27" for gaming

Trana said:
Seriously.

16:10 for gaming? Are you kidding?
Click to expand...

Do you have any other contribution to make to the forum or do you just sit there waiting for a thread like this?

There are plenty of us gaming quite happily on 16:10 screens.

If you don't like it then don't do it, but leave the rest of us in peace.
 
neilo67 said:
i dont understand this "too big" for gaming ..if money was no object i would buy a new 55" 1080p tv and game on that
Click to expand...

Aye, but if you did that the same number of pixels would be stretched over a much larger area (and hence each pixel would be massive). This would mean that the pixels wouldn't blend together in your mind to create a smooth an detailed image - unless you sit pretty far back from it. Personally I game on a 27in 1920x1200 monitor and I find it to be great - but any bigger I would need to sit further back to maintain a good image.

Therefore the issue really isn't "too big" total panel size, more like "too big pixels". You get 30in monitors with 2560x1600 resolutions and 27in monitors with 2560x1440 resolutions now, in these monitors the pixels are small or smaller than on a 24in 1080p monitor - so they look just as high quality/detailed, but much bigger. Hence they look great for gaming, though they are rather expensive to buy and you require some powerful graphics cards to drive these resolutions with modern games.
 
i love my 22" dell and think the "perfect" upgrade would be a 27" ..the 32" tv is just a tad too big ..i game from my sofa ..with my monitor on my table in front my tv in the background ..do you know how much i would get for my 22" ?
 
also in the market for a 27" gaming monitor myself (no smaller no bigger)

_lecro_ said:
Over priced but really nice :D

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-011-HO&groupid=17&catid=1120&subcat=
Click to expand...

budget possibly could be stretched to afford this monitor but is the 6ms grey to grey not bad?

also was looking at this monitor...

Iiyama ProLite E2773HDS 27

1ms response time along with the price tag caught my eye! Any thoughts on this baby?

Is 1080p not recommended for 27"?
 
Darr2cool78 said:
budget possibly could be stretched to afford this monitor but is the 6ms grey to grey not bad?
Click to expand...

No, not really. It isn't as small of some of the TN monitors, but it is still low enough to give a good gaming experience with little ghosting. Also, response times aren't measured in a standardised way - so it usually isn't fair to compare a "1ms" monitor from one manufacturer to a "6ms" from another manufacturer as they often use different tests to arrive at those figures. The best way is to look for an independent review.

Here is a review of the Hazro.

There are a couple things I would mention about that monitor:
- It doesn't seem to support HDCP, so playing protected content like blu-rays on that monitor may not work. (Then newer H27WD seems to resolve this issue).
- The glass fronted version has a known issue with trapped dust that makes it appear like pixel defects on the screen. To get around this hazro later released the glass-free version - which is the one I would go for.


Darr2cool78 said:
also was looking at this monitor...

Iiyama ProLite E2773HDS 27

1ms response time along with the price tag caught my eye! Any thoughts on this baby?

Is 1080p not recommended for 27"?
Click to expand...

1080p at 27in is generally regarded as not great as the pixels are pretty big for a PC monitor. Though I guess it depends on your eyesight.

As for the "1ms", since it uses a TN panel then I imagine it will be rather responsive -so good for games in that sense.

However, one issue with TN panels is their narrow viewing angles, where colours shift if you move your head off-centre. When you are using a TN panel so large you can actually experience this issue without moving your head - as the colours off to the sides are different from the ones in the centre. It is for this reason that you don't see many 27in TN panel monitor, as most use VA or IPS panels (like the Hazro) and often much higher resolutions for smaller pixels and better detail (again, like the Hazro).
 
Darr2cool78 said:
also in the market for a 27" gaming monitor myself (no smaller no bigger)



budget possibly could be stretched to afford this monitor but is the 6ms grey to grey not bad?

also was looking at this monitor...

Iiyama ProLite E2773HDS 27

1ms response time along with the price tag caught my eye! Any thoughts on this baby?

Is 1080p not recommended for 27"?
Click to expand...

Ive been running one of these for a full day now
and played most recent games an full res

This is fricking beautiful, best screen ive experienced so far :D
quality is so much better than any 1920X1200 monitor could hope to display ..(obviously)
 
Trana said:
Seriously.

16:10 for gaming? Are you kidding?
Click to expand...

16:10 is better for strategy games, especially Age of Empires 3 Asian Dynasties.
- The glass fronted version has a known issue with trapped dust that makes it appear like pixel defects on the screen. To get around this hazro later released the glass-free version - which is the one I would go for.
Click to expand...

The trapped dust issue effects them both sadly. The dust is trapped behind the panel itself. edit: I reckon the non-glass are more likely to have dust trapped than the glass ones based on posts in the hazro thread, probably because they're older stock.
 
Last edited:
Thats bullocks!!! You clearly dont know what you are talking about.

There are plenty of games that does not support 16:10 leaving 16:10 users with a letterbox. And the amount of games that lack 16:10 support are increasing rapidly! It is just a matter of time before most games wont support 16:10.


ACBSP_1440x900.jpg


Some examples of games that does not support 16:10.

2009
Mirrors Edge

2010
Blacklight: Tango Down
WRC FIA World Rally Chamionship 2010

2011
Assassins Creed Brotherhood
Alice: Madness returns
Bastion
Bulletstorm
Driver: San Francisco
Dungen Siege 3
Dungeons
Gatling Gears
Ghostbusters: Sanctum Of Slime
Limbo
Monday Night Combat
Ninja Blade
Pro Evulotion Soccer 12
Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena
Shank
Splinter Cell: Conviction
Witcher 2 (Before patched after many months)

http://widescreengamingforum.com/mgl


And if you use a 16:10 display and dont get a letterbox you have lost field of view (1) or have a deformed picture (2). All three scenarios are things you would like to avoid.

1. Loss in Field Of View
sc2_fov36k6.gif


2. Deformed picture
400px-Playstation_3_-_1610.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
http://widescreengamingforum.com/mgl


Movies look horrible on a 16:10 monitor too and you get really big black bars!

inebriation-inception-parody-atomic-productions.png



Even Windows 8 is made for 16:9

"Windows 8 will work best on 16:9 screens"
http://www.mobiletechworld.com/2011/06/02/windows-8-hardware-recommendations-for-oems/
http://www.infopackets.com/news/bus...oft_demos_windows_8_at_first_public_event.htm
 
I think I will keep an eye on this thread, been wanting to get a new monitor in the 24" - 27" range. :D

Have you decided on any yet OP?
 
a lot of people will say 27" at 1080p is too low resolution but i disagree completely, my Samsung 950D looks great at 1080p.
 
Greenja said:
a lot of people will say 27" at 1080p is too low resolution but i disagree completely, my Samsung 950D looks great at 1080p.
Click to expand...

What about 32" at 1080p? Are we then starting to get uncomfortable?

As for IPS TVs... The "IPS glow" on the Dell 24" was already very noticable and *very* distracting. Hopeless for TV/movies. Gaming was great as most games don't have dark/black areas.

I can only assume that an IPS TV at 27" or greater would have *massive* amounts of "IPS glow" in the corners and edges, due to the viewing angle on such a large screen.
 
I don't know about 32" at 1080p to be honest. Before my 27" 950D i was using a 32" 720p TV and i can tell you thats no good!

32" @ 1360x768 (my tv's res) is 48.81 PPI (pixels per inch)
27" @ 1080 is 81.59 PPI

32" @ 1080 is 68.84 PPI.

So its somewhere inbetween, as i said 720 @ 32 was pretty bad to use up close, pixels were quite large. The 27" @ 1080 is very nice. So make of that what you will about 32" 1080.
 
i feel thaT 16:9 was thrown at us because that's the dimension that suited the movie industry and thus spilled into the computer market.

16:9 is horrible for office tasks, it's too wide for one window, and not wide enough to fit two windows side by side.

You can use Win+Left and Win+Right to split two windows side by side on the screen, neither of these windows are wide enough to be practical though. Most websites need to be sidescrolled in order to view with Win+Left on 1920x1080 display
 
TigerUK said:
i feel thaT 16:9 was thrown at us because that's the dimension that suited the movie industry and thus spilled into the computer market.

16:9 is horrible for office tasks, it's too wide for one window, and not wide enough to fit two windows side by side.

You can use Win+Left and Win+Right to split two windows side by side on the screen, neither of these windows are wide enough to be practical though. Most websites need to be sidescrolled in order to view with Win+Left on 1920x1080 display
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your reasoning regarding office tasks (although I would mediate by replacing 'horrible' with 'sub-optimal) and I would certainly like to see a broader choice regarding resolution and aspect ratio. Having used hundreds of monitors over the years with many different resolutions I don't really feel as awkward towards 1920 x 1080 as you'd think I might. It works well enough for everything I need to do on it, anyway, but I do find it a bit restrictive at times. I certainly like more pixel real-estate for spreadsheets and the like. For this I find 1920 x 1200 an improvement but the 16:9 resolution of 2560 x 1440 even better. It is a shame that the choice of 16:10 screens is so desperately limited unless you are willing to pay a premium for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom