5760x1080 vs 3600x1920

[brod]

3x 1920x1080 landscape = 5760x1080 = 6,220,800 pixels = 5.33:1 aspect ratio

3x 1920x1200 portrait = 3600x1920 = 6,912,000 pixels = 1.875:1 aspect ratio

Arguments in favor of 5760x1080:

- Larger aspect ratio allows for wider field of view in games.
- Bezels will be further away from center point of the setup.
- Less pixels means slightly less GPU power required to game at 60 FPS.
- 3x 1080p IPS monitors would be cheaper than 3x 1200p IPS monitors.

Arguments in favor of 3600x1920:

- Better compatibility with games resulting from similarity to 16:9 (1.77:1) aspect ratio.
- Higher detail level.
- Easier to see detail in the side monitors (less head movement and peripheral vision required).

Which would you choose and why?

ps. I ruled out 3x 1920x1200 landscape and 3x 1920x1080 portrait because they both have narrower field of view and bezels closer to center point than their alternatives.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I've tried all 4 choices.

I go with 3600x1920 in portrait, the only time I see landscape as an option is for racing, or flying sims. The immersion with the portrait setup is massive, specially in games like BF BC2 for me when you scope, the scope is the size of an entire center 24" screen and half of each of the side monitors.

I'll post a pic of both later for you (mine is 5760x1200, close enough)

 

[master noran]

Portrait eyefinity is the way to go because you don't have to deal with the stretched out picture and more games support 3240x1920 and 3600x1920 then the landscape alternative. I would also look into removing the cases on the monitors so the bezels are less noticeable with either setup.

 

[meyerkev]

IF you don't mind moving the monitors, I'd just take advantage of presets.

(Disclaimer: I find Eyefinity really cool for games/other full screen things, and really distracting for anything else, especially when the bezels split a word or worse a letter, and/or hide it in the "Compensation area")

I have 3 U2412's (x1200), and I mostly use them in 3x 1920*1200 for everyday. But when I go to play games, I either do 5760*1200 if the game supports it, or turn them into portrait if they don't.

If I had to pick one, I'd probably just leave them in portrait. 1920 pixels is very, very wide, whereas 1200 pixels is usually wide enough for most things, and 1920 pixels down is a hundred lines of code, or two pages of my essay, etc, and as said above, most games will support 3600*1920 better then 5760*1080.

//Also, one more thing to consider is just how much SPACE 3 24" monitors in landscape take up. My setup is nearly 5 feet wide, and sticks off the edge of the table.

 

[elvn]

I edited a standard eyefinity configurations picture in order to give a more fair perspective than originally, for a discussion in another thread. I thought I'd pass it a long as it might help here.

The car is the same size because imo single monitors should be kept closer, and larger arrays kept farther away. The original image I edited from gives a false impression in that regard imo.

The bottom setup is what I would consider a "traditional" eyefinity gaming setup, where the side monitors are peripheral by design - so there are no bars in your main focal gaze really, and the immersion with the extreme width is high. Three portrait mode monitors probably can't produce that immersion.. The beneifts of eyefinity for me would be that immersion, increased desktop space, and perhaps a higher percieved ppi in relation to viewing distance in some of the other configs ~ extreme rez.

 

[brod]

The car is the same size because imo single monitors should be kept closer, and larger arrays kept farther away.

Are you saying that if you had three 24" 16:10 monitors in portrait eyefinity you would position them such that the viewing angle is identical to a single 24" monitor at comfortable text reading distance? Wouldn't that make the perceived pixel size too small to be used for anything other than gaming?

I would keep a portrait eyefinity setup the same distance as a single monitor, which would keep text readable and provide a much larger viewing angle and resolution.

 

[elvn]

I would be using a 27" monitor at 108.8ppi 2560x... and having used various monitors up to a 37" tv at a desk (with bad ppi I know), I've learned that a wall of monitor in front of your face vs your viewing angles is a bad idea. I had my 37" westinghouse set back around 4' before it became less annoying. Especially when you consider HUDs, maps, notifications, and chat windows, etc being pushed into your periphery. Thats a good thing about LLL setups... all the valid info is kept on the main central monitor, while the side panels are intentionally peripheral (for immersion).

I would keep a single 27" - 30" 2560x (108.8ppi) monitor closer to my face rather than buy three 24" 16:9 1080p (91.8ppi)panels for portrait mode where I would have to set them back a bit further and suffer the bars, yes. That picture shows the FoV differences.. the rest is ppi and its relationship to your viewing distance. Imo regardless of the ppi and rez, it is not desireable to have a TV-sized screen considered as a single monitor "wall" in front of your face at a desk due to your viewing angle and periphery. But like I said, the percieved ppi increase and overall rezolution increase in any of the other configs is nice, and can still result in a larger monitor overall even when set back further vs your viewing angles. The 5 and 6 monitor arrays obiously still add to your peripheral sides as well with their wider FoV, but afaik they do not have any way of isolating the HUD, gaming notifications, chat windows, pointers, etc to the central monitor(s) like a LLL setup does.

 

[Oled]

I would suggest 3x 1920x1080.

It is mindblowing for gaming!

 

[elvn]

yeah LLL looks appealing. If I could get a few 27" glossy 2560x ips in hazro price range instead of the apple cost to add to my singe ACD I'd consider it. As it is now I'm leaning twd scrapping eyefinity LLL idea, as appealing as it is, and sticking with what I have - looking forward to Quad Full HD someday at 27" 3840x2160 166ppi as the next time I spurge on the display front. I hope that FoV pic helps give some perspective anyway. It did for me.

 

[brod]

Imo regardless of the ppi and rez, it is not desireable to have a TV-sized screen considered as a single monitor "wall" in front of your face at a desk due to your viewing angle and periphery. But like I said, the percieved ppi increase and overall rezolution increase in any of the other configs is nice, and can still result in a larger monitor overall even when set back further vs your viewing angles.

I guess the question is how much is too much for viewing angles.

2560x1440 27" monitor at my comfortable unscaled text reading distance gives a 49.4 degree viewing angle.

3600x1920 47" monitor (3x 24" 1920x1200 in portrait Eyefinity) at my comfortable unscaled text reading distance would give me a 65.6 degree viewing angle.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I guess the question is how much is too much for viewing angles.

2560x1440 27" monitor at my comfortable unscaled text reading distance gives a 49.4 degree viewing angle.

3600x1920 47" monitor (3x 24" 1920x1200 in portrait Eyefinity) at my comfortable unscaled text reading distance would give me a 73.2 degree viewing angle.

that is if the monitors are lined up straight, mine are angled (the outer 2 are facing me a bit more)

 

[brod]

looking forward to Quad Full HD someday at 27" 3840x2160 166ppi as the next time I spurge on the display front.

Think bigger!

3x 3840x2400 portrait = 7200x3840 = 27,648,000 pixels = 1.875:1 aspect ratio

 

[elvn]

I'd rather find the sweet spot single monitor+ppi wise (imo 27" - 30" at a good ppi) and note the actual size of all the main game elements on it. Then any eyefinity monitor additions would keep that scale more or less regardless of how many monitors I added, by some combination of screen distance, resolution and FoV increases rather than zooming the size of the original screen's elements in relation to my original screen viewing distance-perspective.

27" 2560x1440 108.8 ppi is good for me at 2'. My 17" 1080p laptop's 129.58ppi is good at 1' - 1.5' away, as 166ppi should be most likely. LLL eyefinity gaming setups are not supposed to have the side panels in your main viewing angle, they are peripheral by design for immersion so their width can be so wide no problem, while keeping all game elements on the main monitor.

The viewing angle of your focal gaze is what we are talking about.. how much of the screen/monitor-array size is in your periphery when it is considered a single monitor.
.
Three PPP may not be far out of bounds at the right distance but it would have practically the same game FoV as a single screen, but with bars in the middle of it. The resolution increase would be nice though if comparing to the same rez single monitor. (However buying three 1920x monitors adds up and could be put toward a single 2560x monitor). At 5x (PPPPP) the game FoV would be similar to a PLP setup (though PLP is not supported by eyefinity).

It would be nice if you could drag a window around a test image and set your central viewpoint to that as some kind of virtual screen, with the hud and game elements on its borders, and everything outside of that window would be FoV addition rather than "zooming" the size of the game elements in relation to you.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Deus Ex


BF BC2

 

[brod]

Thanks for the pics Digital Viper. I see what you mean about the BF:BC2 scope!

 

[elvn]

I think 3x 24" 16:10 in portrait are 1.75" taller than a 27" 16:9 (and 12.6" wider) ..

Thats the equivalent of a 43" TV at your desk if I'm not mistaken, at a higher ppi (94.3ppi) than a tv of course but still way too big physically .. imo 30" is pushing it vs your focal viewing angles at a desk. I'd have to move that 43" panel back around 4' like my old 37" tv - which would be to my perspective the same as if I had a 27" 108.8 ppi or 30" 100.6 ppi monitor up closer with no bars. I've had various monitors up to 37" panels at my desk and really after a point, bigger is not better once the "wow" factor wears off and you realize it. (insert puns here).

LLL eyefinity is appealing to me because the side panels are peripheral intentionally while keeping all the valid screen data on the central monitor, and keeping the bars out of your focal view pretty much.

 

[brod]

It seems that the main differentiator is:

Landscape:
- Same focal detail level as single monitor
- Significantly larger horizontal viewing angle and field of view
- All key detail is kept in center monitor

vs

Portrait:
- Significantly higher focal detail than single monitor
- Larger horizontal viewing angle than single monitor but smaller than landscape
- Larger vertical viewing angle than both
- Bezels in focal vision

These differences are very difficult to quantify, so a large element of personal preference will always be involved.

For me, having significantly more horizontal viewing angle doesn't really interest me, as my goal is not to become completely immersed in games. The higher detail that portrait enables is very appealing though, as well as the advantages for general Windows use.

It's a shame that the quality of the portrait Eyefinity experience is so heavily dependent on bezel thickness. The Dell U2412M has 17mm bezels, but I don't think that is thin enough for me to commit to portrait Eyefinity just yet. Hopefully some 24" 1200p IPS monitors with very thin bezels will be available soon, as that would make it a much more attractive proposition.

 

[XoR]

@brod
how come having bezels in front of you and lower framerate from all this increased pixel cout would make more immersion?

it's much better to buy one large hdtv like panasonic 42v20 (if you don't care about 3d) and not play on shitty LCDs that have ~800:1 contrast ratio

ps. mind that in desktop there aren't just annoying bezels but cleartype text looks just awful...

 

[brod]

Detail level isn't for immersion, it's for detail! 3600x1920 has 3.33x more pixels than a single 1080p monitor.

Samsung UA55D8000 is a 55" 1920x1080 LED-backlit LCD TV with 5mm bezels... a 24" 1920x1200 monitor equivalent would be great.

It's pretty funny to me how thin bezels have been introduced exclusively for the sake of aesthetics yet PC users have an actual function for them.

 

[XoR]

given how textures are crappy anyway and all games have forced LOD that make all distant object much worse looking it's actually better to have lower resolution and some fancy AA to smooth it up and don't see those "details"

and for 3.33x pixel you need crossfire that will give you more input lag and micro stuttering and still over framerate... Not to mention botch multi-gpu and eyefinity have it's compatibility issues so you will develop migraine sooner or later...

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

given how textures are crappy anyway and all games have forced LOD that make all distant object much worse looking it's actually better to have lower resolution and some fancy AA to smooth it up and don't see those "details"

and for 3.33x pixel you need crossfire that will give you more input lag and micro stuttering and still over framerate... Not to mention botch multi-gpu and eyefinity have it's compatibility issues so you will develop migraine sooner or later...

you are welcome to your opinion, but some facts would help too. There is no extra input lag from having crossfire :S? there are 0 issues with crossfire and eyefinity with the 6xxx series, there is always Nvidia, and Textures look just fine @ 3600x1920 in pretty much every game I've played so far.

if we go by your logic, lets all play on 1280x800 res and boost the AA, the higher res textures will look GREAT @ the lower resolution. we should all use single videocards, and 1 monitor.

Don't knock it till you try it. I'll go with with [H] said, multiple monitor gaming is a huge improvement over single monitor gaming.

 

[brod]

'Crappy textures' don't make a high resolution image look worse than a low resolution image.

Crossfire with AFR rendering (which is the only supported mode these days) does indeed introduce more input lag than a single GPU. I was actually just discussing this on another forum.

I agree that Crossfire would be required for 3600x1920, but micro stutter wouldn't be an issue as long as you used VSync with Triple Buffering and maintained 60 FPS.

For the time being I will stick with the conventional setup of single high resolution monitor + single powerful GPU. When bezels are thinner and/or if AMD stops prioritising benchmarks over image consistency and starts supporting SuperTiling rendering again I will reconsider portrait Eyefinity.

 

[brod]

On that note, here are some PCIE slot setups for two GPUs, a PCIe sound card and a PCIe SSD that gives the GPUs good airflow.

1 Sound Card (x1)
2 GPU 1 (x16)
3 GPU 1
4
5 PCIe SSD (x4)
6 GPU 2 (x16)
7 GPU 2


1 Sound Card (x1)
2 GPU 1 (x16)
3 GPU 1
4
5 GPU 2 (x16) (blower fan)
6 GPU 2
7 PCIe SSD (x4)


1 GPU 1 (x16)
2 GPU 1
3
4 Sound Card (x1)
5 PCIe SSD (x4)
6 GPU 2 (x16)
7 GPU 2


1 GPU 1 (x16)
2 GPU 1
3
4 GPU 2 (x16) (blower fan)
5 GPU 2
6 Sound Card (x1)
7 PCIe SSD (x4)

 

[XoR]

you are welcome to your opinion, but some facts would help too. There is no extra input lag from having crossfire :S? there are 0 issues with crossfire and eyefinity with the 6xxx series, there is always Nvidia, and Textures look just fine @ 3600x1920 in pretty much every game I've played so far.

fact is that CF and SLI are realised by AFR and it make input lag twice as big as with single card at same framerate. So if you actually get ~80% more framerate then input lag isn't that much bigger but if you use CF just to feed eyefinity then even when you squeeze 60fps you have input lag on levels single card have @30fps...

ofcourse some games use SFR and those don't suffer from all this.

if we go by your logic, lets all play on 1280x800 res and boost the AA, the higher res textures will look GREAT @ the lower resolution. we should all use single videocards, and 1 monitor.

Why not? On FW900 1280x800@140Hz looks sweet

Don't knock it till you try it. I'll go with with [H] said, multiple monitor gaming is a huge improvement over single monitor gaming.

i'd like to play LLL on eg. FW900 or three 3d plasmas. Three LCD gaming setup is just as lame as one LCD gaming setup

PPP have no practical sense in any game other than some about mechs

 

[elvn]

ppi makes a huge difference in visual quality, especially the closer the screen is to you. You percieve the ppi of a 1080p tv as enough only because it is made to be 6 - 8' away minimum in a living room, which basically "shrinks" the pixels in relation to your viewpoint. Like I've been saying in this thread though, I'd go with a single high ppi 2560x (or someday QFHD 36840x2160 166ppi) monitor at a resonable distance instead of any TV-wall-of-monitor at a desk regardless of the ppi, and especially with bezels considered on PPP setups.. However landscape mode 3x eyefinity has the side panels peripheral by design, so the bars aren't in your main focal FoV - so I find that appealing for titles that support it , even though I don't have an eyefinity setup like that. Beyond that, if you are using blacklevels from an LCD tv as a comparison, they are generally VA panels which are great for videos and tv with their superior black levels, but have bad input lag for games. I personally wouldn't consider a plasma tv for many reasons as well. And as I outlined before, anything over 30" at normal desk distances is not appropriate. My other fallback is my fw900 widescreen graphics professional crt.. 22.5" viewable, 2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi at 80hz - which still requires some serious graphics horsepower on modern games.

Micro-stuttering of multiple gpus is more a problem at low fps since you have no wiggle room for any dips. On a 60hz monitor the screen only updates every 16.6ms too, so can only show 60 frame updates per second.. as long as the low end of your microstutter and fps dips is above that on average, it shouldn't show. You could also suffer slight input lag by using vsync if you really had to, but I doubt it if you tweak your graphics settings to maintain very high framerates. Trifire also virtually eliminates micro-stutter for reason of the cycle timing if you read articles about micro stutters.. so if you go really high end with 3x 6950 , 3x6970 , or a 6990 + 6970 that argument is even more invalidated. An article comparing two gtx580's vs a 6990+6970 was here on H recently that showed both's muscle for around $1k either way.

So for $750 - $1250 on a 2560x ips screen, and $800 - $1k in gpu (trifire with no real microstuttering) , you can have glorious gaming. Thats about the cost of a newer model 46" - 55" TV by comparison. Not cheap , but not horrible either depending on your budget and what you like to spend your time (and money) on more.

Or you suggest using a single gpu at some combination of lower fps and/or lower graphics settings and a tv with huge pixels and save some money. 42" plasma tv at a desk is ridiculous imo though vs your focal viewpoint, and the ppi would be horrible at anything even remotely close to a desk. (42"...................1920 x 1080.........52.45 ppi). I also would never use a plasma screen for gaming anyway - I'm not aware of any plasma screen 30" or less in size.. the whole "window washing" vs image retention ghosts, still a chance of burn in if you don't take care, heat, and several models tend to buzz (and I have very good hearing), and with any tv you have to pick from only a few models since only a few have very low input lag. Certain TV's also suffer serious motion problems (double imaging ~ judder etc), and have ghosting.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasma-tvs/1455498-panasonic-2011-plasma-gaming-only.html

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27576914 2011

I just got a Panasonic too, and I have had slight image retention, but you can make it go away fairly easily. For starters, you need to turn it from Vivid to THX, and calibrate it. Use a DVD/Blu Ray like Digital Video Essentials, or if you want to spend a little money, get a calibration tool like the Spyder 3 TV, which I just got online for $80. Well worth it imo, but you could get by with a DVD. Under your menu, there is a section called "Anti Image Retention". Set the Pixel Orbiter to "Periodic", and then change that to 1 (meaning it will orbit every 1 minute.) Also, you should run the other image rentention tool, the scrolling bar, for about 10 minutes or so. That, combined with watching non-static images (like a widescreen movie without black bars) should make the Image Retention go away fairly quickly. Also, I highly recommend setting 4:3 content to the "Just" setting (which will remove the black bars) and any letterbox movies to "Zoom". Adjust Zoom so that it fills the screen without any black bars visible, and you'll go a long way to avoiding IR in the future. Also, take breaks from gaming every hour or two... watch some TV or something if you can.

Never, ever play a video game with a heads up display(health bars, etc.)in Vivid mode. THX is the most color accurate (google Cnet's recommended settings)so I would stick with that for everything, honestly. (Also make sure you colors are set to Warm 2). And turn off CATS, which will increase brightness if there are lights on in your TV room.

MICRO STUTTER
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stutter-crossfire,2995-3.html

From going through the article, I'm curious what monitor Tom's is using to see the "noticeable" stuttering. I count 8 frames out of 49 in which xfire 6870 drops below 120 fps, and all but 3 of those drops end up very close to 120.

After reading the entire article, I'd like to see all of those systems on 2560x1600 instead of 1680x1050 and 1920x1080. Most of those cards tested, and especially the 2+ card setups, are designed for higher resolutions. I'm not sure why they didn't just perform the tests at the higher resolutions instead of trying to extrapolate info based upon fps that are too high to be displayed by the monitor, anyway.

I wonder what kind of monitor they were using. If they were using 60Hz monitor then I don't think stuttering can be perceptible.

While they give a lot of evidence to support their position, their conclusions are all subjective and prejudiced by prior knowledge of the measurements and what equipment is running. It's still Tom's, after all. Where they write the evidence to prove their conclusions. Unfortunately, this article proves nothing.

Testing would have to be done double blind (neither the person administering the test nor the subject can be aware of what equipment is running at the time.), and frame-rates would need to be sync'd so as that not being what they are noticing. Then they would need to have multiple subjects do the comparison and be able to tell with near 100% accuracy when 1, 2, 3, and 4 GPU's were running to prove anything. That's just off of the top of my head where proper scientific methods haven't been followed.

Interesting article. I really don't notice any micro-stutter with my 2x 4870x2 and my games seem just as silky-smooth as any single-GPU setup I've seen. Their results seem to confirm that there is very little micro-stutter using triple or quad GPU setups.

I've run CF and microstutter only bothered me when FPS was below 40. I say the advantage of running higher FPS with CF/SLI outweighs the inconveniences of perceivably lower FPS.

I also have discontinued reading Tom's reviews/articles due to their subjective propaganda. I did find it an interesting article, regardless; especially the fact that tri-fire seems to be the sweet spot now.

===========
Pixel densities
===========

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone
..
(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- tablet
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop

22.5" (24")........2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- 60hz/120hz
24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm

24"...................1920 x 1080..........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm
19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm <-- 60hz / 120hz panels

---Too Large for a Desk, greater viewing distances suggested ----
36.4"................4096 x 2160.......127.22 ppi...0.1997 mm <--- Eizo FDH3601 4K2K 16:9 , sept 2011 release est. $36,000 usd /
42"...................3840 x 2160.......104.9 ppi....0.2421 mm <----LG Quad Full HD IPS, 42" tv version
85 "...................7680 x 4320......103.67 ppi...0.245 mm <--- Sharp 85" 8Kx4K VA
30"...................1920 x 1080.........73.43 ppi...0.345 mm
32"...................1920 x 1080.........68.84 ppi...0.368 mm
37"...................1920 x 1080.........59.54 ppi..0.4266 mm
40"...................1920 x 1080.........55.07 ppi...0.4612 mm
42"...................1920 x 1080.........52.45 ppi...0.4843 mm

 

[XoR]

@elvn
big plasma is actually much better for close gaming than big LCD TV. It may seem counterintuitive but it's how it looks in practive. I'm serious here! I have CRT for comparsion and 1024x720 37" plasma meter away from my eyes ALWAYS seem more detailed than this CRT or various LCDs. Only reason I didn't changed this TV for anything more is because it looks so good with even low quality content even from close distances It's eyes tricked from temporal dithering but who cares as long as it works?

as for motion my plasma have green ghosting but it's 2008 old and never models intended for 3d are just perfection. Comparing PDP vs CRT vs LCD only LCD seem to not judder in some materials so it's artifact of LCD and not plasma fault that it's more prone to weak sources. Plasma have BFI so any micro-stutter at source would be immediately visible, just like on CRT ! Input lag is on HDTVs serious issue but Panasonic make TVs with low input lag ennough for it to not be issue at all. I had hard time to see my plasma lag behind CRT. Photos showed it lag up to one frame. Their new plasmas are no worse here!

plasma image "retention" is common misconeption. Images could burn especially on older models but we have two effect here. One is phosphor burn-in and it's now on level of CRTs so nothing to worry about. Second effect that people call mistakenly burn-in is plasma ionization and it's harmless actually even if it may seem dangerous.

as for PPI there are more important areas to improve than it, especially if gaming is concerned. In midst of a fight you need good fluidity, low input lag and good colors/contrast more than resolution. We will have 4K monitors in few years, it's natural move and you have to be little more patient

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

@elvn
big plasma is actually much better for close gaming than big LCD TV. It may seem counterintuitive but it's how it looks in practive. I'm serious here! I have CRT for comparsion and 1024x720 37" plasma meter away from my eyes ALWAYS seem more detailed than this CRT or various LCDs. Only reason I didn't changed this TV for anything more is because it looks so good with even low quality content even from close distances It's eyes tricked from temporal dithering but who cares as long as it works?

as for motion my plasma have green ghosting but it's 2008 old and never models intended for 3d are just perfection. Comparing PDP vs CRT vs LCD only LCD seem to not judder in some materials so it's artifact of LCD and not plasma fault that it's more prone to weak sources. Plasma have BFI so any micro-stutter at source would be immediately visible, just like on CRT ! Input lag is on HDTVs serious issue but Panasonic make TVs with low input lag ennough for it to not be issue at all. I had hard time to see my plasma lag behind CRT. Photos showed it lag up to one frame. Their new plasmas are no worse here!

plasma image "retention" is common misconeption. Images could burn especially on older models but we have two effect here. One is phosphor burn-in and it's now on level of CRTs so nothing to worry about. Second effect that people call mistakenly burn-in is plasma ionization and it's harmless actually even if it may seem dangerous.

as for PPI there are more important areas to improve than it, especially if gaming is concerned. In midst of a fight you need good fluidity, low input lag and good colors/contrast more than resolution. We will have 4K monitors in few years, it's natural move and you have to be little more patient

While I'd love 3 24" plasma or a single 50" (I tried this) over LCDs as a monitor, I don't find it practical, too much heat and the distance I'd have to sit away to make things comfortable is too far away. With 3 monitors at least I can position the monitors so I don't need to move. I'd like smaller bezels but meh.

and 3 monitors in "PPP make a fair bit of practical sense, look @ the size of the scoped image, and the higher resolution / detail it still gives you. Compare that to a 1080pixel high Scope on a 1920x1080 46"-50" plasma, and you have nearly double the pixels in the same amount of space. So I don't see where you can say it's not practical, it is actually too useful, it's almost cheating, I can see with much more detail where people are hiding thanks to the size and detail that is now shown in the scope.

I don't notice any "additional" input lag, but I've been on crossfire for a while now.

 

[elvn]

I still disagree, and the links and quotes I posted support my position and refute most of yours. Burn in may be a thing of the past with precautions, but "harmless" or not, the retention still makes you jump through some hoops vs static images (Desktop? HUDs? aspect ratio bars?) and precautions have to be used (as quoted) and there are other issues as linked including judder on modern panasonic plasmas (especiallyat low fps and fps dips), ghosting, heat, many models experience buzz noise.. physical sizes, and of course PPI.

And if you read my whole post you'd know I also have a fw900 crt, and I didnt mention it but I have a sony xbr960 trinitron 1080i/"720p" 34" widescreen crt with an hdmi input as well. So I know the differences and tradeoffs on some different panel types, sizes. and various ppi's

I own most of these still..

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone Droid X2
..
10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- tablet Asus Transformer
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop Asus G73JH

22.5" (24")........2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) .. - may integrate below ACD with a desk mod eventually
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm Apple Cinema Display, LED edgelit , PLP with 19" asus lcds

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm Dell
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm Viewsonic (bad AG) -gave away-

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- Samsung

19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm Asus LED edgelit PLP
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm hannspree

---Too Large for a Desk ----

34"...................1401x1025...........51.06 ppi, 0.4975mm Sony XBR 960 1080i/"720p"crt
37"...................1920 x 1080.........59.54 ppi..0.4266 mm Westinghouse LCD -sold-
46"...................1920x1080...........47.89 PPI, 0.5304mm LED edgelit VA


I also described your focal viewpoint in this thread many times - beyond ppi considerations that I consider very important - the physical size of a monitor much over 27" (30" pushing it) is unsuitable at a desk vs your focal viewing angle. If you factor in 1080p or less ppi on a large tv sized panel your ppi is so low it is horrible. I can't disagree more.

.....The only reason I would consider eyefinity gaming is for LLL where the side panels are peripheral intentionally, keeping all your main screen data , notification, HUD, pointers, indicators and chat on the main screen in your focal view.

Any other configuration (most with bars in your central view), even with higher ppi, results in the whole game screen being made "jumbo" / zoomed in size just like a tv would. "Bending" your eyeballs to your inappropriately large screen's (at desk distances) perimeters is something I got tired of quickly on my 37", moving it back around 4' until I soon after sold it.

Btw the "4k" monitor we will likely see any time soon at anything near high end consumer level pricing is an LG panel, that perhaps apple will showcase initially, which is a 60hz IPS panel, 3840x2160 .. ~ 27" -ish 166ppi. There will be some 42" + tv versions too, at worse ppi and inappropriate size for desks. 4k screens will be +256px more width and probably much more expensive. some will be VA panels as they are meant for movies.. (perhaps a few insanely priced monitor sized ones, and some larger TVs.)
.
.

 

[Impulse]

" - 3x 1080p IPS monitors would be cheaper than 3x 1200p IPS monitors."

You sure about that? I just bought two U2412Ms for $642 including tax and S&H... I think that Dell model closed the gap (unless prices of 23" 1080p displays have fallen dramatically, almost to the point of being as cheap as the better TNs)... At least while the promotional price is valid, but Dell runs display promos almost year round. The HP ZR24W can also be found for $350.


I think the discussion in the thread is great, but I find it curious that only one person mentioned the types of games being played... I think it's as much of a factor as anything else, RTS titles will eventually embrace Eyefinity and I'd definitely take portrait mode or a wall-of-screen over a very wide viewing angle there.

Anyway, at some point we have to put the onus on developers (particularly for PC exclusives) to start including fully configurable HUDs... I don't see why that should have to be part of the focal point discussion, several MMORPGs already do this... Just click and drag and move menus and game info windows wherever you want them, it can't be that hard to implement if some games were already doing it literally 10 years ago.

I just bought two new 24" 16:10 IPS displays for two reasons. 1) They've obviously more suitable for portrait use than anything else, except maybe 27" which might be too tall and out of my budget anyway. I wanted the flexibility to go portrait tho. 2) I already have one cheaper 24" 16:10 display and I always like to have at least two screens for multi tasking (I'm gonna be retiring a 19" CRT, finally); adding two more displays allows me to have a taste of Eyefinity without a lot of risk. If I hate it I'll just sell my older cheaper 24" and the second 6950, no big loss. I got the 6950s in May and the price doesn't seem to have dropped much, specially for reference cards.

My displays should be here towards the end of next week... I need to clear some desk space and figure out where to put my bookshelf speakers. I might have them resting horizontally under the displays, but that would mean wall mounts, which means I'm gonna need to move the desk to a different wall, heh (something I wanted to do anyway). Until I get around to all that I might be using portrait mode exclusively (and headphones!).

 

[elvn]

so 3x u2412m's are like $960? .. in the same price range as 27" 2560x1440 ($750 -$1000) monitors, and 3/4 of the price of a 30"(though I'd skip 30" because of the AG this gen personally). Of course you already had one to start with but the comparison is still valid. The zr24w's at $350 ea -> $1050 too.

...I'd rather eyefinity let you assign a virtual monitor space personally, with the typical game elements within its invisible borders, and all extents outside of that being FoV increases, rather than rely on hacks and mods that don't exist on many titles and who's developers drop out of existence at any time. Unfortunately eyefinity doesn't have that kind of functionality presently. The closest thing to that is LLL with the central monitor being the "main" having all normal monitor info on it alone -- and the other panels being FoV. Would be nice if PLP was supported too. As far as pushing dev I wouldn't count on it easy or not.. some desktop apps don't even allow for simple font and background color changes even today lol.

 

[Impulse]

Yeah, it was more wishful thinking than anything, as far as better customizable UIs, heh... PLP would indeed be nice, but probably even more of a niche, so also wishful thinking. Never mind apps btw, some OS still don't have proper dpi adjustments either...

 

[brod]

Like I've been saying in this thread though, I'd go with a single high ppi 2560x (or someday QFHD 36840x2160 166ppi) monitor at a resonable distance instead of any TV-wall-of-monitor at a desk regardless of the ppi, and especially with bezels considered on PPP setups..

It's certainly the simpler solution. Where are all the bezel-less screens at.....

36.4"................4096 x 2160.......127.22 ppi...0.1997 mm <--- Eizo FDH3601 4K2K 16:9

How does that work... non-square pixels? 16:9 with square pixels would be 3840x2160.

as for PPI there are more important areas to improve than it, especially if gaming is concerned. In midst of a fight you need good fluidity, low input lag and good colors/contrast more than resolution. We will have 4K monitors in few years, it's natural move and you have to be little more patient

Not all games are twitch FPS, and not everyone has the same priorities for gaming, so I don't think it's possible to make absolute statements about the value of pixel density vs framerate.

2560x1440 @ 60hz and 1920x1080 @ 120hz both exist, so people can choose which they prefer and be happy.

I appreciate the higher detail level that higher PPI provides, and 1440p @ 60 FPS can be done with a single GPU, so I choose the former.

Btw the "4k" monitor we will likely see any time soon at anything near high end consumer level pricing is an LG panel, that perhaps apple will showcase initially, which is a 60hz IPS panel, 3840x2160 .. ~ 27" -ish 166ppi.

I'll definitely be first in line to buy that. Hopefully soon.

" - 3x 1080p IPS monitors would be cheaper than 3x 1200p IPS monitors."

You sure about that?

Here in Australia 3x Dell U2412M are $1017 whereas 3x Dell U2312HM costs $686.

It's also worth noting that we can buy the Dell U2711 for $630 occasionally (when there's a 30% off sale).

 

[elvn]

The 4k screens at 4096 x 2160 are actually made to display 1:85:1 or 2:39:1 (with slim bars) , not 16:9. They are +256 pixels wider than a QFHD (Quad Full HD) 3840x2160, which fits both of these:
Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360

36.4" 4096 x 2160 would be like a block of four 18.2" 1080p 16:9 monitors (resolved to 16:9), but with +64 pixels added to each of the sides on the widths of each "1920" , (+128px to each 1920) - making them a block of four 18.2" 2048 x 1080.

I'm not interested in watching movies at a desk, and not on an ips screen as the blacklevels and detail-in-blacks are inferior to a VA panel like my VA samsung tv. Those resolutions are also too high for living room seating distances at a tv - 1080p is barely within distance as it is now. I'd be happy with the QFHD and its ~ 27" desktop monitor size. Unfortunately they will prob be pretty expensive when they come out, but I expect the 4k's to be ridiculously expensive, though the large tv's might come down a bit in a few years.. 36.4" would be like a block of four 18.2" 1080p monitors, with +128 pixels added to each of the sides on the width. A lot like four 127.22 ppi 18.2" laptop screens would be ppi wise if they exisited. My 17" 1080p laptop's ppi is 129.58ppi by comparison. According to the specs its 35.3" x 20.7 inch, and $36,000 <<<---------

 

[brod]

The 4k screens at 4096 x 2160 are actually made to display 1:85:1 or 2:39:1 (with slim bars) , not 16:9. They are +256 pixels wider than a QFHD (Quad Full HD) 3840x2160, which fits both of these:
Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
Digital cinema 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360

Ah yes, I forgot about the 1.85:1 cinema standard. Thanks for the info.