Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › 30" crew, picture request
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

30" crew, picture request - Page 2

post #11 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by fl0w3n View Post
interesting, seems like the hp will suit my gaming needs better. bummer because i can get the dell brand new for about ~$800 direct. That may be a very swaying factor here...
Tell. Me. How.
post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfemaN View Post
Tell. Me. How.
Indeed. That's actually slightly less than I paid for my U2711.
post #13 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfemaN View Post
Tell. Me. How.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booty Warrior View Post
Indeed. That's actually slightly less than I paid for my U2711.
It's easy, Social Engineering
Test
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 x79-UD3 EVGA GTX 670 Samsung 1.35v low pro 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Crucial M4 Yamakasi Catleap Ducky DK-1087 ST-1000G 
CaseMouse
Lian Li A71F Steelseries - Ikari 
  hide details  
Reply
Test
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 x79-UD3 EVGA GTX 670 Samsung 1.35v low pro 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Crucial M4 Yamakasi Catleap Ducky DK-1087 ST-1000G 
CaseMouse
Lian Li A71F Steelseries - Ikari 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 49
The size of the pixels on the screen is determined by the dot pitch. Your U2211h has a pitch of 0.247, while the U3011 has a pitch of 0.2505. In other words, everything will be slightly larger than how they appear on your current screen.

And as you already figured out, the ZR30w has the least input lag. That being said, the U3011 is still perfectly usable for gaming IMO...and this is coming from someone who has used it side-by-side with CRTs.
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak View Post
The size of the pixels on the screen is determined by the dot pitch. Your U2211h has a pitch of 0.247, while the U3011 has a pitch of 0.2505. In other words, everything will be slightly larger than how they appear on your current screen.

And as you already figured out, the ZR30w has the least input lag. That being said, the U3011 is still perfectly usable for gaming IMO...and this is coming from someone who has used it side-by-side with CRTs.

I was hoping you would chime in, in a little searching I found some awesome responses from you regrading monitors.


Interesting, I never thought about comparing dot pitch...I was just expecting 2 million more pixels on the u3011 than my u2211h and just figured I would be getting 1.x pixels in place of 1 pixel when an image was drawn.
So with that type of dot pitch, all those extra 2 million pixels just go to making up for the screen size? Will my FOV be bigger?

Since you seem to have multiple monitors, would you mind doing a photo of a 30" running 1920x1200 and 30" 2560x1600 on a FPS screenshot?
I just want to fully understand this. I want more pixels to push my 580's harder, but I want them to push harder to produce a clearer crisper more detailed image when compared with 1920x1080.
Test
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 x79-UD3 EVGA GTX 670 Samsung 1.35v low pro 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Crucial M4 Yamakasi Catleap Ducky DK-1087 ST-1000G 
CaseMouse
Lian Li A71F Steelseries - Ikari 
  hide details  
Reply
Test
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 x79-UD3 EVGA GTX 670 Samsung 1.35v low pro 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Crucial M4 Yamakasi Catleap Ducky DK-1087 ST-1000G 
CaseMouse
Lian Li A71F Steelseries - Ikari 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by fl0w3n View Post
I was hoping you would chime in, in a little searching I found some awesome responses from you regrading monitors.


Interesting, I never thought about comparing dot pitch...I was just expecting 2 million more pixels on the u3011 than my u2211h and just figured I would be getting 1.x pixels in place of 1 pixel when an image was drawn.
So with that type of dot pitch, all those extra 2 million pixels just go to making up for the screen size? Will my FOV be bigger?

Since you seem to have multiple monitors, would you mind doing a photo of a 30" running 1920x1200 and 30" 2560x1600 on a FPS screenshot?
I just want to fully understand this. I want more pixels to push my 580's harder, but I want them to push harder to produce a clearer crisper more detailed image when compared with 1920x1080.

I was talking about your desktop before, when saying that text will be slightly larger. Basically what I meant is that if you take an icon that's 32x32 pixels, it will be slightly larger on the U3011 than on the U2211 because the individual pixels are larger. When it comes to games it's a whole different story.

In games, think of objects taking up a certain percentage of your screen's area. The more pixels you have in that area, the more pixels are used to display that object. However, in this case, you're also increasing pixel size at the same time. So what you're going to end up seeing is a tiny bit more pixelation around the edges of models, but more clarity and detail in textures.

And 2560x1600 will give you the same FOV as 1920x1200.

I'll post pictures up in a while, my desktop is currently out of order while I'm cleaning out the WC loop
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak View Post
.

And 2560x1600 will give you the same FOV as 1920x1200.
Except in a few really old games where the FOV scales with the res . Like Diablo II.
SUPERPWN
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670K Asus z87-Pro MSI GTX 1080 Aero 32GB DDR3 Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorMonitor
4TB Seagate Windows 8 x64 Overlord x270 OC HP ZR27 
MonitorKeyboardPowerAudio
Asus PG279Q G-Tune Topre Realforce 800w Yulong D100 DAC with Denon D7000 headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
SUPERPWN
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670K Asus z87-Pro MSI GTX 1080 Aero 32GB DDR3 Gskill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorMonitor
4TB Seagate Windows 8 x64 Overlord x270 OC HP ZR27 
MonitorKeyboardPowerAudio
Asus PG279Q G-Tune Topre Realforce 800w Yulong D100 DAC with Denon D7000 headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy9000 View Post
Except in a few really old games where the FOV scales with the res . Like Diablo II.
Yeah, too bad they aren't all like that
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak View Post
I was talking about your desktop before, when saying that text will be slightly larger. Basically what I meant is that if you take an icon that's 32x32 pixels, it will be slightly larger on the U3011 than on the U2211 because the individual pixels are larger. When it comes to games it's a whole different story.

In games, think of objects taking up a certain percentage of your screen's area. The more pixels you have in that area, the more pixels are used to display that object. However, in this case, you're also increasing pixel size at the same time. So what you're going to end up seeing is a tiny bit more pixelation around the edges of models, but more clarity and detail in textures.

And 2560x1600 will give you the same FOV as 1920x1200.

I'll post pictures up in a while, my desktop is currently out of order while I'm cleaning out the WC loop
I understand what you're saying about it making it bigger when looking at normal web pages and stuff. That is good, because like I said it will have to be farther away which is not always so good with my eye sight.

Ugh, that is what I was thinking...more pixelation That is definitely not want I wanted to hear haha. How noticeable will it be? In your opinion does the clarity and detail that comes with the higher res out weigh the pixelation?
It seems the u2711 might be better here with its .233mm pixel pitch, which is better than even my u2211h. That seems to be a nice compromise, but how does that 400 thousand less pixels affect me?


Thanks, I appreciate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy9000 View Post
Except in a few really old games where the FOV scales with the res . Like Diablo II.
I used to love that game, ironically my brother still plays it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manyak View Post
Yeah, too bad they aren't all like that
Test
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 x79-UD3 EVGA GTX 670 Samsung 1.35v low pro 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Crucial M4 Yamakasi Catleap Ducky DK-1087 ST-1000G 
CaseMouse
Lian Li A71F Steelseries - Ikari 
  hide details  
Reply
Test
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 x79-UD3 EVGA GTX 670 Samsung 1.35v low pro 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Crucial M4 Yamakasi Catleap Ducky DK-1087 ST-1000G 
CaseMouse
Lian Li A71F Steelseries - Ikari 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by fl0w3n View Post
I understand what you're saying about it making it bigger when looking at normal web pages and stuff. That is good, because like I said it will have to be farther away which is not always so good with my eye sight.

Ugh, that is what I was thinking...more pixelation That is definitely not want I wanted to hear haha. How noticeable will it be? In your opinion does the clarity and detail that comes with the higher res out weigh the pixelation?
It seems the u2711 might be better here with its .233mm pixel pitch, which is better than even my u2211h. That seems to be a nice compromise, but how does that 400 thousand less pixels affect me?
I may have made the pixelation sound worse than it is. Because in reality you'll only see if it you're sitting there measuring it, looking REALLY hard for it.

You've got to remember, when you move the monitor farther back it's apparent size is smaller than when it's up close. So even though the pixels are a tiny bit larger, the extra foot or two of distance is going to offset it, and then some. So in reality you'll probably end up seeing smoother edges after all. Hell, worst case you can always bump AA up one notch and be done with it. Plus, even if you ignore distance for a second, if you compare the pixelation to the overall size of the image the pixelation is relatively smaller because the image is so much larger, and so many more pixels are being used to draw the same line.

If you want my personal opinion, yes I think 30" panels are worth every damn penny, and since you can afford one there's no reason not to buy it.


And 400,000 pixels is a LOT to lose, personally I wouldn't give them up . If you're on a 30" and want the wider aspect in games you can always set the resolution to 2560x1440 yourself, but if you're on a 27" monitor and want some more vertical headroom you're out of luck. And there's actually a very noticeable size difference between 27" 16:9 and 30" 16:10. You're talking about 311 sq.in vs 432 sq.in - that's a 38% increase in size (or a 28% decrease depending on how you want to look at it). Either way it's quite a large difference. IMO, between that and the vertical resolution you give up too much for pixels that are only 7% smaller.
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
Server
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3470 ASRock Z77 Extreme6 16 GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1600 1TB WD Caviar Black 
Hard DriveCoolingOSCase
4TB WD Caviar Red Cooler Master Hyper 212+ VMWare ESXi NZXT Crafted Series Tempest 410 
OtherOtherOther
LSI 9280-16i4e RAID Card Intel I350 Quad Port Gigabit NIC Intel Pro/1000 PT Dual Port Gigabit NIC 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › 30" crew, picture request