1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Samsung Preparing a 27-inch WQHD (2560 x 1440) Monitor

Discussion in 'News' started by Cristian_25H, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. hellrazor

    hellrazor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,575 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    318
    If you have that much money you might as well get a 7970, which should be able to handle that in sleep mode.
     
    w3b says thanks.
  2. Assimilator

    Assimilator

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    609 (0.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    104
    Location:
    South Africa
    2560x1600 or GTFO.
     
    hellrazor and Maban say thanks.
  3. theJesus

    theJesus

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,968 (1.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    860
    Location:
    Ohio
    I prefer a 16:9 display to a 16:10 display actually.
     
  4. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,211 (11.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,516
    same. 2D desktop doesnt concern me with all the aspect ratio fuckups games get.
     
  5. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I still prefer 16:10 if the vertical resolutions are the same. Actually, I prefer 4:3 if the vertical resolution is constant.

    Vice versa if the horizontal resolutions stay the same.

    And all I want to know is, how is the color accuracy on these PLS panels? Are they true 8 bit? Do they look as good as a calibrated IPS?
     
  6. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,989 (2.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Location:
    Italy
    Same here, I love 16:10 :)
     
    w3b and Jizzler say thanks.
  7. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,227 (2.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    288
    You're joking right?? How could you prefer a 4:3 aspect ratio? :banghead: You obviously never used you PC at your work and for work...I use 2 monitors with 16:9 and still don't have enough horizontal space to run stuff...:confused::confused:
     
  8. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,989 (2.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Location:
    Italy
    Actually 4:3 aspect ratio would be better than this 16:9 2560x1440, because 4:3 would be 2560x1920 if I'm not mistaken, so you don't lose horizontal space :)
    You "only" gain more vertical pixels
     
  9. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,418 (1.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    637
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    16:10! However, I'll take anything 1920x1200 or greater (which would include this Samsung), as I can still get what I want out of it. At least 1920 wide for movies/video and at least 1200 high for old locked 4:3 games.
     
    w3b says thanks.
  10. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Yes I have, and reread my post. I said if the horizontal resolutions are the same, 4:3 is better. 4:3 has MORE horizontal space in that case.

    16:9 = 2560 x 1440
    16:10 = 2560 x 1600
    4:3 = 2560 x 1920

    Now, if the vertical resolutions were the same, 16:9 is obviously better

    16:9 = 2560 x 1440
    16:10 = 2304 x 1440
    4:3 = 1920 x 1440
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2012
  11. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,285 (2.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,177
    Go what yourself? ;)

    Its about how much you are paying, along with how much value you find in it. So if users who are going to buy this would rather have no cables showing, and rather have it wall mounted they should either have that option, or they won't buy it.


    By your comment, everyone should just accept what they get, leading to no real innovation.
     
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  12. theJesus

    theJesus

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,968 (1.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    860
    Location:
    Ohio
    It appears as though you've got 'horizontal' and 'vertical' backwards.
     
    Wile E says thanks.
  13. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,227 (2.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    288
    At least, do you know the difference between Horizontal and Vertical?? Anyways, it seems that you are obsessed with numbers, seems pointless to continue the debate...Just remember that for games and movies, the wider the screen, the better. And this is exactly why I prefer a 16:9 monitor...
     
  14. w3b New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    68 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Location:
    Australia
    Way too expensive, paper specs look good. :cool:

    Seeing 16:10 still kicking around is very promising for future monitors though as I like the extra vertical space over 16:9, not to mention it looks better than a 16:9 screen physically.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10#16:10_-_properties
    The 16:10 ratio, at 1.6, is close to the golden ratio (1.618, often denoted φ).
     
  15. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,989 (2.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Location:
    Italy
    Maybe if you play on a console, but if you play on a PC the additional resolution of a 4:3 AR will be used, always keeping the width constant (aka 2560).
    For movies? I don't use my monitor, TVs is what I use :)
    So 16:9 is good on a TV, OK, but on a PC I'd rather pick 2560x1920 than 2560x1440.
     
  16. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,227 (2.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    288
    Can you please translate that? I am not familiar with geeky terms...or logic
    :rolleyes:
     
  17. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,989 (2.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Location:
    Italy
    Sorry, I mean that with 4:3 Aspect Ratio vs 16:9 Aspect Ratio you'd only gain more space on PC games that aren't BOUND to 16:9 (console ports).
    So if you have 2560x1920 you actually use the additional resolution versus the 2560x1440 of a 16:9 screen.
     
  18. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    lol. You're right. My bad.
    This is mostly a misunderstanding, as I had a serious brain fart, and mixed up horizontal and vertical in my mind. lol.

    Wider is better is only true for a monitor if it gives more resolution. A 16:10 or 4:3 monitor that has the same horizontal resolution is able to display everything a 16:9 monitor can, pixel perfect.

    A theoretical 2560x1920 monitor will display absolutely everything that a 2560x1440 can, but the opposite is not true.

    Therefore, the 4:3 monitor is the most versatile. It can still display all the 16:9 content for movies and TV, but it can do a hell of a lot more when you aren't watching movies or TV.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2012
  19. Mega-Japan

    Mega-Japan

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    308 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Location:
    New York, NY
    I think a couple of years back or so Wile E and I had the same discussion of 16:9 vs 16:10. You won't be changing his mind, and mine hasn't either as I still prefer 16:9.

    Heck where is the 21:9 TV Vizio promised?
     
  20. DonInKansas

    DonInKansas

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,096 (1.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,265
    Location:
    Kansas
    They're also good for office environments where space is premium and less cords is good.
     
  21. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    I can respect it just being a preference. It's just when people make blanket statement like it's universally better is when I step in. It being better or worse is mostly determined by resolution.

    2560x1440 is obviously better than 1920x1200. But then, 2560x1600 would be better still, strictly in terms of abilities.

    And Phillips has 21:9 TVs if you are interested. And they are 2560x1080, so much better than the current crop of 1080p tvs. I wouldn't mind having one. http://www.philips.co.uk/c/cinema-21-9/30849/cat/#filterState0=CINEMA219_FLAT_TV_SE_GB_CONSUMER=true
     
  22. Mega-Japan

    Mega-Japan

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    308 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Location:
    New York, NY
    I'm well aware of Philips' offering, however, it's still European market only, and the premium cost of importing it + the premium cost of the TV itself would make my hair bleed...
     
  23. Black Panther

    Black Panther Senior Moderatorâ„¢ Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,574 (3.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,924
    I bought a dell 2560x1440 during 2010. I'll try to figure out the advantages/disadvantages once I finish playing Skyrim ;)
     
  24. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,989 (2.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Location:
    Italy
    There are no disadvantages on a higher res monitor other than the need for beefier GPUs :)
     
  25. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,227 (2.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    288
    You are right in only one aspect. And that is Windows desktop applications. As i said, in games or movies, the wider the screen the MORE information you have displayed on your screen . Here the resolution in irrelevant, the ratio is making the difference. ;)
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page