PDA

View Full Version : why not 1600p?



totalrace
06-11-2012, 04:07 AM
hi there,
why nobody it talking about 30" 2560x1600 monitors? like Catleap Q300 or Crossover 2010M.
their displays has better contrast ratio (3000:1), 10bit colors and better resolution.
is price is the only object?
have anyone ever tried to overclock them?
thinking about getting three monitors for eyefinity, want high refresh rate units of course, but 1600p will work better than 1440p so i am courious.
thanks

HyperMatrix
06-11-2012, 04:23 AM
No one's really been against the idea...but there are reasons not to go 30" 2560x1600, there are a few:

- Much higher price
- Lower dpi/pixel density than 1440p (so while it's bigger, the image will be less clear)
- 12% More processing power required.
- Loss of 720p-->1440p pixel doubling (1 pixel simply becomes 4, so 720p content still looks really good on the monitor)
- Kills cinematic 16:9 format viewing thanks to the new 16:10 format
- And again, most important so far...lack of OC'ing


I'm not sure if 3" and 160 more lines is worth all that.

totalrace
06-11-2012, 04:46 AM
thanks for reply!

30" monitor is taller so better viewing experience while using 3 monitors i guess, its like 6 smaller monitors.

btw have anyone tried to remove stock bezel of the Q270 and make it custom so display-to-display clearance is smaller?



- And again, most important so far...lack of OC'ing


is that proven? what PCB is in there?

HyperMatrix
06-11-2012, 05:01 AM
Well I don't know it for a fact. But considering the OC capable PCB's are limited, and the manufacturers now know what PCB's those are, they probably would have advertised these monitors as OC-Capable by now. But it is just an educated guess. No fact behind it. For all I know These monitors could have been produced months ago and can in fact OC. Not sure of many people willing to gamble $800 on that though. If you end up doing it, please share your results with us.

As for the bezel thing, Vega tried it I believe. You may want to look for his thread. But if I remember correctly, there were some large gaps between the panels still, even with the bezel removed because of the panel itself.

BizzyBum
06-11-2012, 01:39 PM
Simply comes down to 16:9 > 16:10

Sn0_Man
06-11-2012, 01:50 PM
Simply comes down to 16:9 > 16:10

Well, I disagree wholeheartedly but who cares? I bought this monitor for <$500 shipped. I'm not playing an extra $300+ for 160 vertical pixels and nothing else. Even if it DID overclock. Price is certainly the main issue here. You can get a decent Dell/HP 30 Inch monitor for close to what these cost, and with the Dell/HP ones you can take it back super easily.

Shadman
06-11-2012, 09:11 PM
Well, I disagree wholeheartedly but who cares? I bought this monitor for <$500 shipped. I'm not playing an extra $300+ for 160 vertical pixels and nothing else. Even if it DID overclock. Price is certainly the main issue here. You can get a decent Dell/HP 30 Inch monitor for close to what these cost, and with the Dell/HP ones you can take it back super easily.

Exactly close. When I was going to get a new monitor (before I knew about the Catleaps) I was really considering a 16:10, because it looks REALLY nice to me, in everything.

Course, like he said, price was the main option when I first bought it, and larger support for the overclocking ability too.

British
06-12-2012, 03:51 AM
Same here, 16/9 is an aberration for me when it comes to computing.
I have a plasma if I want to watch a movie :]

That makes me even more sad since nowadays 16/9 is the de facto standard when it comes to 120Hz (blast that 3D ^^).
I hate losing pixels, though 2560x1440 is OK in my book.

Sorry for the nonsensical rant :x

Penterax
06-17-2012, 07:28 PM
The only advantages of 2560x1440 over 2560x1600 are pixel density and price; other than those, in my opinion 2560x1600 is superior. Far superior.

The 27" 2560x1440 is the ONLY 16:9 screen I will ever buy (for a monitor). 16:9 is for TVs, not monitors, and the only reason there are more 16:9 is because they are cheaper - in fact that's the size the manufacturers chose to make super-cheap LCDs from, and that's the only reason there are more of them out there.

;)

BizzyBum
06-18-2012, 09:44 AM
Yet in games like Starcraft 2, you actually see LESS of the game with a 16:10 monitor...

dzap
06-18-2012, 10:07 AM
Yet in games like Starcraft 2, you actually see LESS of the game with a 16:10 monitor...

Same with LoL.
FoV in these games gets calculated based on the horizontal pixels.

HyperMatrix
06-18-2012, 11:37 AM
And as someone who watches tv and movies, and hates black bars, 16:9 is the preferred choice for me. Regardless of why it became popular it's the standard tv/cinema format at the moment.