Overclock.net banner

Which Resolution would you recommend?

  • 2560x1600

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • 2560x1440

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • 2560x1080

    Votes: 1 4.0%
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I've been on the fence about getting a higher resolution screen and have decided in the next two or three months I'd like to make that plunge. What has me stumped is which resolution I'd like to get. Those are 2560x1600 , 2560x1440 , or 2560x1080. I'd would just like opinions of the resolutions. No need to give me advise on brand. Atleast not now.
thumb.gif


I also plan to upgrade my graphics card to sli or maybe the next gen cards if they are announced by then. Though I'm not 100% sure if my 670 ftw 2GB are enough for these resolutions. I've read the 2GB is fine for the noted resolutions but, 3GB and up are the way to go. Correct me if I'm wrong. I play a mixture of games currently. Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution, Aliens vs Predator, Sleeping Dogs, and Guild Wars 2. And just to note I'm ok with playing games with AA and AF on lower settings or even off all together.
 

·
Old dog, old tricks
Joined
·
9,756 Posts
For the same screen size, higher resolution is always better. Disregard aspect ratio, take more pixels
smile.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Well that's definitely a good way to look at it. Though from what I've seen 2560x1600 are 30" Monitors. 2560x1440 are 27" Monitors. 2560x1080 are 29" Monitors. So the ppi on all the resolutions is different. So that rules out the 2560x1080.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomato16 View Post

Going with a 2560x1440 display would avoid black bars and the top and bottom of the screen for 1080p content (i.e. console).
I didn't consider this. Glad you brought that up and I watch alot of 1080p movies on my computer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,508 Posts
First off, a single 670FTW can handle these resolutions, but going to SLI will give you very close to double the performance. The whole 2GB vs More is, IME, an issue with surround resolution and not so much single panel resolution (although that will change once we all have 3840x2160 panels). I have been fortunate enough to use the 670FTW in single, dual, and triple card setups (with and without dedicated PhysX), and a 3-way SLI setup with a decent overclock (especially on the memory) results in constant 60fps+ with everything set on maximum (except for MSAA, which anything beyond 2-4x does nnot give any benefit on the QHD/WQHD panels IMO, but costs a lot of performance), playing on a Dell U3011 both alone and flanked with 2x 1600x1200 screens in portrait(4960x1600). It wwas only the last configuration where I noticed any slowdowns in the SLI setups, but for themmost part thepperformance was surprisingly good.
Also, overclocking the 670FTW memory from 6008mhz to about 7200mhz resulted in a substantial performance increase, around maybe 15-20pct on average with the higher resolution displays.

I haverrecently had a chance to play with the Dell 21:9 panel, and I am still undecided... Here are my thoughts on it:
- Very wide display gives you a real sense of immersion
- You have to sit as close as you would a 23-24" 1080p panel as it's not very tall
- In many ways it feels like Surround gaming "lite" in that it gives you a middle-ground between a single monitor and three
- No bezel for the width it gives is an important factor to me as I get distracted by any bezels
- Films in their native 21:9 aspect ratio look better than on anything else I've seen, and the monitor scales them to fit the resolution incredibly well
- Would be an absolutely perfect center panel in a middle-ground surround setup (middle ground cost-wise)
- No portrait mode irks me
- Excellent color, contrast, and off-angle viewing (not as good as the U2711's color, but better than the Achieva and Catleap I've seen)
- Input lag isn't great, but it isn't terrible either... Never felt like I was "behind" by a few frames

Sitting about 2-2.5ft away, everything feels about perfect. Your horizontal FOV is mostly encompassed, and the loss of some vertical pixels is quickly forgotten once you start actually using the monitor and stop focusing on it.
The width of the monitor is ideal if you have stereo/2.1ch speakers as placing FR/FL about 6" to either side of the edges and with about a 10-15deg toe-in results in fantastic imaging, and gives you a very good phantom center channel.
The height of the panel makes it absolutely perfect to use with a pair of U2312HM displays, one per side, for Surround.

HHowever it's one of those love it or hate it things, and I would definitely adviseyyou to try one out.

Oh, performance was about exactly between the 2560x1600 and a single 1080p display, with a single card being plenty capable but 2 providing a locked-in 60fps!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by nleksan View Post

First off, a single 670FTW can handle these resolutions, but going to SLI will give you very close to double the performance. The whole 2GB vs More is, IME, an issue with surround resolution and not so much single panel resolution (although that will change once we all have 3840x2160 panels). I have been fortunate enough to use the 670FTW in single, dual, and triple card setups (with and without dedicated PhysX), and a 3-way SLI setup with a decent overclock (especially on the memory) results in constant 60fps+ with everything set on maximum (except for MSAA, which anything beyond 2-4x does nnot give any benefit on the QHD/WQHD panels IMO, but costs a lot of performance), playing on a Dell U3011 both alone and flanked with 2x 1600x1200 screens in portrait(4960x1600). It wwas only the last configuration where I noticed any slowdowns in the SLI setups, but for themmost part thepperformance was surprisingly good.
Also, overclocking the 670FTW memory from 6008mhz to about 7200mhz resulted in a substantial performance increase, around maybe 15-20pct on average with the higher resolution displays.

I haverrecently had a chance to play with the Dell 21:9 panel, and I am still undecided... Here are my thoughts on it:
- Very wide display gives you a real sense of immersion
- You have to sit as close as you would a 23-24" 1080p panel as it's not very tall
- In many ways it feels like Surround gaming "lite" in that it gives you a middle-ground between a single monitor and three
- No bezel for the width it gives is an important factor to me as I get distracted by any bezels
- Films in their native 21:9 aspect ratio look better than on anything else I've seen, and the monitor scales them to fit the resolution incredibly well
- Would be an absolutely perfect center panel in a middle-ground surround setup (middle ground cost-wise)
- No portrait mode irks me
- Excellent color, contrast, and off-angle viewing (not as good as the U2711's color, but better than the Achieva and Catleap I've seen)
- Input lag isn't great, but it isn't terrible either... Never felt like I was "behind" by a few frames

Sitting about 2-2.5ft away, everything feels about perfect. Your horizontal FOV is mostly encompassed, and the loss of some vertical pixels is quickly forgotten once you start actually using the monitor and stop focusing on it.
The width of the monitor is ideal if you have stereo/2.1ch speakers as placing FR/FL about 6" to either side of the edges and with about a 10-15deg toe-in results in fantastic imaging, and gives you a very good phantom center channel.
The height of the panel makes it absolutely perfect to use with a pair of U2312HM displays, one per side, for Surround.

HHowever it's one of those love it or hate it things, and I would definitely adviseyyou to try one out.

Oh, performance was about exactly between the 2560x1600 and a single 1080p display, with a single card being plenty capable but 2 providing a locked-in 60fps!
Well you defiantly got me thinking. In a good way. First off my card has been with the stock overclock since it runs my 1920x1080p monitor with no trouble at all. ((Why fix what's not broke right?)) So I'll be sure to give my card a boost once I purchase one of these monitors.
wheee.gif


One thing you said about the 21:9 monitor is it gives a real sense of immersion. Aswell as how it's like a "lite" surround setup. I've always thought about a surround setup but, I can't have those bezels in the middle of the screens. That alone is a deal breaker for me so I've shied away from it. If anything you've made it difficult to choose between the higher pixel count versus a "lite" surround setup. Not sure if I could take a look at one of these at a local BestBuy or not.

By the way I noticed you mentioned the U2711 and not the U2713HM. Is there a reason for this? I thought the U2711 was the older 27" 2560x1440 monitor?

BTW sick rig.
thumb.gif
 

·
Tech Enthusiast
Joined
·
12,390 Posts
I voted for the 2560*1600 purely due to personal preference. I prefer the aspect ration and pure real estate over the others.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
For 2560x1600 there are only a few options

1.) Wide Gamut CCFL models with extremely grainy matte coatings
2.) Tempered Glass Yamakasi 30" from ebay with unknown color quality (@540$ I doubt it is good) and no real warranty
3.) Dell 3014: (1500$ MSRP, coming soon) Wide gamut display which will likely have very high input lag and ghosting issues like the other U2x13H models since they are not meant for gaming

All 30" displays are wide gamut, only get a wide gamut display if you don't mind having inaccurate, over saturated colors with strong green and red dominances.

There are far more quality 27" 2560x1440 options to choose from, (excluding the U2711) including both glossy (ACD and ebay models) and matte models without grainy matte coatings (Viewsonic VP2770, Dell U2713HM, Dell U2713HM, Samsung S27A850D). It's definately better to get an sRGB display for gaming and watching movies if you want content to look like it was intended them to.

A single 670 is going to run out of gas with quite a few games (especially with future games), going sli would be wise
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by MenacingTuba View Post

For 2560x1600 there are only a few options

1.) Wide Gamut CCFL models with extremely grainy matte coatings
2.) Tempered Glass Yamakasi 30" from ebay with unknown color quality (@540$ I doubt it is good) and no real warranty
3.) Dell 3014: (1500$ MSRP, coming soon) Wide gamut display which will likely have very high input lag and ghosting issues like the other U2x13H models since they are not meant for gaming

All 30" displays are wide gamut, only get a wide gamut display if you don't mind having inaccurate, over saturated colors with strong green and red dominances.

There are far more quality 27" 2560x1440 options to choose from, (excluding the U2711) including both glossy (ACD and ebay models) and matte models without grainy matte coatings (Viewsonic VP2770, Dell U2713HM, Dell U2713HM, Samsung S27A850D). It's definately better to get an sRGB display for gaming and watching movies if you want content to look like it was intended them to.

A single 670 is going to run out of gas with quite a few games (especially with future games), going sli would be wise
Well I do prefer the colors to look natural. I'm not overly picky about it but, dull colors do make me cringe.

Doesn't the Viewsonic VP2770 have a slower response time than say the U2713HM? I don't play competitively in fps but, I of course would go for a model that has faster response time.

Speaking of which I noticed you didn't mention the Asus PB278Q. Any reason behind that?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,114 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terreos View Post

Doesn't the Viewsonic VP2770 have a slower response time than say the U2713HM? I don't play competitively in fps but, I of course would go for a model that has faster response time.

Speaking of which I noticed you didn't mention the Asus PB278Q. Any reason behind that?
For some reason Viewsonic decided to state that the VP2770 has a 12ms manufacturer response time, but when actually measured with an oscilloscope the pixel response times are either equal to or faster than most other 2560x1440 displays and it has lower input lag too. The Asus PB278Q uses LED PWM dimming so it's best to play it safe and not recommend it, besides the Viewsonic is faster and has 4x USB ports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thank goodness for google translate. Jokes aside I'm glad you brought that up. From what the website says it's on par with the others. ((Like you said aswell)) I'm going to definitely keep this viewsonic in mind when I pull the trigger. Seems like it gives great color reproduction and has plenty of goodies like the usb ports. I'd make full use of all of those.
biggrin.gif
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top