What do you forsee as the standard gamer LCD res over the next two-three years?

[dug777]

Keep up the polling

 

[Munky]

I have 27" of 1920x1200 goodness... and I plan on keeping it that way. 1920x1080 would be a downgrade.

 

[Modelworks]

I think it will be 1680x1050 , 22" . Not that I wouldn't like it to be higher res and bigger size, but judging what the majority of retailers sell with a pc I think that fits.
The biggest change coming to pc monitors is display port. It will lower the cost of monitors a bunch.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: T2k
Anyone thinks 1920x1080 will be the standard - especially when he even confuses PC monitors with Blu-Ray, let alone expecting BD to be the next DVD, ROFL - is the ideal member of the target group of those el cheapo BS displays with 1080p resolution mfrs are offering for peanuts.

Rest of us prefers high quality 1920x1200 monitors and willing to pay a little extra for it.
And I do believe once an el cheapo 1080p/BD/console-whatever kid meets one of these he will want to replace his el cheapo 1080/BD/BS-console-whatever display...

wat

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
Hah, the industry is moving to 16:9 because it's the standard size thats cut from lcd wafers. As far as quality, you are delusional if you think LCD monitors get first dibs on Grade A panels.

You have no clue about LCD monitors, I guess.

 

[T2k]

BTW if we really want 1080p then I wish they would make small-sized (eg 27") plasmas...

 

[OCGuy]

22-24 max. Anything bigger is pretty much an niche.

 

[LCD123]

Originally posted by: munky
I have 27" of 1920x1200 goodness... and I plan on keeping it that way. 1920x1080 would be a downgrade.

I don't need 1920x1080, well unless it's on a 40" LCD. I have 32" of 1360x768 goodness and I don't have to stick my face 6" to read the tiny text.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: LCD123

Originally posted by: munky
I have 27" of 1920x1200 goodness... and I plan on keeping it that way. 1920x1080 would be a downgrade.

I don't need 1920x1080, well unless it's on a 40" LCD. I have 32" of 1360x768 goodness and I don't have to stick my face 6" to read the tiny text.

I don't have to either... I probably would if it was a 24"-er though.

 

[cbn]

1080p and triple monitors for gamers. (although I can seriously see the diminishing returns of those two side monitors).

Still triple monitors might be nice for desk-top. I use dual monitors for that purpose already.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: fffblackmage
1080p will be the gold standard, just because it's at the sweet spot of having a nice high resolution and affordable price. I prefer 1920x1200 though.

x2

 

[coreyb]

1920x1200. I could never go back to anything lower. only will go up from here!

 

[xtknight]

1680x1050, 22" as many are still on the 19" LCDs that came with their 2 year old desktops. I think people are afraid to go so big as 24".

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: LCD123

Originally posted by: munky
I have 27" of 1920x1200 goodness... and I plan on keeping it that way. 1920x1080 would be a downgrade.

I don't need 1920x1080, well unless it's on a 40" LCD. I have 32" of 1360x768 goodness and I don't have to stick my face 6" to read the tiny text.

Another voter with little or zero understanding of how display resolution works...

 

[0roo0roo]

32" with 1mp only..ick. theres a reason why 30" computer monitors have 4 times that resolution. its ok for watching tv, but computing? how bad is your vision anyways thats just giant pixel land.

steam surveys give us a good idea of what people actually use.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: mmnno
It's here and it's pointless. So far it has only been used on absurdly expensive monitors for graphics professionals, or on budget monitors to extract a premium from gullible big box shoppers. The recession may have affected the development of performance monitors directed towards enthusiasts that use LED backlights, but the industry as a whole has been in a race to the bottom for quality since before the recession.

Hmm.. I was hoping the situation was better, seeing they sell 32" 1080p LED TV's at BestBuys. They had 40", 46" models as well. Those are darn sexy..

 

[Pantlegz]

I thought the standard was currently 19x12 I need to move up to 25x16. 22-24" are currently fairly standard, I can see it staying there or moving up to the 26-28" range. I guess I'm a little ahead of the curve when it comes to monitor size, bigger is always better right

 

[LCD123]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
32" with 1mp only..ick. theres a reason why 30" computer monitors have 4 times that resolution. its ok for watching tv, but computing? how bad is your vision anyways thats just giant pixel land.

steam surveys give us a good idea of what people actually use.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

I would never buy a 30" 2560x1600 display till they become cheap and till the operating system, internet and all programs are able to scale perfectly that it looks better than using a lower resolution. We are at least a decade away from this. It's not just me nor my parents but most people agree that native resolution is way too tiny on monitors. I have to stick my head inches away from the monitor to read tiny text at native resolution. Older people will need some powerful reading glasses to read that fine print.

 

[LCD123]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: mmnno
It's here and it's pointless. So far it has only been used on absurdly expensive monitors for graphics professionals, or on budget monitors to extract a premium from gullible big box shoppers. The recession may have affected the development of performance monitors directed towards enthusiasts that use LED backlights, but the industry as a whole has been in a race to the bottom for quality since before the recession.

Hmm.. I was hoping the situation was better, seeing they sell 32" 1080p LED TV's at BestBuys. They had 40", 46" models as well. Those are darn sexy..

They want $1600 for their 40" model. You can get the same Samsung LCD for $800. Is LED worth a 100% premium or paying double price? Not for me and not in this recession where id rather save the money.

Originally posted by: Pantlegz1
I thought the standard was currently 19x12 I need to move up to 25x16. 22-24" are currently fairly standard, I can see it staying there or moving up to the 26-28" range. I guess I'm a little ahead of the curve when it comes to monitor size, bigger is always better right

Well some people already think a 26" monitor(or a tv used as a monitor) is too big. My mom doesn't want anything over 24" and my dad is happy with his small 17" CRT. For me, I think I can handle up to 40", maybe 42". I should have a poll what's the biggest monitor someone would want.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: T2k
Anyone thinks 1920x1080 will be the standard - especially when he even confuses PC monitors with Blu-Ray, let alone expecting BD to be the next DVD, ROFL - is the ideal member of the target group of those el cheapo BS displays with 1080p resolution mfrs are offering for peanuts.

Rest of us prefers high quality 1920x1200 monitors and willing to pay a little extra for it.
And I do believe once an el cheapo 1080p/BD/console-whatever kid meets one of these he will want to replace his el cheapo 1080/BD/BS-console-whatever display...

Yes, but why stop there? Why not go 2560x1600 @ 30"? Why not go with a multimonitor setup such as this, or this, or this? Why not 2880 x 900 (16:5 ratio) curved DLP? Perhaps a cinematic approach? Well this is gaming we're considering, so why not even go back to CRTs where our blacks are black, our resolutions can be dynamic, the jaggies less apparent, our response times instantaneous, and our input lag 0...well when we consider all those options for gaming, your 1920x1200 "quality" LCD is very pedestrian.

At the end of the day, these cheap TN panels that so many of us hate are actually pretty good when it comes to gaming, which is pretty much the focal point to this thread...your "quality" 16:10, 24" screen really won't stand out when it comes to gaming for the people you're so desperately trying to put down. Where it will shine is if you're doing work that requires more accurate color reproduction or perhaps are trying to share the screen with others - say you're watching a movie off of it...

Don't worry, you're not less of a man because you chose a format that is going to essentially be replaced and phased out in favor of one that is ever so slightly smaller (and apparently less manly).

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: LCD123

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
32" with 1mp only..ick. theres a reason why 30" computer monitors have 4 times that resolution. its ok for watching tv, but computing? how bad is your vision anyways thats just giant pixel land.

steam surveys give us a good idea of what people actually use.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

I would never buy a 30" 2560x1600 display till they become cheap and till the operating system, internet and all programs are able to scale perfectly that it looks better than using a lower resolution. We are at least a decade away from this. It's not just me nor my parents but most people agree that native resolution is way too tiny on monitors. I have to stick my head inches away from the monitor to read tiny text at native resolution. Older people will need some powerful reading glasses to read that fine print.

what are you smoking? you are already putting your mother through hell trying your crazy half resolution theory nonsense trying to find the magic giant text resolution that you seem to crave if you have to stick your head inches away from a monitor to read tiny text you are freaking blind. 30" 2560x1600 has about the same pixel density as those old 17" lcd's everyone used to have. its nothing special on pixel density. and as said dpi settings and minimum font size settings work perfectly esp in the newer os. to complain about the text sizes now days is ridiculous. you want tiny screens? try looking at a netbook sometime, double the pixel density. never mind some laptop displays. you must have trouble reading the freakin newspapers if you are so whiny about resolution.

 

[ther00kie16]

No option for dual/triple monitor res? I can see people dishing out $1000-$1500 for dual and triple monitor setups ($600 for pc + $600 for 3x 24")

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: ther00kie16
No option for dual/triple monitor res? I can see people dishing out $1000-$1500 for dual and triple monitor setups ($600 for pc + $600 for 3x 24")

so you're arguing that is going to be the standard?

I can see people thinking that you're crazy

 

[ther00kie16]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: ther00kie16
No option for dual/triple monitor res? I can see people dishing out $1000-$1500 for dual and triple monitor setups ($600 for pc + $600 for 3x 24")

so you're arguing that is going to be the standard?

I can see people thinking that you're crazy

The original question is over the next 2-3 yrs. And the term "gamer" can mean different people to different people. In a year or two, multi-monitor setups should be very well supported whereas in the past sli limited the display environment.