Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Oracle X

1080p 27in LED Monitors

Recommended Posts

Now that I have a brand spanking new machine, I'm looking to upgrade my 24in LCD monitor as well. However, everything 27in 1440p is over $500 while I'm looking to spend little over $300.

 

My question is will 1080p look good on a 27in for gaming? Or should I just save up and wait for the 1440 to come down in price?

 

The two 1080p monitors I'm looking at are:

 

Asus VE278Q

 

http://www.newegg.com/global/au/Product/Pr...N82E16824236103

 

or Samsung LS27C750

 

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-s27c..._Monitor_review

 

 

The Samsung looks better but the Asus is 2ms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about the specified pixel response time; it's the lag that is important, often called "input lag". Good site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I have a brand spanking new machine, I'm looking to upgrade my 24in LCD monitor as well. However, everything 27in 1440p is over $500 while I'm looking to spend little over $300.

 

My question is will 1080p look good on a 27in for gaming? Or should I just save up and wait for the 1440 to come down in price?

 

The two 1080p monitors I'm looking at are:

 

Asus VE278Q

 

http://www.newegg.com/global/au/Product/Pr...N82E16824236103

 

or Samsung LS27C750

 

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-s27c..._Monitor_review

 

 

The Samsung looks better but the Asus is 2ms.

I have the Asus...but I only game on an XBox 360 and a Wii U. I also got this resolution for DVDs and Blu rays. For me, the monitor is fine, especially as I was on a budget too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold out for another Dell sale on their 27" 1440p screen, and it'll be under $600.

 

IMO 1980p at that screen size is crazy; why do you want a bigger monitor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even $500+ is a bit too much for me.

 

I use a 27'' at work, not an 1440p of cause and my 24'' at home feels a bit small in comparison. However I don't know how 1080p gaming on a 27'' would look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a reason why phone and tablet manufacturers keep trying to increase their PPI numbers, not the other way.

 

That being said, if you game ok at 1080 on a TV and don't have any issues, you'll probably know what to expect. If you're sitting in front of a 27" screen and noticing pixel sizes, the game's probably not immersive enough anyway : D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't use TV for gaming so I can't say. Good point on the game pixel size. With my new machine I'm running everything on ultra res so I doubt going up from 24'' to 27'' would make it look worse.

 

I think I will go for the Asus. 2ms FTW.

 

Thanks!

Edited by Oracle X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe try something like 1600x900 on your existing monitor do get a similar PPI (I'm not doing the exact maths on this right now as I'm meant to be working). Then if you are comfortable with that level of blockiness and want the increased size, then go for it. If you hate it then don't :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 27" ASUS monitor, its a 16:10, and its great.

Before that had a 27" 1080p, disnt like it. Because it was 16:9, but also the pixels are noticable even now.

 

With my shit eyes, I'm still considering going back to a 24", 27 @ 70cm away is just too big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm holding off buying a new monitor for now. From what you guys are saying it's not a good buy. Will wait a bit to see if prices for 27in 1440p come down.

Edited by Oracle X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for G-Sync and Free Sync :-)

Edited by gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16:9 sucks unless it's at least 1440p.

 

The screen size is smaller and also stretched - Less area/space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before that had a 27" 1080p, didnt like it. Because it was 16:9

curious. why a preference for 16:10?

 

I play video games.

 

16:10 already feels letterboxed compared to 4:3, but 16:9 is just horrible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16:9 sucks unless it's at least 1440p.

 

The screen size is smaller and also stretched - Less area/space

smaller? surely that would depend on the size of the monitor.

 

my 16:9 monitor could be converted to 16:10 either by gaining 120 vertical pixels or losing 192 horizontal ones.

 

are you saying that if i gave you the choice of a 1920x1200 monitor, or a 1920x1080 monitor with the same physical screen height, you would choose the former, even though the latter would actually have more "area/space"?

 

yes, i take your point about pixel pitch being a significant factor... but still...

 

i dont sit so close to my monitor that i wouldnt willingly trade slightly larger pixels for a huge increase in screen real estate.

 

 

 

I play video games.

 

16:10 already feels letterboxed compared to 4:3, but 16:9 is just horrible.

well maybe it depends on the genre of game?

 

between the two, i believe 16:10 is the closer approximation of the human field of view, but then, a screen of any typical size at any typical viewing distance is a massive compromise.

 

so when it comes to FPS games, i am wearing a Ned Kelly helmet whether i like it or not. and generally speaking, i am far less concerned about snipers in high rise windows, or small animals clawing at my feet, than bad guys on foot trying to outflank me from the edges of my peripheral vision.

 

Posted Image

full size

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1080p screens are generally smaller physically than 1200p.

 

24" anyway. Yes I would gladly take a 1200p 24" over a 1080p 24".

 

I have both kinds in my house and using the 1080 for a short time after using 1200 for years, the 1080 is horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i beg to differ. i would say the smaller ones are usually smaller :P

 

just saying, its kind of arbitrary to compare monitors of differing aspect ratios primarily on the basis of common diagonal dimensions.

 

it makes more sense to compare them based on height/width differences, or perhaps even $/cm².

 

so yeah, although a 1080p 24" is 4.93% smaller in total screen area, and almost an inch shorter in height than 24" 1200p, i was talking more like: 24" 1200p vs 26" 1080p

 

24" 1920x1200, 16:10

diagonal = 60.96 cm

width = 51.69cm

height = 32.31cm

screen area = 1670.10cm²

ppi = 90.57

 

26" 1920x1080, 16:9

diagonal = 66.04cm

width = 57.56cm

height = 32.38cm

sceen area = 1863.79cm²

ppi = 84.73

 

if you opted for the latter, then, in exchange for an 11.3% increase in pixel height/width, you'd get:-

 

- no decrease in screen height!

- a sizeable 193.69cm² extra screen real estate

- considerably enhanced peripheral FOV in FPS/3PS games

- 10% fewer pixels to push = faster/higher quality rendering

- savings from lower cost (er...possibly, right????) = profit

 

or would you be all like "Fuck this! These pixels look almost 1/9th wider than what i am used to. Damn...16:9 sucks!"?

 

whatever the case, your preference is your preference, and that is fine :D

 

all i am saying, as a general point to all, is its hard to make any clear cut objective case for why one ratio is better, in and of itself.

 

 

[edit]

had the pixel % increase wrong.

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was going to get a new 1080p monitor I would probably get the Dell U2414H. (See here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer 16:10 because it lets me approximate 16:9 in a window with the taskbar showing so I can see notifications coming into browsers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh 27" 1080p in 16:9 is just fine. Stop being snooty and shit. The best thing about 16:9 is when can record games and they don't get a stupid black border like when trying to get 16:10 to fit into 16:9.

 

My screen ratio is actually 48:9 (triple 27's) but don't care. My triple 27's worked out near the same price as 1 1440p 27 so was a no brainer. I wouldn't want to try and run triple 1440p. That would require some hefty video cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well maybe it depends on the genre of game?

between the two, i believe 16:10 is the closer approximation of the human field of view, but then, a screen of any typical size at any typical viewing distance is a massive compromise.

Yes but you know me; 'typical viewing distance' isn't in my vocabulary. I play about 10cm from the screen.

Sniping, I've been known to bop my nose on the LCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×