Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Ataxia

New monitor choice help

2 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
74 posts
3,044 battles

Heya folks

 

A quick one for you. I am going to be buying a budget monitor to replace my current 24" 1920 x 1080 Benq.

Now the purchase has to be through Amazon uk thanks to Xmas presents being gift vouchers, and the max budget is around £250.

i usually play a lot of games like Skyrim/Fallout 4/far cry  4 a few MMOs and the such like, and of course WoWs.

 

I've come up with 2 monitors to choose between

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-Ultrawide-Monitor-2560x1080-Speakers/dp/B01BFH194W/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1487527356&sr=1-1&keywords=monitor

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-C32F391-32-Inch-Curved-Monitor/dp/B01DTLSQA2/ref=sr_1_4?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1487601514&sr=1-4&keywords=monitor

 

Which would you choose and why?

 

Thanks in advance :):):)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles

That Samsung has extremely bad resolution for its size.

1920x1200 would be bad enough but it's even more desk space wasting 16:9 1080p low screen.

Which they aren't even telling that clearly because it would make it look bad.

For that size 2560x1600 would be right resolution... unless you're looking at it from TV viewing distance.

It just isn't monitor, TV at most.

 

That LG needs equally much space from desk, but that super low screen design gives ancient vertical image size.

As in decade old real monitors having bigger vertical image size.

With even your current 24" low screen giving slightly bigger vertical image size.

 

When marketing talks about wide and even wider screen what it means in reality is that they cut away from monitor's vertical size while increasing amount of space monitor needs from your desk.

Even for same marketing size aka diagonal 16:9 gives actually smaller physical image area than older 16:10... besides cut down resolution.

And like I said your current 24" one actually having slightly bigger vertical image size than that 29 markting inch LG.

 

Here's some relative size comparison:

https://goo.gl/9iPlpN

First that super low screen desk space waster.

Then your current 24" 16:9.

What 24" monitors were before marketing working its scam.

And what kind monitor I've been myself watching for three years. :trollface:

(guess why I'm calling those super "wides" as marketing scam...)

 

Myself I wouldn't use anything with less than 1200 vertical resolution...

And even that feels now barely adequate needing lots of vertical scolling when reading anything.

Meaning starting from 24" 16:10/1920x1200 giving some extra space for any other thing besides watching movies.

With menu and tool bars of Windows and programs being fixed in pixel size it gives easily 15-20% more effective vertical work resolution than 1920x1080.

 

Dell has few such monitors in that price range like U2415

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-U2415-24-Inch-IPS-Monitor/dp/B00OA2I362/

Though that's so new model they've removed DVI so might need use of DVI-HDMI cable if your graphics card has only DVI:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2415.htm

 

There might be also some 27" 2560x1440 available near that price, though those using IPS panel are likely more expensive.

Of course that resolution is also lot more demanding for graphics card with ~77% more pixels to calculate per frame and pixel size becomes rather small.

And myself just wouldn't tolerate lack of vertical viewing angle of cheap TN panels:

Marketing scams have been used to cover up major lack of monitor tech advance and there's no perfect monitor tech with all of them having some quirks.

 

Here's what 27" 16:9 would look in size compared to your current 24" and 24" 16:10.

https://goo.gl/B1OXCM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×