Higher than 1080/1200 is not for everyone...

[jacktesterson]

I wanted to share that I recently downgraded my U2711 2560x1440 Dell Ultrasharp monitor to the 23" version with 1080p.

Yes that resolution was awesome for gaming, but I simply did not have the eye sight for using that monitor comfortably. I had so much eye strain. I did not like using DPI settings, etc. I ended up selling the darn thing for $150 less than I paid for it.

Just a FYI, if your thinking about going this high for a res, I highly recommend you look at one before buying. Its tiny and not for everyone

My 2 Cents.

 

[happinessism]

just wondering as i am thinking of going bigger resolutions or even eyefinity, but can you focus on a 27'' monitor? i mean, i play sc2 on a 24'' 1080p monitor, and i think thats already too much for me

 

[toyota]

just wondering as i am thinking of going bigger resolutions or even eyefinity, but can you focus on a 27'' monitor? i mean, i play sc2 on a 24'' 1080p monitor, and i think thats already too much for me

a 27 inch is not all that big especially in 16:9 since there is not very much height. a 27 inch 16:9 would only have the physical screen height of a 19 inch 1280x1024 monitor. I do agree with the OP though as the text would be really small with 2560x1440 on just 27 inches. now a 30-32 inch would be a lot better with that res. I got my parents a 22 inch 1680x1050 monitor back when they were common and its perfect for them because its easier to read text. even when I use their monitor I appreciate the slightly larger text after looking at 1920x1080 on a 23 inch.

 

[MangoX]

I downgraded from a 3007WFP to a U2410. I wanted the extra connectivity (HDMI, DP, extra DVI, etc) and did not want to pay for a U3011. There is a very big difference in resolution and it's noticeable right away, as you lose a lot of real estate.

It's kinda tough to play SC2 on high resolution screen if you're used to something smaller. To keep MP even what you see is the same regardless of resolution, so on a higher res screen everything is bigger. This is one of the reasons why SC2 doesn't support Eyefinity.

 

[Snakecharmed]

I have a Dell 2707WFP that goes up to 1920x1200. I have a deep corner desk, so I have the monitor placed about 24-30" from my face. Doing so makes the perceived pixel pitch more manageable while giving me more usable desk space. I actually find it to be ideal. If it was closer, 1920x1200 on 27" would be like looking through a magnifying glass.

At one point, I considered switching to a 3008WFP after I had gone through four 2707WFPs to get one that didn't have uneven corner brightness (1) or a bad pixel (3). The fifth one finally turned out to be good, so I kept it. Had I gotten the 30" 2560x1600 3008WFP, it was going to be tough to look at being set so far back on my desk. The U2711 is an amazing monitor, but the small pixel pitch—smaller than that of a 30" monitor at 2560x1600—is a huge negative.

 

[eelw]

Yeah, at the end of the day, looking at text on my 28" running at 1920x1200 does get fuzzy. Can't imaging at higher res on a slightly smaller screen.

 

[trungma]

a 27 inch 16:9 would only have the physical screen height of a 19 inch 1280x1024 monitor.

Not quite right. A 27" 16:9 has 1.88" more vertical height then the 19" 4:3.

 

[toyota]

Not quite right. A 27" 16:9 has 1.88" more vertical height then the 19" 4:3.

1280x1024 is 5:4 so I was correct.

 

[amdorintel]

1920 x 1080 on a 15" laptop screen looks small, but when you go back to a 1366 x 768 screen it looks so damn blurry.

Personally I wouldn't bother with 1440p unless you got money to burn

 

[dualsmp]

1280x1024 is 5:4 so I was correct.

A 24" 1080p monitor has the approximate equivalent screen height to a 19" 1280x1024. I've had them side by side and the 24" 1080p is maybe 1/16" shorter. Anything above 24" 16:9 is going to be taller than 19" 1280x1024.

 

[toyota]

A 24" 1080p monitor has the approximate equivalent screen height to a 19" 1280x1024. I've had them side by side and the 24" 1080p is maybe 1/16" shorter. Anything above 24" 16:9 is going to be taller than 19" 1280x1024.

sorry but that is wrong. please do the math to figure it out. 5:4 is 1.250 inches wide for every inch tall. 16:9 is 1.777 inches wide for every inch tall. 27 inches at 16:9 would be basically dead even with 19 inches at 5:4.

19/1.250 x 1.777=27 inches

EDIT: sorry my formula was not accurate

 

[dualsmp]

sorry but that is wrong. please do the math to figure it out. 5:4 is 1.250 inches wide for every inch tall. 16:9 is 1.777 inches wide for every inch tall. 27 inches at 16:9 would be basically dead even with 19 inches at 5:4.

19/1.250 x 1.777=27 inches

I've had them side by side. 24" 1080p and 19" 1280x1024 are nearly the same. The TV calculators around the net will agree.

 

[toyota]

I've had them side by side. 24" 1080p and 19" 1280x1024 are nearly the same. The TV calculators around the net will agree.

sigh, you are wrong and I just showed you why. what I gave you is what the true physical height of the screen would be. if you want to argue about how math works then I guess that is your problem not mine.

EDIT: sorry I was wrong

 

[dualsmp]

sigh, you are wrong and I just showed you why. what I gave you is what the true physical height of the screen would be.

I know what the physical heights are. I've seen them side by side.

 

[toyota]

I know what the physical heights are. I've seen them side by side.

so have I and thats why I know that formula works. my 23 inch 16:9 monitor has a smaller screen height than my parents 22 inch 16:10 screen. we were looking at 32 inch TVs and the physical height of the 16:9 screen was just under the the physical height of the 25 inch 4:3 crt. gee I wonder why... because it will take a 33 inch 16:9 screen to match the physical screen height of a 25 inch 4:3 screen.

EDIT: oops I was a bit off because it was actually a 27 inch 4:3 tv

 

[96Firebird]

toyota, you're math is not right... We are talking height here, not width.

http://tvcalculator.com/

 

[toyota]

then I guess my eyes and tape measure fail me too. maybe I am off but I know the physical screen height is taller on my parents 16:10 screen than it is on my 23 inch 16:9 screen. thats pretty much when I started comparing monitors and my jackass engineering friend gave me that formula to use.

 

[aphelion02]

Your formula is clearly wrong because you forget that the angles of the triangle are different. Use the pythagorean theorem...

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[toyota]

is there a simple formula?

and I just realized the TV we were going to replace was 27 inches not 25 so that explains why the 32 inch widescreen was not quite as tall.

 

[jacktesterson]

Wide gamut is also eh.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I wanted to share that I recently downgraded my U2711 2560x1440 Dell Ultrasharp monitor to the 23" version with 1080p.

Yes that resolution was awesome for gaming, but I simply did not have the eye sight for using that monitor comfortably. I had so much eye strain. I did not like using DPI settings, etc. I ended up selling the darn thing for $150 less than I paid for it.

Just a FYI, if your thinking about going this high for a res, I highly recommend you look at one before buying. Its tiny and not for everyone

My 2 Cents.

You "didn't like using DPI settings"? Was it really that much of an issue?

Wide gamut is also eh.

That's because there's basically no content that uses it so if you enable the higher gamut it will screw up colors for most if not all of what you'd be viewing. Its sad that we haven't really improved color that much (although on computers its certainly come quite a long way in a relatively short time). But they wouldn't be able to shovel junk TN panels for cheap.

 

[CFP]

1680 x 1050 is ideal for me on a 20-incher.

I don't want anymore, and i don't want 16:9.

 

[Spikesoldier]

for some reason i fell in love with a 22" 1680x1050. looks stark compared to 1080p.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Yeah, at the end of the day, looking at text on my 28" running at 1920x1200 does get fuzzy. Can't imaging at higher res on a slightly smaller screen.

27" @ 1920x1200 is already huge DPI compared to the 30" and 24" models that were popular. Now moving to 27" at 25x14 is just insane. That DPI is tiny.

I need 30" for that

 

[EliteRetard]

Lulz at all the scrawny weakling eyeballs...2048x1536 on 20".
4:3 FTW!!!

Though newer games I have to play 1600x1200 cause I aint got the horsepower, older games can do 1920x1440 (old DOS games can scale up perfectly too). Everything looks stupid huge on modern LCDs. If I absolutely couldnt get 4:3 anymore I would insist on 2560x1600 at 24".