Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

The sweet spot, 32"

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 3, 2011 9:49:22 PM

So I have a 24" and its pretty good, but i want moar for my pc games, ps3 games and movies (: i'll stand about....almost 3 feet from it so obviously 1080p is a must.

ill be using a 6950, should i get a 1gig version or a 2gig? will there be any diffrence?

also, which one do you reccomend? is there one for "gaming" or within the 350-500 range thats worth getting? Thanks again! If not ill just get the 27" samsung 1ms monitor, but sicne i have a 24" well it wouldunt be that huge of an upgrade especially when sometimes watching movies from my bed.

Thanks again!

More about : sweet spot

December 3, 2011 10:19:27 PM

id be using HDMI also on both ps3 and straight from 6950
Score
0
a c 253 U Graphics card
December 3, 2011 10:34:54 PM

So what is ment by "sweet spot 32" ? I would go with the 2gb version of the 6950. I would also get the 27" monitor , bigger is better.
Score
0
Related resources
December 3, 2011 10:45:31 PM

inzone said:
So what is ment by "sweet spot 32" ? I wopuld go with the 2gb version of the 6950. I would also get the 27" monitor , bigger is better.


a 32" inch monitor...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2011 10:47:01 PM

There is no 32" monitors. The biggest they make is 30", which average $1000+. The only 32" screens are TV's.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2011 10:48:59 PM

I went from a 23" 1080p60hz to a 27" 1080p120hz (Acer HN274H). It felt like a huge upgrade, to be honest. I haven't even really done much with 3D. I'm enjoying the 120hz refresh more than anything. Point is, 27" is probably the "sweet spot" for PC gaming, given the typical distance from keyboard/mouse to the display.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2011 10:53:04 PM

The size of the display doesn't matter, the resolution does. You'll get the same performance on a 60" 1080p plasma as you would a 23" 1080p lcd.

I game on a 27.5" 1200p lcd. I wouldn't go much bigger, considering how close you sit to it.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 5:45:15 AM

hapkido said:
The size of the display doesn't matter, the resolution does. You'll get the same performance on a 60" 1080p plasma as you would a 23" 1080p lcd.

I game on a 27.5" 1200p lcd. I wouldn't go much bigger, considering how close you sit to it.


1200p :o  how much it cost?
Score
0
December 4, 2011 6:25:09 AM

I have a 27 inch, and in comparisson to my 21 which is my second monitor, i have noticed that if you stare at the smaller one for a while and then try reading some text on the 27- you will notice that the pixel density isnt as good, and the text seems sort of blurry for about a minute. My point being i dont see this getting any better with a 32 inch monitor unless your spending close to a thousand dollars.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 6:53:50 AM

blacksci said:
I have a 27 inch, and in comparisson to my 21 which is my second monitor, i have noticed that if you stare at the smaller one for a while and then try reading some text on the 27- you will notice that the pixel density isnt as good, and the text seems sort of blurry for about a minute. My point being i dont see this getting any better with a 32 inch monitor unless your spending close to a thousand dollars.


He's talking about games not reading.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 6:55:41 AM

Mid-highgfx said:
So I have a 24" and its pretty good, but i want moar for my pc games, ps3 games and movies (: i'll stand about....almost 3 feet from it so obviously 1080p is a must.

ill be using a 6950, should i get a 1gig version or a 2gig? will there be any diffrence?

also, which one do you reccomend? is there one for "gaming" or within the 350-500 range thats worth getting? Thanks again! If not ill just get the 27" samsung 1ms monitor, but sicne i have a 24" well it wouldunt be that huge of an upgrade especially when sometimes watching movies from my bed.

Thanks again!


Use both, keep your 24" for web surfing, email, etc. Use the 32" for gaming.
Score
0
a c 175 U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 7:10:54 AM

You get 6950 1GB. If you want to get 32" monitor. Make sure it cost more than $500. If its not, you will end up with a bad quality monitor that has the same image quality with 32" TV.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 7:41:23 AM

I have a 32" 1080p TV I use as a primary monitor, and a 24" 1920x1200 monitor I use as a secondary, and I love it.

Gaming on a 32" screen while sitting 2 feet away from it is awesome, and I can easily sit back farther and relax watching video's as well. The 24" i use for web browsing an so forth. I can also with 1 button swap the 32" from being a monitor to used as a television, & have the 24" be the only monitor.

Just keep in mind gaming of a 32" 1080p screen you'll want to be able to run your AA a little higher than you'd need on a 24" 1080p, or a 30" 2560x1600 to compensate for the lower pixel density.

Overall it rocks though.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 1:56:09 PM

refillable said:
You get 6950 1GB. If you want to get 32" monitor. Make sure it cost more than $500. If its not, you will end up with a bad quality monitor that has the same image quality with 32" TV.

There are no 32" monitors, my vizio cost 400 and its image quality is great
Score
0
a c 175 U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 4:20:25 PM

Homeboy2 said:
There are no 32" monitors, my vizio cost 400 and its image quality is great


Oh. I know of 32" TV, and it is only good for Consoles. With computer it is not producing a good image. It is about $275 or something. When I see the next, I can't read anything. Even with VGA or HDMI. Also Even with with 720p or larger. So I think you should spend $500 if you want to buy a 32"TV. If you get a 30" monitor that you said, you will pay $750 or above.
Score
0
December 4, 2011 5:53:53 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
Blah...you LIAR " Full HD 1080P HDMI "

1920x1200 resolution...
Score
0
December 4, 2011 9:56:05 PM

refillable said:
Oh. I know of 32" TV, and it is only good for Consoles. With computer it is not producing a good image. It is about $275 or something. When I see the next, I can't read anything. Even with VGA or HDMI. Also Even with with 720p or larger. So I think you should spend $500 if you want to buy a 32"TV. If you get a 30" monitor that you said, you will pay $750 or above.

What? If you can't read anything off a 32" Vizio 1080p then you need to go to a good eye doctor. TV price have plummeted, the TV i bought is now around 350.
Score
0
a c 175 U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 1:15:18 AM

Homeboy2 said:
What? If you can't read anything off a 32" Vizio 1080p then you need to go to a good eye doctor. TV price have plummeted, the TV i bought is now around 350.


-_-
Really I can't see the text on the desktop which is about size 12 font. I think it is because of the TV. Because the adapter seems fine on others.
Score
0
December 5, 2011 1:49:13 AM

Return the TV and get another, its defective.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 2:03:26 AM

Homeboy2 said:
Return the TV and get another, its defective.


Or... TVs don't make good computer monitors. Weird.
Score
0
December 5, 2011 3:01:28 AM

hapkido said:
Or... TVs don't make good computer monitors. Weird.

Or..... they do, the poster said he couldn't even read text on a TV , wrong and weird. TV's are terrific gaming monitors and adequate web surfing monitors. The only thing wrong with them is the larger ones don't look great because of the limited resolution
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 3:16:46 AM

Homeboy2 said:
Or, they do, the poster said he couldn't even read text on a monitor, wrong and weird. TV's are terrific gaming monitors and adequate web surfing monitors.


No. They have a lower pixel density (due to having the same resolution in a larger format). That's ok if you're sitting away from them, but not for me and most people who aren't sitting +6 feet away from their computer screen. A bigger screen is not necessarily better when you're close. Movies and TV are probably fine, since they're low resolution, low refresh rate, and have motion blur (due to how cameras work, but games are different. If you want a huge screen to look good sitting close, be prepared to pay for it. Otherwise, get a smaller screen.
Score
0
December 5, 2011 6:43:34 AM

hapkido said:
No. They have a lower pixel density (due to having the same resolution in a larger format). That's ok if you're sitting away from them, but not for me and most people who aren't sitting +6 feet away from their computer screen. A bigger screen is not necessarily better when you're close. Movies and TV are probably fine, since they're low resolution, low refresh rate, and have motion blur (due to how cameras work, but games are different. If you want a huge screen to look good sitting close, be prepared to pay for it. Otherwise, get a smaller screen.



Well , you're right about one thing. they do have a lower pixel density than SOME monitors, (a 17" having a res of only 1280 x1024) they still look good as long as you don't go much over 32". I bought my 32" figuring I would switch between it and my 27" inch monitor but found it unnecessary. I' m sitting here looking at the same page on my monitor and on the Vizio and there's little difference,I don't know what is wrong with you and "most people" bad eyeballs? :lol: 



Score
0
December 5, 2011 5:17:07 PM

Homeboy2 said:
Well , you're right about one thing. they do have a lower pixel density than SOME monitors, (a 17" having a res of only 1280 x1024) they still look good as long as you don't go much over 32". I bought my 32" figuring I would switch between it and my 27" inch monitor but found it unnecessary. I' m sitting here looking at the same page on my monitor and on the Vizio and there's little difference,I don't know what is wrong with you and "most people" bad eyeballs? :lol: 


lol! Bad eyeballs...if anything id just ctrl scroll the page, if anything i could read more than one at the same time, maybe even 3.

which model do you have? a 1080p 32"? the 32" would be a great "sweet spot" because right now my 24" is a two or so feet from my eyes, the 32" would be at like 3 1/2 - 4.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 5:52:22 PM

ok, about the television thing... I don't use it very often, but I have a spare hdmi cable that runs from the computer to a 46" samsung 120hz television. I can sit on the couch from approximately 10-12 feet away, and browse the web and read text and everything else just fine. I always leave the hdmi disconnected, and usually only use it to watch 1080p home movies or something I downloaded off the web. It's all crystal clear and should be on any decent television. I used to run a cable from my old laptop to a standard definition television with a resolution set at 1024x768. Even that was readable from several feet away. I used to use that for netflix before it was able to be streamed from the xbox.

Point is, if you can't read text on a 1080p television receiving a signal from your computer, there is definitely something wrong there, whether the hardware itself, or the cables, or some settings. You can go through the cleartype setup to tweak it if needed.
Score
0
December 5, 2011 9:15:24 PM

clonazepam said:
ok, about the television thing... I don't use it very often, but I have a spare hdmi cable that runs from the computer to a 46" samsung 120hz television. I can sit on the couch from approximately 10-12 feet away, and browse the web and read text and everything else just fine. I always leave the hdmi disconnected, and usually only use it to watch 1080p home movies or something I downloaded off the web. It's all crystal clear and should be on any decent television. I used to run a cable from my old laptop to a standard definition television with a resolution set at 1024x768. Even that was readable from several feet away. I used to use that for netflix before it was able to be streamed from the xbox.

Point is, if you can't read text on a 1080p television receiving a signal from your computer, there is definitely something wrong there, whether the hardware itself, or the cables, or some settings. You can go through the cleartype setup to tweak it if needed.


It seems they have bad eyeballs :( 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 9:35:52 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
It seems they have bad eyeballs :( 


If you have two screens with the same resolution, the larger screen will have larger pixels and/or more space between pixels. You have the same number of pixels in a larger surface area, therefore it is less dense. It has nothing to do with good/bad eyes. It's math. I'd argue if you can't notice a difference between viewing a 27" 1200p monitor and a 32" 1080p TV each from 2 feet away, you are the one with "bad eyeballs" (whatever that means).
Score
0
December 5, 2011 10:21:09 PM

hapkido said:
If you have two screens with the same resolution, the larger screen will have larger pixels and/or more space between pixels. You have the same number of pixels in a larger surface area, therefore it is less dense. It has nothing to do with good/bad eyes. It's math. I'd argue if you can't notice a difference between viewing a 27" 1200p monitor and a 32" 1080p TV each from 2 feet away, you are the one with "bad eyeballs" (whatever that means).


You don't understand do you...it's very simple, some people can read text even from far away on a big tv, some can't, ergo bad/good eyeballs.

Lets not lose track of things since i have a good pair of em balls.
Score
0
December 5, 2011 10:21:34 PM

Homeboy2 said:
Well , you're right about one thing. they do have a lower pixel density than SOME monitors, (a 17" having a res of only 1280 x1024) they still look good as long as you don't go much over 32". I bought my 32" figuring I would switch between it and my 27" inch monitor but found it unnecessary. I' m sitting here looking at the same page on my monitor and on the Vizio and there's little difference,I don't know what is wrong with you and "most people" bad eyeballs? :lol: 


which model do you have? a 1080p 32"? the 32" would be a great "sweet spot" because right now my 24" is a two or so feet from my eyes, the 32" would be at like 3 1/2 - 4.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 10:22:05 PM

Newer 1080p TVs do just as well with text as a monitor, it's the older 1080i and 720p ones that suck as monitors. I think a 32" screen would require too large a desk because I would want to put it far enough back where I don't have to turn my damned head just to read a web page. You also probably won't find a 32" TV with a response time under 5ms.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 11:47:32 PM

Mid-highgfx said:
You don't understand do you...it's very simple, some people can read text even from far away on a big tv, some can't, ergo bad/good eyeballs.

Lets not lose track of things since i have a good pair of em balls.


Who's talking about reading text? I GET THAT YOU CAN READ TEXT ON A LCD TV. I have a 40" connected to my media PC, so I'm aware that TVs make good TVs, but that's not what I'm talking about, and it has no relevancy to the conversation. I'm talking about pixel density. You can read text on a stadium scoreboard, but that doesn't mean it would make a good monitor.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 11:49:03 PM

hapkido said:
If you have two screens with the same resolution, the larger screen will have larger pixels and/or more space between pixels. You have the same number of pixels in a larger surface area, therefore it is less dense. It has nothing to do with good/bad eyes. It's math. I'd argue if you can't notice a difference between viewing a 27" 1200p monitor and a 32" 1080p TV each from 2 feet away, you are the one with "bad eyeballs" (whatever that means).


I don't think anyone was disputing the difference in pixel density, just stating that the difference is negligible at these sizes and distances in relation to reading text and other general use.

It's not always easy to locate the response time for 1080p televisions, but the newest models should fall in the 5ms area... I don't have links to support that, but that's my gut instinct based on the use of my 46". The 46" is almost fast enough for a suitable gaming experience, but as they say, "close but no cigar". Still great for video/audio over the hdmi though. I'll give up pushing for a 27" true monitor.
Score
0
December 6, 2011 1:31:54 AM

hapkido said:
Who's talking about reading text? I GET THAT YOU CAN READ TEXT ON A LCD TV. I have a 40" connected to my media PC, so I'm aware that TVs make good TVs, but that's not what I'm talking about, and it has no relevancy to the conversation. I'm talking about pixel density. You can read text on a stadium scoreboard, but that doesn't mean it would make a good monitor.


I GET IT THAT A PC MONITOR WILL LOOK BETTER READING TEXT. The vizio is perfectly acceptable, I have had bunches of monitors starting with a 15" MAG monitor that I paid $500 for. The 32" Vizio has better quality.
Score
0
December 6, 2011 1:36:13 AM

hapkido said:
If you have two screens with the same resolution, the larger screen will have larger pixels and/or more space between pixels. You have the same number of pixels in a larger surface area, therefore it is less dense. It has nothing to do with good/bad eyes. It's math. I'd argue if you can't notice a difference between viewing a 27" 1200p monitor and a 32" 1080p TV each from 2 feet away, you are the one with "bad eyeballs" (whatever that means).



You can argue all you want, my point is that a 32" monitor makes an acceptable monitor. You tell me one thing my eyes tell me another. The eyes win.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 6, 2011 2:07:04 AM

Homeboy2 said:
You can argue all you want, my point is that a 32" monitor makes an acceptable monitor. You tell me one thing my eyes tell me another. The eyes win.


I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Due to the lower pixel density, 1080p at 32" is not acceptable for computer viewing distances (~2 feet). It would probably be fine sitting further away, but that defeats the purpose of having a large monitor. It costs more to not get any benefit of screen space. It may work well for you, but it's still not a good recommendation.

I don't know why you went on a tangent about text. If all you do is read text, then it's still probably ok, but not many people on this forum only use their computers for web and email. I'd argue having to move your eyes/head around to see everything on a large monitor in front of your face (similar to sitting front row at the movie theater) will be more fatiguing than reading on a screen where you can see all of it at once. Furthermore, it's going to be more noticeable for people who work with graphics or play video games, because the diagonal lines will look more jagged. In games you can turn up the AA to help, but that means lower FPS, lower settings, or more expensive graphic cards. Even on my 27.5" 1200p monitor, I need at least 2xAA in games so long diagonal lines don't look broken.

If you want a 30" single screen and actually use your computer, you should be looking 1600p monitors. If you just need more space to read all that text and don't care if it's one screen, add a second or third monitor. It accomplishes the same thing, you have to move your eyes/head to read everything, you get MORE space than a single 1080p desktop, and it's probably cheaper.
Score
0
December 6, 2011 2:13:55 AM

hapkido said:
If you have two screens with the same resolution, the larger screen will have larger pixels and/or more space between pixels. You have the same number of pixels in a larger surface area, therefore it is less dense. It has nothing to do with good/bad eyes. It's math. I'd argue if you can't notice a difference between viewing a 27" 1200p monitor and a 32" 1080p TV each from 2 feet away, you are the one with "bad eyeballs" (whatever that means).



Oh yeh, about your fascination with pixel density, here's you some "Maf"
Diagonal Resolution Aspect PPI Details
27 in 1920×1200 16:10 84 monitor display
32 in 1920×1080 16:9 81 television, 1080i, 1080p

For a HUGE difference of 3.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 6, 2011 2:44:27 AM

Homeboy2 said:
Oh yeh, about your fascination with pixel density, here's you some "Maf"
Diagonal Resolution Aspect PPI Details
27 in 1920×1200 16:10 84 monitor display
32 in 1920×1080 16:9 81 television, 1080i, 1080p

For a HUGE difference of 3.


3 you say?...

1920x1200 = 2304000
1920x1080 = 2073600

27" diagonal at 16x10 aspect ratio = 327.64 inches squared.
32" diagonal at 16x9 aspect ratio = 437.27 inches squared.

2304000 / 327.64 = 7032.11 pixels per square inch for 27" 1200p screen.
2073600 / 437.27 = 4742.15 pixels per square inch for 32" 1080p screen.

A 27" 1200p screen has 148% the pixel density of a 32" 1080p screen.
Score
0
December 6, 2011 2:52:51 AM

hapkido said:
3 you say?...

1920x1200 = 2304000
1920x1080 = 2073600

27" diagonal at 16x10 aspect ratio = 327.64 inches squared.
32" diagonal at 16x9 aspect ratio = 437.27 inches squared.

2304000 / 327.64 = 7032.11 pixels per square inch for 27" 1200p screen.
2073600 / 437.27 = 4742.15 pixels per square inch for 32" 1080p screen.

A 27" 1200p screen has 148% the pixel density of a 32" 1080p screen.



We could argue this all day long, for me I prefer the 32" over the 27" particularly over the Tn panel 27" piece of junk you linked.

and by your reasoning you would never use a 27" since a 21" would have a much higher pixel density, But I don't care, as I said I prefer the 32". Do you want to argue about personal preferences?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 6, 2011 2:57:20 AM

Homeboy2 said:
We could argue this all day long, for me I prefer the 32" over the 27" particularly over the Tn panel 27" piece of junk you linked.


I've already proved you wrong, so there's no point in continuing this. Please don't make these recommendations to strangers who are looking for advice. Giving bad advice to your family and friends is one thing, since they can hold you accountable and/or will know not to take the advice, but it's not cool to throw wrong information out there to anonymous people seeking help.
Score
0

Best solution

December 6, 2011 5:30:43 AM

On the subject of text readability since it was brought up. i wrote a text sample and duplicated it across both my 32" 1080p TV and 24" 1920x1200 monitor. (stop calling it 1200p, 1200p would be 2133x1200, which doesn't exist)

there is about a 1pt difference in easy readability between the two screens. on 'Times New Roman' The text is clear at 7pt on the TV, vs 6pt on the monitor. (6 is readable on the TV still, just not super crisp) That's not a difference that matters at all, no one actually uses 6pt font.

On the note of gaming. a 32" TV is an awesome way to go for gaming. Yes, you have to turn AA up higher which increases graphics load. But 1080p with high AA is no harder on your PC than 2560x1600 with lower AA, so that's a non-factor as well.

Don't knock it until you've tried it, I LOVE my 32" 1080p TV as a monitor. It's badass for gaming, and totally rocks for watching videos as well. (Streaming Starcraft 2 tournaments on is works very well as long as there is a 720p or higher stream available)

BTW, I have excellent eyesight as well. (Like have you ever actually read the words written in the signature line on your checks good) Here's an example of a very easy to read one blown way up if you don't know what I mean: Now imagine that the size of a normal check. Eyesight certainly isn't a problem.

30" Monitors are just way to expensive. You can get a 55" TV for cheaper than a 30" monitor with TV prices recently. That makes 32" TV's a very good alternative for large screen computer gaming. (Especially now that HDMI is standard on all video cards)
Share
December 6, 2011 7:54:11 AM

hapkido said:
I've already proved you wrong, so there's no point in continuing this. Please don't make these recommendations to strangers who are looking for advice. Giving bad advice to your family and friends is one thing, since they can hold you accountable and/or will know not to take the advice, but it's not cool to throw wrong information out there to anonymous people seeking help.


There is no right or wrong in this, it is a matter of preference, please stop telling people what display they must use its not cool to try and force your opinion on anyone, they are old enough to choose. But you can claim victory if it makes you feel good about yourself. Oh yeh, that monitor you advocated is still a piece of junk.
Score
0
December 9, 2011 11:56:10 PM

Best answer selected by Mid-highgfx.
Score
0
December 9, 2011 11:56:26 PM

Yargnit said:
On the subject of text readability since it was brought up. i wrote a text sample and duplicated it across both my 32" 1080p TV and 24" 1920x1200 monitor. (stop calling it 1200p, 1200p would be 2133x1200, which doesn't exist)

there is about a 1pt difference in easy readability between the two screens. on 'Times New Roman' The text is clear at 7pt on the TV, vs 6pt on the monitor. (6 is readable on the TV still, just not super crisp) That's not a difference that matters at all, no one actually uses 6pt font.

On the note of gaming. a 32" TV is an awesome way to go for gaming. Yes, you have to turn AA up higher which increases graphics load. But 1080p with high AA is no harder on your PC than 2560x1600 with lower AA, so that's a non-factor as well.

Don't knock it until you've tried it, I LOVE my 32" 1080p TV as a monitor. It's badass for gaming, and totally rocks for watching videos as well. (Streaming Starcraft 2 tournaments on is works very well as long as there is a 720p or higher stream available)

BTW, I have excellent eyesight as well. (Like have you ever actually read the words written in the signature line on your checks good) Here's an example of a very easy to read one blown way up if you don't know what I mean: Now imagine that the size of a normal check. Eyesight certainly isn't a problem.

30" Monitors are just way to expensive. You can get a 55" TV for cheaper than a 30" monitor with TV prices recently. That makes 32" TV's a very good alternative for large screen computer gaming. (Especially now that HDMI is standard on all video cards)


Thank you, good sir.
Score
0
!