Top LCD: Apple 30" Cinema Display or Westinghouse 37" LCD-TV ?

[Labrador]

Ok, for Christmas I am wishing for a new monitor to game with I have had a [H]ard on for the Apple 30" Cinema Display since it first came out, and now they lowered the price $500.00. It has a res of 2560x1600 ? and if you have a good video card can play games at defualt and look stunning.

But I have read on the [H] about this new 37" LCD-TV from Westinghouse that does 1920x1080 and is even le$$ than the Apple by almost $1000.00 and is approx 20% larger.

So you big [H]ardcore gmaers which is the better monitor for gaming, the Apple 30" for $2500.00 and has some great pic's here:

or this baby the 37"

Opinion's wanted please, thank's

 

[Blethrow]

Dot pitch on the Apple is 100 DPI, or 0.22 mm.

Dot pitch on the Westinghouse is 60 DPI, or 0.37 mm.

Not having seen the Westinghouse, I would still think you'll be much happier with the image quality frm the Apple. The Westinghouse is going to look pixelated as a monitor. It would make a fine TV though.

The Apple is great for games provided you can also afford the necessary graphics power, which is not going to be a trivial expense.

 

[Happy Hopping]

The choice is obvious. For a 30" display to have sharp resolution that your eyes is comfy w/, that res. is 2560x1600. So for a 37", it has to be proportionally higher.

But the westinghouse is lower. So it will definitely be too blur for your eyes

 

[Huggles]

These newbs know nothing. You can't see pixels at all from where I sit, which is about 2 1/2 feet from the screen.

I have to be within a foot to see pixels, and even then, just barely.


Westinghouse FTW

 

[Blethrow]

Lol. You're right, I don't know much. But I do know my 30" ACD looks damn fine being driven by two 7800GTX cards and a 840EE at 4.2 Ghz. So I guess I know a little bit about high end systems.

These newbs know nothing.

Westinghouse FTW

 

[Xeero]

ok lets try to be objective:

Westy:
- plethora of inputs
- official support for 1080p
- 1920x1080 resolution looks crystal clear through dvi1
- 37in of goodness
- cheaper
- works great right out of the box
- you can actually see your windows screen during bootup

ACD 30in:
- higher res compared to westy
- picture is probably a teeny lil bit sharper
- better coloring out of the box
- nicer sex appeal

if you calibrate your westy correctly, i'm sure it will look comparable to the apple. the apple only has dvi while the westy has all sorts of inputs. so its really up to what you want. i've listed the advantages of both. so its up to you to decide what you need and what fits ur budget

 

[Huggles]

I am the first official Westinghouse fan boy


Westinghouse FTW

 

[Ratboy]

Can anyone compare black levels and color?

 

[Xeero]

I am the first official Westinghouse fan boy


Westinghouse FTW

i'll b a fan boy until someone else comes out with something better at an equivalent price

 

[Huggles]

Westy FTW!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Blethrow]

Each Westy pixel covers 2.85 times as much area as the Apple ACD pixels, so I'd say the ACD is more than a little sharper. And there are no problems seeing POST screens with the ACD. I agree with the rest of your points though. Personally, I'd love to have a Westy as an HDTV, but I wouldn't trade it for my monitor and the cash value difference.

Westy:

- you can actually see your windows screen during bootup

ACD 30in:

- picture is probably a teeny lil bit sharper

 

[Huggles]

Sitting at 2 feet or so from the monitor, I have a hard time making out the pixel for the dot in the i's on the Westy.


Obviously the Westy is superior. 1920x1080 in games on 37" of goodness is like being there. As opposed to a 30" tiny screen with higher resolution.


The ultimate screen would be 60" with the Apple's resolution or greater.


Or VR.

 

[Blethrow]

You should see this kick-ass projection system I set up. The image is like thirty feet across, and all I needed was sixty light bulbs and some cellophane. Sure, there's only 20 pixels, but it's so big, dude it's like you're there.

As opposed to a 30" tiny screen with higher resolution.

Or VR.

 

[harsaphes]

my other monitors a Pioneer 50 inch Plasma

 

[Huggles]

You should see this kick-ass projection system I set up. The image is like thirty feet across, and all I needed was sixty light bulbs and some cellophane. Sure, there's only 20 pixels, but it's so big, dude it's like you're there.

LOL


Good FPS?

 

[Labrador]

Sitting at 2 feet or so from the monitor, I have a hard time making out the pixel for the dot in the i's on the Westy.


Obviously the Westy is superior. 1920x1080 in games on 37" of goodness is like being there. As opposed to a 30" tiny screen with higher resolution.


The ultimate screen would be 60" with the Apple's resolution or greater.


Or VR.

I like the point of 37" area, the whole reason for buying a monitor like this is to make you fell like your really in that tank in BattleField2

But compared to the ACD 30" is the 37" that much more WoW factor ? But I am worreid it will look blurry compared to the ACD 30", because it is bigger with less res > I would have it setup on my desk in front of me , like less than 24" which is better then ?

 

[Huggles]

I like the point of 37" area, the whole reason for buying a monitor like this is to make you fell like your really in that tank in BattleField2

But compared to the ACD 30" is the 37" that much more WoW factor ? But I am worreid it will look blurry compared to the ACD 30", because it is bigger with less res > I would have it setup on my desk in front of me , like less than 24" which is better then ?

Ok, let's put it this way....


I used to game on my 42" Grand Wega III at 1280x720 and with 4x AA, the game did NOT look blurry. Without AA on, jaggies were EVERYWHERE and it wasn't a good display.


The 37" at 1920x1080 is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Positively, mind bogglingly, stunning in games. Half Life HDR scene where you are in the Church, my g/f and my other friends who saw it could only say "Holy mother of fxxx" and stuff along those lines.


Trust me when I say you have to lean in to sub 1 foot from the screen to notice the screen door. If you bought this monitor and you were unhappy, I will print out this post and eat it on my webcam.

 

[Xeero]

well like i stated before, its really up to you. you have to decide for yourself. we can't

 

[Blethrow]

I'm honestly sure it's fantastic, but the 30" ACD has twice as many pixels. The image quality in games is just astounding. Really, we are arguing McLaren vs. Ferrari here. One is definitely better than the other in terms of pure performance, but I'd be more than happy with either. Which high end solution is better for an individual depends on a lot of additional factors.

Personally, the multiple inputs to the Westy would be a really big draw for me , but not quite enough to get me to switch. Both though, there's an idea....

Ok, let's put it this way....


I used to game on my 42" Grand Wega III at 1280x720 and with 4x AA, the game did NOT look blurry. Without AA on, jaggies were EVERYWHERE and it wasn't a good display.


The 37" at 1920x1080 is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Positively, mind bogglingly, stunning in games. Half Life HDR scene where you are in the Church, my g/f and my other friends who saw it could only say "Holy mother of fxxx" and stuff along those lines.


Trust me when I say you have to lean in to sub 1 foot from the screen to notice the screen door. If you bought this monitor and you were unhappy, I will print out this post and eat it on my webcam.

 

[pawstar]

I would recommend getting the Apple 30" LCD. With the Nvidia 7800 GTX card now supporting one 30" lcd, installation is really simple and given the trend these days heading towards more movie like quality in video cames, the 30"-er will give better image quality as more detail can be displayed in a given area. Furthermore, the smaller pixel pitch will give sharper images and you won't need to anti-alias as much.

 

[Labrador]

Ok, let's put it this way....


I used to game on my 42" Grand Wega III at 1280x720 and with 4x AA, the game did NOT look blurry. Without AA on, jaggies were EVERYWHERE and it wasn't a good display.


The 37" at 1920x1080 is stunning. Absolutely stunning. Positively, mind bogglingly, stunning in games. Half Life HDR scene where you are in the Church, my g/f and my other friends who saw it could only say "Holy mother of fxxx" and stuff along those lines.


Trust me when I say you have to lean in to sub 1 foot from the screen to notice the screen door. If you bought this monitor and you were unhappy, I will print out this post and eat it on my webcam.

They should hire you for their sales person

 

[gopherscanswim]

I'd have to say that for office work I'd rather have the Apple (I'd probably save my pennies and buy a 2405). But if I were a serious gamer, the 37" would be more engrossing, and the drop in resolution probably wouldn't be a serious concern. That's still pretty good res.

I'd choose westy for gaming without seeing it assuming that in terms of contrast, color, and black and white rendering it's the same or close to the Apple. For gaming the size would be nice, you could sit back a bit but it's big enough to really get you in to it.

 

[Lord_Exodia]

No high end game will be playable above 1920x1200 anyway. More inputs on Westinghouse and support for 1080p. Plus a full 7 inches bigger. I cast my vote for the Westinghouse. BTW you should have made this a poll.

 

[Blethrow]

No offense, but what experience do you base that on?

I can tell you HL2 rocks on my system at 2560 x 1600, but maybe you mean something more demanding.

No high end game will be playable above 1920x1200 anyway.

 

[Happy Hopping]

But compared to the ACD 30" is the 37" that much more WoW factor ? But I am worreid it will look blurry compared to the ACD 30", because it is bigger with less res > I would have it setup on my desk in front of me , like less than 24" which is better then ?

It most certainly will look blurry. Most people sits about 1 ft. facing their LCD on their desk, all you will see is squares. That kind of low resolution is simply unsuit to be a LCD computer monitor, just a LCD TV.

But for a 37" LCD TV, there are much better ones from Panasonic, Sony, etc.

 

[Lord_Exodia]

No offense, but what experience do you base that on?

I can tell you HL2 rocks on my system at 2560 x 1600, but maybe you mean something more demanding.

Yeah Half life 2 is so well coded and not very demanding on current hardware except for lost coast. I mean Fear, Quake 4, Serious Sam 2. Try running one of those babies over 1920x1200 with more than 4x AA and 8x AF and you could really put a hurting on your videocard.

 

[Huggles]

It most certainly will look blurry. Most people sits about 1 ft. facing their LCD on their desk, all you will see is squares. That kind of low resolution is simply unsuit to be a LCD computer monitor, just a LCD TV.

But for a 37" LCD TV, there are much better ones from Panasonic, Sony, etc.

This guy is on crack.

 

[Blethrow]

Yeah, those will start to push it. I'm going to pick up Quake 4 soon, so I'll have some numbers. The thing is, with this many pixels you don't really need much or any antialiasing, so you have to account for that in figuring what the cards will be able to drive.

Yeah Half life 2 is so well coded and not very demanding on current hardware except for lost coast. I mean Fear, Quake 4, Serious Sam 2. Try running one of those babies over 1920x1200 with more than 4x AA and 8x AF and you could really put a hurting on your videocard.

 

[Labrador]

Yeah, those will start to push it. I'm going to pick up Quake 4 soon, so I'll have some numbers. The thing is, with this many pixels you don't really need much or any antialiasing, so you have to account for that in figuring what the cards will be able to drive.

Yeah I would think 2xAA would be more than enough for 2560x1600

 

[gopherscanswim]

It most certainly will look blurry. Most people sits about 1 ft. facing their LCD on their desk, all you will see is squares. That kind of low resolution is simply unsuit to be a LCD computer monitor, just a LCD TV.

But for a 37" LCD TV, there are much better ones from Panasonic, Sony, etc.

1 foot away? I don't think so.

 

[Xeero]

well for those people who are doubters, i've ran a few fps games on vga and dvi. there's no noticeable ghosting. i'm sure there is some "slight" ghosting but i can't notice it myself. i'd say its very comparable to the 2405fpw in terms on response. i've tested doom3, ut2k4, wc3, wow, hl2. haven't tested ss2, q4 or fear yet though. also i've noticed that the factory settings are seriously too bright. i've had to turn down the brightness and backlight.

and clarity? well on dvi its comparable to the 2405fpw on dvi. not better, but very comparable.

 

[cunnelatio]

good luck running any game newer than quake3 at 2560x1600. It won't be feasible to game at that resolution for a while since right now games are advancing faster than graphics cards (unlike the earlier days of 3d cards).

 

[Blethrow]

Having such a system, and some games rather newer than Quake3, I love hearing from people who've never used one what is and isn't possible on my machine.

good luck running any game newer than quake3 at 2560x1600. It won't be feasible to game at that resolution for a while since right now games are advancing faster than graphics cards (unlike the earlier days of 3d cards).

 

[Huggles]

Having such a system, and some games rather newer than Quake3, I love hearing from people who've never used one what is and isn't possible on my machine.

Hehe


btw....... Westinghouse FTW

 

[cunnelatio]

Having such a system, and some games rather newer than Quake3, I love hearing from people who've never used one what is and isn't possible on my machine.

Yeah, okay. Benchmarks please.

 

[NKDietrich]

Yeah, okay. Benchmarks please.

Theoretically speaking at that res he's pumping out just over twice the pixels of a 1600x1200 resolution. Worst case scenario is he's getting half the framerate of 1600x1200.

Realistically speaking it would be higher than that. And given that top end cards today can give framerates of over 70fps at 1600x1200 on many modern games, I'm thinking he can get playable framerates at 2500x1600. Plus, at 2500x1600 you don't need any anti-aliasing.

 

[Labrador]

Having such a system, and some games rather newer than Quake3, I love hearing from people who've never used one what is and isn't possible on my machine.

Which monitor are you running ? ACD 30" or the W 37"

 

[Blethrow]

30" ACD being driven by 2 x 7800GTX @ 520/1350 and an 840 EE running at 4.2 Ghz; all are on water.

'Cunnelatio':
As to games advancing faster than video cards: Have you looked at benchmarks on the latest cards at "normal" resolutions? Have you noticed that they're mostly CPU limited below something like 1900? High pixel count monitors are the only territory where these cards really shine right now.

Which monitor are you running ? ACD 30" or the W 37"

 

[Xeero]

haha i bet the op still can't decide which one to get. if he really wants higher resolution then he should just go for the ACD.

 

[Labrador]

30" ACD being driven by 2 x 7800GTX @ 520/1350 and an 840 EE running at 4.2 Ghz; all are on water.

'Cunnelatio':
As to games advancing faster than video cards: Have you looked at benchmarks on the latest cards at "normal" resolutions? Have you noticed that they're mostly CPU limited below something like 1900? High pixel count monitors are the only territory where these cards really shine right now.

My Brother I thinked talked me into the 30" ACD, mainly because of the resolution I currently game at 1920x1200, he said to go down to 1920x1080 would be a big difference, and even more so on such a larger screen for 37" would look very pixelated ?

I would rather have a smaller monitor with better image, but still the 30" would be a bigger upgrade than my 24" LCD compared to my 21" CRT ?