2160P?
- Thread starter DX24
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 11,973
- Location
- Cheshire
Quad HD? It will be sometime yet before that is mainstream - there are some specialised displays (mainly for medical uses) being produced in small numbers for very high prices (read: Over £10k), but nothing coming close to consumer level.
There are a few monitors these days using 1600p (2560x1600) but these are still rather expensive. It is possible we will start seeing cheaper TN panels with this resolution, but I imagine at this size the viewing angles will be a problem even viewing the monitor dead-on.
As for higher resolution = better graphics? Well a higher res means you can see more detail or more can be displayed on the screen at one - which certainly improves the gaming experience. However, this also comes at the cost of extra hardware demands - to run a 1600p game at a playable framerate, you need a much more powerful and expensive graphics card than what is needed to play a game at 1080p.
If you can provide a budget and tell us your current system specs, we'll be happy to suggests some monitors to look at.
There are a few monitors these days using 1600p (2560x1600) but these are still rather expensive. It is possible we will start seeing cheaper TN panels with this resolution, but I imagine at this size the viewing angles will be a problem even viewing the monitor dead-on.
As for higher resolution = better graphics? Well a higher res means you can see more detail or more can be displayed on the screen at one - which certainly improves the gaming experience. However, this also comes at the cost of extra hardware demands - to run a 1600p game at a playable framerate, you need a much more powerful and expensive graphics card than what is needed to play a game at 1080p.
If you can provide a budget and tell us your current system specs, we'll be happy to suggests some monitors to look at.
does westinghouse count?
they're like 42" (I think) TV's with a 3840x2160 res, cost your balls though
If you want something priced decently though your best option is a dell u2711 with a 10% off coupon and a cash back thing, buying from the manufacture, should be just over £500 at the moment iirc
they're like 42" (I think) TV's with a 3840x2160 res, cost your balls though
If you want something priced decently though your best option is a dell u2711 with a 10% off coupon and a cash back thing, buying from the manufacture, should be just over £500 at the moment iirc
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 11,973
- Location
- Cheshire
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 11,973
- Location
- Cheshire
If you are running dual 5870s then you should handle most modern games very well, even at 1600p.
Out of those two - personally I would go with the Hazro. It has the awesome 16:10 aspect ratio, much more size and resolution and gets a great write up - even for things like input lag which these size monitors usually don't do too well.
Out of those two - personally I would go with the Hazro. It has the awesome 16:10 aspect ratio, much more size and resolution and gets a great write up - even for things like input lag which these size monitors usually don't do too well.
Should be fine.
I'm running a i7 920 @ 3.8ghz, 6gb RAM, 1x 5870.
Most games are smooth on my HP ZR30 @ 2560x1600.
Where are these coupons?
resolution is very important. but only as important as pixel pitch.
and by that i mean how much more detail can your eyes really appreciate with 2k vs 4k res on a 27-30" screen? seriously doubt its worth the 40-50% performance cut.
i think higher colour bit depth on panels (10bit-12bit panels as opposed to 6 and 8 bit colour panels @ moment on lcd monitors are where its at, in conjunction with 48Bit deep colour via hdmi. also think higher refresh 120HZ is where its at again... 4k means 120hz/fps is so very far away. furthermore better blacks and response time is important.. and further still wider 21:9 aspect ratios are what im looking foward too.
look at it this way, i have an 84" screen. i sit 3.6 meters away its massive and very detailed & clear on blueray and games @ 1080p native res, there is no visible pixel structure even when im just 30cm away from screen! so would 4k res really make an astonishing difference on a 30" = No.
there are many other things you can do first to improve the overall experience.. perhaps using the extra power for eyefinity for example.
and by that i mean how much more detail can your eyes really appreciate with 2k vs 4k res on a 27-30" screen? seriously doubt its worth the 40-50% performance cut.
i think higher colour bit depth on panels (10bit-12bit panels as opposed to 6 and 8 bit colour panels @ moment on lcd monitors are where its at, in conjunction with 48Bit deep colour via hdmi. also think higher refresh 120HZ is where its at again... 4k means 120hz/fps is so very far away. furthermore better blacks and response time is important.. and further still wider 21:9 aspect ratios are what im looking foward too.
look at it this way, i have an 84" screen. i sit 3.6 meters away its massive and very detailed & clear on blueray and games @ 1080p native res, there is no visible pixel structure even when im just 30cm away from screen! so would 4k res really make an astonishing difference on a 30" = No.
there are many other things you can do first to improve the overall experience.. perhaps using the extra power for eyefinity for example.
Hi Thanks every one for the feedback.
What other Monitors are out there 24 plus that are better than the Hazro Ultra-Sharp HZ30Wi 30 also what is the HZ of the HZ30Wi 30 or 3D perhaps.
It is a lot of money i will be spending so would like to make the right choice anyone know their monitors??
Cheers
Brad
What other Monitors are out there 24 plus that are better than the Hazro Ultra-Sharp HZ30Wi 30 also what is the HZ of the HZ30Wi 30 or 3D perhaps.
It is a lot of money i will be spending so would like to make the right choice anyone know their monitors??
Cheers
Brad