2560*1600 resolution or full HD1080i is better for game & movie??

[ykyagami]

i wonder a Sony bravia high end full HD 1080i projector, full HD 1080i 24" monitor or a 30" monitor with 2560*1600 is best for playing games (crysis, assassin creed, mmorpg) and watching movie?? pls help me.. i need to replace my 17" samsung syncmaster monitor coz it sucks... hopefully the whole setup is less than 10K us dollar..

 

[mrmez]

1080i = 1920x1080.
Thats the rez HD content is delivered in.
Obviously 2560x1600 is higher.

But be aware... to play Crysis at 25x16 will require some of the most expensive hardware money can buy. Probably a 3Ghz quad core plus AL LEAST 2x NV280's

Also... in a 24" screen you wont really notice the extra pixels in HD. U need at least 32" to warrant HD.

 

[PsyKhiqZero]

what projector did you have in mind? personally if I had the space for it, and the ability to setup a proper projector room... I would do the projector. but if the projector. with a 10k budget i don't see why you don't get a 1080p projector though.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644515290

2560x1600 is just too high for current available hardware. LCD's looking like trash when not run in the native rez. I'd look into 1920x1200 lcds just to keep the look cleaner if you went LCD.

 

[axlrose]

look into the gateway xhd3000. it's not cheap, but i just got myself a new one about a month ago when i put a new system together. it's native is 2560x1600 but it has the best scaler i could find as well so when inputs are used (blue ray drive for example) that aren't giving 2560x1600 resolution, it upconverts.

what's also great about this is you can run a game at 1920x1200 if you are having trouble with frame rates etc., and it upconverts. check it out on gateway's site. the have a section that compares it to other 30" monitors and i thought it was pretty useful.

best part out of my whole system and other than vista, it was the only part i didn't have to trouble shoot at all.

 

[cjl]

I'd go for the Dell 3008WFP over the Gateway honestly - better color accuracy and more colors. The gateway supposedly has slightly less lag though. I will say one thing - having seen the Dell, it looks absolutely stunning - amazingly vibrant colors, and incredible clarity.

 

[ykyagami]

what projector did you have in mind? personally if I had the space for it, and the ability to setup a proper projector room... I would do the projector. but if the projector. with a 10k budget i don't see why you don't get a 1080p projector though.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644515290

2560x1600 is just too high for current available hardware. LCD's looking like trash when not run in the native rez. I'd look into 1920x1200 lcds just to keep the look cleaner if you went LCD.

sry i mean 1080p sony bravia projector.. will it beats the rest? wat if i replace the 24" with a 60" samsung monitor with 1080p.. who wins? wat's the diference between 1080i and 1080p?

 

[axlrose]

my understanding is the only thing the dell really beats the gateway at is the color gamut and that's only useful (as far as the differences between the two) if you are into hardcore photo work.

i've never seen any lag on the gateway playing bioshock (first person shooter) at 2560x1600.

 

[axlrose]

check this out. looks like the dell costs more as well.

http://www.gateway.com/programs/ExtremeHDdisplay/compare.php

integrated vs progressive? i just googled and happened upon this first.

http://hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

 

[cjl]

my understanding is the only thing the dell really beats the gateway at is the color gamut and that's only useful (as far as the differences between the two) if you are into hardcore photo work.

i've never seen any lag on the gateway playing bioshock (first person shooter) at 2560x1600.

As far as colors go, yes, the increased color gamut makes it better for photo work. It also makes it overall appear more vivid, and it can display more total colors. Trust me, this is visible. I can see a noticeable color difference between my monitor (92% color gamut) and my dad's 2408 (110% gamut). The 2408 just looks more vivid overall, and the colors really pop out at you. The 3008, at 117% color gamut, must be incredible to behold. The gateway is cheaper though.

As for 1080i, 1080p, and 30", the 1080i is interlaced. This means that it is at a resolution of 1920x1080, and every other line is refreshed 60 times per second (first the even lines, then the odd lines), making the entire picture only refresh at 30Hz rather than 60, as it takes 2 "frames" to fully refresh. 1080p is the same resolution, 1920x1080, but is refreshed 60 times per second, every line. 30" monitors beat either one however, at 2560x1600, with every line refreshed at 60 times per second.

As for the dell costing more? Dell actually has 2 models, the 3007, which is the older one, that goes for $1200 or so (great budget 30", if there is such a thing, can't quite stand up to the response times and color capabilities of newer ones though), and the 3008, which goes for $1800 or so. The Dell also supports DisplayPort, and if the HD video that it supports is low quality, that's certainly news to me (it looks stunning).

Of course, they're both amazing monitors, and you certainly wouldn't go wrong with either one.

 

[clownbaby]

you already asked all this a few days ago moron. stop wasting peoples time with your worthless questions. Nobody chooses between a 30" monitor and an 80" projector you ****. Either you want a **** huge screen or you don't. Make up your retarded mind and go **** home.

 

[Guest]

^ someone is having their period today