I'm still as happy now as I was in 2008 when I got my 2 Dell 3008wfp monitors. Perhaps I'd replace them with a 2.35:1 32 incher running the same rez as that new 105 inch TV Samsung released at Ces this year? I.e. what Phillips do with those Super wide screen ones but at the 5k resolution. Scratch that, I'd want it at least 40 inches. Perfection. 5120 x 2160 it was.And while I'm at it, let's have it curved...
In a single-monitor configuration I can't really use anything else. 27 1440p's actually quite awkward as a single IMO, 24's too small. However I dunno about everyone else but my 3008's were well past their prime when I finally dumped them for the 3014's across the board, and I don't use each particular one that much.
Ugh, 16:9 needs to die. 16:10 all the way (golden ratio!). Anyways, probably won't be seeing many price drops since 4K @ 60Hz is only possible over only a few connection standards and needs a decent amount of GPU power if you want playable frames at higher settings for games. 60Hz 4K panels are usually the more expensive ones too.
I downgraded from a 30" Dell. Too much GPU horsepower required to drive the pixels, and Dells anti glare coating which is so crystalline it ruins the entire image for me. The LG 29EB93-P is perfect in my eyes.
You know you can set custom resolutions on a monitor right? 2560 x 1080 comes out at approx 28" diagonal on my 3007, so it's a reasonable size comparison - me no likey! As George said, different strokes...
The 30 inch size was nice, but it just didn't look any better to me. Not seeing the difference and thinking of the $1K price tag convinced me that it was worth returning. I'd be happy with a 30 inch 1080p monitor if I could find one. Only TV's seem to come in that size and true 1080p ones are pricey
1080p is fine on a large screen TV ten feet away, but 30" @ 1080p on your desktop? No thanks. It'd look dreadful.
1080p 32" TVs aren't expensive compared to monitors, unless there's something weird going on in the US.
Agreed. I bought my 32" 1080p Toshiba Beastie about 4-6 years ago for £400, though I'lladmit it was an amazing deal
For gaming purposes, Its difficult to recommend monitors above 1080p, Simply because the amount of gpu power required to go from max settings at 1080p to max settings at 1600p is double or tripple the requirements. 2 780ti will not drive every game at max settings at 1600p 60 fps if thats how you game. Its one of the reasons 4k will struggle to take off in the gaming market. Current consoles can bearly manage 1080p at 30fps, people were suggesting they could go 4k next gen. Just dont see it happening unless theres some huge change in graphics technology that gives major performance jumps in the next 5 years or so. ps4 has the equive of a 7850 in it which is at best mid to low end gpu. Consoles need to be 4k before we will see ports in that resolution, Most ports dont even allow you to set 1600p resolution at this moment, Theres very few games that will go to 4k resolution in multi monitor. I know very few people even on these type of forums who own multi display setups. Most just do not have the room to run those sort of setups. 4k in your living room has some merits, In the uk the problem will be content. Sky has 70 ish hd channels. And 1 3d channel. 4k blue ray is doable but it will cost a fortune. Most of the early tvs were sold with nat boxes that had 4k content on the box from the tv company who made it. Sony give away a nat box full of 4k films they had made.
10GB 1080p films don't show any compression degradation so four time the size for equivalent bit rate per pixel and it all goes on blue ray.
