More likely that's 1440x900...
Same as Bigpook - 1600x1200 on a 20" Samsung (Syncmaster 204B)
1280x800 on a 13" MacBook.
Me too, except the MacBook has a 13.3" screen.
1920x1200 24" Eizo S2431WX60 users unite!
1024x768 12" Thinkpad X60
What's this all about? And what's next, my favorite band?
3840x1200 spanning over 2x 24".
I like to think monitors are like keyboards, desks, and chairs? The operating lifetime of a good monitor will span 2 or 3 major computer upgrades.my right monitor has 26182 hours of usage on it...
X60 users unite!
By the way, Pink Floyd, Rush, Supertramp, ELO, Queen, REO Speedwagon, Blue October, etc.
Ditto. 3840x1200 across two Dell 2405FPWs. Screenshots (old) on my Flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamasrepus/tags/sunra/)
X60 users unite!
wow, everyone here has such high end monitors. i just have this 19" samsung monitor with a resolution of 1280×1024. it seems fine to me, but i'm noticing that these days, people have these riduculously large displays as if that's just standard. wow, times have changed. it wasn't long ago i was using a CRT with 800×600 resolution... *sigh*
Me too, except the MacBook has a 13.3" screen.
1920x1200 - Soyo Topaz S.I love mine. $120 used a few years ago.
What depresses me is that I'd now have to spend $550 for a monitor as good as the one I spent 300 on a year and a half ago. Either that, or try to find another old high-end 21" Trinitron.
And the windows *still* overlap :)
You should take a look at tiling window managers. I did and never looked back.
1920x1200 - Soyo Topaz S.
What depresses me is that I'd now have to spend $550 for a monitor as good as the one I spent 300 on a year and a half ago. Either that, or try to find another old high-end 21" Trinitron.
2560x1600 on Dell 3008 30" LCD.
1920 x 1080 on a 24" asus. Not so sure if I like the wide screen though.
3840x1200 spanning over 2x 24".
I like using dual monitors at work, but they have different things on them. I can't imagine putting the same screen over them. Doesn't the break in the middle get annoying?
Yeah I know, it's already on my todo list. Can you recommend one that's configurable by GUI? I don't have time for studying config file syntax à la fvwm for example...
Quote from: ktkr;836543840x1200 spanning over 2x 24".
And I'm another with that setup. I only just got around to hooking them up that way after having them on my desk for years. Before, they were on one PC each. Now one PC uses the DVI connections, the other uses the D-SUBs.
How do you use 2x 24" screens? I'm considering adding a second 24" to my PC but I'm not sure I'd actually use it.
i had 1 24" dell and i felt the real estate was too large.
While I have a 24" LCD (1920x1200) I actually think about getting a *smaller* one. Somehow I feel lost with this huge screen and I can work more concentrated at the tiny 12" in my laptop. Quality of the 12" sucks though, so I end up with all apps overlapping in one corner of the big screen :)Maybe you should just place the 24" further away?
Maybe you should just place the 24" further away?
well, I guess you could use just a bit of the monitor...
But really, personally I feel I have a hard time readjusting to smaller monitors for every time I move up a resolution. I'm now at a point where I can fit two terminals/emacsen side by side with both getting the space I feel they need on both monitors. Next time I go up a resolution I expect to be able to put two browser on the same screens without them interfering with each other. That'll be nice.
I'm now at a point where I can fit two terminals/emacsen side by side with both getting the space I feel they need on both monitors. Next time I go up a resolution I expect to be able to put two browser on the same screens without them interfering with each other. That'll be nice.
I have a 22" Acer running at 1680x1050. I want to get a 30" eventually though, but only once I get a good job so I can afford a $1200 monitor....
I like having one emacs on the screen split into 2 verticals because it's a more economical use of the real estate. Have you tried that? What I really like is having the source on the left and a compiled listing on the right. Now that's sweet.
Not all 22" monitors are 1680x1050. ;)
(And I'm not even referring to the occasional 1920x1200 one you find out there. I'm referring to 3840x2400. ;))
IBM T220/221 is the 3840x2400 22.1" lcd
I got a laptop the other day which is 1024x768 and is 6.4" diagonal. 1024²+768²=1280² so 1280 / 6.4 = 200 pixels per inch so it has slightly less density as the IBM one which is insane, stuff is small enough as is on this thing XD I can't really imagine it being any smaller even if just slightly so lol.
http://project777.darktech.org:777/gallery2/v/pcg-u3/IMG_4984.JPG.html
Am I the only one here whose newest monitor is from 1996?
Am I the only one here whose newest monitor is from 1996?
I doubt you use an old DEC monitor from the early 1990's every day on your main computer. And about old software--I have a big box of floppy disks and I still play some of the games that were on them (Railroad Tycoon, Mario Bros., Jacaranda Jim) and use Word for Windows 2.0.
I doubt you use an old DEC monitor from the early 1990's every day on your main computer.
Have you considered waiting by your finer dumpsters?
This got my morning started off right. I had a chuckle.
Not to say that people don't do it anyway, but it's illegal in every place I know of to throw monitors, especially CRTs, in the trash.
It's rapidly becoming 640x480, funnily enough - my main computer is becoming my HTC Touch Pro, due to the amount of time I'm spending NOT at home.
2880x2400 + 2048x1536. :biggrin1:
2048x1536 on the 15.0" internal LCD, 2880x2400 on the external IBM T221 (22.2", although only 18.4" of the display area is being used.) Unfortunately, I can't run the full design 3840x2400 due to a hard limit of my graphics card. :sad:
If I didn't win the thread already with my 10.06 megapixels, I almost certainly win it now.
3840x2400 + 2048x1536.
12.36 megapixels of fury.
Here's the T221 running as hard as I can drive it without buying even more hardware:Show Image(http://bhtooefr.ath.cx/images/IMG_1326_small.jpg)
See, Lenovo made a docking station that has a PCIe slot in it. Comes in handy when you want to throw a PCIe card that can REALLY push the pixels in there. ;)
Is that its native resolution?
3x 2304x1440 (6912x1440) CRTs
And soon adding 1x 2560x1600 + 2x 1200x1600 (4960x1600 total) LCDs.
It's going to be one huge desktop :)
Whoa. I thought the 2048x1536 my old Sun GDM-5410 topped out was high. I preferred 1600x1200, as it was sharper and can hit 85Hz.
It was more that they were selling them (and most likely every other panel coming off of that production line) at a loss, I suspect.
Consider that Toshiba, 2 years after IBM discontinued the T221 (which was selling at $9000 for the DG5 version,) announced a 3840x2400 22.2" TN panel (with worse contrast (how do you screw up contrast on a TN panel?!?!?,) and barely better brightness, than the T221) for just shy of $18,000. It didn't launch.
Most of what IDTech was making was high-end 4:3 (yes, I know, the T221 is 16:10) IPS panels, mainly for laptops. 4:3 died, and IPS died on laptops. So, it didn't make financial sense to continue the joint venture. (I don't think they made a single TN panel, and TN was the way EVERY laptop manufacturer was headed, away from IPS.)
The upshot of this is... almost all users wouldn't be able to read UI text on this monitor unless you turn it down to 1920x1200...
You can just use a calculator to figure out the text DPI size needed to make it readable. And turn on cleartype for sub-pixel and anti-aliasing of the text. Anything but native resolution is blurry and I'd say harder to read.
http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html (http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html)
IBM makes billions of dollars. And if they can't sell it, they should find a way to. Stupid mangement IBM has; obviously no one is going to buy it if they don't advertise or put it commercially in stores like the Commodore 64.
That's a ****ty tablet you have in your can. Does your wife use an iPad?
Now that I go back and read this, it was a dumb joke. That's what happens when you drink, kiddos.
Sooooo .... What did you do with the 23" or 24" that was retired by the 30"?
no kidding. I looked my ass off and couldn't find anything that was clearly better as a monitor than the 30" apple cinema display last refreshed in 2004.
hp lp3065
1920 x 1200 - Samsung 244T 24" S-PVA panel monitor - the only monitor that convinced me to stop using a CRT, man do I hate TN panels...
Someday I'll get me either a Samsung 305T or maybe that LG 3000H-Bn. At $1,200 it's not happening for a long time, I lucked into a deal on the 244T since it still is about a $600 monitor. My dream would be the NEC LCD3090W-BK-SV but it's $2,400...ouch. NEC makes the best displays, but I'm quite pleased with my Samsung as it is. I was originally considering looking for a 30" Cinema Display but I hate that stupid aluminum (I prefer a standard black bezel instead of an overpriced cabinet) and I read about a lot of them developing problems - plus I have real issues giving Apple any of my money...I'm a Microsoft fanboy big time.
1920 by 1200. I'm waiting for that 30 inch I can't resist to buy.
(Firefox + mouseless browsing add-on + some add-ons to save screen space, hovered links appear in the address bar, with also sports a page load progress bar. Separate search field to keep history and auto-complete separated.)
Cheap rubbish. It would work good on a mac though =)
No NEC does NOT make the best displays. I've got a NEC LCD that runs in 1024x768 and has the power cables and VGA cords INTEGRATED. Cheap rubbish. It would work good on a mac though =)
1920x1200 here too. 16:9 is the way to go, death to 16:10 computer monitors - vertical space is more important than to fit movies on the screen.
Maximizing windows on the screen really negates having screen space in the first place - it's all about fitting all your different windows in one view :)
Yeah, I really can't stand 16:9 for a computer. Also it is funny to see people claim "I bought a big screen!" and then it's just a 16:10 with ****ty vertical space.
What kind of interlace mode is that? Bit flickery!
Yeah, I really can't stand 16:9 for a computer.
That's a good point. It seems like every LCD made today is slated for movies instead of actual computer use.
If computers were really for text processing all monitors would be portrait.
You are aware that 1920 x 1200 is 16:10 right? I much prefer 16:10 - extra screen space is always better. If you want 16:9 you can always go buy a TV and use it for a monitor instead...always an option. 16:9 can take it's limited space and stick it, I refuse to buy a 16:9 computer monitor. All these rubbish 1920 x 1080 PC displays and whatnot - 1200 > 1080 hence better picture. You have to sacrifice on a TV but on my PC I expect the best.
30 inch is too big for gaming? I was wondering about that. Maybe I should look at 27 inch.
30 inch is too big for gaming? I was wondering about that. Maybe I should look at 27 inch.
1600 x 1200 el cheapo Hanns g...
22"
Hanns G isn't cheap; they're inexpensive.
Don't underestimate a Pentium M, CLiB. That's a good processor and one of very few Intel chips that feels faster than their claimed speed (especially considering the time it was introduced).
The Pentium M was the basis for the Core line of chips, in fact, the Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) was just a dual core version of one of the later Pentium Ms.
The Pentium M was in turn largely based on the Pentium 3, which it turn was the same thing as the Pentium 2. Goes to show you how little Intel has progressed since then...
15" DEC: 800x600
16" Trinitron: 1024x768
19" Samsung: 1024x768
19" at 1024x768? The taskbar's gotta be half an inch thick on that...ick.
When they attempted to do something different it totally failed (NetBurst was it?)
How do you guys even find thes threads anymore... the previous reply is in 2010...:confused:
How do you guys even find thes threads anymore... the previous reply is in 2010...:confused:
lol I totally agree, but they probably want to hit 60 posts.I don't have that problem. :P
3 x U3011 @ 2560x1600 (total of 7680 x 1600)
3 x U3011 @ 2560x1600 (total of 7680 x 1600)
Wow, what GPU(s) do you have powering that?
For all of you with IPS monitors, how much a difference are there between those and normal monitors? I really wanna upgrade soon and wanna know if it's worth it to get the 2560x1440
At work, four screens:
Left and Right Main screens: Soyo Topaz S (MVA) 24" @ 1920x1200 (5+ years old. Really nice for the price point, even today.)
Left Aux screen: Dell P2312H (TN?) 22" @ 1920x1080 (official work-provided screen. Really unimpressive.)
Right Aux: Dell 1908FP 19" (TN?) @ 1024x1280 (nice in portrait mode for e-mail)
At home, four screens:
Center: IBM T221 (IPS) @ 3840x2400 at 41Hz (amazingly beautiful and really hard to drive)
Left and Right: Samsung 2343BWX (TN?) @ 2048x1152 (nice quality panels)
Right Aux: IBM ThinkVision L170p (TFT) @ 1024x1280 (vertical for e-mail) (rotates well, old IBM LCD are pre-TN and look nice at any angle).
At work, four screens:
Left and Right Main screens: Soyo Topaz S (MVA) 24" @ 1920x1200 (5+ years old. Really nice for the price point, even today.)
Left Aux screen: Dell P2312H (TN?) 22" @ 1920x1080 (official work-provided screen. Really unimpressive.)
Right Aux: Dell 1908FP 19" (TN?) @ 1024x1280 (nice in portrait mode for e-mail)
At home, four screens:
Center: IBM T221 (IPS) @ 3840x2400 at 41Hz (amazingly beautiful and really hard to drive)
Left and Right: Samsung 2343BWX (TN?) @ 2048x1152 (nice quality panels)
Right Aux: IBM ThinkVision L170p (TFT) @ 1024x1280 (vertical for e-mail) (rotates well, old IBM LCD are pre-TN and look nice at any angle).
Thanks for sharing I'm curious to know how you utilize four screens?
Got any pics? And what video car/external dongle solution are you using?
I've been using three monitors for a while but have considering getting another.....just because!
At work, four screens:
Left and Right Main screens: Soyo Topaz S (MVA) 24" @ 1920x1200 (5+ years old. Really nice for the price point, even today.)
Left Aux screen: Dell P2312H (TN?) 22" @ 1920x1080 (official work-provided screen. Really unimpressive.)
Right Aux: Dell 1908FP 19" (TN?) @ 1024x1280 (nice in portrait mode for e-mail)
At home, four screens:
Center: IBM T221 (IPS) @ 3840x2400 at 41Hz (amazingly beautiful and really hard to drive)
Left and Right: Samsung 2343BWX (TN?) @ 2048x1152 (nice quality panels)
Right Aux: IBM ThinkVision L170p (TFT) @ 1024x1280 (vertical for e-mail) (rotates well, old IBM LCD are pre-TN and look nice at any angle).
Thanks for sharing I'm curious to know how you utilize four screens?
Got any pics? And what video car/external dongle solution are you using?
I've been using three monitors for a while but have considering getting another.....just because!
At work: C# and SQL on left and right screens. E-mail, calendar on the portrait to the far right (out of immediate focus and less distracting). On the far left, SQL Profiler, task manager, Debug Trace, etc.
From left to right it's: Status, C#, SQL, E-mail.
At work, I've got a Dell Optiplex 990 with a single AMD video card (a 5450, I think). It has a DMS-59 output, which splits to dual DVI. It also has an on-board/on-chip integrated Intel video that drives a DisplayPort and VGA port on the motherboard. I recently learned that through some magic BIOS incantations and installing drivers in a very specific order, that one can drive all four video ports (Dual-DVI, DisplayPort, and VGA).
I've also used USB DisplayLink video converters (drives a 1900x1200 screen via a USB 2.0 port). These are handy but have some limitations (no video acceleration).
At home, driving the IBM T221 is super tricky and a long and expensive story...
https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=5647.0Dammit! And I searched too! :(
https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=5647.0Dammit! And I searched too! :(
Someone move my post to that thread please.
https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=5647.0Dammit! And I searched too! :(
Someone move my post to that thread please.
Interesting to see that while display technologies have changed quite a bit, resolutions are still around the same.
Yes, it's always those damn 'form over function' people that ruin hardcore functionality for everything. I hate to say it, but it's a feminine characteristic too. No real man looks at a car/keyboard/monitor and squeals, 'it's so pretty! I want one!' :rolleyes:Interesting to see that while display technologies have changed quite a bit, resolutions are still around the same.
A major problem is "color space"
we can still only replicate reliably 70% of the visible spectrum on these flat panels
to get more, we gotta go to Lasers, and they stop devleoping the laservue, because the n00bs all want "THIN" over performance..
Freakn' n00bs screwing it up for everyone, because they're to callous to choose the important aspect of A DISPLAY>.....
Instead of looking INTO a display, people are looking AT the display.. ****KKKKK... aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Same here. I don't I can go back to 16:9.
3440x1440 is where it's at.
Same here. I don't I can go back to 16:9.
3440x1440 is where it's at.
2880x1800
Weird resolution (MacBook Pro Retina)
Main monitor at home: 4096x2160.Wow! That's awesome! How large is the screen? And was the setup too heavy on the pocketbook? I'd love to have that res--I could work on 4 screens of data at once! :cool: :eek: :thumb:
Same here. I don't I can go back to 16:9.
3440x1440 is where it's at.
One of those ultra-wide screens? Heck yes. They are amazing. I stare at them in envy any time I am in a Microsoft store :))
Main monitor at home: 4096x2160.Wow! That's awesome! How large is the screen? And was the setup too heavy on the pocketbook? I'd love to have that res--I could work on 4 screens of data at once! :cool: :eek: :thumb:
That's a good point. I never spent that much on my 20" Eizos getting lucky and found them for $500/ea brand new in the box. But under a grand isn't bad for that resolution. The question is what type of card do you have to have to drive that much screen?Main monitor at home: 4096x2160.Wow! That's awesome! How large is the screen? And was the setup too heavy on the pocketbook? I'd love to have that res--I could work on 4 screens of data at once! :cool: :eek: :thumb:
31"
Pricing isn't terrible. I always remind myself when buying a new monitor that about 14 years ago I bought a 24" LCD for $2500. Makes everything seem a lot cheaper ;)
This is the monitor in question. (http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-ips-led-monitor) Its pretty easy to find it for about 4-500 less than list.
..along with the touch more vertical work space in nice. I find it a very nice compromise between the 16:9 and 4:3 CRTs.I understand that videos are widescreen televisions went 16:9 so hence the trend was followed, but aside from web work, isn't most work still more portrait? I mean, I love seeing two full 8.5x11" pages side by side for comparison. On my 1980x1080 setup, it's scroll city or squinting city.
..along with the touch more vertical work space in nice. I find it a very nice compromise between the 16:9 and 4:3 CRTs.I understand that videos are widescreen televisions went 16:9 so hence the trend was followed, but aside from web work, isn't most work still more portrait? I mean, I love seeing two full 8.5x11" pages side by side for comparison. On my 1980x1080 setup, it's scroll city or squinting city.
But are we in the minority here? I can't even take anything less than 1024 for my vertical resolution anymore...along with the touch more vertical work space in nice. I find it a very nice compromise between the 16:9 and 4:3 CRTs.I understand that videos are widescreen televisions went 16:9 so hence the trend was followed, but aside from web work, isn't most work still more portrait? I mean, I love seeing two full 8.5x11" pages side by side for comparison. On my 1980x1080 setup, it's scroll city or squinting city.
My secondary monitor is 10:16 in portrait mode. Though that is a TN panel with horrible color compared to my primary screen which is an IPS panel. Primary is an Asus PA248Q.
But are we in the minority here? I can't even take anything less than 1024 for my vertical resolution anymore...along with the touch more vertical work space in nice. I find it a very nice compromise between the 16:9 and 4:3 CRTs.I understand that videos are widescreen televisions went 16:9 so hence the trend was followed, but aside from web work, isn't most work still more portrait? I mean, I love seeing two full 8.5x11" pages side by side for comparison. On my 1980x1080 setup, it's scroll city or squinting city.
My secondary monitor is 10:16 in portrait mode. Though that is a TN panel with horrible color compared to my primary screen which is an IPS panel. Primary is an Asus PA248Q.
That's a good point. I never spent that much on my 20" Eizos getting lucky and found them for $500/ea brand new in the box. But under a grand isn't bad for that resolution. The question is what type of card do you have to have to drive that much screen?Main monitor at home: 4096x2160.Wow! That's awesome! How large is the screen? And was the setup too heavy on the pocketbook? I'd love to have that res--I could work on 4 screens of data at once! :cool: :eek: :thumb:
31"
Pricing isn't terrible. I always remind myself when buying a new monitor that about 14 years ago I bought a 24" LCD for $2500. Makes everything seem a lot cheaper ;)
This is the monitor in question. (http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-ips-led-monitor) Its pretty easy to find it for about 4-500 less than list.
Not as weird as what I'm getting on Monday: 2736x1824 (Surface Pro 4).
16:10 isn't that far from 16:9 but is there a particular reason?Text (A4 papers or basically anything else) has to be downscaled or cropped on 16:9, compared to 16:10.
Is it just me or is 1080 vertical just too short? I need at least 1536. Am I too demanding? lol.
Is it just me or is 1080 vertical just too short? I need at least 1536. Am I too demanding? lol.
I always just set to large fonts and stick my head closer to the monitor and 'look around', lol.Is it just me or is 1080 vertical just too short? I need at least 1536. Am I too demanding? lol.
Depends how big the monitor is, IMO. And of course for gaming, more is better. But at a certain point it just makes things too small and you have to "maximize" them anyway, which kinda defeats the purpose. :P
I think the only way I can change to panels is to put two vertical and side by side. This 22" crt has definitely spoiled me.Is it just me or is 1080 vertical just too short? I need at least 1536. Am I too demanding? lol.
I've always felt 1080 to be short as well, which is why all my 24" monitors of the past were 16:10; 1920x1200. I haven't used a 24 as my main monitor in a number of years though...
I haven't had the space for CRTs in a long time. Or rather, I haven't wanted to give up the space for them. I always have too much crap on my desk...I looked up the HP ZR30W and while it's probably exactly what I need, I really can't justify a grand to replace a perfectly good crt.
I think my Dell 2408 was the first LCD that I liked in terms of color accuracy though. My LG 31MU97 is fantastic in this regard, and resolution is great. I had used an HP ZR30W before the LG for a couple/few years. That monitor was 2560x1600. High enough resolution for pretty much everything I did, and higher resolution than any of the CRTs I've owned. Maybe not higher PPI, although my LG probably equals what my highest rez CRTs were. And a lot smaller footprint than my old 21" CRT. Hell, a lot smaller footprint than my old 19" CRT.
My Diamondtron 17" CRT had a resolution of 1600x1200. CRT died 10 years ago and I had to buy an LCD, because CRT were no produced anymore (or very cheap ones). Nobody understood why I so ****ing hates LCD, that was such a downgrade, except on the depth and weight sides.Eizo makes some really good products, just like their predecessor Nanoa. I still have a Nanoa 17" that is beautiful to look at for 12hrs with zero strain on the eyes.
I have a 25" with a resolution of 2560x1440 and it is great, only drawback for me : I definitely hate LCD backlight ! It gives me headache, even at 20% brightness. Never had this feeling with my Eizo, bought to replace the Diamondtron, which had CCFL back-light. Sure it results in a slightly thicker panel, but hell it is far better me IMHO.
Same, no problem to work for 12h on my old Eizo.... Maybe I should have gotten a 23" 1080p Nec or Eizo instead of the 25" 1440p Asus. Eyestrain aside, the Asus is a great panel.
Speaking of Eizo and vertical resolution, the have an interesting 27" 1920 x 1920 screen: http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/Show Image(http://www.eizo.com/media-upload/EV2730Q-NAB.jpg)
PB258QB
Same, no problem to work for 12h on my old Eizo.... Maybe I should have gotten a 23" 1080p Nec or Eizo instead of the 25" 1440p Asus. Eyestrain aside, the Asus is a great panel.Wow, that's exactly what I'd be rocking if it was 2048+ in each dimension. Well except that it's out of my price range. :eek:
Speaking of Eizo and vertical resolution, the have an interesting 27" 1920 x 1920 screen: http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/Show Image(http://www.eizo.com/media-upload/EV2730Q-NAB.jpg)
I haven't had the space for CRTs in a long time. Or rather, I haven't wanted to give up the space for them. I always have too much crap on my desk...I looked up the HP ZR30W and while it's probably exactly what I need, I really can't justify a grand to replace a perfectly good crt.
I think my Dell 2408 was the first LCD that I liked in terms of color accuracy though. My LG 31MU97 is fantastic in this regard, and resolution is great. I had used an HP ZR30W before the LG for a couple/few years. That monitor was 2560x1600. High enough resolution for pretty much everything I did, and higher resolution than any of the CRTs I've owned. Maybe not higher PPI, although my LG probably equals what my highest rez CRTs were. And a lot smaller footprint than my old 21" CRT. Hell, a lot smaller footprint than my old 19" CRT.
1920x1080 BUT at 240Hz
(https://i.imgur.com/0yjShpj.gif)1920x1080 BUT at 240Hz
I see you have the need.
The need, for speed.
Some old Samsung I bought back in 2009 on Black Friday, 1920x1080 at 60hz. Still looks beautiful, so I'm sticking with that until I invest in a nice 4k display.
How's that for retro? My main monitor to this day is almost as old as this thread.
Some old Samsung I bought back in 2009 on Black Friday, 1920x1080 at 60hz. Still looks beautiful, so I'm sticking with that until I invest in a nice 4k display.
How's that for retro? My main monitor to this day is almost as old as this thread.
Not bad, not bad...
My main, and only, monitor has been with me for 12 years pretty much to the day - it's 1600x1200. At the time I was pissed off because the police had covered my old one in fingerprinting dust which doesn't come off but looking back I'm glad as any later I'd have had to get a widescreen.
2560 x 1440 on a 32". I'm blind.
2560 X 1440 @144hz. Best monitor I've ever had.
4K 120 is coming, so everyone hold off on new purchases until HDMI 2.1
I've finally moved away from the crt and now have Dell 30" displays at all locations running 2560x1600. They're absolutely beautiful for viewing 2x 8.5x11 pages side by side, which is a lot of what I do.
4K 120 is coming, so everyone hold off on new purchases until HDMI 2.1Only IF you're willing to invest in 1k USD or more in GPU's, an RTX2080 Ti would have a hard time dealing with games at 4K 60Hz. I'd suggest waiting for Ampere, and AMD's big NAVI to see if 4k >60Hz is viable. Meanwhile, perfectly happy with 3440X1440 75Hz and 3840x1080 144Hz, at least I don't have to pony up 1kUSD or more for a GPU to run games at this res well enough.
4K 120 is coming, so everyone hold off on new purchases until HDMI 2.1Only IF you're willing to invest in 1k USD or more in GPU's, an RTX2080 Ti would have a hard time dealing with games at 4K 60Hz. I'd suggest waiting for Ampere, and AMD's big NAVI to see if 4k >60Hz is viable. Meanwhile, perfectly happy with 3440X1440 75Hz and 3840x1080 144Hz, at least I don't have to pony up 1kUSD or more for a GPU to run games at this res well enough.
We got lots and lots of games that'll do 4K 120 like csgo/LeagueOL/Dota/Overwatch on $300-500 cards. [/size][/color][/font]Even middle ranged cards can push >100fps for games like Fornite and PUBG, but I'm talking AAA titles that are more demanding, like Resident Evil 3, Call of Duty Modern Warfare (RTX2080 and higher can do >60fps, up to ~80fps, nowhere near 120fps/144fps, Gears of War 5, etc with max PQ). I'd still advocate waiting for an Ampere or big NAVI, I may jump on a mid-high Ampere or NAVI, don't think I'm willing to pony up mucho deniros for a flagship card from either.......but then, I can't say till these cards are released come 3Q or later.
Forgot to include HTPC rig - i7 4770K + 16GB RAM + GB VEGA64 Gaming OC
Panasonic 4K TV
:eek: That's just being used as a HTPC? That's got more horsepower than my main gaming rig. Playing games/VR in the living room with it?
:eek: That's just being used as a HTPC? That's got more horsepower than my main gaming rig. Playing games/VR in the living room with it?
For proper HDR playback (on PC), requires something around a 1070gtx.
HDR isn't really all that standardized to begin with between games and/or tvs anyway, doesn't necessarily factor in at all.
Vega 64 has a good jump over my 1070 in synthetic benchmarks with G3D Mark.
HDR isn't really all that standardized to begin with between games and/or tvs anyway, doesn't necessarily factor in at all.
Vega 64 has a good jump over my 1070 in synthetic benchmarks with G3D Mark.
HDR is a standard.
HDR color grading <the human side work> to colorize is new and evolving. Not all studios are up to par on how to do it.
on my previous comment, HDR playback, I was only refering to playing back HDR movies/tvshows on the PC, the only supported renderer is Madvr, and it requires a 1070.
Seriously? You can't use a lower-end 10 series card for HDR? That seems like an intentional marketing scheme.
2560x1440 144hz (IPS) and the secondary is a 900x1440 75hz (portrait orientation), hope to update my primary display to something else and move that panel to be my secondary so I can move the current secondary to be a bench monitor for when I test hardware I'm messing with.Well, if you move on to a new display, for for a 21:9, 3440x1440 is ideal....not as hard on the GPU like a 4K display would be.
Well, if you move on to a new display, for for a 21:9, 3440x1440 is ideal....not as hard on the GPU like a 4K display would be.
Well, if you move on to a new display, for for a 21:9, 3440x1440 is ideal....not as hard on the GPU like a 4K display would be.
Problem is always these 4K movies. good scaling is extremely gpu intensive, and never quite as good as 1:1 pixel
Do people not have a sofa with a TV conveniently designed for movies sat directly in front of it? Who cares how they look on your monitor...