30" Gaming Monitor Choices

Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
23
Hello Hard Forum members!

I've typically lurked around as an anonymous user so I can find the "best deals" for (what was) my upcoming computer upgrade(s). Now I'm looking for help on a big monitor purchase. At the moment I'm a little confused as what to get.

Current Computer Specs: i7:2600k, 8gig ddr3, 6970, SSD

I currently have a 27" 1920x1200 HannsG monitor and two (2) 22" 1680x1050 LG monitors. I'm looking to join the 30" "high definition" club as opposed to buying 3 24" monitors and going for Eyefinity.

I've read that the Dell 3008 was the best way to go-and that the best prices were at Dell Outlet. However, I've recently noticed that there are posts about another Dell 30" named U311 for slightly more. I've read quite a few pages of posts regarding all of these monitors and I'm still slightly lost as to what I should be striving to buy.

I noticed that you could get a 3007/3008 for less than $800 so that would be my desired budget. If needed, I'm willing to spend up to $1200 max for quality. Lower response times are desired more than most other monitor specifications. I watch movies (through my computer) on the monitor often... so I don't think I really need scaling... although it might be nice to have it down the road if I ever buy a console or hook up my old PS2, but it isn't a priority.

Should I just continue looking at Dell Outlet until I see a Dell 3008 for a good price or what?

Thank you!

Edit: I also posted this in the Hot Deals Discussions Area. I didn't know which was best.
 
As far as I am concerned the 3007WFP and 3007WFP-HC are the only ones worth a crap for gaming. The 3008WFP and U3011 have scalars built into them for using the other inputs and have horrible input lag. While I haven't actually tried one myself, this is no bueno for me. I'm very sensitive to input lag and I can't imagine tolerating it. I've got a 3007WFP and several 3007WFP-HC's and they are simply fantastic. The reason I mention input lag is because I've felt it on other monitors and I know that several people on this and other forums have complained about the 3008WFP and U3011. So if you are one of those people sensitive to that sort of thing, then you might want to look elsewhere. Tons of people also bitch about the anti-glare coating on all the Dell and other 30" monitors so you've got to keep that in mind too. I've got several Dell 30" monitors and I don't have any problem with glare or a reddish tint on the display. While I'm sensitive to input lag, I'm apparently not sensitive to those issues in the slightest.
 
As far as I am concerned the 3007WFP and 3007WFP-HC are the only ones worth a crap for gaming. The 3008WFP and U3011 have scalars built into them for using the other inputs and have horrible input lag. While I haven't actually tried one myself, this is no bueno for me. I'm very sensitive to input lag and I can't imagine tolerating it. I've got a 3007WFP and several 3007WFP-HC's and they are simply fantastic. The reason I mention input lag is because I've felt it on other monitors and I know that several people on this and other forums have complained about the 3008WFP and U3011. So if you are one of those people sensitive to that sort of thing, then you might want to look elsewhere. Tons of people also bitch about the anti-glare coating on all the Dell and other 30" monitors so you've got to keep that in mind too. I've got several Dell 30" monitors and I don't have any problem with glare or a reddish tint on the display. While I'm sensitive to input lag, I'm apparently not sensitive to those issues in the slightest.

I agree Dell 3007wfp-hc rocks, and if you want something newer for a bit more money, HP ZR30W(low input lag as well) but with a newer panel, and supports display port. I found the AG to be less intense on the HP when compared to the 3007(but it didn't bother me on either one) now however I do get annoying reflections when it's bright in the room :p

I had a 3007wfp-hc, and now have the HP ZR30W, I'd say either one would make you happy.
 
As far as I am concerned the 3007WFP and 3007WFP-HC are the only ones worth a crap for gaming. The 3008WFP and U3011 have scalars built into them for using the other inputs and have horrible input lag. While I haven't actually tried one myself, this is no bueno for me. I'm very sensitive to input lag and I can't imagine tolerating it. I've got a 3007WFP and several 3007WFP-HC's and they are simply fantastic. The reason I mention input lag is because I've felt it on other monitors and I know that several people on this and other forums have complained about the 3008WFP and U3011. So if you are one of those people sensitive to that sort of thing, then you might want to look elsewhere. Tons of people also bitch about the anti-glare coating on all the Dell and other 30" monitors so you've got to keep that in mind too. I've got several Dell 30" monitors and I don't have any problem with glare or a reddish tint on the display. While I'm sensitive to input lag, I'm apparently not sensitive to those issues in the slightest.

The HP lp3065 is also great for input lag- same panel as the dells and like the 3007s they have no scalar.
 
The HP lp3065 is also great for input lag- same panel as the dells and like the 3007s they have no scalar.

Unfortunately I only have practical experience with the Dells. I don't know that much about the HP panels. I've also heard good things about the ZR30w. Again, I know little about the panel as I haven't been in the market for another 30" monitor in some time. I basically purchased additional monitors to match the first one I had. That was really the only option I considered last time I added 30's to my setup.
 
Thank you all for the responses. :)

It seems I can find the Dell 3007 cheaper than the HP that most seem to recommend. Is there a site similair to the Dell Outlett where I can look to snipe a good price on the HP 30"?

Another Q: Is the Anti Glare really that bad on the Dells? I usually play in a really dark room in my apartment (curtains on the windows, etc) so anti glare isn't that important to me.
 
I usually don't like Dell or HP, but in this case I would go with the Dell.

My dream 30" monitor is the NEC 30" models, but they're waaay out of your price range.

EDIT: Here's a refurb of the older NEC 30" which is a SICK monitor for a little over $1200:
http://www.necdisplay.com/p/desktop-monitors/lcd3090wqxi-bk-r

Here's a review of the 3090wqxi-bk
http://nec3090wqxi-test.blogspot.com/



Will the lack of display port inhibit potential multi monitor set ups? I remember reading something about this in another thread.

Edit: If I went with a Dell, due to price primarily, I'd want the 3007WFP-HC due to the reduced input lag due to the lack of scalar right? Or is it possible to turn off the 3007WFP Scalar to reduce input lag when playing PC games/movies on my pc? (And use my graphics card as the scalar)

I'm asking because I found a deal where it looks like I might be able to grab a Dell3007WFP for <$500 shipped. Link:http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200608378891
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
No displayport shouldnt be a problem at all. you can always use adaptors.

you cant turn off scalers.

the NEC has what is called "unlimited scaling" which means the scaling quality is very very good, with very little distortion when scaling. the NEC has high end video processing electronics which helps produce a very good image. this is partly why the monitor is so thick, it's full of high-end electronics.
 
Will the lack of display port inhibit potential multi monitor set ups? I remember reading something about this in another thread.

Edit: If I went with a Dell, due to price primarily, I'd want the 3007WFP-HC due to the reduced input lag due to the lack of scalar right? Or is it possible to turn off the 3007WFP Scalar to reduce input lag when playing PC games/movies on my pc? (And use my graphics card as the scalar)

I'm asking because I found a deal where it looks like I might be able to grab a Dell3007WFP for <$500 shipped. Link:http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200608378891

Neither the 3007WFP or 3007WFP-HC have scalars in them. They are virtually identical as far as input lag is concerned.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Unless I can snag an HP for <$1,000 I think I'm going to jump on that Dell 3007WFP. It doesn't seem to be the HC model. I've read the only difference between 3007WFP and the HC version is color contrast right?
 
No displayport shouldnt be a problem at all. you can always use adaptors.
For resolutions above 1920x1200 you have to use active dual-link adapters (the cheap single link adapters won't work). But at least one monitor you can always use without any adapter, so you only need to make sure that the second, third, ... monitors have a DisplayPort connector.
 
Unless I can snag an HP for <$1,000 I think I'm going to jump on that Dell 3007WFP. It doesn't seem to be the HC model. I've read the only difference between 3007WFP and the HC version is color contrast right?

The back lighting is different. I believe the 3007WFP-HC is a wide gamut display and the older model is not.
 
I got my ZR30W off ebay for $925 shipped. Was a demo model but looks and works perfect. (No dead pixels and no scratches or blemishes that i can see)
Only thing some may want to be concerned with on the ZR30W is limited input options and no scaler or OSD. If your not really worried about that stuff, it has a fantastic picture though.
Didn't really notice the AG coating on mine actually, although i had to lower the contrast a little since solid white on the screen can be a little too bright at times...:eek:
 
Ohhh....

If I had the money and the deskspace, it might just jump on that deal. However, since I spent $2,100 for my NEC 2690WUXi and Planar PX2611w I probably shouldn't bite.

when did you get the 2690? recently? i havent seen them in stock anywhere in the last year. harder to find that first gen 2490s and those are really hard to find also.
 
Thank you all for the responses. :)

It seems I can find the Dell 3007 cheaper than the HP that most seem to recommend. Is there a site similair to the Dell Outlett where I can look to snipe a good price on the HP 30"?

Another Q: Is the Anti Glare really that bad on the Dells? I usually play in a really dark room in my apartment (curtains on the windows, etc) so anti glare isn't that important to me.



Having owned the dell 3007wfp-hc since jan 2009, the antiglare is a nonissue.
 
I've got a very new ZR30W I'm selling for $975 if you're in the NYC area.

What I like about is the wide gamut and low input lag. Only ~3 months of use, selling it since I moved to 3D.
 
Unfortunately I only have practical experience with the Dells. I don't know that much about the HP panels. I've also heard good things about the ZR30w. Again, I know little about the panel as I haven't been in the market for another 30" monitor in some time. I basically purchased additional monitors to match the first one I had. That was really the only option I considered last time I added 30's to my setup.

I have 3 3007-hcs and an lp3065 right now. The HP has a newer generation panel than the dells. Both monitors use the LG lm300w panel and both have the same input lag (since neither have scalars or OSDs). I guess technically the HP is probably better since it has the slightly newer generation panel but I haven't noticed any difference in quality. There may also be some differences in the monitor gamut. Basically what I'm saying is that from a practical standpoint they are equals so if you are interested in the 3007s the lp3065s are just as good.
 
I haven't noticed any issues with gaming on my U3011, or the Apple Cinema HD 30" it replaced, but I do tend towards "slower" games like MMOs and such (and I try not to stray from native resolution, so I can't comment on the scaler aspect). Let me fire up Bad Company 2 for a bit and I'll get back to you.
 
I heard games use sRGB so the 3007WFP would be a better choice for gaming than the HC version since it has wide gamut?
 
I don't understand why anyone would buy a 2560x1600 res monitor specifically for gaming. You need a seriously beefy graphics card to run modern games at that resolution and even then most games these days are made for 16:9 with low FOVs, better suited for playing on a TV.

A 30" display is great when working with graphics or just fitting lots of stuff on screen at once. I love it for work and prefer it to a multimonitor setup.

I find that people on this forum can be pretty anal about little things. I've had a Dell 3008WFP revision A02 (which is supposed to have much lower input lag than the earlier revisions) for several years and have not been bothered by input lag or the antiglare coating at all.

I usually play at 1920x1080 resolution and the 3008WFP's scaler is an absolute must for that because at least my GTX 260's graphics card scaling is utter rubbish compared to the hardware scaler in the 3008WFP. The image quality drop with the 3008WFP scaler is minimal whereas the graphics card scaling results in noticeably blurred images.

If I were to get a 30" 2560x1600 display right now I would probably pick the U3011.
 
Well, if you're a gamer, then it's silly to drive a 2500x1600 resolution with a GTX 260, because as you see you have to drop the resolution. FOV has nothing to do with anything in terms of screen size, so I don't know why you think a TV would be better for games than a high-res monitor.
 
Well, If your (H)ard enough, i think most people's answers would be because we can... :)
As for my 30", i have a 6990 driving it and i won't go back to 1920x1200 unless i have to. (Just too nice at this resolution)
 
I don't understand why anyone would buy a 2560x1600 res monitor specifically for gaming. You need a seriously beefy graphics card to run modern games at that resolution and even then most games these days are made for 16:9 with low FOVs, better suited for playing on a TV.

A 30" display is great when working with graphics or just fitting lots of stuff on screen at once. I love it for work and prefer it to a multimonitor setup.

I find that people on this forum can be pretty anal about little things. I've had a Dell 3008WFP revision A02 (which is supposed to have much lower input lag than the earlier revisions) for several years and have not been bothered by input lag or the antiglare coating at all.

I usually play at 1920x1080 resolution and the 3008WFP's scaler is an absolute must for that because at least my GTX 260's graphics card scaling is utter rubbish compared to the hardware scaler in the 3008WFP. The image quality drop with the 3008WFP scaler is minimal whereas the graphics card scaling results in noticeably blurred images.

If I were to get a 30" 2560x1600 display right now I would probably pick the U3011.

Though of us doing it have known this for some time. The resolution and quality of the image at 2560x1600 is simply unmatched. If you have experienced this you understand it. A GeForce GTX 260 isn't nearly enough video card to drive a monitor of that caliber with modern games. It never really was either. As for the scaling, well even with the hardware scalar the image is still being stretched and even under the best of circumstances that's going to look like crap. Driving a monitor like this at 1920x1080 is simply less than ideal. Not only are you scaling the image but you are scaling a 16:9 image to 16:10. You need to run these at native resolution or there is simply no point to having them. Scalars also introduce noticeable input lag. If you don't notice that then great. I'm happy for you. It would drive me insane. Monitors with scalars are a no go for me and gaming.

Those of us with 30"s generally know we need a lot of graphics hardware to make games work on these systems. We don't care. It's a hobby and we like it. We spend the money gladly in most cases so that we can play games with the best visual experience possible. Some people get that, and some don't. You don't seem to get it based on what you've said in your post. That's fine. I don't get why anyone would spend the money on a 30" monitor and play games with an ancient video card at non-native resolutions. That has to make for a horrible gaming experience. Then again if you don't know any better, I guess it's not that bad. :confused:
 
Indeed. I'm using a 6970-which is one of the reasons why I'm in the market for a 30". I'd like to use it for its full potential.

When Battlefield 3 comes out I may go out and buy another 6970 to crossfire so I can push close to max settings on the 30". :) I also delve into photoshop everyonce in awhile (I used to be a pretty good graphics designer!), and I watch tons of movies/tv shows from my computer. So it isn't just gaming (to the one who said it was foolish for me to get one for purely gaming).


So it looks like I'm going to start a monitor hunt for a good priced Zr30w , for a dell 3007WFP on dell outlet, or for a NEC 3090WQXi if I get antsy and want "the best" for my price range. Sound like a plan? :)


Can anyone with a 3011, that had previously had a 3007 or older generation non scalar panel, tell me how noticeable the input lag on it is? (I'm wondering if I should snagg a 3011 if I see one on the outlet)
 
Anandtech measured it at 23ms input lag (1.5 frames). My NEC 3090 lags by 32mn; I've never noticed it. OTOH I don't play FPSes where it would be the biggest issues. YMMV but the 2408 gained infamy over input lag by being >100ms; prior to that nothing lagged by enough to trigger enough complaints to stop companies from adding more pre-processing with a cheap and slow controller.
 
I bought my 3090 primarily for non-gaming purposes and while my gaming interests tend to be light enough that running at native resolution isn't a problem; running at lower doesn't bother me enough to buy my GPUs in pairs either.
 
I have the ZR30 for gaming --- it is amazing. BC2 is especially mind-blowing.

The high rez makes it hard to run games in butter-mode, my 470gtx isn't enough for me, though passable by most standards. I want 60fps at all times, but depending on the game I'll dip into the 20s.

BC2 is gtg though.

Other specs:

4GB
e6750
 
What is the advantage of gaming at 2560x1600 vs 1920x1200? Do you actually see more at higher resolution? I don't think so. I believe that higher resolution monitors are really meant for other desktop use and not really for gaming.
 
What is the advantage of gaming at 2560x1600 vs 1920x1200? Do you actually see more at higher resolution? I don't think so. I believe that higher resolution monitors are really meant for other desktop use and not really for gaming.

You don't see more in terms of FOV or anything. You see an image made of more pixels which looks considerably better. Sharper, clearer, and larger than what you'd get at 1920x1200. Simple as that. Not acknowledging that is like saying that 800x600 is all the resolution we'd ever need or want while gaming. It's total nonsense.
 
There is no detail advantage, actually. The DPI is roughly similar to 24" at 1080p. The advantage is that you can get the detail of 1080p 24" at a larger size.
 
Though of us doing it have known this for some time. The resolution and quality of the image at 2560x1600 is simply unmatched. If you have experienced this you understand it. A GeForce GTX 260 isn't nearly enough video card to drive a monitor of that caliber with modern games. It never really was either. As for the scaling, well even with the hardware scalar the image is still being stretched and even under the best of circumstances that's going to look like crap. Driving a monitor like this at 1920x1080 is simply less than ideal. Not only are you scaling the image but you are scaling a 16:9 image to 16:10. You need to run these at native resolution or there is simply no point to having them. Scalars also introduce noticeable input lag. If you don't notice that then great. I'm happy for you. It would drive me insane. Monitors with scalars are a no go for me and gaming.

You don't need to scale to fullscreen for 16:9. The Dell scaler supports aspect ratio scaling so the image is not stretched, you just get black bars. As I mentioned many games these days are console ports so they are made for 16:9 and have a low field of view which usually means that at 16:10 resolutions it feels like you're running around with binoculars on unless the FOV can be adjusted via console/config commands etc. Using 16:9 resolution helps because it give a bit wider FOV. Personally I don't mind the black bars.

Those of us with 30"s generally know we need a lot of graphics hardware to make games work on these systems. We don't care. It's a hobby and we like it. We spend the money gladly in most cases so that we can play games with the best visual experience possible. Some people get that, and some don't. You don't seem to get it based on what you've said in your post. That's fine. I don't get why anyone would spend the money on a 30" monitor and play games with an ancient video card at non-native resolutions. That has to make for a horrible gaming experience. Then again if you don't know any better, I guess it's not that bad. :confused:

I mostly bought the 30" for work. If you look at Prad.de's review you'll see that scaling to a lower resolution doesn't have much of a image quality hit. By comparison Nvidia's graphics card scaling looks like blurry rubbish. My overclocked GTX260 runs most games just fine still so I haven't felt a huge need to upgrade just so I can run at native resolution.
 
The only time input lag on current monitors has any real effect is if we were all still playing Quake 1 and worrying over 72 versus 77 fps. Games today have enough of their own input lag introduced from being designed for gamepads that this discussion is moot. Unless you are anal. Anal.
 
There is no detail advantage, actually. The DPI is roughly similar to 24" at 1080p. The advantage is that you can get the detail of 1080p 24" at a larger size.

This is way off.

1080p is 2,073,000 pixels. Divided by 24", equals 86,400 pixels per diagonal inch of screen space.

2560x1600 is 4,096,000 pixels, divide by 30" equals 136,533 pixels per inch!

That is a huge difference!
 
This is way off.

1080p is 2,073,000 pixels. Divided by 24", equals 86,400 pixels per diagonal inch of screen space.

2560x1600 is 4,096,000 pixels, divide by 30" equals 136,533 pixels per inch!

That is a huge difference!

Except that's not how it works. At all. There's no such thing as "Pixels per diagonal inch", because pixels are in a grid, not a diagonal line.

Figure out dot pitch as follows
(16x)^2+(9x)^2 = 24^2
337x^2 = 576
x = 1.307"
So a 1080p 24" LCD is 20.9" wide and 11.8" high
This gives 1920 pixels per 531mm, or 1080 pixels per 300mm. This works out to a 0.277mm dot pitch for a 24" 1080p monitor.

And for the 30"
(16x)^2+(10x)^2 = 30^2
356x^2 = 900
x = 1.590"
So a 2560x1600 30" LCD is 25.4" wide and 15.9" high
This gives a dot pitch of 2560 pixels per 645mm and 1600 pixels per 404mm. This works out to a 0.252mm dot pitch for a 30" 2560x1600 monitor.

It's a difference, but that's how you could actually calculate dot pitch from knowing only diagonal size and resolution. Not "pixels per diagonal inch"

For shits and giggles, a 1080p monitor with the same dot pitch would have to be 21.9" diagonal.
 
Well I stand corrected. However you calculate pixel density, 4 million pixels on a 30" sure beats 2 million on a 24". I certainly notice the difference between pixel size on my 24" 1920x1200 monitor and my 30"!
 
Back
Top