Lack of 16:10 options is DEPRESSING

[Zarathustra[H]]

View attachment 288373

you're welcome

16:9 in portrait (I used to jokingly call it "Tall Screen") is also not an ideal size.

16:10 was damn near perfect for working on standard letter sized documents. In landscape you could fit two pages side by side and still have some space up top for menus.

Flip it to portrait and one page fits pretty damn well as well. (though a good 1600x1200 4:3 screen is probably better for a single page in portrait, IMHO)

I agree with the op that 16:9 is a huge letdown when coming from 16:10.

Unfortunately though, that ship has mostly sailed.

What I do today is have a huge 43" 4k screen for entertainment in the center, and my old Dell 1600x1200 4:3 screens one on each side for browsing and productivity. It is not as good as productuivity was on my 30" 2560x1600 Dell U3011 was for productivity, but such are the times.

 

[Nobu]

No offense, but you probably don't notice just because you play games that don't have their experiences hampered that much by lag (which is most games, really). I'm fairly certain no Samsung LCD TV has input lag under 30ms, and that's being rather generous.

If you've ever played super mario bros, you know any input lag is clearly obvious. 10ms is the difference between you hitting that brick and falling in that hole, or falling into a pit because you hit jump a bit too late.

And like I said, it was near a second of lag before, and unnoticeable after. Regardless of how bad it was to start, there was an obvious improvement. Your source format matters a lot with LCDs.

 

[Merc1138]

Multiple displays is kind of a crutch as well, depending on what you do. It's likely not seamless in his case.

How is having the flexibility to display the content in a manner you prefer a "crutch"? This is coming off like grumpy old boomer nonsense where people have failed to catch on that regardless of what they think the industry for the most part moved past them 10+ years ago. Hell, I find the idea of going back to a single display unless you absolutely have to(at which point you're already making compromises) to just be utterly weird.

 

[xykreilon]

I suspect this is mostly placebo effect

Sure, it's likely placebo effect for most. Would be neat to see studies digging into some of the things you've discussed here.

Based on my personal experience on my system in the titles I played, I would argue there is little to no benefit of reducing monitor input lag below 25ms.

Huh? You can't really try to argue that unless you've tried a lower latency monitor. I thought the 13ms of my TN LCD was virtually nothing until I used a CRT- now the lag is very apparent.
I can, blind tested, tell differences of 5ms in rhythm games like osu! (done virtually- not by swapping monitors). However, I cannot for certain side scrollers and first person shooters at high resolutions.
So, further, I think it's important to avoid placebo and be sure you can or can't see a difference.

For whatever reason, they have a more laggy mouse to Displayport chain, and because of this, the additional monitor input lag is sufficient to push them over the edge of detectability.

Yeah, that makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised if wireless peripheral users typically have an easier time seeing the difference in a lower latency monitor because of this.

As an example, lets say 50ms of overall system lag is the threshold for a highly sensitive gamer. (I made this up to illustrate the point, I have no data to support it) Someone with an SLI system will have much more inherent input lag, than someone with a fast single GPU. For the person with the fast single GPU, having a monitor 25ms lag may not push them over that 50ms threshold, and thus thye don't notice any detectable lag. For the person with SLI - however - their SLI is already resulting in a bunch of lag, so adding even a screen with 10ms may push them over the edge.

I should due a blind test to see if I can tell a difference in latency between my integrated GPU and my dedicated GPU. The latter offers about 1-3ms less latency through sheer FPS in light 2D titles. It would be quite the challenge- especially considering I'd have to find a way to silence the much greater, audible electrical whine of my integrated GPU

 

[xykreilon]

If you've ever played super mario bros, you know any input lag is clearly obvious. 10ms is the difference between you hitting that brick and falling in that hole, or falling into a pit because you hit jump a bit too late.

And like I said, it was near a second of lag before, and unnoticeable after. Regardless of how bad it was to start, there was an obvious improvement. Your source format matters a lot with LCDs.

Sure, I'm not arguing the difference from before isn't great. I'm just saying the end result of potentially 30ms (again, being generous) is far from lagless. For games that are more lag dependent, that's much more apparent. Compensation for Mario hitting the block is relatively easy. Compensation for missing a note as a song plays is not so much.

 

[xykreilon]

How is having the flexibility to display the content in a manner you prefer a "crutch"? This is coming off like grumpy old boomer nonsense where people have failed to catch on that regardless of what they think the industry for the most part moved past them 10+ years ago. Hell, I find the idea of going back to a single display unless you absolutely have to(at which point you're already making compromises) to just be utterly weird.

Displaying the content in a manner you prefer is not a crutch. In fact, that's just it- his manner of preference differed from yours. Different workflows benefit or regress from different setups.
As an example, for some, switching between content/programs in virtual desktops is more efficient than doing such with multiple displays. It can be more cumbersome switch between two displays that two virtual desktops. It just depends on what you're doing and how much you actually need to see at a time.

 

[Nobu]

Sure, I'm not arguing the difference from before isn't great. I'm just saying the end result of potentially 30ms (again, being generous) is far from lagless. For games that are more lag dependent, that's much more apparent. Compensation for Mario hitting the block is relatively easy. Compensation for missing a note as a song plays is not so much.

Seems more compareable than say, a twitch shooter (where there's a bunch of other stuff going on and network lag besides), but I get what you're saying, and certainly don't deny it has a lot of lag compared to any other monitor.

I have played those style of games, and had gotten quite good, but it's been a while and I haven't played on this monitor (last time was on a "10ms" 5:4 LCD, as it happens). I doubt it would be a fun experience on the sammy. lol

 

[cybereality]

16:10 made sense when you were limited to 1080p, which is kind of short for work.

But these days you can get 4K monitors, or 1600p ultrawide, there is not much reason to complain.

You still have a ton of screen real estate.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Sure, it's likely placebo effect for most. Would be neat to see studies digging into some of the things you've discussed here.

I'm not familliar with any gaming specific tests, only the general studies referenced in my Human Factors Engineering guides.

You are right, though. Someone really should do a large scale blinded study. It would be really interesting.

Huh? You can't really try to argue that unless you've tried a lower latency monitor. I thought the 13ms of my TN LCD was virtually nothing until I used a CRT- now the lag is very apparent.

I used exclusively CRT screens for - what - the first 20 years I used PC's. I still have an old 12" Hyundai VGA monitor kicking around here somewhere, it's once beige plastic, now very yellow.

I can, blind tested, tell differences of 5ms in rhythm games like osu! (done virtually- not by swapping monitors). However, I cannot for certain side scrollers and first person shooters at high resolutions.
So, further, I think it's important to avoid placebo and be sure you can or can't see a difference.

Yeah, that makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised if wireless peripheral users typically have an easier time seeing the difference in a lower latency monitor because of this.

I should due a blind test to see if I can tell a difference in latency between my integrated GPU and my dedicated GPU. The latter offers about 1-3ms less latency through sheer FPS in light 2D titles. It would be quite the challenge- especially considering I'd have to find a way to silence the much greater, audible electrical whine of my integrated GPU

It can be challenging to not bias yourself unless you have a formal study with a coordinator administering it.

Only reason I know I could tell a difference between PC mode (~45ms) and Game mode (~25ms) on my Samsung TV was because on occasion when turning it on I noticed the game felt off, and I went and checked the settings, and sure enough, I had forgotten to enable game mode.

I am not familiar with these rhythm games of which you speak.

 

[xykreilon]

I used exclusively CRT screens for - what - the first 20 years I used PC's. I still have an old 12" Hyundai VGA monitor kicking around here somewhere, it's once beige plastic, now very yellow.

Hyundai! Man, they really made everything. I know they made CRTs, but it still always intrigues me when someone brings it up.

It can be challenging to not bias yourself unless you have a formal study with a coordinator administering it.

Only reason I know I could tell a difference between PC mode (~45ms) and Game mode (~25ms) on my Samsung TV was because on occasion when turning it on I noticed the game felt off, and I went and checked the settings, and sure enough, I had forgotten to enable game mode.

I see. Yeah, that would be tricky.

I am not familiar with these rhythm games of which you speak.

Well, here's a video of osu! gameplay to give you an idea:

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Hyundai! Man, they really made everything. I know they made CRTs, but it still always intrigues me when someone brings it up.

I see. Yeah, that would be tricky.

Well, here's a video of osu! gameplay to give you an idea:

That is nuts. In most cases I'd argue that latency and framerate are a little too exaggerated in gaming, but maybe not with something like this.

Can't say it looks like appealing game to me, but it certainly looks very challenging.

 

[Ors]

Hell, I find the idea of going back to a single display unless you absolutely have to(at which point you're already making compromises) to just be utterly weird.

Not at all. I actually never could get used to more than one display, eyes would go bunkers every time I changed between screens even with same model monitors (not sure why but could never "fix" this). Plus as others also stated, I find working on a single screen with GridMove or Virtual Desktops much faster than dragging stuff between screens. Nowadays you have some awesome single screen options (32" 4k, 38" 1600p, etc), so the "need" for multiple screens is not there anymore. And I always will prefer 1 screen, my eyes just can't handle switching between screens often for some reason.

 

[MacLeod]

Do you have an actual real world example of where 16:10 is superior to 16:9? Like a screenshot and explanation?

It seems like a purely subjective opinion that 16:10 is superior. The only arguments I've heard are "you have more vertical space" and you can use that same logic to show that 9:16 is superior to 16:10.

I was kinda thinking the same thing. I don't do much productivity work so I honestly don't know but I have never once thought to myself "man I wish I had an extra inch of screen height".

16:9 just seems a better option as it's "all in one" in that it works just fine for productivity and is the best for media consumption.

If anything I would think an 21:9 ultra wide would be a more ideal size for productivity.

 

[Ors]

I don't do much productivity work so I honestly don't know but I have never once thought to myself "man I wish I had an extra inch of screen height".

In small screens where 2 "pages" side by side can't be used efficiently 4:3, 3:2 and 16:10 make a lot of sense still (hence why laptops and tablets still use those aspect ratios). Same was the case with 24" monitors, there those extra few vertical pixels really helped, since vertical space was very limited. But in bigger monitors (27" and above) you already have plenty of vertical space to not care anymore, and actually prefer more horizontal space to have better multitasking (more "pages" side by side).

 

[Ready4Dis]

I disagree - the industry wanted 16:9 for media consumption and mass production - which worked b/c so many just used monitors / TVs to watch content, not do work. But the problem with 16:9 is the lack of vertical real estate - which is valuable for those of us who work in text / spreadsheets. The industry's response was to try to force people into larger monitors - but those of us who use 16:10 really hate going to 16:9 because retaining vertical work space incurs a significant upgrade/ cost.

Take for instance my HP ZR24W - a fantastic 24 inch IPS display. I've got about 16" of vertical screen space -- whereas the typical 16:9 only has 14. May not seem like much, but it matters when reading / writing. To get a larger monitor that retains the vertical space I like, I need to go up to a 32 - which at 16:9 will give me 18 inches vertical (27 inch monitors only give 15). But the cost of a good 32 (which, IMO justifies also grabbing 4k) is astronomical.

This is one of those cases where the industry looked at where they money went, and it was casuals that drove it, rather than people who appreciate a proper workspace and knew what that meant.

You can buy a monitor and rotate it 90* if you need to have vertical space... 9:16 displays excel and word just fine . I run 16:9 x2 in my main rig (side by side)... I also have an ultra wide, a few 4:3's and a 16:10 in misc other computers around the house. If you are really fancy and do a lot of text, you can either stack 2 16:9's for a 16:18, or put 2 of them side by side rotated 90* for an 18:16. Dual ultrawides work well for this as well. You can end up with 21:18, which ends up nice. Of course, that's much more pricey and not as great looking with the borders between screens.

 

[HoffY]

16:10 ftw. I'm still rocking my U3014 because not only is it great... but nothing comes close to having its base specs plus the new spec requirements (120hz min for example).

Its a painful wait having to look at new monitor releases to always be let down because they area ll catering to "eLeeT GayMoRS" *sign*

(take a joke.. i game on my 3014 and watch video content on it.. thats the benifit of 16:10.. you have the best of both worlds where as with 16:9 you have to settle for less when it comes to content creation etc).

 

[sharknice]

16:10 ftw. I'm still rocking my U3014 because not only is it great... but nothing comes close to having its base specs plus the new spec requirements (120hz min for example).

Its a painful wait having to look at new monitor releases to always be let down because they area ll catering to "eLeeT GayMoRS" *sign*

(take a joke.. i game on my 3014 and watch video content on it.. thats the benifit of 16:10.. you have the best of both worlds where as with 16:9 you have to settle for less when it comes to content creation etc).

What lol? U3014 is a nearly 10 year old monitor that has super slow response time and 60hz refresh rate. It's far from the best of both worlds. It's terrible for gaming because it's a very slow IPS and 60hz, no VRR, etc. It's terrible for video content. If you go full screen you get black bars. And even with black bars you still get scaling on everything because it's resolution is 2560x1600 and content is almost never that horizontal resolution. By today's standards it's not even good for content creation.

 

[cjcox]

16:10 made sense when you were limited to 1080p, which is kind of short for work.

But these days you can get 4K monitors, or 1600p ultrawide, there is not much reason to complain.

You still have a ton of screen real estate.

True, but does assume that your entire infrastructure handles 4K well. One could argue that "it must", I'm just saying you can't assume.

I mean, if I said everything runs better with 256G of memory, can't believe you're still running on 8 or 16G.... well... you get the idea...

 

[cjcox]

16:10 ftw. I'm still rocking my U3014 because not only is it great... but nothing comes close to having its base specs plus the new spec requirements (120hz min for example).

Its a painful wait having to look at new monitor releases to always be let down because they area ll catering to "eLeeT GayMoRS" *sign*

(take a joke.. i game on my 3014 and watch video content on it.. thats the benifit of 16:10.. you have the best of both worlds where as with 16:9 you have to settle for less when it comes to content creation etc).

I still love my U2410. Tons of features (something lacking in today's monitors, even on the high end). There's a reason why these "old" monitors are still in use.

 

[criccio]

Tons of features (something lacking in today's monitors, even on the high end).

What are these features, i'm curious. Looking on the Dell page for it, i'm seeing nothing extraordinary that doesn't exist today or has been improved upon.

There's a reason why these "old" monitors are still in use.

And that reason is?

 

[cjcox]

What are these features, i'm curious. Looking on the Dell page for it, i'm seeing nothing extraordinary that doesn't exist today or has been improved upon.

And that reason is?

Ok, turning this back on you.... find me a monitor with all the features of the U2410, and then let me show you what you missed.

 

[criccio]

Ok, turning this back on you.... find me a monitor with all the features of the U2410, and then let me show you what you missed.

I believe the onus is on you. You called out "tons of features" yet have not as of yet backed that up. You also made claim about a reason that apparently exists but also did not specify. Yeah, some people probably have old U2410's on their desks, so what?

I'm not saying its not, just want to know what that display is so good in 2020 that so many people still use it, apparently.

 

[cjcox]

I believe the onus is on you. You called out "tons of features" yet have not as of yet backed that up. You also made claim about a reason that apparently exists but also did not specify. Yeah, some people probably have old U2410's on their desks, so what?

I'm not saying its not, just want to know what that display is so good in 2020 that so many people still use it, apparently.

Ok, here goes

1920x1200 (higher is ok, but also needs to be 16:10 or better)
Non glare screen
96% Adobe RGB or better (110% sRGB) gamut (fully adjustable CMY)
Full tilt and rotate
IPS panel (OLED is ok as something better)
>400 cd/m2 (that's overall, not in some weird HDR only case) most U2410 can do much much higher, even up to 450 cd/m2
<6ms response time
In/Outs: DSUB, 2xDVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, composite and component, and minjack audio, USB upstream
Picture-in-Picture (not merely Picture by Picture, though both is ok)
2 x USB side, 2 x USB bottom
Multicard reader xD/SD/MD/MMC
Attachable soundbar with dual headphone jacks.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Not at all. I actually never could get used to more than one display, eyes would go bunkers every time I changed between screens even with same model monitors (not sure why but could never "fix" this). Plus as others also stated, I find working on a single screen with GridMove or Virtual Desktops much faster than dragging stuff between screens. Nowadays you have some awesome single screen options (32" 4k, 38" 1600p, etc), so the "need" for multiple screens is not there anymore. And I always will prefer 1 screen, my eyes just can't handle switching between screens often for some reason.

Everyone is different.

I find it challenging to work on a single display these days. Context switching takes too much time during which I lose my train of thought. I like having everything I am currently working on open at the same time with enough desktop real estate to at least snap it to a workable size, and one monitor just isn't going to cut it for that.

I could be writing a report in one word window, using data from two excel spreadsheets, with data in multiple pdf files , and referencing another word document or two. I want them all on screen at the same time, so I never have to lose focus while switching windows.

 

[Greyson]

Ok, here goes

16:10 is a dead format. Everything else on this list is easily found on any business class or professional display. The only reason you would have any trouble finding a monitor, is because you want 16:10. Nothing else you listed is unique or particularly special.

 

[cjcox]

16:10 is a dead format. Everything else on this list is easily found on any business class or professional display. The only reason you would have any trouble finding a monitor, is because you want 16:10. Nothing else you listed is unique or particularly special.

I'm find with that. Please suggest my new non-16:10 (because that seems to matter to you) monitor with the listed features.

 

[criccio]

I'm find with that. Please suggest my new non-16:10 (because that seems to matter to you) monitor with the listed features.

The problem here is you're the only one calling most of those things "features". USB hub, SD reader and speaker mount? Who uses that stuff? Maybe it was cool 15 years ago.

Tons of monitors have all the color, brightness and contrast options, not a single part of that is unique.

16x10 though, if that's what you're really caught up on, Dell makes and probably hardly sells a single standard UltraSharp 16x10 model, the U2415.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/sho...415/apd/210-agsu/monitors-monitor-accessories

Let's look at what purpose that old 2410 serves in 2020. Gaming? Forget it. Professional color work? Get something newer, tech has moved on. Spreadsheets? At that low a resolution? Torture. I just still don't understand the attachment.

Why are people using them again?

 

[criccio]

Not to mention at work I still use my old Dell 3008WFP, a 30" 16x10 2560x1600 display and it's great for office work but I go home and my Ultrawide looks MILES better.

This was an over $2000 display when it was new. It's no longer good and I know that because it's blindingly obvious as I also use modern stuff.

 

[cjcox]

The problem here is you're the only one calling most of those things "features". USB hub, SD reader and speaker mount? Who uses that stuff? Maybe it was cool 15 years ago.

Tons of monitors have all the color, brightness and contrast options, not a single part of that is unique.

16x10 though, if that's what you're really caught up on, Dell makes and probably hardly sells a single standard UltraSharp 16x10 model, the U2415.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/sho...415/apd/210-agsu/monitors-monitor-accessories

Let's look at what purpose that old 2410 serves in 2020. Gaming? Forget it. Professional color work? Get something newer, tech has moved on. Spreadsheets? At that low a resolution? Torture. I just still don't understand the attachment.

Why are people using them again?

So, are you suggesting removal of features is cool? I'm not say you're not some kind of uber genius. I don't necessarily need all of those features, but I need a lot of it. And I'm find with it being replaced with more contemporary technology replacements. So, feel free to recommend that awesome monitor that does it "all" where "all" is everything that you know to be contemporary (?).

I need DSUB, DVI, DisplayPort today, but let's add USB-C (why not) for display. Is there a monitor with all of those and picture in picture?

You may say servers suck, so forget DSUB (because who would work on servers)... I get it.... Does DVI suck too? I guess I need a list of what sucks and is deemed unimportant now.

(You must really hate people who have started buying vinyl records again...)

Hey, suggest the 64k resolution (? or whatever is deemed as "ok" to you) monitor that can handle 4 simultaneous inputs... and shoot, since this is "today", should be able to have all the sources on screen at once and positionable and resizable (after all, this is the modern times). (sorry, that was mean.... hopefully you can understand my frustration with you ... right?)

Needs to fit on my desk though. I'll give you about 8" of total depth. Maybe with direct connect to my brain? That would save space.

I'm being "mean" because you started this and demanded that I present "facts"... and you in returned presented zip... right?

If I find a worthy monitor replacement, I'll certainly not keep my lips shut.... how about you though? Can't help thinking you're keeping something secret. You were so convincing that you knew all the answers,. Shoot, just offer something.... I'm not against upgrading. But it needs to be an upgrade, but at this point, I'll look at whatever you suggest, you know? I just don't want to have to buy a plethora of (poor) converters/adapters.

 

[xykreilon]

 

[Greyson]

I'm find with that. Please suggest my new non-16:10 (because that seems to matter to you) monitor with the listed features.

Asus ProArt PA278QV - 8bit 100% sRGB/rec.709 w/ ∆E< 2 (this is not wide gamut, if you need wide gamut just check the second one)

going from your list it has:

full tilt / swivel / height adjustment with the included stand
445cd/m2 sustained max brightness & AG coating
DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, mini DisplayPort
upstream audio mini (3.5mm) jack with built in speakers + headphone out jack
USB Hub w/ 2 ports bottom + 2 ports on the side
multiple PiP / PbP modes + color gamut control via OSD

It does not have the card reader or VGA interface, to be honest I don't know any modern displays that still support VGA. If you absolutely need to connect to legacy hardware that only has VGA, then that will be an issue. afaik ASUS doesn't offer a proprietary soundbar, but there are plenty of 3rd party solutions that will attach to any display if you really need one.

Asus ProArt PA329C - 10bit (14bit FRC) 100% Adobe RGB / 98% DCI-P3 w/ ∆E< 2

This monitor has everything the one above has, but is a wide gamut display and additionally has USB-C i/o.

These are two I know of off-hand because I have looked at them myself, but there are other professional displays with similar feature sets from ViewSonic and Dell that I have seen and can look into if you really want me to provide more.

 

[cjcox]

Asus ProArt PA278QV - 8bit 100% sRGB/rec.709 w/ ∆E< 2 (this is not wide gamut, if you need wide gamut just check the second one)

going from your list it has:

full tilt / swivel / height adjustment with the included stand
445cd/m2 sustained max brightness & AG coating
DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, mini DisplayPort
upstream audio mini (3.5mm) jack with built in speakers + headphone out jack
USB Hub w/ 2 ports bottom + 2 ports on the side
multiple PiP / PbP modes + color gamut control via OSD

It does not have the card reader or VGA interface, to be honest I don't know any modern displays that still support VGA. If you absolutely need to connect to legacy hardware that only has VGA, then that will be an issue. afaik ASUS doesn't offer a proprietary soundbar, but there are plenty of 3rd party solutions that will attach to any display if you really need one.

Asus ProArt PA329C - 10bit (14bit FRC) 100% Adobe RGB / 98% DCI-P3 w/ ∆E< 2

This monitor has everything the one above has, but is a wide gamut display and additionally has USB-C i/o.

These are two I know of off-hand because I have looked at them myself, but there are other professional displays with similar feature sets from ViewSonic and Dell that I have seen and can look into if you really want me to provide more.

Strangely enough, the ProArt series is one that I have looked at. But maybe these are still too pricey (?). I think I bought my U2410 for $100 USD (not saying it has to be close to that though).

Dell for awhile was producing consumer priced monitors that came very close to the high end. The Ultrasharp is NOT a high end (price) product.

Edit: After re-looking, I'm going to say that the ProArt comes the closest to being a real replacement/upgrade for the U2410. But, I don't think there's another in the race. Anyone? I do have to occasionally dabble with DSUB sources and even composite. Don't think of those things as "old", think of them as possibilities. If it means the U2410 lives on even after I upgrade, so be it... you know?

 

[c3k]

It seems like 16:10 monitors haven't been updated for years.
There are so few options.
None with 120hz or other common options.

16:10 is having a resurgence on laptops now, but nothing for desktops.
Is there really no hope for us?

I agree.
I have two 16:10 27" 1440 screens. But, no, they're not 120 Hz. The 16:10 format is so much better than 16:9...IMO.

 

[leonemesisbra]

Also prefer the 16:10 format, but unfortunately it seems no high end screens in this format will ever appear. Aiming to build a new rig next year, after spending several just using a laptop and an old Dell 27" S-PVA panel, and will probably have to decide on a new screen. Don´t think I´ll go for 4K one, but still on the fence whether I get a ultra wide or not. Monitors have always been a tricky upgrade, feels like there´s never a perfect option.

 

[cybereality]

Any monitor is a compromise. However, there are lots of good options to be happy with.

Personally, I really love 21:9 for gaming, and also for work. Having split screen without the bezel is nice for programming.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Dell for awhile was producing consumer priced monitors that came very close to the high end. The Ultrasharp is NOT a high end (price) product.

It's not? Do we consider $5000 monitors to be midrange now?
https://www.engadget.com/dell-mini-led-monitor-140028013.html
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-lineup-usb-c-mini-led-backlighting-and-more/

 

[cjcox]

It's not? Do we consider $5000 monitors to be midrange now?
https://www.engadget.com/dell-mini-led-monitor-140028013.html
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-lineup-usb-c-mini-led-backlighting-and-more/

Even Yugo is allowed to make a gold plated car with a diamond bumper if they want to.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Even Yugo is allowed to make a gold plated car with a diamond bumper if they want to.

Sure and if that is priced at $100,000, are you saying we consider that to be cheap? In either case I wouldn’t consider that level of pricing to be at the mid range or bottom end of the market.

And unlike your illustration, the Dell does feature actual technological improvements that are superior versus other solutions that cost less money. Whereas a gold plated yugo is a cheap car with an expensive material. Two very different things.

Either way you slice it, your point isn’t true.

 

[HoffY]

What lol? U3014 is a nearly 10 year old monitor that has super slow response time and 60hz refresh rate. It's far from the best of both worlds. It's terrible for gaming because it's a very slow IPS and 60hz, no VRR, etc. It's terrible for video content. If you go full screen you get black bars. And even with black bars you still get scaling on everything because it's resolution is 2560x1600 and content is almost never that horizontal resolution. By today's standards it's not even good for content creation.

What has its age got to do with disproving its usefullness? It actually proves your points wrong. Given they are NEW features in NEW monitors that were released much LATER then it was. How could oen rasonable compare such features when discussing ASPECT RATIO?

Response times are fine with it. It has a "Game Mode" thats quite fast. There is nothing wrong with 60Hz for gaming. Just because its not 5000Hz doesn't mean it doesnt work perfectly fine. You're grasping at straws if you think there are drastic gains to be had for the average person at over 60Hz in games. No one is saying faster isn't better but we are saying 16:10 gives you more then 16:9. And that is a fact. You can't fit more content on a 16:9 AR screen but i sure as hell can game at 16:9 on a 16:10. So hence forth.. its objectively better for doing it all. Can one compromise and settle with 16:9? Yep.. many do it.. but justifiying it is just rolling over and accepting less. Which is pretty much what things becoming mainstream does. Stop being professional and starts becoming mediocre.

"By today's standards it's not even good for content creation" I"d like to see you substantiate that claim. Becuase it was (and its successor sill is) sold to contenct creation and that market so this will be good... and not that it matters.. "by todays starndads" is a ridiculous standard to judge a 6 year old device.

And yet i still can't seem to find that sweet spot on anything thats new. Its always a compromise thats unacceptable for my uses. Just give me 4k in a 16:10 (or similar AR) with 120Hz+ refresh rates.... in about 34" size and let it be OLED with no burn in risks and i'll grab 2. lol

 

[Greyson]

"by todays starndads" is a ridiculous standard to judge a 6 year old device.

Pretty sure that's the point he's making, by today's standards it's not great so it's not going to be on most peoples' radar. The kind of display you want doesn't exist, and things like input lag and refresh rate are important features to a lot of people that are as much of a dealbreaker if they aren't available as losing 120 pixels of vertical resolution is for you. It'd be great to have it all, but we live in a world of compromise.