not only that, but like I said, nothing is broadcast higher than 1080i, and blu-ray is 1080p. Does scaling it up to 2560x1600 really make it that much better?

I can get a 37" LCD HDTV for a little over $500. For me, the $1000 extra for the 3007 isn't worth it seeing as I would be getting something smaller. If my source video needed the extra pixels, I would see a reason for it. As it stands right now, only computer applications can actually use such a high resolution, and the graphics solutions for them are prohibitively expensive.

in order

No, it will only accept progressive signals as far as I know. I have never tested, but I am 99% sure it will not display an interlaced signal.

No, it has no hookups at all, just DL DVI.

The reason we maniacs get the 30 inch panels, is not to scale 1080p HD video to 2560x1600, but to run things NATIVELY at 2560x1600, which looks infinitely better than a 37 inch 1920x1080 panel. Do the math my friend, 4m pixels in 30" VS 2m pixels in 37". Which looks better? And as far as 1920x1080p material, nothing beats being able to watch all those pixels and still see your windows taskbar

Well, that pretty much limits the screen to PC use then IMO.

I've greatly enjoyed the ability to use my Dell 2405FPW as a multi-purpose screen (videogames, HDTV, PC). I'm surprised Dell would actually remove those features on their flagship screen.

I don't doubt that the massive resolution looks great. If I get anything, it's going to be something along the lines of the 37" Westinghouse, simply because I need a new TV more than I need a new monitor (and 24" feels like enough to me anyways).