27" super-HD monitors are just not worth it...q

[kissenger]

Thought I'd post this here to see what you guys think.

I recently bought a 27", 1440p monitor. A Yamakasi Catleap to be precise. It's a really nice monitor as far as black levels, colour depth, response time, etc, etc go, but I'm just not that impressed by these super-HD monitors in general. Here's why:

1) They just 'feel' like a TV sitting on your desk. This might sound like sacrilege to some, but there is such a thing as too much screen space.

2) I don't think the extra resolution makes games look better. It just looks like there's more on screen. What really makes a game look good is detailed textures and MSAA and that's not dependent on resolution. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to say that 1440/1600p can make some games look worse because all of that extra resolution exposes the lack of detail in some games' textures. Very few games have texture packs which were designed with 1400/1600p in mind.

3) Because of all the extra pixels, SLI/Xfire is almost essential if you want to max games out. This brings its own problems.

4) All the next gen consoles are HD, not super-HD, so we can be pretty sure that all upcoming games will be made with 1080p in mind as the 'default' resolution.

There are some advantages to super-HD monitors (e.g. dead pixels are less noticable, the extra screen space is good for multitasking), but I just don't think these are the future of monitors, so I've decided to 'downgrade' to a quality 1200p monitor. What do you guys think?

 

[InfernoUk]

these 'super hd monitors' cost barley anything with these korean models, i have 3 27" 1440's and i use all the space, god knows how 1 is to much for you. Id never play a game seriously across 3 screens as well, thats just a marketing gimmick to get you to buy more graphics power / hardware. most tv's are 32" plus these days so a fair bit more than a 27" .my opinion.

 

[GMac11]

IMO I recently 'upgraded' from 1080p to a 27" 1440p an I will never go back. The extra desktop space is a Godsend for multitasking as you eluded to.
I can honestly say that I think games to do look better - in particular Dirt3, the dust and snow particles just look immense.
When browsing, unlike a TV, you're not usually trying to take in the entire screen you look at different parts of the screen so you might have 4 windows open and this would be no different to having 1 or 2 windows of the same size open on a smaller screen.
SLI/Xfire is not essential but yes you will need a card with plenty of grunt. I purchased a single 7970 and this is lightening compared to my previous 5850 Xfire setup.
I would imagine games consoles are only 1080p because how many 1440p TV's are there? I know you can play a console through HDMI on a 1440p monitor but in all honestly most console gamers will use TV's.
Finally it seems that most 1440p monitors are either IPS or PLS panels and these provide much better colour reproduction than the TN panels - granted this is getting off the topic slightly as there are a multitude of IPS 24" 1080p screens.

You're not wrong and you are very much entitled to your opinion but just thought I'd try and provide a balanced counter argument

 

[Mr. May]

I could never go back since getting a higher res, the only downside is the needed grunt. As I like totally maxxed setting hence the rig in sig.

 

[kissenger]

these 'super hd monitors' cost barley anything with these korean models, i have 3 27" 1440's and i use all the space, god knows how 1 is to much for you. Id never play a game seriously across 3 screens as well, thats just a marketing gimmick to get you to buy more graphics power / hardware. most tv's are 32" plus these days so a fair bit more than a 27" .my opinion.

Maybe it's just the nature of the work I do that means I need less space, but I can't imagine what anyone can be doing that requires 3 1440p monitors. Maybe some kind of stock broker or data analyst or something?

 

[fs123]

I agree with the op. Chances are that games will remain at 1080p for at least the next 5-10 years because all the next-gen consoles will be designed for that resolution.

Since most pc games are console ports these days, a higher resolution monitor will not necessarily be better for gaming.

 

[mrjagga]

games look a lot better at 1440p than 1080p because at 1440p you have 80% more pixels...anyone who says it doesnt look better needs his eyes tested

 

[wapcatlet]

I've decided to 'downgrade' to a quality 1200p monitor. What do you guys think?

I keep a 1920x1200 Hanns G 27.5" monitor as a spare. I had to switch back to it when my 27" Hazro died and again 4 months later when my DGM 27" IPS died. I do like the 1440p IPS monitors but I must admit, if my old Hanns G had a decent IPS panel (instead of TN) then I might not have upgraded to 1440p. My Sapphire 7950 definitely struggles unless I lower some of the settings.

 

[kissenger]

games look a lot better at 1440p than 1080p because at 1440p you have 80% more pixels...anyone who says it doesnt look better needs his eyes tested

Not at all. I think this is flawed logic. The only difference the extra pixels make is they make jaggies less noticable, but if you're using MSAA that's not really a factor.

 

[Greebo]

Not at all. I think this is flawed logic. The only difference the extra pixels make is they make jaggies less noticable, but if you're using MSAA that's not really a factor.

True but MSAA only "hides" the jaggies and is not as good as not having jaggies in the first place

I went from one of the the best 24" screens ever made, a PVA panel, to a DGM 27". Although i miss the deep blacks I love the new screen acreage and hate using my 24" screen at work now and could never go back tbh.

 

[spoffle]

Not at all. I think this is flawed logic. The only difference the extra pixels make is they make jaggies less noticable, but if you're using MSAA that's not really a factor.

That's not the only difference. The screens are a lot sharper.

Mesh detail will be sharper too, and in general everything will be just more sharp.

As for being not worth it, eh? You say someone else has flawed logic yet you're saying a catleap isn't worth it?

They're generally cheaper than good IPS 24" monitors, so how is it not worth it?

Oh yeah and it's like having a TV on your desk? Only if you consider 27" constitutes a TV, I know I don't. 42" is the minimum size for a TV.

 

[Greebo]

That's not the only difference. The screens are a lot sharper.

Mesh detail will be sharper too, and in general everything will be just more sharp.

As for being not worth it, eh? You say someone else has flawed logic yet you're saying a catleap isn't worth it?

They're generally cheaper than good IPS 24" monitors, so how is it not worth it?

Oh yeah and it's like having a TV on your desk? Only if you consider 27" constitutes a TV, I know I don't. 42" is the minimum size for a TV.

I agree with that except until the other year we only had a 26" tv in the lounge before finally upgrading to a 32" oine thanks to my gf's dislike for large tvs

So in my case, being 18" from my 27" screen, as well as been much higher res, is much better than watching tv on a 32" screen from 10'+

 

[spoffle]

Can you even see a 32" screen from 10 foot?

 

[Nelly]

I went from one of the the best 24" screens ever made, a PVA panel, to a DGM 27". Although i miss the deep blacks I love the new screen acreage and hate using my 24" screen at work now and could never go back tbh.

Alright for some, I'm using a 19" widescreen at work, it's soo tiny, but ok for working in Excel. I had a Samsung 23" 120Hz widescreen, and to be honest that felt tiny too, it soon went back! lol

 

[Greebo]

Can you even see a 32" screen from 10 foot?

No And it was worse before the 26", for 3 years we only had a 14" screen

 

[kissenger]

That's not the only difference. The screens are a lot sharper.

Mesh detail will be sharper too, and in general everything will be just more sharp.

As for being not worth it, eh? You say someone else has flawed logic yet you're saying a catleap isn't worth it?

They're generally cheaper than good IPS 24" monitors, so how is it not worth it?

Oh yeah and it's like having a TV on your desk? Only if you consider 27" constitutes a TV, I know I don't. 42" is the minimum size for a TV.

I take your point about the price of the Catleap. Fair enough, but if you're looking to buy a UK version of that monitor, or something by Dell or whoever, you're looking at £350 minimum, and it's just not worth it imo. Yes things are slightly 'sharper', especially small objects, but that doesn't bring that much of a benefit. E.g. the leap from TN to IPS is way more significant for visual quality in games than the leap from 1080p to 1440p.

 

[setter]

No And it was worse before the 26", for 3 years we only had a 14" screen

2x 32" 1080p tv's here, one in the lounge thats about 7-8 feet from where i sit. Not great at that distance, so id prefer something a bit bigger. Then i have another one next to the pc monitor in the games room, sitting a few feet from it you do appreciate the picture quality a bit more.

Regarding monitors, i started out on a 20" viewsonic vx2025. After seeing a 24" 1920x1200 lcd my jaw nearly hit the floor. Hence an upgrade to the one in sig. Looking to move to a 27" as well now, yes i know that it'll need a bit of oomph in the gpu department, but from having seen a few of my favourite games at 1440, it's an upgrade im really set on.

 

[spoffle]

I take your point about the price of the Catleap. Fair enough, but if you're looking to buy a UK version of that monitor, or something by Dell or whoever, you're looking at £350 minimum, and it's just not worth it imo. Yes things are slightly 'sharper', especially small objects, but that doesn't bring that much of a benefit. E.g. the leap from TN to IPS is way more significant for visual quality in games than the leap from 1080p to 1440p.

Well of course not, people who think the £350+ ones are worth wouldn't be buying the catleaps and others anyway.

It kinda makes the point a bit moot really. What the point would be is that within the UK, 27" 2560x1440 monitors represent poor value for money relative to other displays, rather than it being anything to do with 27" 2560x1440 itself.

 

[spoffle]

No And it was worse before the 26", for 3 years we only had a 14" screen

I'd be calling child line if I were you, lie to them and tell them you're a child.

 

[whyscotty]

Thought I'd post this here to see what you guys think.

I recently bought a 27", 1440p monitor. A Yamakasi Catleap to be precise. It's a really nice monitor as far as black levels, colour depth, response time, etc, etc go, but I'm just not that impressed by these super-HD monitors in general. Here's why:

1) They just 'feel' like a TV sitting on your desk. This might sound like sacrilege to some, but there is such a thing as too much screen space.

2) I don't think the extra resolution makes games look better. It just looks like there's more on screen. What really makes a game look good is detailed textures and MSAA and that's not dependent on resolution. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to say that 1440/1600p can make some games look worse because all of that extra resolution exposes the lack of detail in some games' textures. Very few games have texture packs which were designed with 1400/1600p in mind.

3) Because of all the extra pixels, SLI/Xfire is almost essential if you want to max games out. This brings its own problems.

4) All the next gen consoles are HD, not super-HD, so we can be pretty sure that all upcoming games will be made with 1080p in mind as the 'default' resolution.

There are some advantages to super-HD monitors (e.g. dead pixels are less noticable, the extra screen space is good for multitasking), but I just don't think these are the future of monitors, so I've decided to 'downgrade' to a quality 1200p monitor. What do you guys think?

So you wouldn't recommend one,as looking at getting one of these