27" for gaming

[CraigN]

I have always preferred 16:10 but after getting my 16:9 u2711 (2560x1440) im really loving the screen.

Its a higher res so maybe im not noticing the 16:9 difference so much.

I still have two 16:10 24" (1920x1200) either side of my 27". I have a u3011 at work and i prefer the u2711 over it as i think its easier to see maybe sitting further away would help

 

[aatu]

pixels

Sometimes I wonder if all 16:10 fan boys are women because you always mess up facts with emotions.

Your 27" 2560x1600 monitor only exist in your imagination.

Sorry, it seems it's 30" where the 2560x1600 is more common (which is versus 2560x1440), 27" still has 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 more commonly, but the point still stands. Did you have anything constructive to add?

 

[Trana]

Sorry, it seems it's 30" where the 2560x1600 is more common (which is versus 2560x1440), 27" still has 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 more commonly, but the point still stands. Did you have anything constructive to add?

Well, not really. You only see what you want to see. Lets look at the facts.

Available monitors:

19-20"
16:9 usually 1600:900
16:10 usually 1440:900


21-23"
16:9 usually 1920x1080
16:10 usually 1680x1050

24-25"
16:9 usually 1920x1080
16:10 usually 1920x1200

26-28"
16:9 usually 1920x1080 or 2560x1440
16:10 usually 1920x1200

30"
16:9 n.a.
16:10 usually 2560x1600

 

[PCM2]

There are no current 30" or larger monitors that aren't IPS panels actually. Anything that large or larger and 1920 x 1080 is a TV or LFD.

 

[aatu]

pixels

@Trana:

Oh, how quaint to state 19"-20" and 21"-23", and not separate them. And then selecting the "most common candidates" in a very awkward way. Well, here's a more thorough list:

17" has 1280x1024 (5:4)
18" has 1366x768 (~16:9) - they are all 18.5" though, so sometimes counted as 19"
19" has 1280x1024 (5:4), 1440x900 and 1680x1050 (16:10)
20" has 1600x1200 (4:3), 1600:900 (16:9), 1680x1050 (16:10)
21" has 1920x1080 (16:9) - well, actually they are all 21.5", and instead often counted as 22"
22" has 1920x1080 (though actually 21.5"), 1680x1050 (16:10) - there is also a higher end 1920x1200 Eizo, but it seems to be the only one
23" has 1920x1080 (16:9) - there are 1920x1200 monitors, but haven't seen new ones introduced for a while, so might be hard to find
24" has 1920x1080 (16:9), 1920x1200 (16:10)
25" has 1920x1080 (16:9), 1920x1200 (16:10) - 16:10 are 25.5", and sometimes counted as 26"
27" has 1920x1080, 2560x1440 (16:9), 1920x1200 (16:10) - at least some of the 16:10 are 27.5", thus sometimes counted as 28"
30" has 2560x1600 (16:10)

So it would seem 22" and 27" are the only Achilles' heels for 16:10. And even that is only unless we include the 1920x1200 Eizo for 22". It's also a similar (but the opposite) situation in 27", where I think the 1920x1080 is way more common than the 2560x1440, of which there are only few higher end models.

Though I was certain I also saw somewhere a 16:9 2560x1440 in 30"...? Guess not, then. No matter, would have lost to the 2560x1600, in any case.

 

[Trana]

@Trana:

Oh, how quaint to state 19"-20" and 21"-23", and not separate them.

The reason is simple. 22" 16:10 isnt the same size as 22" 16:9. For instance has 22" 16:10 the same size as 22.6" 16:9.

However, no matter how you look at it you cant claim that an aspect ratio has higher resolution than another.

 

[aatu]

The reason is simple. 22" 16:10 isnt the same size as 22" 16:9. For instance has 22" 16:10 the same size as 22.6" 16:9.

However, no matter how you look at it you cant claim that an aspect ratio has higher resolution than another.

Same size? Are you talking about surface area? Yes, that's another good thing going for 16:10. A 16:10 monitor has 5% more display area surface than a 16:9 monitor of same diameter.

Either way, I can't see how that justifies bundling them up strategically to falsely further your point. The way you "cherry-picked" the resolutions particularly in the 19-20" range is quite questionable.

And like was said before, the other person most probably meant resolutions in monitors of the same size range*. Which is true in almost all cases, like shown above.

*): you didn't even dispute it when I introduced that hypothesis, which in my opinion means it was a solid hypothesis. Furthermore, the subsequent discussion even developed on the basis of that hypothesis, so it's safe to say we were on the same page

 

[Trana]

No, it is not true. Most 16:10 monitors are 1680x1050. Most 16:9 monitors are 1920x1080. You simply pick in a way that suits your agenda.

The point is that you cant compare specific 16:9 and 16:10 monitors in a fair way. And as I said before, you cant claim that an aspect ratio has higher resolution than another.

 

[aatu]

No, it is not true. Most 16:10 monitors are 1680x1050. Most 16:9 monitors are 1920x1080. You simply pick in a way that suits your agenda.

The point is that you cant compare specific 16:9 and 16:10 monitors in a fair way. And as I said before, you cant claim that an aspect ratio has higher resolution than another.

What isn't true?

And I didn't "pick" anything, I presented a list* where everyone can draw conclusions themselves. And 1680x1050 surely is the de facto resolution in sizes 22" and smaller. But there are NO 1680x1050 monitors in sizes higher than 22". But I would also like to remind the current sweet spot for monitors is 24", in which there are both 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 resolutions readily available. I think YOU'RE the one cherry-picking here. Even the very monitor from which you started all this 16:10 vs 16:9 debate was 1920x1200.

Compare in a fair way? What would you like to bring in to the comparison? Price? Panel type? Bit depth? Surface area? Manufacturer? True, there is usually a price premium with 16:10, because they are usually also better panels, because every manufacturer and their aunt are now flooding the 23-24" range with "Full HD" 16:9 monitors, and to get a little edge, they must lower the costs by going with cheap and inferior TN panels to get the oblivious masses to buy them. So generally the 16:10 monitors look quite good in comparison.

So on the contrary, I think size and resolution are the only factors we should focus on. Furthermore, I get the feeling you're now trying to divert the discussion. There was no mention of this fairness earlier, but now it's an issue suddenly?

And it's futile to bring up the resolution vs aspect ratio issue anymore. If there wasn't already a consensus of the issue (meaning the other person meant resolutions in the same size ranges), there wouldn't have been any reason for the comparisons, which both of us made. The misunderstanding was brought up already in post #56 (to which you even directly replied to). If this wasn't the concensus, I'd surely like to know on what basis you presented your list in the post #63. A simple statement that there are different resolutions for a specific aspect ratio would have been enough. So on the contrary, I think it's safe to say we both knew the subsequent discussion would be on the basis of resolutions in same size ranges.

Please do state if there are any points (and which ones) in my post that you disagree with.

*): a list you didn't seem to want to dismiss or even partly disagree with

 

[Trana]

To claim that 24 is the sweet spot is very subjective. It isnt more "sweet" than "22" or "27". Also what people consider to be the sweet spot is vary dependet on aspect ratio so obviously you cant assume that the "sweet spot" in diagonal would be the same for 16:10 and 16:9 monitors.

You can compare however you like but dont make conclusion on aspect ratios that really has nothing to do with it.

 

[aatu]

To claim that 24 is the sweet spot is very subjective. It isnt more "sweet" than "22" or "27". Also what people consider to be the sweet spot is vary dependet on aspect ratio so obviously you cant assume that the "sweet spot" in diagonal would be the same for 16:10 and 16:9 monitors.

You can compare however you like but dont make conclusion on aspect ratios that really has nothing to do with it.

By "sweet spot" I mean the market sweet spot. Do you disagree that that's the size the market is focusing on and flooding with? Why do you think 24" is the size that currently most readily provides for both aspect ratios?

 

[Trana]

Could you define what you mean when you are talking about "market sweet spot"?

 

[aatu]

Could you define what you mean when you are talking about "market sweet spot"?

The size the market is focusing on and flooding with. Because it's flooded, the manufacturers have to keep low margins and thus low prices, which in turn has the buyers' attention.

Seems like you edited the post (multiple times) while I was writing, but I think this replies to the new ones also. But would like to say that "recent years" isn't exactly "current", especially in computer business. Check the current selection and the upcoming products. And no, aspect ratio doesn't change the sweet spot in this case, it's 24" for both. It could change to 27" in two or three years at least for the 16:9 TN panels, but now it's 24". And sweet spot is relevant, because that's the spot consumers are looking at and have the best selection of.

 

[Trana]

The size the market is focusing on and flooding with. Because it's flooded, the manufacturers have to keep low margins and thus low prices, which in turn has the buyers' attention.

Seems like you edited the post (multiple times) while I was writing, but I think this replies to the new ones also. But would like to say that "recent years" isn't exactly "current", especially in computer business. Check the current selection and the upcoming products. And no, aspect ratio doesn't change the sweet spot in this case, it's 24" for both. It could change to 27" in two or three years at least for the 16:9 TN panels, but now it's 24". And sweet spot is relevant, because that's the spot consumers are looking at and have the best selection of.

I cant really see why this should be relevant.

Obviously you should compare monitors, not what you define as sweet spot.

 

[aatu]

I cant really see why this should be relevant.

Obviously you should compare monitors, not what you define as sweet spot.

If we're comparing resolutions in specific size ranges, then 16:10 wins in most cases. 22" was the most notable difference, but even that is only if we dismiss the 1920x1200 Eizo.

I'm bringing up the sweet spot because you're focusing on 22" and saying that most common resolution for 16:10 is 1680x1050 (which are only in sizes of 22" and lower). But that isn't true anymore, because the sweet spot has changed during the years. 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 in 24" is all the rage nowadays. I think last year or two it was 23" and 1920x1080 ("Full HD").

Do you disagree?

Furthermore, you didn't need to edit away the new post. Part of my reply was in direct correlation to it.

 

[neilo67]

back on topic a tad ..... i dont find the 27" too big for gaming ..its a huge improvement over my22"

 

[Trana]

@aatu
You are so subjective. Just the thing that you choose to compare 16:9 and 16:10 monitors based on the diagonal is strange. The obvious would be to compare based on price because the diagonal is never a limitation.

£50 1366x768
£60 1440x900
£65 1600x900
£70 1920x1080
£80 1680x1050
£180 1920x1200
£350 2560x1440
£800 2560x1600

 

[aatu]

@aatu
You are so subjective. Just the thing that you choose to compare 16:9 and 16:10 monitors based on the diagonal is strange. The obvious would be to compare based on price because the diagonal is never a limitation.

£50 1366x768
£60 1440x900
£65 1600x900
£70 1920x1080
£80 1680x1050
£180 1920x1200
£350 2560x1440
£800 2560x1600

Oh, so now the SIZE itself is irrelevant?

I thought we were discussing SIZE and RESOLUTION all this time. How did I miss that?

Gee, all of this would have been cleared if you just stated that 16:10 usually brings a price premium with it, and I would have agreed. Oh wait, I even said it myself earlier, but you didn't comment on that at all at the time. So one could have assumed that it wasn't an important factor in the discussion, at least not until you're running out of factors.

Stop diverting the discussion.

 

[Trana]

Well, you said that 16:10 has higher resolution which obviously is false and why do you want to discuss size when the discussion was about resolution?

 

[aatu]

Well, you said that 16:10 has higher resolution which obviously is false and why do you want to discuss size when the discussion was about resolution?

You should really pay attention to the thread or check the thread a little bit back. I didn't say 16:10 has higher resolution. I merely stated that the other person most probably meant resolutions in the same size ranges. And like said before (at least twice already), you most certainly understood this, otherwise your subsequent discussion would have made no sense.

Therefore, the resolution and size are both very relevant, so stop trying to refute either of them. Post #69 has all the relevant replies to this matter, I recommend you read it again.

Just because the debate is going bad for you, doesn't mean you can suddenly change the factors the discussion was based on. You should have said something when we started the debate, it's a little too late for that now.