Thursday, January 5th 2012

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

Next week at CES 2012, Samsung Electronics will show off for the first time its new Series 9 premium monitor, a slim and sexy widescreen called S27A970 which features a 27-inch PLS (Plane Line Switching) panel capable of a maximum resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels.

Samsung's creation also has an anti-glare edge-to-edge glass display, an aluminum stand and base, a response time of 5 ms, 178/178 degree viewing angles, a static contrast ratio of 1,000:1, a maximum brightness of 300 cd/m2, two 7 W built-in speakers, a 2-port USB 2.0 hub, DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort inputs, plus a Mobile High Definition Link (MHL) enabling connectivity with MHL-supporting smartphones and tablets.

The Series 9 S27A970 is expected to become available in March priced at $1,200.
Add your own comment

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

#2
theJesus
Assimilator said:
2560x1600 or GTFO.
I prefer a 16:9 display to a 16:10 display actually.
Posted on Reply
#3
Mussels
Moderprator
theJesus said:
I prefer a 16:9 display to a 16:10 display actually.
same. 2D desktop doesnt concern me with all the aspect ratio fuckups games get.
Posted on Reply
#4
Wile E
Power User
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?
Posted on Reply
#5
radrok
Same here, I love 16:10 :)
Posted on Reply
#6
Prima.Vera
Wile E said:
I still prefer 16:10 if the vertical resolutions are the same. Actually, I prefer 4:3 if the vertical resolution is constant.
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:
Posted on Reply
#7
radrok
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
Posted on Reply
#8
Jizzler
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.
Posted on Reply
#9
Wile E
Power User
Prima.Vera said:
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:
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
Posted on Reply
#10
Steevo
jalex3 said:
Looks are more important than functionality. :rolleyes: Remember you wouldn't want to see unsightly cables.

Pretty stupid if you ask me. :banghead:
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.
Posted on Reply
#11
theJesus
Wile E said:
Yes I have, and reread my post. I said if the vertical 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 horizontal resolutions were the same, 16:9 is obviously better

16:9 = 2560 x 1440
16:10 = 2304 x 1440
4:3 = 1920 x 1440
It appears as though you've got 'horizontal' and 'vertical' backwards.
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
Wile E said:
Yes I have, and reread my post. I said if the vertical 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 horizontal resolutions were the same, 16:9 is obviously better

16:9 = 2560 x 1440
16:10 = 2304 x 1440
4:3 = 1920 x 1440
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...
Posted on Reply
#13
w3b
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).
Posted on Reply
#14
radrok
Prima.Vera said:
Just remember that for games and movies, the wider the screen, the better. And this is exactly why I prefer a 16:9 monitor...
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.
Posted on Reply
#15
Prima.Vera
radrok said:
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).
Can you please translate that? I am not familiar with geeky terms...or logic
:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#16
radrok
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.
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
theJesus said:
It appears as though you've got 'horizontal' and 'vertical' backwards.
lol. You're right. My bad.
Prima.Vera said:
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...
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.
Posted on Reply
#18
Mega-Japan
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?
Posted on Reply
#19
DonInKansas
Mussels said:
i use the speakers on my monitor (teamspeak/skype/etc) all the time
They're also good for office environments where space is premium and less cords is good.
Posted on Reply
#20
Wile E
Power User
Mega-Japan said:
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?
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%3Dtrue
Posted on Reply
#21
Mega-Japan
Wile E said:
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%3Dtrue
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...
Posted on Reply
#22
Black Panther
Senior Moderator™
I bought a dell 2560x1440 during 2010. I'll try to figure out the advantages/disadvantages once I finish playing Skyrim ;)
Posted on Reply
#23
radrok
There are no disadvantages on a higher res monitor other than the need for beefier GPUs :)
Posted on Reply
#24
Prima.Vera
Wile E said:
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.
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. ;)
Posted on Reply
#25
Wile E
Power User
Prima.Vera said:
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. ;)
There is no difference, because the 4:3/16:10 monitor can display the 16:9 image 1:1 on the screen. No scaling of any kind. So again, the 4:3/16:10 monitor is superior in abilities. It can do the wide content as well as the taller content.



Lets use 1920 monitors 1080p (1920x1080) content to keep it simple and realistic.

16:9 = 1920x1080. Perfect fit.

16:10 = 1920x1200. Will display 100% the same image as the 1080p monitor at the same quality with a 60px black bar on top and bottom. Quality is 100% unchanged.

4:3 = 1920x1440. Will also display the 100% identical image, but with 180px bar on top and bottom. (Though none of these exist in the wild.)

If horizontal resolutions remain constant, the 16:10 and 4:3 are superior in abilities. They do absolutely everything a 16:9 monitor does with the exact same quality, and are capable of more when you aren't watching 16:9 content.

And if games are your argument, you can just set it to 16:9 if you want, as the 4:3/16:10 screen is capable of displaying an unaltered 16:9 image. Or, you can just tweak the FOV. Point remains though, that the 16:10 and 4:3 are capable of absolutely everything the 16:9 is. So my point still stands.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment