Opinions on 2560 x 1XXX...

[oleguy]

I was over at my local Micro Center yesterday and spent way too much time looking at three Dell monitors: 2560x1080, 2560 x 1440, & 2560 x 1600. I wasn't really focused on the image quality or anything like that. Instead, I was trying to figure out what aspect ratio I liked. The same desktop was running the 1440 and 1600, and right below another desktop was running the 1080. I figured it might be a nice time to see what I thought. I came away thinking it's a really a matter of use-case, but a better appreciation Win7s side-by-side windowing.

I realize this is probably one of the more subjective questions you can find right now in computing. For the 1440 and 1600 monitors, I was comparing the same website (theregister.co.uk) with the window at full monitor height but half the screen width, as that both looked better and it seemed more like how I would use the screen. One thing I noticed is that the extra 160 lines meant that text got a lot smaller. While I could see more of the webpage, it wasn't just that I saw more of the vertical, it was also that the page in general resized. When I clicked an article, the text became near unreadable. I didn't try to increase the zoom, but I've heard mixed reviews of that workaround based on software support.

As far as the 2560x1080 monitor that was conveniently below the other two, I did like how two side-by-side windows just looked right. And that does make sense, as I'm used to my current 1280x1024. So it was nearly the same as my current experience, with an additional 76 lines.

My use case would be about an even split between web/doc work, movies/video, and gaming. For games, I bounce between things like Skyrim, FFXIV:ARR, Starbound, Bioshock, and Civ5. I don't want to get sucked into the new 21:9 ratio just because it's close to what I experience today.

Any thoughts on the 16:9, 16:10, and 21:9 aspect ratios at the 2560 width? At this point, I don't have the GPU to drive any of them, so that would also be an added cost when I upgrade my monitor.

 

[A5]

I'm not a big fan of 21:9 unless you do nothing but watch movies.

2560x1440 is quite large, and I can't honestly tell the different between it and 25x16. Either will take a significant GPU to drive at High-ish settings. I honestly can't recommend anything under a GTX 770 for it.

 

[Ed1]

One thing i would check with high res monitors is that it scales resolution good with sharp text .
as you might not want to run 2560 all time, does 1920x1080 look good .

 

[blackened23]

I am not a fan of 21:9 aspect ratio. I much prefer 2560x1440 or 2560x1600, take your pick based on your budget. You can opt for a cheap IPS panel but you generally get what you pay for in terms of warranty. Quality control, maybe, but all screens are subject to problems depending. Just like CRTs before them, shipping is detrimental and there is always a chance of getting a bad unit. Quality control can be an issue but in the end, all brands are subject to problems here and there and you want a good return policy and a good warranty. On that note, I like Dell screens just because their CS will always take care of you even if you get a bad unit. They go the extra mile, I guess they're somewhat similar to EVGA in that respect. When i've had problems with Dell screens they have taken care of my stuff with minimal hassle. Korean panel? usually no such luck. But it is your money, spend how you see fit.

Anyway. At default DPI settings everything will look too small. You will have to adjust font sizes and DPI. What I suggest is if you're using Windows 7, you'll need to change the DPI settings and your application settings. For all of your browsers such as chrome, you'll need to increase the font sizes, generally speaking. If you leave them at default they may be too small for you. Back to DPI. I would suggest XP style DPI scaling for Windows 7 as it is the best. The new DPI scaling for Windows 7 (non XP style) sucks and makes everything blurry. Do not use it. Windows 8.1 is a little better with DPI, but you still need to do application specific adjustments. Windows still isn't on-par with OSX in terms of DPI scaling, but that's because Apple has more control over what goes on within OSX whereas there are literally billions of x86 applications that MS can't control. So you'll need to adjust some settings on a per app basis as well.

Basically the gist of the story here is with text size being too small, this is a fixable problem. Just adjust applications on a per app basis and adjust DPI however YOU see fit. You will need to fiddle with it. Figure out what you like. The text size is small by default but you can easily adjust it to your liking, and everyone has different DPI / application preferences. You can make it work.

As far as a GPU to drive the resolution without gaming, use whatever you want. No, really. HD4000 is 100% absolutely fine for 2560x1600. If you're a gamer? Then it's a different story. Dont' have an expectation of maxing everything out. Don't have an expectation of using 8X SSAA in everything. Unless you want to pay $$$ of course. I would suggest a GTX 770 for those resolutions if you game, and there are a few games where you'd have to lower a setting here and there, but that isn't a big deal. If you lower 2-3 settings in crysis 3, the game will look identical but will run much better. Like I said. Don't expect to blindly max everything out on ultra with a single gpu if you're into that sort of thing, assuming you're a gamer. But if you're not a gamer you do not need a beefy GPU for 2560x1600. HD4000 is fine.

 

[BrightCandle]

I have had my fill of ultra wide resolutions with eyefinity/surround, they just don't work very well with most games.

Personally I prefer to get a reasonable DPI, with a 24" 1080p monitor I am in many ways on the large pixel end of things today, but 1440p at 27" has always struck me as quite small pixels and I think 30" 1600p is more appropriate for that resolution. If Windows scaling didn't suck it would be nice to get the density but it doesn't work very well so its usually best to go with something that is likely to work out of the box.

Personally I prefer working at 16:10 compared to 16:9. The vertical space matters a lot in applications. However its really hard to get it and the other things I want out of a monitor so its one of the requirements I had to drop.

 

[Majcric]

Whatever you get I think it's just a matter of getting used to it. When I went from 1680x1050 to 1440p pls I was not blown away at all. The wow factor just wasn't there and in fact I kind of missed the old monitor. Of course now, there no way I would go back and the extra size and pixel density is nice.

 

[Bateluer]

I upgraded from a 1920x1200 display to 2x 2560x1440 displays, and don't regret it at all. I did have to upgrade my video card shortly after buying the monitors though, to keep the same max game settings I was used to on the 1200p monitor, from a 6950 2GB to a 7950 3GB. My current 290X doesn't even blink at 1440.

 

[Yuriman]

I have a preference for 16:10.

 

[KingFatty]

For the 1440 and 1600 monitors, I was comparing...
One thing I noticed is that the extra 160 lines meant that text got a lot smaller.

I'm curious about this, because it seems opposite to the facts about 1440p and 1600p displays?

According to http://www.sven.de/dpi/ , the 30" 1600p display has bigger sized pixels than a 27" 1440p display.

So if you showed the same website on both displays, it should look *bigger* on the 1600p screen, not smaller as you experienced. Are you sure there wasn't something different between the two, that could explain why text got smaller for you on the 1600p?

Personally I'm planning to get a 1600p monitor specifically because it has *bigger* pixels, and would be easier to read at native resolution, than a 1440p where it would look smaller? I also prefer the 16:10 extra height for showing windows side-by-side (I do a lot of text editing in Word, and view PDfs all dang day). Vertical is great for those tasks, when you slap the windows next to each other across the screen. The shorter height of 1440p seems like you'd have less freedom vertically?

 

[oleguy]

I'm curious about this, because it seems opposite to the facts about 1440p and 1600p displays?

According to http://www.sven.de/dpi/ , the 30" 1600p display has bigger sized pixels than a 27" 1440p display.

So if you showed the same website on both displays, it should look *bigger* on the 1600p screen, not smaller as you experienced. Are you sure there wasn't something different between the two, that could explain why text got smaller for you on the 1600p?

Personally I'm planning to get a 1600p monitor specifically because it has *bigger* pixels, and would be easier to read at native resolution, than a 1440p where it would look smaller? I also prefer the 16:10 extra height for showing windows side-by-side (I do a lot of text editing in Word, and view PDfs all dang day). Vertical is great for those tasks, when you slap the windows next to each other across the screen. The shorter height of 1440p seems like you'd have less freedom vertically?

It could have been the scaling. I didn't delve too deeply into what was a dual-screen setup, other than to make sure nothing odd was going on. But yes, the 1600p screen ran a bit smaller.

 

[oleguy]

Overall, it looks like there are a fair number of opinions. Other than quality of the screens reviewed, my bigger concerns about 21:9 AR is that not all games support it that well and the fact that it's still 1080p vertically. At the same time, my home machine is 1280x1024 and my work laptop is an older HP Elitebook that I'm pretty sure is not 1080p. With those as my primary experiences, I might not actually notice the constraint of 1080p.

Other than the need for a GTX 780 or better to push a 1600p screen, they tend to be a fair bit more expensive; the cheapest Newegg-sold (not import) 1440p is $500 less. That cost difference alone could cover an overclocked EVGA GTX 780 after $20 rebate and still leave me $10 to spare.

So is the near 50% price premium worth it? And would I feel silly having a 30" monitor sitting on my computer desk?

 

[oleguy]

As far as a GPU to drive the resolution without gaming, use whatever you want. No, really. HD4000 is 100% absolutely fine for 2560x1600. If you're a gamer? Then it's a different story. Dont' have an expectation of maxing everything out. Don't have an expectation of using 8X SSAA in everything. Unless you want to pay $$$ of course. I would suggest a GTX 770 for those resolutions if you game, and there are a few games where you'd have to lower a setting here and there, but that isn't a big deal. If you lower 2-3 settings in crysis 3, the game will look identical but will run much better. Like I said. Don't expect to blindly max everything out on ultra with a single gpu if you're into that sort of thing, assuming you're a gamer. But if you're not a gamer you do not need a beefy GPU for 2560x1600. HD4000 is fine.

If you are running at 2560x1600, does 8X SSAA even create a noticable difference in quality? It seems like after a certain point, AA of any type starts to diminish in importance as the pixel size gets smaller.

Edit: Never mind... I reread and that's pretty much what you're saying. I just apparently misread or just skimmed too quickly. Chalk one more up to too much cider on a Sunday evening

 

[KingFatty]

At the same time, my home machine is 1280x1024 and my work laptop is an older HP Elitebook that I'm pretty sure is not 1080p. With those as my primary experiences, I might not actually notice the constraint of 1080p.

You deserve the best, so don't settle by rationalizing how much you've been handicapped before. Just because you've been stuck in the equivalent of the stone ages when it comes to displays, that doesn't mean you'll be incapable of appreciating a nice big new one.

Maybe your local library has bigger monitors you can try out? Or maybe Kinko's where you pay by the hour to use their computers?

Oh wait, for free you can swing by a local Apple store and try out their 27" displays and just play on it for a while.

But regardless of how much better the experience is, it's also important for your particular use. If you are doing something that works fine on a small screen and low resolution, maybe it won't make much of an impact.

But when you sit in front of a nice big screen with vibrant colors, it really changes your perspective. Like walking around with a weight on your back for years, when you take that weight off, it's like a new world.

 

[blackened23]

I don't know what kind of budget you're looking at but the gamut of quality widely varies with these screens. The hands down best 1440p screen I've viewed was the samsung S27B970. That monitor is absolutely beautiful and is hands down the best. Well, it's the best if you ignore the professional grade stuff from Eizo and NEC. Those are just stratospheric in price and not even close to being reasonable, unless you're a profession video editor that absolutely needs adobe RGB color (and have the hardware for it, most people don't). But that awesome Samsung screen....it is expensive. Very much so. Close to 8 benjamins last I checked. Then you could lookat Koeran screens and while some have had luck, I say screw that. If it dies in 6 months. Can I get a free replacement with no hassle and a UPS calltag (ie free return / replacement shipping) like Dell will do? Prolly not. So whatcha gonna do I guess. You get what you pay for, your money spend it how you see fit. 😉

Dell is reasonable quality. There's a chance you could get a bad unit, but Dell will make good if so. Personally i've had great luck with Dell screens.

Also pay attention to the screen coating. Matte is atrocious unless you're in a business lit environment. Most screens produced in 2013 or after are using semi glossy, which is the best compromise. It looks great in business lightning or dark rooms. Last is glossy (the samsung I mentioned earlier is glossy, although they have an updated model which is semi gloss) which is terrible in bright light, but outstanding if you're using it in your home (where you can keep a room dim while the screen is in use).

Matte coatings look awful because they're so thick that they produce a "shimmery" or sand type effect on white backgrounds. Semi gloss is a compromise which is anti reflective, but not as thick as matte. Glossy is well, glossy. Of the three, semi glossy is the best. And generally most name brand screens produced in 2013 or after are using semi glossy. Glossy can be outstanding as well, but only if you can keep the room dimly lit in your home.

 

[KaRLiToS]

At 1440p or 1600p, no need for Anti-Aliasing and it's a very demanding options on GPU side.

 

[Bateluer]

At 1440p or 1600p, no need for Anti-Aliasing and it's a very demanding options on GPU side.

I have to disagree there. With no AA on, its an easy resolution for a decent midrange card to handle. My 7950 did quite well with 2 and 4x AA on in most games. No AA at all, no problem.

 

[blackened23]

You could of course use SMAA, FXAA, or MLAA which have zero VRAM requirement (whereas MSAA past 4X has high VRAM requirements) and virtually no performance hit. I like using MSAA where possible, but past 2X there are diminishing returns and the performance hit is pronounced. I'm a big fan of FXAA, but it is not for everyone. But it's a great alternative since it's essentially "free" anti aliasing. MSAA is not free, there's always a large performance hit. And 8X MSAA is essentially an overkill setting, since it doesn't realistically look better than 2X at a margin to justify the performance loss.

Anyway the bottom line here is that you can adjust settings in games without blindly using ultra maxed out in every game. And the games will look the same. Trust me. Most of these AAA titles have overkill graphic settings which do virtually nothing unless you get a microscrope. Whereas you can use 2-3 lower settings with FXAA and double the performance in many cases.

But it's your money, spend how you see fit. You can get something like a 770 and lower 2-3 settings here and there and be happy, or you can max everything out with ultra settings if you're OCD about that and spend 1000$ on GPUs in the process. Your money! 😉 Personally I have used both approaches at varying times. I do still find the concept of "maxing out" games to be pretty stupid when I have looked at many, many games at maxed out versus high and cannot spot a difference on my 1600p panels. I really can't. But, it's all up to the user and what they get enjoyment out of. Different strokes for different folks and all that sorta thing.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

16:9 seems like the most universal aspect ratio. I'd probably pick the 2560 x 1440 if I had the money to upgrade my GPU to handle it. Gaming at around 60fps/60mhz at that resolution takes some GPU horsepower.

 

[Sohaltang]

120hz @1440p if you game. But plan ona. Couple high end GPU's

 

[Insomniator]

I'm currently at 16:10 25" (19x12) and am having a hard time justifying an upgrade. I think I'd be more interested in a 24" at a high resolution rather than a 27. I don't want a giant monitor on my desk, do they make 1440p 24" screens?

Then again not sure of the advantage there either. Maybe a high quality 19x10 or 12 24" would be best.

 

[tweakboy]

I run 2560x1600 @ 70hz 1ms for games. Its rather slower, but on aother hand I dont do AA. looks beautiful btw.