Dell 2711 vs 3007 vs 3008 for gaming?

People are going to say that the input lag of the 3008 makes it unsuitable for gaming (although most doesn't see it).

The 2711 has less pixels and thus is easier to run in native resolution - yet an 30" will obviously be quite a bit larger. Don't know the lag of the 2711 but besides input lag I'd say that they are all about the same for gaming.
 
Who's selling the 3007 at a better deal than the 3008?
 
Agree with the 3007.
The 3008, though, has only 50ms of lag, so I don't really see it as a problem for normal players.
And, if you are a pro gamer, it would probably be better if you buy a new crt. :D
 
I doubt the reduced input lag of a crt would be a greater advantage over higher resolution screen.

LCD would win in medium and long range, and CRT would only be better for surprise around the corner.
 
Pyrolistical said:
I doubt the reduced input lag of a crt would be a greater advantage over higher resolution screen.

LCD would win in medium and long range, and CRT would only be better for surprise around the corner.
Click to expand...

I'm a normal player and find 50ms really annoying and not acceptable.
 
Pyrolistical said:
I doubt the reduced input lag of a crt would be a greater advantage over higher resolution screen.

LCD would win in medium and long range, and CRT would only be better for surprise around the corner.
Click to expand...

Here we have another problem, though, because there are a few crt's which can go up to 1920x1200, and playing at 2560x1600 can be problematic because of the performances.
So, the question here is: do you, as a gamer, need more a higher resolution, which permits a better pixel hunting for sniping, or higher fps, which permits a higher awareness of the game, because of the increased speed?
 
kache said:
Agree with the 3007.
The 3008, though, has only 50ms of lag, so I don't really see it as a problem for normal players.
And, if you are a pro gamer, it would probably be better if you buy a new crt. :D
Click to expand...

I got quite a bit less (~31ms). Granted, better measurments can be made and the latest revision might have less lag according to some (though haven't numbers on it).
 
kache said:
Here we have another problem, though, because there are a few crt's which can go up to 1920x1200, and playing at 2560x1600 can be problematic because of the performances.
So, the question here is: do you, as a gamer, need more a higher resolution, which permits a better pixel hunting for sniping, or higher fps, which permits a higher awareness of the game, because of the increased speed?
Click to expand...

We were talking in the context of pro games, so they'll have the latest and greatest systems. Thus performance is a non issue.
 
I like the 2711, but can't offer a "compare" to the 3008 or 3007. But now that I don't have to give up pixels and go with 1080 I'm kind of happy with the widescreen aspect. 2711 has better color and contrast, but only in marginal quantities.

$,02
 
People throw around all kinds of numbers for the 3008's input latency. Some say 25-30 some say 50 , if you competitively game .. you should be getting that Alienware 24 inch 120hz monitor.. if you're just a normal PC game player then the 3008 will be just fine.
 
dotCapone said:
Also, the U2711 is 16:9, giving games that support it a higher field of view.
Click to expand...

No.
16:10 and 16:9 monitors provide same FOV.

88478216.jpg
 
albovin said:
No.
16:10 and 16:9 monitors provide same FOV.

88478216.jpg
Click to expand...

That' because that game has crappy widescreen support.

Check this out:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.co...?p=28279&sid=5ed72a2e121563ef310e5d2a48f7f95b

That's true widescreen gaming


Everybody should agree that when you go from 4:3 to 16:10 for proper widescreen you should get Hor+ and not Vert-. Hor+ requires a fov increase to maintain the correct image ratio

If that is true then it follows 16:10 to 16:9 should get Hor+ as well.
 
I had this exact same question so recently brought both a 3007wfp-hc and 3008wfp. Been comparing the two side by side. I have the 3007wfp-hc for sale on the for sale thread right now (check it out if you want one). The reasons why I selected the 3008 over the 3007 are:

1. Although I noticed some lag difference, I guess I am not that sensitive to it and can live with the 3008. I play mostly FPS games like MW2 and BC2 and don't notice the lag really. I need to get used to the increased size mostly (my last monitor was a 24" and the difference is significant).

2. More inputs. Primarily display port. Nuff said

3. I like the 3008 picture a little more. However, I am not really a color guy so calibration is not my strong suit. The 3008 just looked a bit better to me out of the box and required less fiddling to get it looking good.

4. The 3008 looks sweet. The 3007 certainly is not bad looking, but I guess I got a thing for brushed metal.


I read so many reviews and comments on the two. Many with differing conclusions. So I thought that the only way to find out was to see which one I personally liked. Real world style. Granted, some may dislike the 3008 due to lag, but for me personally, it wasn't a deal breaker. Both are superb choices based upon my testing.
 
kennard said:
...
1. Although I noticed some lag difference, I guess I am not that sensitive to it and can live with the 3008. I play mostly FPS games like MW2 and BC2 and don't notice the lag really. I need to get used to the increased size mostly (my last monitor was a 24" and the difference is significant).
...
Click to expand...

Yeah, MW2 and BC2 are laggy games, so no wonder you don't notice the extra lag.
 
Pyrolistical said:
Yeah, MW2 and BC2 are laggy games, so no wonder you don't notice the extra lag.
Click to expand...

That mkes no sense at all. If the game has lag, then the display lag would be added on top of that and it would be even more obvious.

kennard has done his homework and you have not. If you are more sensitive to lag then kennard is that is fine, but don't try to use the games he plays as an excuse for your lack of first hand experience.

The truth is there are no Pro gamers on this forum, they do not have time to screw arround here.

Dave
 
I decided to go with a u2711, so I'll post my thoughts once it arrives.
 
Pyrolistical said:
That' because that game has crappy widescreen support.

Check this out:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.co...?p=28279&sid=5ed72a2e121563ef310e5d2a48f7f95b

That's true widescreen gaming


Everybody should agree that when you go from 4:3 to 16:10 for proper widescreen you should get Hor+ and not Vert-. Hor+ requires a fov increase to maintain the correct image ratio

If that is true then it follows 16:10 to 16:9 should get Hor+ as well.
Click to expand...


You are mixing up game values with monitor values.
We are talking about monitors.
Whatever settings you choose for the a game (Hor+, Hor++), it will be fully displayed on 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 16:10 monitors maintaining max FOV. On those monitors you get extra space above and below the widescreen game frame that is you bonus for Vert+ games, non-widescreen games and tons of other applications.

96416559.jpg
 
You seem to be stuck on the concept of "max FOV"

There is no such max until you get to 360 degrees.

Look at the link I posted again. At 1920x1080 the FOV should be greater than 1920x1200, otherwise you are doing Vert- which is not widescreen gaming.

Look I under stand 1080 is less than 1200 and it totally makes sense that people can think "Hey, that means there should just be a Vert-!!" But not that is the wrong way to thinking. You must consider the ratio, then the FOV.

The ratio is 16:9 which is wider than 16:10 and to maintain the proper ratio without seeing less of the scene on the screen you must increase the FOV.

You can talk only about monitors if you want without the context of gaming. If so then you can't talk about concepts such as FOV as that is game dependent.
 
Again.
Don't mix up montor resolution and games aspect ratios/FOV!

The ratio 16:9 of the game provides wider FOV than 16:10 ratio of the game.
But it does not make sense when you talk about MONITORS. They have NO LIMITATIONS in FOV. They can display anything available to display.

You can play a game with whatever aspect ratio and FOV you want on a 16:10 monitor with no loss in FOV.

That's why I posted the photo of two real monitors (16:10 and 16:9) displaying WIDEST available game frame. FOV is FULL and identical on BOTH screens.

Again, why talk? Why not look?

88478216.jpg


In other words, whatever is visible in 16:9 GAME is visible when you play that game on a 16:10 MONITOR. Extra space will be left above and below the widescreen game frame - that is your BONUS to be used for Vert+ games, non-widescreen games and tons of other applications.
Not only the 3008 is capable of no-loss displaying ANYTHING the 2711 is capable of, it also dwarfs the 2711 in size.
 
Last edited:
Umm, albovin you are being really silly there.

Are you sure you have your 24" 1920x1080 setup correctly? Because it seems to me what you are doing is just using 1:1 pixel mapping the 1920x1200 image on to 1920x1080. What that means is you cropped the image at the top and bottom.

If you are doing that, then we don't need to talk further as you are not using the hardware correctly.

You keep talking about FOV and monitors have no such concept. The picture you are showing me is your lack of understanding of how to properly setup a monitor.
 
albovin said:
Again.
Don't mix up montor resolution and games aspect ratios/FOV!

In other words, whatever is visible in 16:9 GAME is visible when you play that game on a 16:10 MONITOR. Extra space will be left above and below the widescreen game frame - that is your BONUS to be used for Vert+ games, non-widescreen games and tons of other applications.

Not only the 3008 is capable of no-loss displaying ANYTHING the 2711 is capable of, it also dwarfs the 2711 in size.
Click to expand...

Exactly; the field of view is determined by the game developer not the display itself. It has everything to do with where the cameria is positioned and nothing to do with the display it is rendered on, unless the display has less resolution/pixels in which case the scene is resampled to accomadate that and has less detail.

The field of view is the same and the physical size is much smaller on the U2711, so it is less emersive.

Dave
 
Pyrolistical said:
The ratio is 16:9 which is wider than 16:10 and to maintain the proper ratio without seeing less of the scene on the screen you must increase the FOV.
Click to expand...

Thats the same as saying: Assuming that 16:9 will display more, 16:9 will display more.

The *most fair* system (I'm basing the 'fair' part of this on the screen area vs. aspect ratio) would have wider horizontal FOV for 16:9 but at the same time les vertical FOV, compared to 16:10. How to implement it in practice though is up to the game developers.
 
brumwald said:
Thats the same as saying: Assuming that 16:9 will display more, 16:9 will display more.

The *most fair* system (I'm basing the 'fair' part of this on the screen area vs. aspect ratio) would have wider horizontal FOV for 16:9 but at the same time les vertical FOV, compared to 16:10. How to implement it in practice though is up to the game developers.
Click to expand...

Why would you ever want to see less of the game?

There's not need to talk about fairness here when correctness overrides it.

You don't need to assume which ratio will display more, its just a consequence of not wanting to see less of the game.
 
Pyrolistical said:
Why would you ever want to see less of the game?

There's not need to talk about fairness here when correctness overrides it.

You don't need to assume which ratio will display more, its just a consequence of not wanting to see less of the game.
Click to expand...

You didn't think that through did you?
Who says that 16:10 users want to see less?

For 16:10 to show everything 16:9 shows you will have to have a larger vertical FOV (thats the exact same "argument" you used). Yet, apparently, thats impossible because 16:9 users doesn't want to see less :p

I'm talking about correctness. You are talking about wanting 16:9 to see everything 16:10 does even though there is no argument for that to be the case.
 
Ok we are getting confused here.

16:9 should show more than 16:10. The vertical FOV is always fixed.

In terms of horizontal FOV it goes:

16:9 > 16:10 > 4:3 > 5:4

Are we on the same page now?
 
Pyrolistical said:
Why would you ever want to see less of the game?

There's not need to talk about fairness here when correctness overrides it.

You don't need to assume which ratio will display more, its just a consequence of not wanting to see less of the game.
Click to expand...

The program code of the game determins what you can see not the display properties. The program code adjusts to the display properties like this: http://www.xnawiki.com/index.php?title=Drawing_a_Model

Viewport with and hight are used to calculate the view matrix. The view matrix determins the FOV.

Do some research.

Dave
 
Pyrolistical said:
Ok we are getting confused here.

16:9 should show more than 16:10. The vertical FOV is always fixed.

In terms of horizontal FOV it goes:

16:9 > 16:10 > 4:3 > 5:4

Are we on the same page now?
Click to expand...

"The vertical FOX is always fixed" <-- Huh? Of course it isn't. It depends on implementation.

It could just as well be the horizontal FOV that is fixed and in that scenario it would be the completely opposite scenario.

That is
5:4 > 4:3 > 16:10 > 16:9

But in reality both vertical and horizontal FOV could (should?) change. In the end it depends on what the game developers implement.
 
huh? We are talking about the same thing right?

Look I am a software dev and I've written my own ray tracer. I know all about 4D transformation matrices and the perspective transformation.

So I don't get why you are bring that up.

The wider ratio...the more you see horizontally...how is that a hard concept? I understand you can do whatever you want with any game engine, but what we are talking about is what is the correct way of doing things in modern game engines. Look on http://www.widescreengamingforums.com that's a community dedicated to issues like these.
 
brumwald said:
"The vertical FOX is always fixed" <-- Huh? Of course it isn't. It depends on implementation.

It could just as well be the horizontal FOV that is fixed and in that scenario it would be the completely opposite scenario.

That is
5:4 > 4:3 > 16:10 > 16:9

But in reality both vertical and horizontal FOV could (should?) change. In the end it depends on what the game developers implement.
Click to expand...

What you say is true. But there is a reason why modern games fix vertical FOV (at least the good ones).

Look I understand game devs can do whatever they want, but what I am saying is some of them get it wrong. Look at widescreengamingforums.com They rate what has good widescreen support what does does not.

Vert- is laziness on the game devs part (or lack of foresight)
 
Pyrolistical said:
The wider ratio...the more you see horizontally...how is that a hard concept?
Click to expand...

The higher ratio... the more you see vertically... how is that a hard concept?

See what I did there? Your aren't argumenting for anything. It's clear that you prefer fixed vertical FOV. That doesn't make it better and it doesn't make it right.

Is that so hard to accept? You like one thing., OK. I'm writing from an objective standpoint - for this to be *correct* in any sense you must change both vertical and horizontal FOV. Thats a fact.

Pyrolistical said:
What you say is true. But there is a reason why modern games fix vertical FOV (at least the good ones).

Look I understand game devs can do whatever they want, but what I am saying is some of them get it wrong. Look at widescreengamingforums.com They rate what has good widescreen support what does does not.

Vert- is laziness on the game devs part (or lack of foresight)
Click to expand...

The good ones? You mean the ones you like.
People aren't lazy or lacking foresight if they don't do what you want :p

It's about preferences. Of course the people at widescreengamingforums are going to prefer implementations that suit their choice (widescreens) the most. Why don't you ask at squarescreengamingforum and see if they feel the same about it?

Why don't you ask http://www.christianforums.com which religion is right? Did the answer surprise you?

Yes, one could (rightly) argue that widescreen is the way to go when optimizing games. But whether to favor 16:9 or 16:10 is not obvious, despite your "correctness". If anything 16:10 should be favored due to the larger number of people that have 16:10 (according to steam hardware survey) and since 16:10 displays are larger (please don't get caught up in that argument, think about it and if you don't feel it makes sense ignore it, it's a very minor point). Yet 16:9 is gaining in popularity (among cheaper displays at least) so no, it might not be an obvious decision..
It is ultimately a matter of preference and no implementation is the right one (well, to be as technically correct as possible both vertical and horizontal FOV should be adjusted).

Please make it clear what is your opinion and what is fact. You have several times mentioned your opinion as fact and the fact that you have written your own ray tracer is utterly irrelevant and doesn't make your opinion more qualified.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top