Overclock.net banner

Whats the point of 2560 x 1600 monitors, are they that much better than 1080p monitor

3K views 45 replies 31 participants last post by  Methos07 
#1 ·
And are they worth the price difference in your opinion or no? You have to have a pretty powerful graphics card to handle one of those babies right atleast if you expect to max out at that resolution. Also, is it pointless to own a 2560 x 1600 monitor other than gaming? I mean if you watch a movie on it, its just up-scaling a 1080p movie right?
 
#5 ·
Its twice the resolution.
Nearly twice the pixels.

For gaming its sweet as hell.
For more real estate its sweet as hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak;12319328
Well what's the point of a 1080p monitor when you can just get a 1024x768 monitor for $5 off of craigslist?
lol.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by IlovetheChosenone;12319332
I don't agree with that comparison.
headscratch.gif


But 5 bucks for any monitor is a great deal if the monitor isn't broken.
Want some CRT's? Bring a truck and I'll load the back of it up. CRT's are all over the curb on garbage day. Not worth anything anymore really unless they are a sought after model or something. I've got 7-8 of them from 15"-21" randomly stashed around the house. The point he was making, is a 1080p is to 1024x768, sort of like 2560x1600 is to 1080p. Get it?
 
#9 ·
You also have to consider 2560 x 1440 monitors, as they are pretty close to each other. They give a hell of a lot more screen real estate (obviously), but 98% (If not all) monitors that are 2560 x * are IPS Panels, which provide far superior colour depth and accuracy, and are aimed towards Professional photo editing and such because of this.

That is also why the response time is high compared to other monitors, as they are made for a purpose where response time isn't favourable over colour accuracy.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyboyd;12319424
More desk space is always a good thing, and i bet gaming at the res is amazing if you have enough GPU power.

But like you rightly said, 1080p blurays will be upscaled to it and look crappy. This is why people own TVs.
You really think that TVs are native 1080p? Anything 40" or up is definitely way higher than that, otherwise the subpixels would be too large - you'd end up seeing red/green/blue dots instead of an actual picture.

Blurays look perfectly fine on it, you wouldn't be able to tell it isn't native.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak;12319472
You really think that TVs are native 1080p? Anything 40" or up is definitely way higher than that, otherwise the subpixels would be too large - you'd end up seeing red/green/blue dots instead of an actual picture.

Blurays look perfectly fine on it, you wouldn't be able to tell it isn't native.
I'd never really thought about that before. If they aren't 1080p native why won't they accept inputs higher than that then?
 
#19 ·
At work we have 2x30" and 2x22" (on their sides) inorder to see an entire picture we have taken. Most of the time that's not even enough to see everything left to right left alone top to bottom. We do mostly very high resolution x-ray diffraction work; seeing the pictures smaller than a 1:1 scaling causes you to miss certain very important details. For us its not a. Photo editing requirement. Its a photo viewing requirement.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyboyd;12319602
It's a shame, i'd probably use my HDTV more if it accepted a higher-res input.

I've also never thought about the fact that my tv seems to have far more than 1080 vertical pixels. How odd.
I had an older 43" plasma that most definably had native resolution. The pixels were really obvious. However when sitting a small distance away it was substantially less noticeable (Just like my cheapo 37"
tongue.gif
).
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron_Henderson;12319377
Want some CRT's? Bring a truck and I'll load the back of it up. CRT's are all over the curb on garbage day. Not worth anything anymore really unless they are a sought after model or something. I've got 7-8 of them from 15"-21" randomly stashed around the house. The point he was making, is a 1080p is to 1024x768, sort of like 2560x1600 is to 1080p. Get it?
The copper inside them is probably worth more than the monitor itself... The other day a guy in my GF's apartment parking lot was trying to give away a 19 inch one. He kept saying "but dude it's free" and I was like leave me alone...
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak;12319472
You really think that TVs are native 1080p? Anything 40" or up is definitely way higher than that, otherwise the subpixels would be too large - you'd end up seeing red/green/blue dots instead of an actual picture.
That would be the reason you sit waaay further back in front of a 40+" TV monitor than you do an LCD computer monitor of any resolution...
 
#26 ·
definetly worth it if you need it.

takes up less disk space to provide more available viewing then a single 1920x1080

also, my dads work has 17 and 19 inch flat panels they have to toss, and i never understood why. Until a client had ~150 19" flat panels stacked around, they were all 1024x768. When was the last time anyone used that res? you should try it coming from a 1920x1080 setup
its HORRENDOUS!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top