For me I dont have the budget to get a 27" 2560x1440 .Originally Posted by Watagump
Bad resolutions for both, IMHO. Just look into a 27" 2560x1440, if you have the video card for it. Other people do run 1080, so its personal preference.
Im just worried, I have a 32 inc LED and watching movies from a distance some time with friend and family and its already hard, I was thinking if I get a 27 monitor it may be to small, work would the picture be much better and compensate for size ?Originally Posted by msheabel
go with the best monitor you can get for 200. A 27 will be fine. Plus an averager Video card will max out settings on a monitor with that resolution for years. More resolution really doesnt make that much of a difference once you start reaching the HD 1080P. the 27inch has more resolution than many 55inch televisions.
Many would disagree that more resolution at 27" wouldn't be better when it comes to a computer monitor.Originally Posted by msheabel
go with the best monitor you can get for 200. A 27 will be fine. Plus an averager Video card will max out settings on a monitor with that resolution for years. More resolution really doesnt make that much of a difference once you start reaching the HD 1080P. the 27inch has more resolution than many 55inch televisions.
My thinking was it maybe due to the picture quality, i would be sitting 2-3 meters furthest,Originally Posted by Puunh
If it's too far away it's going to look small, plain and simple. The extra pixels are for the sake of better picture. Once you're at a distance it won't even matter. Sometimes you can't see the 32 inch screen because it's too small so you decide to go buy A SMALLER one? Can... Can I just get the thinking behind this?
