Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flak on September 01, 2013, 11:07:50 am
-
I am planning to upgrade my PC soon, just want to ask is 2560x1440 27" screen is worth it? Currently I use a 22" with 1920x1080 resolution. Otherwise I just keep using my old screen.
-
i wouldn't want one that big. nor do i want to know what gaming at that resolution would do to performance. i'm still on 1680x1050 myself.
-
I also prefer a small screen, it allows me to take everything in better I think.
1,024x768 for me.
-
I've been using 27" monitors for years. Not too big at all. Not sure about the res though as mine is 1920x1080. Only time I notice any performance issues is with some games in full screen mode. Pretty sure it's the specific games as they run fine in window or full screen window if they have that option.
-
I think more relevant question is how far the display is from you? At shorter distances bigger display will have negative impact because you need to move your eyes and maybe even your head more to see it all. Go to a retail store and see for yourself how big a display you really want in practice. Be mindful of viewing distance and avoid unnecessary strain to eyes and neck.
As far as gaming and resolution is concerned, higher the resolution the more VRAM and raw horsepower is required from GPU. You will want to avoid playing games at lower resolutions than native, because they will look blurrier. GPU performance takes roughly 20-30% hit when resolution jumps from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440.
-
I'd say no,
for the price get another 2 24" 1920x1080 screens and play at 5760x1080
at amazon cheapest 27" = £419
2x 24" = £210
edit: misread op has a 22"
2x 22" = £264
-
In addition to what's been said, it depends on the CPU and graphics card. At the very least, it's more real estate for non-gaming tasks, and you can turn down the resolution when gaming if your computer can't keep up.
-
I'd say you're better off just getting dual monitors both at 1920x1080 resolution. You could have far more use out of the two than just the one really large one
-
only go that big if you have the video card to back it up.
-
I'd say you're better off just getting dual monitors both at 1920x1080 resolution.
Then you would have a bezel right in the middle of your game
-
I am just not sure how much improvement is a 2560x1440 resolution is compared to 1920x1080 we all know and love. Those screens currently costs as much as a high end GPU, so I definitely think twice. I was planning to do a heavy upgrade, I may get a GTX 780 but the reason I wait a little longer is I want to see the HD 9000 series before deciding.
-
I'm with the 'not worth it' crowd here, there's very little need to spend the money on a monitor that is higher resolution than an HD movie because, for the money involved, you won't get any advantages worth it. Unless you can either pick it up for a good price or you have a need for as much spare room as possible for a certain application, such as Photoshop or Cakewalk, both of which use a lot of screen-space in windows and menus, you'll probably find it'd be better to invest the money elsewhere.
-
Save that monitor money and buy an Oculus Rift when it comes out.
-
I was planning to do a heavy upgrade, I may get a GTX 780 but the reason I wait a little longer is I want to see the HD 9000 series before deciding.
Let me just say this. As far as CPU's and GPU's go, you will get diminishing returns fairly quickly as prices go up. CPU's hit that point really early and even GPU mid-high range will more than likely last just as long as the high-end. So with that in mind, I would consider the GTX760 to be much better bang for the buck than GTX780 which has ridiculously high price. And in the CPU department Core i5 4430 would take you a long way without costing too much.
-
That's it then, I don't think it is worth burning $600 on the screen it is much better. I also just realized it may hit the rack above my desk that I am better off moving the pc and using the TV as monitor. I'll concentrate upgrading elsewhere. Thanks guys
-
I have a Geforce GTX 650 or somesuch, and a Geforce GTS 450. The 450 is driving a small 15" LCD, while the GTX is driving a 27" (1920 x 1200) and a 19" LCD. I recommend doing something similar, with a dual screen layout and a last-year model card. For instance, I can run Crysis 2 on High, or run an Unreal engine game maxed out, with SecondLife on the 15" running on the GTS 450. I could add a fourth monitor but I don't feel like I need it.
Newegg.com can get you some pretty cheap stuff.
-
i play just fine on a 1280 x 1024 moniter
-
i play just fine on a 1280 x 1024 moniter
You must get jagged-edges something fierce.
-
i play just fine on a 1280 x 1024 moniter
You must get jagged-edges something fierce.
Well...
1,024x768 for me.
And I'm happy. :)
-
With a 4:3 aspect I kind of assumed you were using a CRT, which doesn't have nearly the same issue with aliasing as more modern designs do.
-
Most 1280x1024 monitors are CRTs as well.
-
no, i am using a slightly old dell flat(ish) screen moniter
-
Yeah, I think a lot of laptops and early LCD screens tended to be 1280x1024. My absolutely ancient Dell CRT has that listed as the native resolution too...even though the physical dimensions of the visible screen surface are 4:3. Go figure.
-
I really miss CRTs. It's really too bad they are so damn big and heavy. The image is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better.
-
I can safely say that this hunk of junk's image is no longer anywhere close to "better." I have a permanent taskbar burn-in going. :D
-
To be honest, I would say that my Flatscreen gives a better image, but have found the working life to be shorter than a CRT.
-
i guess maybe colors are generally better on a LCD (as long as you're looking straight on), but OH GOD THE MOTION IT'S SO FLUID on CRT's. and the aforementioned jaggies not being nearly as bad. that REALLY surprised the hell out of me when i switched from CRT at 1024x768 to LCD at 1680x1050 that aliasing was way, way worse. i'd guess the color and contrast and what have you could have advanced and been just as good on CRTs if they continued to be developed.
-
The image is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better.
I can't stand the flickering of CRT displays they exhibited even at relatively high refresh rates. When our workplace was still using CRT's (feels like a forever ago), I could spot across a room which of two displays was using 85Hz and 120Hz. Anything below 85Hz was unbearable to watch even briefly.
Unfortunately notebooks have flickering issues too under certain circumstances. My older work laptop has flickering on second external monitor. My newer work laptop's display flickers if the laptop is operating on battery. In both cases it makes me want to throw the damn thing out of a window.
As for smoothness of motion, you guys should try LED display that supports true 120Hz. I bought Benq XL2420T for playing games and I haven't regretted it. Motions are a lot more fluid than in 60Hz displays.
The XL2420T also has incredibly handy handle. It's so easy to reposition it for purposes of watching porn.
-
It's funny you mention the flickering, because it's something that my parents never noticed about the ancient family computer's monitor, whereas it bugged the hell out of me as soon as I walked into the room. I'm fine with 85, but anything below that is immediately noticeable.
-
Most people won't notice the screen flicker normally, but you will feel that your eyes will feel 'tired' after a while.
-
i guess maybe colors are generally better on a LCD (as long as you're looking straight on), but OH GOD THE MOTION IT'S SO FLUID on CRTs.
Have you tried 120 hz LCDs? Apperently they have that fluid motion too.