High resolution LCD

John Reynolds

Ecce homo
Veteran
I've been enjoying a Dell 2405 display for the past year, but I'm starting to feel somewhat limited by its max res. of 1920x1200. I'm also slightly concerned that the display will limit my ability to test at higher resolutions with upcoming DX10 boards next year for my little gig as hardware reviewer at SimHQ. Thus my growing urge to upgrade.

So any suggestions based on hands-on use? I just noticed the Dell 3007 is down to under $1,300, which is a pretty steep price drop from its $2,200 earlier this year.
 
I've been enjoying a Dell 2405 display for the past year, but I'm starting to feel somewhat limited by its max res. of 1920x1200.
Oh noes, poor JR is limited to 1920x1200! The shame, the humanity; the pity!
playingyoursong.gif












;) :p
 
So get the 30" Dell. Do you have any other choice? From my knowledge I know of no other display that has a higher resolution besides multimonitor setups. I never really understand the idea of such large monitors though, I almost bought a 22" but I noticed that I'd be looking so far side to side that it'd ruin my gaming experience.
 
I got myself a 30" apple cinema hd monitor recently (2560x1600 res). There are a couple of minor caveats with such a monitor:
  • You will need a graphics card with a Dual-Link DVI port (as opposed to Dual DVI ports; this can produce a fair bit of confusion if you're not careful); I had to upgrade from a 6800GS for this reason.
  • The sheer size of the monitor took me a little while to get used to.
Other than that, it works just fine for me for everyday use.
 
I've been enjoying a Dell 2405 display for the past year, but I'm starting to feel somewhat limited by its max res. of 1920x1200. I'm also slightly concerned that the display will limit my ability to test at higher resolutions with upcoming DX10 boards next year for my little gig as hardware reviewer at SimHQ. Thus my growing urge to upgrade.

So any suggestions based on hands-on use? I just noticed the Dell 3007 is down to under $1,300, which is a pretty steep price drop from its $2,200 earlier this year.

Picture quality wise your not actually going to gain anything from a bigger monitor at higher resolutions. The pixels themselves are similarly sized, the higher resolution is just because you have a bigger screen to fill with them. You would be buying for the screen size, not the enhanced picture quality gained by higher resolution.
 
Picture quality wise your not actually going to gain anything from a bigger monitor at higher resolutions. The pixels themselves are similarly sized, the higher resolution is just because you have a bigger screen to fill with them. You would be buying for the screen size, not the enhanced picture quality gained by higher resolution.

... huh?
 
Well he means that the number of pixels per square inch is the same, I didn't bother to calculate whether that's true, but that's what he's saying.

Oh i know what he meant...
The huh was more a "that's not the point" huh, than a "what's he talking about" huh... Should have elaborated, but JR said he needed it for a reason ("I'm also slightly concerned that the display will limit my ability to test at higher resolutions with upcoming DX10 boards next year for my little gig as hardware reviewer at SimHQ") so that comment pj made was just not relevant...
 
Looks like the two choices are the Dell and Apple displays. I was hoping someone with actual experience would offer up their opinion on either unit. Leaning toward the Dell because of price, though, but the lack of uniform lighting and other minor complaints I've heard make me reluctant to spend $1,300+. Could always wait for an updated, improved version next year if need be.
 
If it's only for higher resolution speed testing, how about picking up an ancient 21" CRT that's capable of doing higher resolutions?
 
Dumb question, but when you start talking about monitors this big do you start to take deskspace into consideration?

I got a corner hutch unit PC desk, I don't think I could FIT a monitor that big on it. :???:
 
I've got a 350lb U-shaped desk that's over 6' wide. My study is the house's master bedroom and the desk is wider than the double-windows that look out over the backyard. So space isn't an issue.
 
I've got a 350lb U-shaped desk that's over 6' wide. My study is the house's master bedroom and the desk is wider than the double-windows that look out over the backyard. So space isn't an issue.
What? You think I don't got enough reasons to hate you already? You just HAVE to rub my face in it. :rolleyes:

;)

Damn, sounds like a sweet set up JR. I am envious. I'd love more room to work with.
 
If it's only for higher resolution speed testing, how about picking up an ancient 21" CRT that's capable of doing higher resolutions?

What he said, particularly if you're going to make this your primary personal monitor as well. Like say the Viewsonic P225fb 22" CRT 2560x1920 @ 63Hz. The compromises on the Dell 30" aren't all that attractive if you've already got a 2405 in my book. It's got fairly severe input limitations too doesn't it?

Edit: Re-reading this, I realized I left about 50% of what I was thinking in my head rather than on the page. I didn't mean for you to use something like the Viewsonic for personal use, but rather as a cheapy testing unit for hi-res while you continue to use the 2405 for yourself until something better comes along on the big-ass LCD front --like the BenQ Rys mentions below. The monster desk you described being part of the thinking there as a temporary solution that would meet your needs without locking you into something expensive enough that you wouldn't be able to update again soon, yet compromised enough that you'd want to. The Dell has been out a year now, it's time for second generation improvements to show up --and Rys' comments on the BenQ suggest that's happening.
 
Yes, just one DVI port and nothing else. I've got one (the 3007) and other than the pixel count I honestly don't like it that much. It's too big to act as a HDTV unless your software/hardware video scaler is brilliant (the built in one is fairly crap, IMO), backlight bleeds, the single input is a serious hindrance (god knows why there's not 4 or 5 of the damn things with an internal switch to feed the VP, if they're going to take away component and VGA) and it gets too hot for my liking, and sucks up plenty of juice.

But every time I come up to my office in the morning for work I pretty much gawp at the sheer size of the thing, and for productivity reasons I just plain love it, simply because it's so big. Could be much much better though. Angling for the BenQ myself as a replacement, if it comes with HDMI, DVI, VGA and component (as I saw at Computex earlier this year).
 
I'm curious, why would you need to test at anything higher? It's not like more than a fraction of 1% of computer users have anything bigger so it seems rather pointless. I mean are you trying to instill e-penis envy into people? Just because a graphics card may be powerful doesn't mean you have to push it with larger and larger screens and resolutions to try to kill it just because you can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The entire high-end of the video card market is only 5% or so (as estimated by ATI). Presumably counting only the very tippy-top sku cuts that percentage down even further. What's the point of testing those then, are we just trying to create envy? :smile:

Where do you draw that line as a matter of percentage, and on what principle is one smallish percentage more defensible than another smallish percentage?

It seems fairly clear that the market is moving that way, and review sites that cater to high-end enthusiasts have been transitioning their testing to those kind of resolutions over the last 12-18 months --so a competitive dynamic gets into play as well.
 
Back
Top