Overclockers UK Forums Click here for more details
Free Shipping for Loyal Forum Members - CLICK HERE

Go Back   Overclockers UK Forums > Hardware > Monitors

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12th Feb 2012, 22:44   #1
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
27 inch monitor. 1920x1080 or 2560x1440... ? Help please

Okay, at the moment I have a 23 inch e-ips monitor from LG. Not a bad monitor at all, but I want something more 'impressive'.

I have a i5 2500k and a HD 6870. The only game I play at the moment is Battlefield 3. Daily 1-2 hours.

My main activities on computer are -> Browsing, forums, etc - BF3 - Watching movies / series.

I am doubting between the Hazro 27 inch C version (s-ips) and the BenQ EW2730v which is a PVA screen.
The hazro has 2560x1440 and the BenQ 1920x1080.

The thing is, I dont want to upgrade my videocard just yet... Just havent got the budget for it.

BF3 at 1440p with a 6870 will probably not run smoothly like I want it. Not even on medium settings.

So it all comes down to the following 2 scenarios ->

1. 1440p 27" ips monitor -> Everything will be beautifully sharp and crisp, except BF3 (and future games) because I will have to play at 1080p which is not native resolution.
2. 1080p 27" PVA monitor -> Movies will be beautifully sharp and immersive. Gaming and browsing more fuzzy.

And then there is the 150 price difference and the fact that it is a gamble to get a well produced Hazro monitor.

I just cant make the decision so I ask you for your opinion... Thanks!
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 12th Feb 2012, 23:00   #2
ThePengu1n
Hitman
 
ThePengu1n's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Nr Winchester
Posts: 722
Well if you were to get the Hazro consider 2 things:

1. Your gfx doesn't have the grunt to run games at that res with high settings, so you would also need to get a new gfx card.

2. You could get a duff monitor (Hazro aren't known for their high standard of quality control), which means dealing with Hazro CS which leaves a lot to be desired.

On the other hand, 27" is too gib for 1920x1080 res IMO.

Have you considered the Dell? I know it's a bit more expensive, but I (and quite a few others) would say it's worth it
ThePengu1n is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 12th Feb 2012, 23:42   #3
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePengu1n View Post
Well if you were to get the Hazro consider 2 things:

1. Your gfx doesn't have the grunt to run games at that res with high settings, so you would also need to get a new gfx card.

2. You could get a duff monitor (Hazro aren't known for their high standard of quality control), which means dealing with Hazro CS which leaves a lot to be desired.

On the other hand, 27" is too gib for 1920x1080 res IMO.

Have you considered the Dell? I know it's a bit more expensive, but I (and quite a few others) would say it's worth it
Thanks for your reply.

The Dell would leave me with the same resolution 'problem' and I have heard that the AG coating makes the screen a bit dull looking ... On top of that there is the price difference.

The thing is, if I would know how BF3 would look on the Hazro with resolution at 1920x1080, it could make the decision easier.

I play BF3 on that resolution just fine with the 6870 at medium settings. Because for everything except gaming, the 1440p resolution is great.

So will games look uglier on a 23 inch e-ips 1080p screen on native resolution, or on a 27 inch s-ips 1440p screen at 1080p resolution... ?
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 03:16   #4
OCP
Gangster
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 497
hi mate, I have the Dell 1440p and HAD a 1080p e-ips LG with LED back light.

The pixels on the Dell was perfect sized, could hardly see them, making everything nice and sharp. Gaming on it is super nice but like others have said, you will need something like 7970 to play BF n high settings comfortably. Right now with 7970 clocked to 1175 gave me around 55+ in multi player with ultra (?) settings at 1440p.

The 1080p IPS on the other hand is smaller of course and well, the pixels annoy me to hell! Its massive, everything is pixelated. Maybe its because I have an iPhone 4s, Alienware m15x @ 1080p and this Dell 1440p. The pixels are alot smaller and all seem 'retina display' to me.

In the end, it depends how far are you from the monitor. I sit a bit more than a keyboard lengths away from the 1440p and its perfect. If I was to get a 27'' 1080p (which I considered getting to get more FPS and maybe eye infinity), the pixels are going to be way too big.

Gaming non native 1080p on the 1440p is blurry, I would expect anyone else to see the same too. How blurry? well, if you had 1440p I wouldn't wanna play at non native, its so nice! I say to myself 'frack me, this makes me feel so much better' when I change back from 1080p to 1440p.

So, I have 1080p 23 inch and i think pixels are too big, imagine the 27 inch 1080p. Sitting back with a Xbox controller gaming would be alright though, just like a TV.

What would I do in your situation?

1. 1440p and game 1080p for now. Having 1440p on desktop is a dream with so much space.
2. Wait for 27'' LG 1mm 3D IPS 1mm bezel monitor @1080p to come out. - I was thinking of selling my 1440p for 1 of these and 3 later for eye infinity. 3x 1440p requires too much power and its going to be horrible in non native.
3. Don't get anything and wait till you have enough horse power for the 1440p - if you take gaming seriously, especially on BF 3 then 7970 isn't enough at max settings .

Hope this helps!

Oh, forgot to mention that the AG coating is strong on the Dell 1440p but only noticeable on light background. While gaming you probably wont notice at all. It's something you can get use to easily though.

- Corsair HX450 - ATi 5870 - Asus Rampage Gene II - Intel 160GB SSD G2 - i7 920 D0 @ 4.00 1.2v - Noctua NH-C12P - Dell 27" Ultrasharp -
Last edited by OCP; 13th Feb 2012 at 03:18.
OCP is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 09:24   #5
old gamer
Mobster
 
old gamer's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: bristol
Posts: 3,402
The benq ew2730v you mention has had some very good reviews and im tempted on one myself
old gamer is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 10:39   #6
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
Thanks for your big reply OCP!

At the moment I have the LG E2370v which is a 23 inch e-ips with LED. Probably similair to yours. I sit usually only 50 cm away from the screen and I dont think it is blurry at all... It looks very sharp to me actually

Anyway, I can imagine that adding 4 more inches while having the same resolution may make it a bit foggy. And of course I have no material to compare

The problem is that nowadays even the 7970 is not even actually enough to play BF3 at ultra and have 60+ fps at the 1440p resolution. That means I wil have to spend a lot of extra money on 2 videocards and a different main board... This is not an option.

I play BF3 for like 2 hours a day, but I dont consider myself a real gamer. 75% of the time i spend on my PC is doing other stuff. I think that to game at 1440p resolution, we are one more generation of video cards away from doing it properly for a decent price.

But I do enjoy how BF3 looks now on my screen and I wouldnt want to make it 'worse'. On a 27 inch 1080p screen it would not look much worse right? Or are the bigger pixels also visible in action gaming?

Does someone maybe have a screenshot for me to compare? That would be great.
2 screenshots of BF3, both on 1920x1080 resolution - 1 on 1080p native screen and 1 on 1440p native screen.

About the BenQ ew2730v, it gets really good reviews but I am curious of it has ghosting or not because apparently, the older PVA screens suffered from it.
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 10:49   #7
FlyingPig
Hitman
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 707
I should get the Hazro 27" today. I used to play BF3 a lot on my Hanns G 27.5" screen, though I got a bit bored of the game. I'll hook it up to the Hazro and play it at both resolutions and see if playing at the lower resolution is really distracting.
Even if you play this game for 2 hours a day, I think you should ask yourself whether it is worth spending so much money on a new video card (the new ATI ones are overpriced anyway and don't deliver that much more than, say, a cheaper GTX 570). BF3 actually still looks pretty damn good at medium settings, and the advantage of having more desktop real estate is not to be sniffed at.

FlyingPig is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 10:51   #8
old gamer
Mobster
 
old gamer's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: bristol
Posts: 3,402
The 2 reviews i read on the benq stated there was no problems with ghosting or input lag, like i said im looking at getting one myself but still very undecided on a 120hz monitor or not but the benq does look promising for the price, also im one of the few that thinks 23" is to small for 1080p and find myself squinting at text on my 23"
old gamer is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 11:07   #9
Metalface Mark
Capodecina
 
Metalface Mark's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Paisley
Posts: 14,686
The scaling is done by the card on the hazro, 1920x1080 and 1680x1050 look as good as 2560x1440 on it, its like watching a tv, all the resolutions look fantastic.

I had a 6950 2gb, I wanted to play at 2560x1440 so i just added a second 6950 which was cheaper and performs better than 7xxx card anyway (can play battlefield at 60fps on ultra with an old i5 750).
Metalface Mark is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 11:17   #10
old gamer
Mobster
 
old gamer's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: bristol
Posts: 3,402
the hazro looks good value but i keep getting put off by reading on here people having problems with them
old gamer is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 17:25   #11
smilertoo
Mobster
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,628
I dont know why everyone seems to insist you must run games at full res, i always run lower res on my WD and they look fine. Short of being some anal retentive who sits and pauses games to compare screenshots there's no issue.
smilertoo is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 17:28   #12
Daze
Wise Guy
 
Daze's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: 80 Miles North of Vegas
Posts: 1,905
i have a 27" 1080p monitor and i think its fine. my GTX570 has no problem running all games on high/full settings

Please read the FAQ regarding signature sizes
Daze is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 17:40   #13
ThePengu1n
Hitman
 
ThePengu1n's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Nr Winchester
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by smilertoo View Post
I dont know why everyone seems to insist you must run games at full res, i always run lower res on my WD and they look fine. Short of being some anal retentive who sits and pauses games to compare screenshots there's no issue.
Because otherwise you have to **** about changing the res all the time
Afterall, what's the point getting a high-res monitor to play your games on, then not playing them at that res
ThePengu1n is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 18:36   #14
Axeia
Hitman
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 801
The OP does other things besides gaming where the pixels do come in handy
Most people hate gaming on sub-native ress because they have experiences with monitor-scaling which with a lot of monitors is quite horrible.

It can look quite good though as the videocard will do a much better job at upscaling than most monitors, but it will still look worse than native res.
Axeia is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 13th Feb 2012, 19:58   #15
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeia View Post
The OP does other things besides gaming where the pixels do come in handy
Most people hate gaming on sub-native ress because they have experiences with monitor-scaling which with a lot of monitors is quite horrible.

It can look quite good though as the videocard will do a much better job at upscaling than most monitors, but it will still look worse than native res.
But will it look worse than 1080p at my own monitor? (1080p native)

I can imagine the difference being pretty big when gaming on a 2560x1440 monitor at native res, or going 'back' to 1920x1080 which isnt even native res. But when I come from a 1080p monitor at native res, how big will the difference be?
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2012, 20:28   #16
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
Anyone?
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2012, 20:55   #17
Ste
Wise Guy
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,092
If you ever see a 1440p monitor you will only ever be disappointed at 1080p on a 27" screen. The PPI is just too low. Go for the 1440p and deal with not running games at native if you have to, it's totally worth it for desktop real estate.
Ste is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 14th Feb 2012, 22:24   #18
PCM2
Soldato
 
PCM2's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Posts: 6,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stab View Post
But will it look worse than 1080p at my own monitor? (1080p native)

I can imagine the difference being pretty big when gaming on a 2560x1440 monitor at native res, or going 'back' to 1920x1080 which isnt even native res. But when I come from a 1080p monitor at native res, how big will the difference be?
I think you're after a dissenting opinion so here it goes. Given that a 2560 x 1440 display has just over 1.77 times as many pixels as a 1920 x 1080 display there is no nice neat even and geometrically sound division of pixels between the two resolutions. Because the pixels themselves can't change size or arrangement in any way there is a noticeable loss of sharpness when comparing to a decent native 1920 x 1080 LCD display. This is the case regardless of how effective the monitor (or moreover GPU) scaling is.

Now I say noticeable, but as you will sense in this thread just how noticeable it is becomes a matter of subjective opinion. I personally can't stand how games such as Battlefield 3 look running at 1920 x 1080 on a 2560 x 1440 monitor. This isn't due to the fact that 2560 x 1440 looks excellent on such games (which it does) but the fact that the 1920 x 1080 resolution makes everything look overly soft and lacking the sharp and crisp look that you get from a native 1920 x 1080 display. I have run a number of monitors in this fashion with and without scalers (Dell U2711, Samsung S27A850D, Apple LED Cinema Display) and even the beautifully clear Apple Cinema Display loses its crispness at the non-native resolution. I have also run this and the Samsung beside 1920 x 1080 native displays to make sure it wasn't just me going crazy - I know I am quite fussy, but the difference is considerable and for pedants like me unbearable. If you do find it tolerable then that's great (you won't know until you try) and you will be able to take advantage of the higher resolution if you decide to upgrade your GPU at some point. You will be able to take immediate advantage of the WQHD on the desktop.

OLED and QLED - the future of monitors @ pcmonitors.info
Last edited by PCM2; 14th Feb 2012 at 22:50.
PCM2 is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th Feb 2012, 00:06   #19
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
Thanks for your opinion PCM2!

I never saw it in person, but I guess I'm like you in the sense that I like the fact that BF3 looks really sharp on my monitor now. I cant imagine that it will become similair to when I try BF3 on a lower resolution on my monitor now... That looks really bad.

If that's comparible to 1080p at the Hazro, I might just reconsider to postpone buying it until there are GPU's available for a moderate price that can run games at 1440p with 60+ fps.

Tough choices... I wish there were panels in between 1920x1080 and 2540 x 1440
Last edited by Stab; 15th Feb 2012 at 01:15.
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th Feb 2012, 00:22   #20
ThePengu1n
Hitman
 
ThePengu1n's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Nr Winchester
Posts: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stab View Post
Thanks for your opinion PCM2!
postpone buying it until there are GPU's available for a moderate prize that can run games at 1440p with 60+ fps.
You're gonna be in for a long wait then
ThePengu1n is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 15th Feb 2012, 23:19   #21
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
I searched for a long time but couldnt find any 27 inch, non TN monitors with 1920x1080 / 1920x1200 resolution... Except the BenQ VA panel which apparently has a pretty big input lag, making it a bad choice to play BF3 on.

Does anyone knows a 27 inch IPS monitor with 1920x1080 or similair?
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 00:34   #22
old gamer
Mobster
 
old gamer's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: bristol
Posts: 3,402
Its hard to tell with the benq, two reviews say no input lag and one that says it does, like me you seem to be falling into the trap of looking for the perfect monitor the dosent exist
old gamer is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 09:36   #23
Axeia
Hitman
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by old gamer View Post
Its hard to tell with the benq, two reviews say no input lag and one that says it does, like me you seem to be falling into the trap of looking for the perfect monitor the dosent exist
Do those review make any mention of tinkering with the OSD settings? A lot of monitors have some setting to reduce input lag.
Axeia is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 10:56   #24
old gamer
Mobster
 
old gamer's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: bristol
Posts: 3,402
heres the reviews i have found
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/monit...8/benq-ew2730v
http://www.proreview.net/reviews/benq-ew2730v.html
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-...1053807/review
http://www.pcmonitors.org/reviews/be...comment-page-1

im still no wiser on what to buy, dell u2711 nice but expensive, samsung and asus 120hz again nice but overpriced for 1080p i feel, the hazro 27 monitors seem to tick all the right boxes but something keeps nigleing me about quality issues, the benq looks to have a lot going for it at a very good price but i feel i would realy like to see it in the flesh before i parted with any money on it.
old gamer is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 12:57   #25
Macro
Soldato
 
Macro's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,359
Anything likely to be landing in the next 3 - 6 months to compete with the Dell u2711 for 1440p/IPS etc at the 500-600 price range?


The above is just my personal opinion and frankly probably made up
Macro is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 13:11   #26
Clav
Wise Guy
 
Clav's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 2,083
Why don't you take a smaller step up to a 24" 1920x1200 monitor like a Dell Ultrasharp? It's bigger than what you have, an IPS screen and should still be manageable by your 6870.

IMO there really is zero point in getting a 27" unless you go for the higher resolution and the graphics card to make it workable.

Clav
Clav is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 14:58   #27
Stab
Associate
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clav View Post
Why don't you take a smaller step up to a 24" 1920x1200 monitor like a Dell Ultrasharp? It's bigger than what you have, an IPS screen and should still be manageable by your 6870.

IMO there really is zero point in getting a 27" unless you go for the higher resolution and the graphics card to make it workable.
Good point you're making, but 24 inch is too small for me to justify spending money on the upgrade, since I already have 23 inch.

With this graphics card I can do anything I want on the 2540x1440 screen, except play the latest games on native resolution. That is why I am still doubting. Everything else I do on the PC will look much nicer and more immersive.

Does anyone know where I can see movies / screenshots of BF3 (or other modern games) at a 1440p screen at native resolution and at 1080p resolution?

If only I could see it with my own eyes, I could make the decission much easier...
Stab is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 15:38   #28
Johnnytoxic
PermaBanned
 
Johnnytoxic's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,804
My eyes are average and I found on a 24" I had to have the resolution at 1680x1050.

Just bought a 27" at 1920x1080 and the pixel per inch is just right for me.
Johnnytoxic is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 15:42   #29
Slyman
Gangster
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Stroud
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnytoxic View Post
My eyes are average and I found on a 24" I had to have the resolution at 1680x1050.

Just bought a 27" at 1920x1080 and the pixel per inch is just right for me.
Did the same today from a 22" and it looks fine to my old eyes.
Slyman is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2012, 15:47   #30
james.miller
Capodecina
 
james.miller's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Woburn Sand Dunes
Posts: 15,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePengu1n View Post
Because otherwise you have to **** about changing the res all the time
Afterall, what's the point getting a high-res monitor to play your games on, then not playing them at that res
oh hardly? you set it once and forget about, that's hardly the most laborious and time consuming of tasks, is it?

james.miller is offline   View trust for Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:21.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Overclockers UK (Ocuk Ltd)