Why no 24 inch IPS/pva 2560x1200 @ 120hz+?

[pnorris]

EDIT: Meant 2560x1600--didn't realize anyone was reading this thread--sorry.

I'd really like to hear opinions on why no company is making a display with the specs in this title.

Would you buy a premium monitor with the above specs?

I'm thinking there would be a market for this. What spec would you change?

Also, I think many monitors that try to go in this direction but not fully there just don't understand the people who would spend the money on a premium monitor. For example, the 120hz Alienware monitor that is no longer being made wasn't going to be a big seller because of resolution and the ridiculous design. If it had been an Ultrasharp design in 16:10 or even 2560x1440, I would have bought one--though I'd still would have wanted the 10.6 billion colors.

Your thoughts please.

EDIT: opps wrong place to post--my appologies--will repost--delete this one?

 

[Annisman*]

Personally, I would pay two grand for a monitor with those specs. Been waiting a long time for 120 hz and a resolution greater than 1080. The reason why there aren't any yet ? Beats me, I'm literally begging someone to take my money and nobody wants it.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Do we even have connectors available that will push 120hz at 1600p?

I'd gladly settle for 1080p monitors with micro bezels at 120hz with zero processing lag.

 

[exar333]

Personally, I would pay two grand for a monitor with those specs. Been waiting a long time for 120 hz and a resolution greater than 1080. The reason why there aren't any yet ? Beats me, I'm literally begging someone to take my money and nobody wants it.

This.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Well first I am assuming you mean 1440p. Secondly I like 27" 1440p as it doesn't fall apart like 1080p does at 27". 1080p is plenty of resolution at 24" in my opinion.

 

[Sureshot324]

The problem with a high pixel density screen is when you're browsing the web, all images will have to be upscaled so everything doesn't look tiny. This reduces the image quality somewhat. It's noticeable on my nexus 10 tablet which is 2560x1200 and 10".

 

[Eureka]

I thought the problem was with the current display port specifications not supporting high enough bandwidth... I think 1600p screens are niche enough that they could easily do 120hz screens as it is.

 

[blackened23]

I'd really like to hear opinions on why no company is making a display with the specs in this title.

Would you buy a premium monitor with the above specs?

I'm thinking there would be a market for this. What spec would you change?

Also, I think many monitors that try to go in this direction but not fully there just don't understand the people who would spend the money on a premium monitor. For example, the 120hz Alienware monitor that is no longer being made wasn't going to be a big seller because of resolution and the ridiculous design. If it had been an Ultrasharp design in 16:10 or even 2560x1440, I would have bought one--though I'd still would have wanted the 10.6 billion colors.

Your thoughts please.

EDIT: opps wrong place to post--my appologies--will repost--delete this one?

Any particular reason you chose 24"? 2560x1440 would be unusable at that size, fonts would be way too tiny. Hell they're small even on a 27". There is no way 24 inches would work with that resolution for windows.

I'm not sure why 120hz IPS panels don't exist -- i've heard its a technical limitation. I would love for it to happen, but since it doesn't exist... I'd take a good IPS panel over 120hz anyday. If 120hz means i'm limited to 1080p and a TN panel, no thanks... The difference in color accuracy, viewing angles, and overall quality is way higher if you have a good IPS panel (yeah, I don't consider catleaps good)

 

[skipsneeky2]

Maybe i am not picky,but i think the 1920x1200 resolution my u2412m offers at 24'' is just perfect.

Find myself wondering what the next best thing will be in a few years to replace the u2412m as i honestly doubt i will need anything bigger then 24''.....

 

[imaheadcase]

Focus on 1900x1200 120Hz first. It is easier to do since panels can do it now, but its still costly to convert to.

But to answer the OP question, is cost. It still to costly for a manufacturer to invest lots of R&D into something that caters to a small minority of customers. Its the reason you seen millions of 23inch 1900x1080 monitors.

 

[omeds]

1440p 120hz 21:9 display is what I want but I'll settle for 1440p 120hz 16:9. Hurry up and take my moneys!

 

[KingFatty]

1440p 120hz 21:9 display is what I want but I'll settle for 1440p 120hz 16:9. Hurry up and take my moneys!

Hey you are on to something there, 1440p 21:9 sounds pretty nice to me!

Anyone hear any rumors if this will happen?

 

[pcunite]

Focus on 1900x1200 120Hz first. It is easier to do since panels can do it now, but its still costly to convert to.

You mean 1920x1200? That is what my 24" NEC 2490WUXi2 specs. Love it ...

 

[pnorris]

You mean 1920x1200?

Sorry, but no, I meant 2560x1600.

I spent several years with a 17" notebook with 1920x1200 and would very much like something similar in a desktop monitor. I prefer 16:10 but would be happy with any widescreen monitor at 1200p or greater.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Still standing by my previous comment,2560x1440 in a 24'' size will be to small,enabled that custom resolution to my u2412m and god was it awful as far as text in game goes and i sit about 2-3 feet away from my monitor the majority of the time.

Can see it working for 27+ and honestly think 24'' in 2560x1440 or 1600p would be a niche product for those who wanna sit a foot away from their monitor.

 

[pnorris]

Focus on 1900x1200 120Hz first. It is easier to do since panels can do it now, but its still costly to convert to. But to answer the OP question, is cost. It still to costly for a manufacturer to invest lots of R&D into something that caters to a small minority of customers.

Which is what I'm bothered by. Granted this thread isn't pages long, but how many time I've read posts in the last 3 or 4 years wanting to know where to get something not being made makes me think there must be a market. How about all the people OCing monitors to get something closer to the monitor in the topic.

I'd like to know if there are real technical problems that need to be solved in order to make a 1200p-1600p IPS with 120+hz and 10 billion colors. Who on the AnandTech forums would buy one?

I don't have a lot of money, but I put one on a credit card without thinking about it if it cost $1250.

 

[Paul98]

It's sad those Catleap 1440p that could overclock to 120hz are gone. I would have got one when I got my 27" 1440p monitor if they were still available.

 

[gorobei]

let's list the reasons why:
1)money
2)money
3)heat
4)money


#3-high res in the ~300ppi range('retina' @ 1foot dist) requires higher density of transistors and wiring. the heat generated by the switching elements generated too much heat and would lead to element failure in short order until the manufacturers switched to offset perpendicular connections(read up on ipad retina display articles for details). supposedly this part has been solved and upcoming generations of displays will feature res density comparable to macs.

#1- display tech is a combination of factors, resolution is only one of them.

• resolution
• framerate
• color depth
• aspect ratio
• lcd gate type (tn, pva, ips/pls)
• domain structure
• backlight

manufacturers can typically only afford to improve 1 or occasionally 2 of these in any given cycle. resolution was first since it was the easiest to scale. given that various markets need any number of specs (medical needs hi res and contrast and color depth/look-up-table to display radiology images, film & entertainment production need color depth color accuracy/lut and aspect ratio, consumer products need viewing angles and backlight, etc). the money to upgrade a manufacturing factory on any one of these factors easily offsets the economy of scale gains from a new generation. upgrading 2 (op's res and framerate) is simply never going to happen in the same gen.

#2- increasing any of the bolded factors means a change in the amount of bandwidth required to pass through the display connection. at present displayport has the highest bandwidth of existing technology. you can have 4k @ 60hz or 2560 @ 120hz (with possibly enough room left for audio or peripheral pass thru). the only other option with more bandwidth is the proposed display cable standard based on cat5 eithernet cable. given the number of people still muddling about with dvi and hdmi, it will be years before enough potential customers have hardware capable of even outputting a signal to your 'dream' display for manufacturers to even consider making one. small runs of hardware for a limited number of potential buyers will always be prohibitively expensive.

#4- the only real breakthru on any of the op's priorities will likely come from OLED. since they still have issues with longevity of the given sub pixel compounds and size scaling, you would have to be willing to accept a significantly shorter product lifetime and replace a display maybe every other year if you cant live with degraded color accuracy.


the OP's ideal specs are unlikely to be everyone's ideal. many people will want a different aspect ratio, some will want different res, some will want more color depth. unless you can create a massive consensus on what everyone wants, no manufacturer will ever rush to put out such an expensive option.

Regardless, unless everyone is willing to form a company, submit an order to samsung or AO-optronics for panels, and contract an oem like plantronics to assemble your dream product; you need stop squawking about this.

 

[imaheadcase]

You mean 1920x1200? That is what my 24" NEC 2490WUXi2 specs. Love it ...

Yah typed to fast Once i went 1920x1200 I would never drop down.

 

[Ferzerp]

Putting "p" after any number (other than the few that are officially defined that way) does not define a resolution. Gah.

 

[pnorris]

you need stop squawking about this

After spending a considerable amount of time looking for information like you provided, I started this thread. Seems to have paid off for me.

And as much as I appreciate your post, I'll squawk when I want if you like it or not.

 

[KingFatty]

Did someone put a p on your wheaties?

Just kidding! When are the next round of monitors coming out, any new stuff on the horizon?

 

[Throckmorton]

Which is what I'm bothered by. Granted this thread isn't pages long, but how many time I've read posts in the last 3 or 4 years wanting to know where to get something not being made makes me think there must be a market. How about all the people OCing monitors to get something closer to the monitor in the topic.

I'd like to know if there are real technical problems that need to be solved in order to make a 1200p-1600p IPS with 120+hz and 10 billion colors. Who on the AnandTech forums would buy one?

I don't have a lot of money, but I put one on a credit card without thinking about it if it cost $1250.

10 billion colors is unnecessary. What is necessary is accurate colors

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW one problem is most computers still don't have Displayport. They don't even have DVI anymore. They have HDMI which is apparently limited to 1920x1200. Supposedly the HDMI spec supports dual link but I don't know of any graphics card that supports that, at least on laptops.

We are moving backwards

 

[ShintaiDK]

BTW one problem is most computers still don't have Displayport. They don't even have DVI anymore. They have HDMI which is apparently limited to 1920x1200. Supposedly the HDMI spec supports dual link but I don't know of any graphics card that supports that, at least on laptops.

We are moving backwards

Displayport is the culpit. It fractured the standards and sofar havent been able to get momentum itself.

HDMI and DVI is the defacto standards on PCs today. So not sure how you can say that most PCs dont have DVI anymore. Unless its laptops, but they never really had to begin with.