Recommend a 30" 2560X1600 monitor

B

blert

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
2,448
Recently built myself a dedicated gaming PC and looking to upgrade from my trusty, almost decade old 37” 1920 X 1080P Westinghouse TV (lol). After gaming on a few of my friends systems I've decided that I'd like to game at 2560x1600 (or 1440) on a single 30' +/- monitor. I've tried a multi monitor set up before and did not care for it one bit, which is why I went with the Westy at the time

I've been reviewing my options for the last few weeks and honestly I'm more confused than ever- 44k? 120Hz? IPS vs TN? Huh? What? Almost too many options to choose from.

I've looked at the recent 34” 21”9 wide screens- while they are nice I'd rather wait until that format matures a bit.

Would be nice it it has DVI, display port and HDMI port options due to other devices I'll be plugging into it -mostly a few older laptops with different port options and resolutions. Not a deal breaker if it does not have these options but new monitor must have mutiple connection options (3-4). OSD would be nice as well

Looking to spend up to $800- less is better of course. Would consider spending a tiny bit more but your argument must be very compelling. Monitor must be readily available for domestic shipping since I'm looking to purchase very soon

If it matters, system is:
4930K
2 X 780 Lghtnings in SLI
32 GB RAM
Couple SSDs
etc

I realize everyone will have their personal preferences for what they suggest. Please give me your recommendations and why you recommend it and it would be great if what you recommend is something you are actually using in case I have some specific questions.

Thanks
 
If a monitor is wider than 16:10, you'll need to look back and forth. Glossy polorizers are better than matte ones because the grainy coat severely blurs the pixels and ruins the color. Refresh rates below about 85Hz-100Hz are laggy messes. Unfortunately, there are no LCDs that are 85Hz+, 16:10+, and glossy. Overclockable 1440p IPSes (QX2710, DP2710, and X270OC) can do anywhere between 120Hz and 160Hz and are glossy, but they are 16:9. Keep in mind that only the single-input 1440p IPSes can overclock, that the monitors are also available with a terrible matte coat, and returns are nearly impossible for Korean monitors, so be absolutely sure that you pick the right one before ordering. However, many CRTs, such as the FW900, are glossy, refresh extremely fast, and are 16:10 or taller. CRTs are unfortunately only 24" and below. You need to decide if you value quality or size more, keeping in mind that there are many more benefits to CRTs besides the superior aspect ratio.

If you value picture quality: Get a quality CRT (FW900 or Iiyama 514).
If you value size: Get a 1440p IPS (QX2710, DP2710, and X270OC).
 
Check 32" 16:9 1440p. Cheaper then 30" 16:10 1600p and i'd prefer their VA panel for generic uses to wide gamut IPS in 30".
 
rabidz7 said:
If a monitor is wider than 16:10, you'll need to look back and forth.
Click to expand...

That depends on the size of the screen, and there isn't a huge difference between 16:10 and 16:9.
Other than the fact that a 16:10 screen may have the same width-resolution (1920), it only adds to the height resolution.

So in the end, one will have to look "back and forth" just as much with a 16:10 monitor.
The original reason 16:10 was popular was because it added that extra height for gamers who wanted toolbars on top and bottom, mostly for MMORPG type games, as were the examples used back in 2007.

kRhDQ.jpg
 
I somewhat doubt that exactly gamers playing some specific type of games was THE reason. Imho rather manufacturers decided to go more wide screen but switch from 4:3 to 16:9 might have seemed too drastic, so they may have went to some compromise with 16:10, which, though with blackbars, could display comparable HD/FHD resolutions with no downscale, but also didn't reduce resolution's vertical height below what was common to 4:3 monitors back then. Also movies with less wide screen aspect imho were more common back then (VCDs of SD res/first DVDs ..). Switch later on from 16:10 to 16:9 imho was more because of marketing reasons, as resolution & display sizes grew, and it was cheaper to produce 16:9 screen with slightly less area & resolution, yet still claim diagonal size as big as 16:10 one, also maybe by their gathered sales data more & more people bought 16:9 compared to 16:10 ones, and i noticed that more from movies/anime/etc i had became wider on average.
 
I would honestly go for a 4k monitor (3840 x 2160). You could save some money over going with a 2560x1600.

There are 3 flavors of 4k monitors:

1. is a 30hz max....stay away from those if you plan to game (or anything if you ask me).
2. Is an TN 60hz 4k monitor SST. You can pick them up ranging from $550-700. and usually 28inch
Example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236399
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=0JC-0007-00009

3. Is a IPS monitor with MST. MST IPS monitors, means you will have setup your video cards run in Nvidia surround, and could cause issues with certain games. Now am I not saying it doesn't work right, just that in the end you could run into certain odd issues. Cheapest monitor I have seen is $779 for a 24inch version, and some of the 30+ inch 4k monitors running up to $1700+
Example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0ZX1AU6122

Right now is a bad time to try to get a new monitor since 4k monitor's are starting to slowly come to market.

I think in time the 1600p monitor you would like will be coming down in price very soon....why?

2560x1600 $900-1000
3840 x 2160 $550-3000

Thats why....Why spend more for less?
 
.. because what is currently available from 4K are often plagued with problems, comparable apple to apple monitors cost much more, it's simply not worth to by .. yet. (my estimate for that to change in a year or two). If one has to buy NOW, 2560x1600 / 2560x1440 displays are nice choice. 4K that you can by NOW - aren't.
 
4K is 16:9. 2560x1600 is 16:10. 16:10 is better.
 
Last edited:
Church said:
.. because what is currently available from 4K are often plagued with problems, comparable apple to apple monitors cost much more, it's simply not worth to by .. yet. (my estimate for that to change in a year or two). If one has to buy NOW, 2560x1600 / 2560x1440 displays are nice choice. 4K that you can by NOW - aren't.
Click to expand...

If I was going to buy a monitor. I would wait until 4k IPS SST comes out.
 
DASHlT said:
so 2560x1600 16:10 is better then 3840 x 2160 16:9 because what? It has more room on the screen?

Not sure if serious.
Click to expand...

2560x1600 is better because when you buy one, you support a proper aspect ratio, not the production and use of small TVs as monitors.
 
2560x1600 monitors are sort of niche, they are aimed at a particular crowd, and they tend to be the "people that want a 30 inch monitor regardless" crowd, so the price reflects that. A new HP 30" can be $1300. That said, there *are* Korean 30" monitors, for cheap. They are typically DVI only, and extremely basic. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA3PC1K46707

As someone who owns a 30" and a 27", I can say for me personally, the 27" is the better gaming monitor. It gives more viewing area in games and since 27" monitors tend to get at least some attention for gamers, they get some effort in input lag reduction and refresh. There aren't many 30" monitors sold as gaming monitors.
 
rabidz7 said:
2560x1600 is better because when you buy one, you support a proper aspect ratio, not the production and use of small TVs as monitors.
Click to expand...

So what makes a 2560x1600 proper?.....Because its 16:10? Or do you have any facts?

Hell next someone is going to tell me 30fps is fine for gaming because it adds a more cinema feeling!
 
DASHlT said:
So what makes a 2560x1600 proper?.....Because its 16:10? Or do you have any facts?

Hell next someone is going to tell me 30fps is fine for gaming because it adds a more cinema feeling!
Click to expand...

16:10 simply is better. 16:9 is excessively wide.
 
rabidz7 said:
16:10 simply is better. 16:9 is excessively wide.
Click to expand...

At 1440p or more the difference between 16:10 and 16:9 is quite minor. I'm perfectly happy using a 16:9 1440p monitor over my previous 16:10 2560x1600 display. At lower resolutions I find myself putting the Windows taskbar or OSX dock on the side instead of bottom to get more space. On 1440p+ it's fine when placed on bottom.

Don't get too hung up on the 30" either. Most 1440p displays come at 27" which yields you smaller pixels so slightly sharper text and it fills your view quite nicely. 30" 1600p needs to be a bit further away and has larger pixels. 4K has too many issues still.

I'd probably wait for the upcoming 144 Hz 2560x1440 IPS displays or more similar TN displays to come on the market. The 30" 2560x1600 displays are all 60 Hz and don't have particularly fast panels (quite ok though).
 
kasakka said:
At 1440p or more the difference between 16:10 and 16:9 is quite minor. I'm perfectly happy using a 16:9 1440p monitor over my previous 16:10 2560x1600 display.
Click to expand...
Have to agree on that. I have both a 32" 2560x1440 and 30" 2560x1600 monitors on my desk, and there's really very little difference in day to day use. The 32" acts as my primary screen purely because it has better image quality.
 
The 30" Korean AH-IPS suffer from the same really obvious overshoot ghosting as the Dell 3014 & Lenovo LT3053P (which even shows up when scrolling of moving windows slowly) and lack sRGB modes as well, so the only way to make colours not look over-saturated and inaccurate is to use colour management which is not supported by games and most movie playback software. They also suffer from really obvious IPS glow in the bottom corners which ruins the perceived black depth and dark content. The CCFL back-lit 30" Korean monitors use grainy matte coatings, have the same colour issues and even worse blacks. The HP Z30i does not suffer from overshoot ghosting, but has abysmal colour presets, requires calibration and does not have an sRGB mode and the older Dell monitors with sRGB modes like the 3008/3011 also suck compared to the good 27" 1440p options.

The 27" 1440p monitors are vastly superior to all 30" monitors. For example, even the highest end 30" NEC PA302W can not compete with the Eizo CG277 which is glow free.
 
NCX said:
The 30" Korean AH-IPS suffer from the same really obvious overshoot ghosting as the Dell 3014 & Lenovo LT3053P (which even shows up when scrolling of moving windows slowly) and lack sRGB modes as well, so the only way to make colours not look over-saturated and inaccurate is to use colour management which is not supported by games and most movie playback software. They also suffer from really obvious IPS glow in the bottom corners which ruins the perceived black depth and dark content. The CCFL back-lit 30" Korean monitors use grainy matte coatings, have the same colour issues and even worse blacks. The HP Z30i does not suffer from overshoot ghosting, but has abysmal colour presets, requires calibration and does not have an sRGB mode and the older Dell monitors with sRGB modes like the 3008/3011 also suck compared to the good 27" 1440p options.

The 27" 1440p monitors are vastly superior to all 30" monitors. For example, even the highest end 30" NEC PA302W can not compete with the Eizo CG277 which is glow free.
Click to expand...

The colour calibration issue does go away if the display itself has a user mode preset where you can at least adjust the colors on RGB level. This is good enough for most users.
 
kasakka said:
The colour calibration issue does go away if the display itself has a user mode preset where you can at least adjust the colors on RGB level. This is good enough for most users.
Click to expand...

The monitors User modes which unlock the colour controls use the native, wide gamut. The Dell 3008/3011/3014 have mediocre sRGB modes with locked colour controls (band-aid on a piece of poo), but they still suck compared to the large amount of good 27" 1440p monitors. The NEC PA302W can be hardware calibrated, but so can the significantly cheaper glow free Eizo CX271 and equally priced Eizo CG2777.
 
DASHlT said:
If I was going to buy a monitor. I would wait until 4k IPS SST comes out.
Click to expand...

They're out:

Samsung U32D970Q (amazon)
Eizo FlexScan EV3237 (amazon)

And these are coming soon or may be only available in Europe so far:
NEC MultiSync PA322UHD
Asus PB279Q
LG 31MU97-B
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top