So I sink 3 grand into a gaming system with a video card that can put out 2560x1600 but there are no monitors that go that high except 2 dell and 1 Hp and all of those suck for gaming. When are they going to come out with a new monitor. Ive have this 24'Sceptre with 1900x1200 with 1ms for 3 years now. Seems time for better monitors to come out. Looking for 27inch plus 2560x1440 at least with 120mhz and 3ish ms response.
Why do you think 2560x1600 monitors suck for gaming? Typically these very high end monitors are designed/intended for professionals (design, photography, etc) but every review I've ever seen indicates nothing except that it's extremely enjoyable playing games at that high resolution on such a large screen. Take a look at some reviews (especially in response to their analysis of input lag, etc) and I think you'll find that it's not really a problem on these monitors.
Playing with monitor frames between your monitors and the fact that not all games are going to play well into that screen size seems like a bigger drawback than anything I could come up with for a 30".
Multi-monitor setups are cheaper- a 30" HP ZR30W or Dell U3011 will run you at least $1200. You can get 3 smaller monitors for $300 each. If it were my decision I'd definitely go with the 30" though, especially with your very high end system.
I doubt you'll have issues with any games coming out now. Older games might have problems with it, but seeing as AMD and Nvidia support the tech new games won't have an issue. As for "gaps", its amazing what your mind can make disappear.
I still don't know why the OP says that 2560x1600 monitors are bad for gaming.
CNet Review : "Games: Because of our intimate familiarity with StarCraft II, it is our new favorite tool for judging color quality and vibrancy in games. Yes, StarCraft II looks incredible running at 2,560x1,600 resolution and has definitely spoiled us, as after testing we found ourselves crawling back to our 24-inch monitors, which seem positively limited now (sigh). The colors and vibrancy on the ZR30w are second to none and everything looked detailed and popped from the screen."
Anandtech Review: "I played a number of FPS titles and RTS games on the display, and never noticed any display processing lag or ghosting to speak of. If you’re going to use a 30” panel for gaming, the ZR30w seems to be just as good as any. LCD response and latency performance still isn’t technically at parity with CRTs, but you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference."
HotHardware Review: "Where IPS panels have traditionally suffered is in gaming. TN panels typically sport better response times than IPS panels, putting the latter at a disadvantage in fast moving scenes. As S-IPS panels have improved, however, this has become less of an issue, and if there was any ghosting or blurring, it slipped past our testing undetected. Again, the ZR30w isn't intended for gaming, but it handles the 'job' just fine nonetheless."
CNet Review: "As on the HP ZR30w, the colors and vibrancy on the U3011 are second to none and everything looked detailed and popped from the screen. The U3011 gets the performance edge here, however, as the presets and color calibration options allow for more detailed tweaking of the output.
We also used DisplayMate's Motion tests and found that the U3011, with its 7-millisecond refresh rate, produced noticeably more streaking than the Samsung PX2370, running at a 2ms refresh rate."
Anandtech Review: "I ran this test twice as well because the results somewhat surprised me - 23 ms is a pretty substantial amount of input lag. This was being driven over DVI-D from a NVIDIA GTX 470, as a reminder. I played a lot of games on the U3011 (well, as many as I could in-between smarphones, CES, and other work), and never noticed input feeling laggy or just plain off. Over HDMI I tested Halo Reach from an Xbox 360, on the PC lots of BFBC2 and DOD:S. It's a personal taste thing, honestly I still can't subjectively feel the input lag, even if it is there."
**Note: I would like to point out this note from the CNet Review of the U3011: "The U2711 is still the best overall large-screen monitor, but if 27 inches just isn't enough, the U3011 is a fully capable alternative." I don't think you could describe the experience reflected by any of these reviews is in any way "bad", but for the record the U2711 has the resolution you're looking for, takes a lot of the potential gripes off the table (like the relatively high input lat on the Dell 30"), and is about $400 less expensive to boot. But, it's "only" 27".
The high res monitors over 27' are really only two by dell have a higher response time than I want and have a funky glare coating which people have complained about. I'm not sure why gaming video card makers aren't teaming up with the monitor makers to produce a product which can display a resolution equal to what the video card can show. For gaming at least multi monitor set ups are a just a way to sell more inferiority to the public. I mean WTF there are only 3 monitors over 27' in the world that go over 1600x1200 with less than a real 5ms response time? (2 Dell and a HP) That is ridiculous. Also monitor makers really fudge pack their numbers when giving us response times. Those 3 monitors are actually well above the 6-7ms response they claim. I don't know about you but my monitor displays all of the color spectrum from White to Black so they need to do the testing accordingly. It shouldn't be based on grey to grey first pixel change or people will notice the difference and be unhappy. The price is also last on my list of importance. I have chosen not to participate in the recession so $1-2k monitors are fine if its really good.
For gaming at least multi monitor set ups are a just a way to sell more inferiority to the public.
And I completely disagree. Stitching 3 monitors together side by side gives you a bigger field of view. 5760x1080 is a lot wider then 2560x1600. (if the narrow 1080 bothers you, turn them portrait and use 3240x1920.) Being able to see more will be of great help while playing games.
As for monitor quality, I get the feeling that it doesn't matter what I say you won't believe me. You NEED to have 1ms response time? I'm sure anyone who knows monitors that its pointless to talk to you about this.
Didnt say I needed 1ms just less than 5ms. I love how people like to debate with obviously no real experience. Just because you see a demo on YouTube of some PC rep showing a hawxs demo behind him on 5 monitors or some crap doesn't mean someone can actually use that set up for real gaming. Multi monitors and SLI/Cross fire set up introduce a huge amount of unneeded complexity which often shows up in your game not even working because all that crap isn't even supported by the game. I've had the best multi-display set up there is and it's a dog *** way to game and just leaves you with a headache and nightmares. SLI isn't much better and I've been using that crap since Voodoo in 1999. Don't get sucked into the crap they are telling you to buy demand better. There is a huge divide between what video cards can show and what a single monitor can show. Ironically it used to be the other way around. It just needs to match is all I ask.
You also know little about monitors and their refresh rates gtg response time and input lag, yet you act superior. Don't go asking for help if you're acting like you know it all especially since you posted this in the wrong sub forum.
There's nothing wrong with the monitors that are out. It seems that your sticking point is response time. Maybe try to elicit responses from people who have these larger monitors- I've never heard complaints that they are unhappy in any way with the response times. If you've already made up your mind that everything sucks I'm not sure what the point of posting here is.