• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Tired of 1920 x 1200 ?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

amnios

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Anyone else getting tired of 1920 x 1200?

Post me links of places that sell higher res monitors please.

I don't think Newegg has any and Tiger Direct has only 2... is it that scarce a market?
 
Samsung do a 22in 2048x1152, but after that you're looking at 27-30" 2560x1440 (and lots of cash). Given the low price of 22in 1920x1080 monitors, you could probably buy two and it would still be cheaper than a big 2560x1440.
 
Forgot to mention I'm in Canada and newegg.com hates me cause I'm Canadian... newegg.ca loves me but they dont sell anything higher than 1920 x 1200

I once though 1024 x 768 was the Zone!

I think if I ever got a higher res monitor it would be good for years and years!
 
hehe

I'm just all for pushing the envelope... I have dual GTX 280's... and if I'm going to upgrade to dual 480's then I better be going from my 25" Acer to a 30" higher res... because dual 480's should eat 1920x1200 x 60Hrtz no problem.

more resolution and stuff looks better... especially stuff far off int he distance in FPS games for example. Higher res and maybe less of a need to use AA...

I dunno...

I have never even seen a 2560 x 1600 up close... its like the holy grail of gaming.
 
2560 x 1600 is about 56% more pixels on any given screen than 1920 x 1200

a 56% improvement in picture sharpness and clarity is an amazing improvement.

Dual 480's should be able to keep most games running at 30 FPS i would hope.
 
ahhhhh,, finnaly got to where you can do any game , with full AA and AF, with everything on "highest", and make Crysis Cry , and now you need 4 times the resolution to drop the FPS back down again.

how about a 6400 res video wall? is only 30-100k

what about the new 3D tvs?
 
2560 x 1600 is about 56% more pixels on any given screen than 1920 x 1200

a 56% improvement in picture sharpness and clarity is an amazing improvement.

Dual 480's should be able to keep most games running at 30 FPS i would hope.
It may be more pixels but whats the pixel pitch/size of the pixels vs 24"... and 1920x1200? I would imagine it to be more but... to ensure your line of thinking is true you should do some math on that...as I dont think its just as easy as slapping that number you came up with on it. There are 56% more pixels is a fact though, but 56% more sharpness and clarity...................

For example, Same monitors and all a 23" @ 1920x1080 will have smaller pixels than a 25" @ 1920x1080.
 
dot pitch is about the same on that dell 30" 2560, vrses the dell 24" 1920 Ultra I am using now
so if i get 56% further away from it :)
 
dot pitch is about the same on that dell 30" 2560, vrses the dell 24" 1920 Ultra I am using now
so if i get 56% further away from it :)

Well I guess your right... if the spaces between the pixels is the same on the two different monitors... 1/4 MM seems like a heck of a lot now that I think about it.. you can drive a bus through that.

And I guess not only that, textures and stuff may or may not benefit from higher res settings in games. I dunno too much about it I suppose.

I just know though there is a difference in crysis say between 1920 x 1200 and less resolutions say 1600 x 900 or whatever... so would I not see similar improvements going from 1920x1200 to 2560x1600???
 
that is different big time
anytime you fall off the "native" resolution for the monitor your in some horrible interpolating place, where the pixels are not 1-1
try and line up 16 stones in 19 holes and something has to give, the quality of the LCD "engine" comes in very important then. and that isnt in very many specs at all. i have seen dirtbag interpolating, and really awesome interpolating, but only native is 1 for 1

i was really saying that if i get further from a 30" or even 40" screen the percieved pixel size would be smaller, when the pixel pitch the Dots per inch are the same.
and more pixels on a game, would mean that little guy 300 yards away will occupy 1 more pixel.
 
I have a 3008 FPW, that runs at 2560, by 1600, it was really expensive but well worth it imo. I wish they would release monitors with more ppi (pixels per inch) though. I would love to buy a 30" monitor that ran at like 300ppi (roughly what we print good quality photos at and what the iphone 4 runs at), then it would run at at resolution of like 7kx3k...it would be awesome.

Unfortunately I did not find a lot of support in other people who wanted high ppi monitors when I posted a thread about it here :(

I just know though there is a difference in crysis say between 1920 x 1200 and less resolutions say 1600 x 900 or whatever... so would I not see similar improvements going from 1920x1200 to 2560x1600???

yes if you were sticking to the same size monitor, but not necessarily if you also move to a bigger monitor. Consider the fact that most TVs run at 1920x 1080, there pixels are HUGE and very noticable if you are sitting close to them, and look much worse then a 20in monitor at 1680x1050.

Also the higher the PPI the less need for Antialiasing in games. who needs pixels blending when the pixels are so small that you can't individually identify them anyways.

Sapphire is releasing a 56in monitor that runs at 3840X2160 that they demoed at one of the shows....however it costs over $50,000
 
Last edited:
I would take a (what you say) 300DPI monitor, but the thing that bugs me in the cell "walls" they would somehow have to shrink that down too. the thing that really does turn them into Blocks. not like old CRT were the glowing blobs all melded together more.

so grey how do you Jack up the font sizes in all the program, beings some dont cooperate with large font size changes?
or do you still have to get close to the thing?
 
It's a 30in monitor so the pixels arnt really any smaller then the pixels in any other monitor, there are just more of them. I also have good eyes and like things small.

That being said, when I have helped people in the past who had trouble seeing small things I adjusted the dpi setting in windows to a higher number and it worked great.
 
Then can be... someone just has to do the math to figure out how many in each monitors area as its different... Pythagorean theorem anyone?
 
I'd say stick to the screen size you have, and just get a higher rez. I didn't believe it until i got my new iPod and put it next to an iPhone 3G, but 4 times the pixels is a TON. It's amazingly sharp, but it's the same size screen.


2560x1600 would probably be the best you could get around that size. The market for extremely high res screens is low right now because we don't have the GPU power openly available to drive that many pixels... yet.
 
I'd say stick to the screen size you have, and just get a higher rez. I didn't believe it until i got my new iPod and put it next to an iPhone 3G, but 4 times the pixels is a TON. It's amazingly sharp, but it's the same size screen.


2560x1600 would probably be the best you could get around that size. The market for extremely high res screens is low right now because we don't have the GPU power openly available to drive that many pixels... yet.

I would disagree with you about the lack of available gpu power. My single 4870 drives 2560x1600 just fine, I think the only 2 games I have found so far I can't run at high settings are crysis and dirt 2. You could cram 2560x1600 into a 24in or 20in screen and have a much sharper picture that could be driven by current generation graphics cards easily.

I think HD TVs are actually what has hurt the monitor industry a lot in terms of resolution.

prior to 1080p TVs monitors were chugging along with 24in monitors running at 1920x1200. With the release and increase in popularity of 1080p TVs we have seen a good number of 24in monitors drop to 1920x1080...a drop in resolution. Part of the problem stems from the fact that due to advertising a good portion of the populace thinks of 1920x1080 as high resolution.

The technology has been available for a long time to make higher resolution screens. I know back in 2005 when I got my laptop 1920x1200 was an option for the screen and that is a 17in screen.

While I'm not a big fan of the iphone, I am hoping the iPhone 4's resolution will help push forward computer monitor resolutions.
 
It may be more pixels but whats the pixel pitch/size of the pixels vs 24"... and 1920x1200? I would imagine it to be more but... to ensure your line of thinking is true you should do some math on that...as I dont think its just as easy as slapping that number you came up with on it. There are 56% more pixels is a fact though, but 56% more sharpness and clarity...................

For example, Same monitors and all a 23" @ 1920x1080 will have smaller pixels than a 25" @ 1920x1080.

Pixel pitch is really where it's at. I'd pay more for a smaller screen with more res to be truthful, but hey... I ended up with the best deal money can buy.

Dual 24" S-PVA panels that do 1920x1200 for only 360$. 2. For 360$. ;)
 
Back