What's your main computer's screen resolution?

[keshley]

2880x1800

Weird resolution (MacBook Pro Retina)

Not as weird as what I'm getting on Monday: 2736x1824 (Surface Pro 4).

[SamirD]

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! 

[raymogi]

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 )

I can open GH, watch porn and do another thing all at the same time.

[mougrim]

1920x1080. Have a quite nice Iiyama IPS monitor.

[suicidal_orange]

1600x1200 HP LP2065 20" on my desktop (took weeks to find an IPS one, will use it 'til it dies!)

1024x600 on my netbook - plenty big enough for posting, inadequate for looking at pics )

[keshley]

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! 

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. Its pretty easy to find it for about 4-500 less than list.

[Jhonan]

Currently I'm running 3-wide eyefinity at 4800x900 (side monitors don't support 1080 lol) but will be going 5760x1080 soon...

[SamirD]

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! 

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. Its pretty easy to find it for about 4-500 less than list.

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?

[RenegadeParadox]

I run two 1440p 27 inches, and a 1080  23 inch 120hz monitor. I love my 1440 for media and game on my 120 hz.

[Melvang]

1920x1200  I refuse to have anything 16:9 or wider on my PC.

[Jhonan]

16:10 isn't that far from 16:9 but is there a particular reason?

[Melvang]

I realize that 16:10 isn't that far from 16:9, I just find it much more asthetically pleasing on my desk, 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.

[SamirD]

..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.

[Melvang]

..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.

[SamirD]

..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.

[Melvang]

..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.

I think we are.

[Kola93]

1920x1080 is a nice standard, but I feel that people are shifting towards 2560x1440.

27" 1440p seems to be the sweet spot right now, with many IPS panels supporting 144Hz+ refresh rates coming out.

It hits all the sweet spots with good image quality, colours, and short response rate.

[geekhack360]

1600x900 nothing that amazing.

[keshley]

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! 

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. Its pretty easy to find it for about 4-500 less than list.

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?

I run a pair of GTX 980s for gaming. That allows me to  play most games with almost all settings turned on in native resolution.

[Kirfloof]

Not as weird as what I'm getting on Monday: 2736x1824 (Surface Pro 4).

Having crazy pangs for one of those, but despite having the worst screen ever, I can't justify replacing my Thinkpad Yoga yet, it's only 2 years old.

32" 1440p on the desktop though, higher ppi would be nice, but otherwise a good upgrade. 4k doesn't appeal at all, and I wish 16:10 was more of a thing again.

[user 18]

5760*1080 (across three 1920*1080 21.5" acers). They're cheap and it shows, but I don't really mind it too much.

[davkol]

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.
Photos are very often 3:2 unprocessed.

I use either two 20" IPS monitors in portrait (2400×1600 total), or my convertible thinkpad (1280×800 @ 12") usually with another 20" monitor (currently in portrait, thus 1200×1600). I can't justify paying 10× as much for a single 2560×1600 screen (probably 30"), and there aren't any other upgrade options for me in general, although I'd appreciate a tad bit higher resolution. Sigh, I guess I'll wait another decade for 30" 5120×3200.

[CaplockJack]

Whatever a iPhone 6+ has.

[Zaskar]

2560x1440
Using one of those Korean overclockable Qnix monitors.

Was pleasantly surprised, handles 110hz flawlessly, can get up to high 120's but you get random horizontal green lines every so often.

[swimmingbird]

2560x1440 (PB278q) - really want to upgrade to an ultrawide with freesync though

[RenegadeParadox]

2560x1440

It's an auria korean 2.5k monitor that I got from MicroCenter. Gotta love high PPI.

[mrgoldenzombie]

1920x1080 23.6 144hz goodness 

[tronbeaver]

Just upgraded to Samsung 27" 1920 x 1080 from Costco!

[theginginator]

I've had a Crossover 44k for a while now, resolution is at 3820 x 2160 

[gadzkun]

im still use
24" asus vg248qe 1920x1080
so my VGA wont need to upgrade sooner  )

[pyrolovesmoney]

23 inch acer and its 1080p

[shibataken]

1440p IPS ultrawide   I have no idea if ultrawide is the future but I cannot go back to anything else especially for movies

[MagicSauce]

1080p - Asus 23in
Thinking about upgrading my rig to handle a 1440p

[HoffmanMyster]

4480x1080

widescreen + ultrawide, both at 1080 vertical

[SamirD]

Is it just me or is 1080 vertical just too short?  I need at least 1536.  Am I too demanding? lol.

[keshley]

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...

[HoffmanMyster]

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. 

[SamirD]

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. 

I always just set to large fonts and stick my head closer to the monitor and 'look around', lol.

I basically divide the screen vertically and use each half for something in a 8.5"x11" fashion, and sometimes when it's something big like a pdf of a blueprint or something, the full res helps a lot with the details.

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 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.

[keshley]

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 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.

[arcvile]

Running a simple 1080p (1,920 × 1,080) at 144Hz!

[GuilleAcoustic]

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.

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.

[SamirD]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[GuilleAcoustic]

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/

[swimmingbird]

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

Which Asus panel are you rocking?

[GuilleAcoustic]

PB258QB

[swimmingbird]

PB258QB

Nice - I would have gone with the 25" 1440p if Asus was offering them when I got my PB278Q

[SamirD]

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

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:

I'm actually thinking a 55" uhd tv makes more sense as a monitor now as the prices are in the same league!  :eek:

[Homenubbie]

Dell 2560 x 1600 30 inch.

I like em big!

[Carcharocles]

Asus VH236H. A 23 inch, 1920x1080 60HTz display, and not a bad one at that. Are there better ones out there? Definitely, even for a 60HTz TN panel. But there are also far worse ones out there, too. I'd say when it was new it was pretty good, and now it's above average for its class. But if I'm going to upgrade, it will be to a 27-inch IPS panel, and considering my hardware isn't quite capable of driving anything higher than 1080p right now, I don't really have any reason to jump on the 1440p bandwagon.

[keshley]

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 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.

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 wouldn't get the HP ZR30W now, particularly since my LG 31MU97 can be had for the same price. The LG is a better monitor all around, not that the HP was bad in any way.