Quake3World

http://www.reghardware.com/2012/08/31/l ... _monitors/

2560 x 1080 resolution, 29".

In size, it would be a decent upgrade from my 19" CRT:

http://displaywars.com/19-inch-4x3-vs-29-inch-235x1

How much does a graphics card for running games at that res (or 2560 x 1440 (16:9) for comparison purposes) with 4x FSAA (or 8x?) cost? With a high framerate (talking 120 fps, though I could settle for 100 fps, I'd rather not use 60 if I can do anything about it). Games I'd want to run on it: that memory remixing game for one (which is not out yet). Syndicate maybe for two. Super Street Fighter IV I suppose for three. Not really interested in any other recent PC games atm, which is why my current PC won't run any (just running a Neo Geo and CPS1&2 emulator here).

Things we don't know about this monitor: black levels and response time. Knowing that monitors by LG have good response times, LG make them with games in mind, and this is a monitor obviously intended to display films aswell, from a company that makes TVs for people to watch films on, I think those two aspects should be OK. (For an LCD, that is, I don't know how it will compare to a CRT.)

Edit:
Added games I'd want to run on the graphics card, forgot you need to know that
Edit2: 29" not 27".

Edit3: 5 ms response time according to this:
http://www.techspot.com/news/49981-lg-s ... t-ifa.html
That seems high(?). They don't say whether that's grey-to-grey response time or what, though. Is it not considered so high if it's grey-to-grey response time? I can't rmember what difference that makes exactly.

19" CRT

just get a 26" WUXGA if you need an upgrade

That's the thing; I don't need an upgrade. CRT is better than LCD, I'm not a fan of 16:9, but when it comes to 21:9 I'm interested.

Lol CRT morons...

I can see it's benefits for professional usage (traffic control, NASA, in other words people that need to use many tools to be able to do their job properly).

But if it comes to consumer market, who the fuck needs a monitor with a 21:9 aspect ratio?

DTS wrote:CRT is better than LCD

no it isn't

BS.

Insensatez wrote:I can see it's benefits for professional usage (traffic control, NASA, in other words people that need to use many tools to be able to do their job properly).

But if it comes to consumer market, who the fuck needs a monitor with a 21:9 aspect ratio?

the word 'need' is very subjective to western societies.

Don't bother; he obviously doesn't know what a consumer is, nor what the 21:9 ratio has to do with anything. Oh yeah, and he can't read.

DTS wrote:Don't bother; he obviously doesn't know what a consumer is, nor what the 21:9 ratio has to do with anything. Oh yeah, and he can't read.

weak troll is weak!


it's a monitor , not a tv. I'm having trouble playing some games on a 24" 16:9 because I cannot see everything from the top left corner to the lower right corner without shifting my view.

Then don't sit with your nose touching the screen, nerdo.

Looks like a sweet screen.
That is, for watching movies intended for 21:9 theatre screens, filmed for that aspect ratio.
TV shows nowadays cater to 16:9 screens, so you'd have black bars left and right.
I think even Imax is closer to 16:9 than 21:9.

DTS wrote:talking 120 fps, though I could settle for 100 fps, I'd rather not use 60 if I can do anything about it

Didn't really see anything about refresh rates in the link you provided.
What makes you think it isn't limited to 60?

Aren't all new LCDs 120+? Except mobile device screens.

60 wouldn't make it very good for watching films on, you know, cause they are 24 fps.

DTS wrote:60 wouldn't make it very good for watching films on, you know, cause they are 24 fps.

Does not compute?
60 > 24, so it would handle them nicely?

No, it needs to be a clean multiple. 60 is not divisible by 24, do you see?

120 Hz, for example (if you need one) will display each frame 5 times as 120 / 24 = 5.

Edit: At 60 Hz you get a hackjob of a view which goes like this:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3:2_pulldown#23pulldown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p

DTS wrote:Then don't sit with your nose touching the screen, nerdo.

in all fairness, sitting further away from a computer monitor kinda defeats its purpose at some point. and 29" of monitor is starting to become counterintuitive in a flat configuration. That monster should really be concave.

With the production of ever bigger displays, at what point will 'ergodynamics' come into play?

I have two 25 inch monitors and they are definitely at an angle to each other. Having a bigger monitor at some point loses it's benefits if you have to sit further away for a proper viewing angle forcing you to scale everything up s you can read text without feeling like you need binoculars.

I use a 42" tv for a monitor. Works just fine.

Tsakali wrote:in all fairness, sitting further away from a computer monitor kinda defeats its purpose at some point. and 29" of monitor is starting to become counterintuitive in a flat configuration. That monster should really be concave.

With the production of ever bigger displays, at what point will 'ergodynamics' come into play?

I have two 25 inch monitors and they are definitely at an angle to each other. Having a bigger monitor at some point loses it's benefits if you have to sit further away for a proper viewing angle forcing you to scale everything up s you can read text without feeling like you need binoculars.

Larger text is in higher definition...
Either you want higher definition or you want to fit more on your screen. If you can't see the whole screen you are sitting too close to it; that should be obvious.
This screen is not about having a massive screen it's about having a wider screen ...

FYI it's pretty much only IMAX screens that need to be really curved, so unless you are going for an IMAX experience at home, you are missing the point.

nope you are the one who's missing the point, but i really don't feel like spending any more time selling you on my idea.

If you don't agree, than fine, we both win. You get a freakishly wide screen of which benefits you squander just for higher resolution text from afar, and I don't spend my money on something I ultimately see as an incomplete product.


You're clearly interested in the ratio because of movies... you don't need a computer monitor for that, you need a TV.

TVs are for TV broadcasts, not films...

I want everything to be wider anyway, not just films. It's not about higher resolution it's about a wider screen. Pretty simple.

and a wider screen at a flat configuration becomes counterintuitive, regardless of what you say , pretty simple.
Go ahead...I won't be the moron bobbing my head left to right like a lunatic.

No cause then it would not be used for films, moron.

When have you been in a cinema and gone
"Oh, it's too wide, I have to keep turning my head, the screen needs to be curved loads"

Theater screens are curved in... the old ones? I just sit 2/3rds to the back... clearly we are both happy with our own opinion. Leave it at that. I've already wasted too much time on this, if you don't get what I'm saying by now, you never will.

I'm not happy that you're a moron.

DTS wrote:Aren't all new LCDs 120+? Except mobile device screens.

60 wouldn't make it very good for watching films on, you know, cause they are 24 fps.

Depends on how they're encoded. NTSC DVD's and BluRay's are all 30 fps anyway. You're in an NTSC region aren't you? Also, a lot of PAL hardware can output at PAL 60Hz.