2560x1440 27" vs 2560x1600 30" for gaming

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

bunta714

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
42
0
18,540
Recently I've had an urge to upgrade my 1080p monitor to a much nicer one.

I'm not worried about my system not being able to power the panel with the newest games on ultra settings, etc.
My top price range is probably around $600.


The choices I have been looking at are:

AURIA 2560x1440 27" from MicroCenter
-1 Year warranty, very reasonable price ($400), possible quality problems

Dell U2713HM 2560x1440 27"
-3yr warranty, bit more expensive unless I wait for another special sale ($575ish), no quality problems (most likely)

Yamakasi or other 2560x1600 30" from eBay
-No real warranty, great price ($575ish), possible quality problems


What I'm wondering mostly is about the visible difference (aside from 27" vs 30") in these monitors.
Is there a very large detail difference in games on the 1440p vs a 1600p?

Anyone have experience using both resolutions for gaming and with any of the choices I listed?

Thanks for any opinions or advice provided!
 
Solution
ubercake
First, IPS monitors have high resolution, but are best known for color accuracy and exceptional viewing angles. They are not known to be great for gaming because of input lag.

Knowing that, based on the choices you've listed...
I'd go for the Dell 27". It has good contrast, comparatively. This is helpful when an enemy is hiding in a container in BF3. Bad contrast leaves the inside of the container too dark to notice the enemy.

I wouldn't buy anything without a warrranty so the Yamasaki is out of the question.

I bought one of the Auria monitors and returned it after a day because the contrast couldn't compare (had bad contrast as described above) to my Acer HN274H 120Hz monitor. On the Auria, I did like the added screen real...
Sort by date Sort by votes
Z

zottowr

Honorable
Feb 13, 2013
12
0
10,520
The off-brand korean monitors (like the auria and yamakasi above) often have a handful of dead/stuck pixels and backlight bleed. Basically they are the rejected panels that don't meet Dell/Apple/HP/Samsung's quality control levels.

That said, my friend does have one of those cheap 27" monitors and he's happy with it. He says there are a couple stuck pixels and a little backlight bleed on one side, but he's happy with it for the price.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ubercake

ubercake

Splendid
Oct 28, 2009
7,270
5
29,815
First, IPS monitors have high resolution, but are best known for color accuracy and exceptional viewing angles. They are not known to be great for gaming because of input lag.

Knowing that, based on the choices you've listed...
I'd go for the Dell 27". It has good contrast, comparatively. This is helpful when an enemy is hiding in a container in BF3. Bad contrast leaves the inside of the container too dark to notice the enemy.

I wouldn't buy anything without a warrranty so the Yamasaki is out of the question.

I bought one of the Auria monitors and returned it after a day because the contrast couldn't compare (had bad contrast as described above) to my Acer HN274H 120Hz monitor. On the Auria, I did like the added screen real estate, but couldn't sacrifice good contrast as it is essential in FPS gaming. The input lag was also noticeable to me.

I would recommend a 120Hz TN monitor if you play a lot of multi-player FPS games though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,307
4,149
174,240
A great monitor is a good upgrade.
I have been pleased with 2560 x 1600, but have no comparison to a 2560 x 1440 unit.
The natural text size is a bit small, but the zoom capabilities allow you to view web pages in any size you want.
Past that, in games, you will be able to see more of a map or sideways. That is a good thing.
They will have IPS panels with 178/178 viewing angles, so looking at the monitor off center will not make it look washed out.
A unit from dell or HP will be $1000, exceeding your budget.
The 27" will obviously be a bit smaller, and the aspect ratio will be similar to your current 1080P monitor.
I happen to like the more squarish 2560 x 1600.
The yamakazi type monitors seem to get good marks on the forums for them.
They also come in the smaller 2560 x 1440 size.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

Groomer

Honorable
Jul 29, 2012
146
0
10,710
The 16/9 aspect ratio is much more common, and therefore somewhat more supported. If you also watch videos, 16/10 will simply result in more black bordering at top/bottom of screen, or worse stretching.

Source for common resolutions: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

As far as games go, field of view is usually larger with a wider screen. As the vertical fov is usually fixed, while the horisontal fov is dynamic.

Of course 2560x1600 IS a larger resolution...

I prefer 2560x1440, also save a bit of money.

For gaming I strongly advice you check up on specs / reviews of those screens to make sure you don't get a slow monitor. The Auria EQ276W tested at toms was supposedly not too good.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/auria-eq276w-review-ips,review-32664-9.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ubercake

ubercake

Splendid
Oct 28, 2009
7,270
5
29,815


I pretty much agree with Tom's review findings on the Auria as well as I experienced lower than acceptable contrast as well as noticeable input lag.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom