Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Large Monitor with Low Resolution

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
November 6, 2009 4:12:14 PM

I'm looking for a large monitor(30") with a relatively low resolution such as 1366x768. Most 30" monitors have a 2560x1600 resolution which I think is way too high. I found some professional large format 32" displays with a low resolution, but I'm wondering if they will work for pc gaming. What about input lag? Is 8ms response time really good enough?

I want a 30" instead of a 32". Do they make a 30" with 1366x768 or similar resolution?

I have a 9800gt, 3ghz core2duo, and 4gb ram and play games like crysis and gta iv.
a b C Monitor
November 6, 2009 5:39:11 PM

30" monitors essentially have two native resolutions - 2560x1600 and 1280x800. You can run them at either and you won't have any of the image quality issues that you get with LCDs at a non-native resolution.
November 6, 2009 6:05:05 PM

cjl said:
30" monitors essentially have two native resolutions - 2560x1600 and 1280x800. You can run them at either and you won't have any of the image quality issues that you get with LCDs at a non-native resolution.


Seriously? Even though it says 2560x1600 native resolution, it will run at 1280x800 with zero quality loss? It's a less sharp resolution of course, but is there no weird smearing artifacts like it shows on Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution
Related resources
a c 195 C Monitor
November 7, 2009 7:04:41 AM

There will be a slight dip in image quality because you will be displaying a "small" resolution on a relatively large monitor. Generally, this means things will appear to be less sharp.

Lowering the resolution of the monitor to exactly half of the monitor's resolution results in the best possible situation because in effect you are "doubling" the size of the pixel. The larger the pixel, the less sharp the image will be and may look a little grainy as well.

November 7, 2009 7:42:32 AM

How about buying a 30" 720p or 1080p TV?
You can get them for half the price of a 30" 2560x1600 or less.
At the lower resolution, VGA works great (though analog is horrid at higher resolutions). Many also come with HDMI (letting you use the TVs speakers if you want to). Plus, you just use it as your TV.
Be careful though, While my Xbox 360 may recognize my TV is 1080i, none of my video cards know what to do with it (a variety of ATI and Nvidia cards), and I can only use custom low resolutions. Damned peice of junk has its serial number on the back, and being wall mounted, it's too difficult to access to contact the manufacturer for help.

I never really cared about input lag myself.

Though I'd just get a 2560x1600 30" IPS... as I'm trying to. ^_^

Running at 1280x800 should work just fine though with your 9800gt, as it 'should' just display 4 physical pixels to every rendered one, being an exact multiple.

What's your budget? It makes a huge difference.
November 7, 2009 10:40:06 AM

It still sounds like a monitor with a low native would be better than one with the native resolution cut in half.

I've heard that tv monitors have the most problems with input lag, but I've never used one for pc gaming so I'm sure how big of a problem it actually is.

Can you recommend a specific monitor and specific place to purchase it based on this criteria?

1. Under $2000
2. Between 26" and 30" screen size (under 29" in total width, which most 30" screens are)
3. dvi connection
4. resolution below 1080p
5. 8ms response time or better
a b C Monitor
November 7, 2009 11:56:00 AM

Tyler2000 said:
Seriously? Even though it says 2560x1600 native resolution, it will run at 1280x800 with zero quality loss? It's a less sharp resolution of course, but is there no weird smearing artifacts like it shows on Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

Exactly. This is because at 1280x800, every pixel being displayed is precisely 4 times larger than at 2560x1600. This means that the monitor can display 1280x800 simply by treating each group of 4 pixels (2x2) as a single new pixel, and there will be no image quality reduction at all, aside from the loss due to the lower resolution.

You would not be able to see any image quality difference between 1280x800 on a 2560x1600 monitor and 1280x800 on a 1280x800 monitor of the same size. The images would appear identical.

For your budget, I'd get a 30" 2560x1600 monitor personally, but if you truly would never use it at full resolution, it would be a waste. If you would use it part of the time at full resolution, and part at 1280x800, it would work great.
November 7, 2009 1:41:29 PM

cjl said:
Exactly. This is because at 1280x800, every pixel being displayed is precisely 4 times larger than at 2560x1600. This means that the monitor can display 1280x800 simply by treating each group of 4 pixels (2x2) as a single new pixel, and there will be no image quality reduction at all, aside from the loss due to the lower resolution.

You would not be able to see any image quality difference between 1280x800 on a 2560x1600 monitor and 1280x800 on a 1280x800 monitor of the same size. The images would appear identical.

For your budget, I'd get a 30" 2560x1600 monitor personally, but if you truly would never use it at full resolution, it would be a waste. If you would use it part of the time at full resolution, and part at 1280x800, it would work great.

^- +1
2560x1600 for gaming and 1028x800 for desktop. This will still make it easy on the eyes when browsing and the such, but the higher resolution on games makes it a more enjoyable experience.
You would have to get a better video card (4890 2GB, GTX 285 2GB or a 5870 1GB would be best I'd think), but at your price point, it's affordable. GTA4 would love a 2GB GPU.

Don't worry about the input lag on a TV, we use them for console gaming just fine don't we?

At a $2,000 price point, you can get a great 720 projector.

Also, do you want a IPS or TN panel? At your budget you could afford a higher quality but more expensive IPS panel.

Though, I guess it must be asked, why do you think 2560x1600 is too high?

In the end though, I just say get a 4870 1GB with a HDMI output and a 30" 720 TV with HDMI. Many people game on their TVs perfectly fine.
26" 1366 x 768 with 2 HDMI outputs. Average TN panel, 8ms response, 30,000:1 dynamic contrast, 170/160 viewing angle etc.
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=...
26" 1366 x 768 TVs for $400-600 are easily available.
November 7, 2009 4:10:06 PM

I don't want to upgrade my graphics card. I think 2560x1600 is too high because everyone talks about how 1080p is even more than enough for 42" tvs and I think it would just put unnecessary stain on my graphics card. I also don't like text being too small.

I don't want a projector. I want a screen that completely fills the 29" width space I have on my desk. Is it correct that a 30" diagonal monitor is usually 27" in width?

I would pay more for an IPS panel if I could find one with the correct size and resolution. Does the 9800gt have an hdmi port? Are there any pros or cons to using it over dvi?

Do you personally use both a 2560x1600 and 1280x800 resolution on your screen? I understand this is theoretically possible, but are people actually doing this successfully? It would be nice if someone with one of these monitors took a video camera, recorded their screen with both resolutions and uploaded it to youtube as proof.
November 7, 2009 9:17:27 PM

Depending on the size of the bezel, yeah, a 30" would fit in a 29" space.

No real use of using HDMI over DVI other than audio.
Whether or not it has a HDMI port is dependant on which model of the 9800GT you have. The plain reference one doesn't, but some do. Just look at the back of your PC if you can to tell.

For general browsing, in Windows you can increase the size of the fonts used to compensate for the larger resolution. However, for programs, it's independent of each one. My own sight is far from perfect, but my 23" 2048x1152 @ 102 pixels per inch at 2-3 feet away form me is still easily readable, while 30" 2560x1600 res monitors have a slightly lower 100 pixels per inch. Whether or not the text is readable would mainly depend on how far you are away form the monitor.

The Apple Cinema 30" 2560x1600 is something around $1,990. For $1,900, you can pick up a iMac 27" with a i5, 4GB, 4850m (pathetic GPU to put with such a powerful display), 1TB. Both are IPS monitors.

If I managed to scrap up a grand or two to get a 30" and run it at 1280x800, I would attempt to see if the theoretical is correct... however, I spent 2 grand on my computer already. Toms has a 30" or two (judging from the 2560x1600 GPU tests they do), so send Chris Angelini or someone else from the staff a note to test it for you, I'm sure they'd be glad to help.

Edit: I am personally considering the Samsung 305T. It's worth about $1,200 new. It's also a 2007 model. It's a decent PVA panel at a TN panel price, with quality comparable to a IPS panel. I love Samsung.
Your classic 300cd/m2 brightness, DVI-D, 178/178 degree viewing angle etc.
With the stand it's 27.1" x 19.8" x 11", and weighs 26.5 lbs (so I hope you have a hearty desk).
Only one issue, no HDCP. So if you want to watch Blurays, you either have to crack em' or watch them form something else. No HDMI either.

A Dell 3007wfp-hc is also a considerable choice. Also from 2007, it's on the lower end of the spectrum of IPS panels (produced by LG), but still comparable to high end PVA panels. $999 for a 30" IPS! Dell states it natively supports both 2560x1600 and 1280x800.
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=112695...
Maybe I need to start shopping at Costco...

For televisions, 1080p is more than enough. Most HDTV is still only 720p, and only Blurays and the such are 1080p video. Consoles generally run at 720p and 1080p upscaling, though the Wii/PS2 run at 480p.
If you're willing to spend $2,000 on a new monitor, why aren't you willing to upgrade your graphics card?

So yeah, your choices are: 30" 2560x1600 for $1,000-$2,000 and $150 for a new GPU
~OR~
$500-$800 for a 26-30" 720p/1080p TV.
November 7, 2009 11:04:44 PM

anamaniac said:
Depending on the size of the bezel, yeah, a 30" would fit in a 29" space.

No real use of using HDMI over DVI other than audio.
Whether or not it has a HDMI port is dependant on which model of the 9800GT you have. The plain reference one doesn't, but some do. Just look at the back of your PC if you can to tell.

For general browsing, in Windows you can increase the size of the fonts used to compensate for the larger resolution. However, for programs, it's independent of each one. My own sight is far from perfect, but my 23" 2048x1152 @ 102 pixels per inch at 2-3 feet away form me is still easily readable, while 30" 2560x1600 res monitors have a slightly lower 100 pixels per inch. Whether or not the text is readable would mainly depend on how far you are away form the monitor.

The Apple Cinema 30" 2560x1600 is something around $1,990. For $1,900, you can pick up a iMac 27" with a i5, 4GB, 4850m (pathetic GPU to put with such a powerful display), 1TB. Both are IPS monitors.

If I managed to scrap up a grand or two to get a 30" and run it at 1280x800, I would attempt to see if the theoretical is correct... however, I spent 2 grand on my computer already. Toms has a 30" or two (judging from the 2560x1600 GPU tests they do), so send Chris Angelini or someone else from the staff a note to test it for you, I'm sure they'd be glad to help.

Edit: I am personally considering the Samsung 305T. It's worth about $1,200 new. It's also a 2007 model. It's a decent PVA panel at a TN panel price, with quality comparable to a IPS panel. I love Samsung.
Your classic 300cd/m2 brightness, DVI-D, 178/178 degree viewing angle etc.
With the stand it's 27.1" x 19.8" x 11", and weighs 26.5 lbs (so I hope you have a hearty desk).
Only one issue, no HDCP. So if you want to watch Blurays, you either have to crack em' or watch them form something else. No HDMI either.

A Dell 3007wfp-hc is also a considerable choice. Also from 2007, it's on the lower end of the spectrum of IPS panels (produced by LG), but still comparable to high end PVA panels. $999 for a 30" IPS! Dell states it natively supports both 2560x1600 and 1280x800.
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=112695...
Maybe I need to start shopping at Costco...

For televisions, 1080p is more than enough. Most HDTV is still only 720p, and only Blurays and the such are 1080p video. Consoles generally run at 720p and 1080p upscaling, though the Wii/PS2 run at 480p.
If you're willing to spend $2,000 on a new monitor, why aren't you willing to upgrade your graphics card?

So yeah, your choices are: 30" 2560x1600 for $1,000-$2,000 and $150 for a new GPU
~OR~
$500-$800 for a 26-30" 720p/1080p TV.



I don't like upgrading the components in my system. When it's time to upgrade, I buy a whole new unit and my current system is only a year old. I won't be getting a new one for at least 3 or 4 years.

So since I need to keep a low resolution for now, I have to either run a 30" 2560x1600 at lower than native resolution or use a 26" 720p lcd tv. I can't find 27", 28", 29" or 30" 720p monitors. I'm leaning toward the 26" tv option, but I don't like that it has a tuner that is not going to be used. I'm going to be using the tuner card I already have in my pc.
November 7, 2009 11:17:45 PM

Alright then. Guess I'm just trying to push my own preference of 30" 2560x1600 and a ATi 5870. =D

Don't worry about the wasted tuner though. There's 28" 1920x1200 and 27" 1920x1080 monitors available for $300-400 if you're interested in the middle ground resolution and running Blurays at native resolution.

Or you could get yourself a nice 30" plasma. Most are only 720p anyways.
Me like plasmas.
November 8, 2009 11:14:16 AM

So if I use a tv as monitor and try to run an older program that runs in a lower resolution like 800x600, what would happen? Would it scale or would it say something like 'resolution not compatible.'

When a tv has a 'pc input', should I use it or the hdmi?
November 8, 2009 11:18:45 AM

I'm also not seeing response time ratings on tv specs. What is the typical response time of a tv?
November 8, 2009 8:32:37 PM

Typically, the same as a monitor. They are the same thing, except HDMI instead of DVI, and a tuner.

Do not use a 'pc input', they typically don't support many resolutions.
I know my TV supports 800x600, and I'm assuming most 26-30" 720p LCD TVs would too. You can send a email to LG or Samsung if you really want to know.
November 9, 2009 10:54:17 AM

Just read up on the Samsing XL30 ($3,000+ LED backlit 30" 2560x1600), and it supports perfect 1280x800. From this, I can only assume most (if not all) monitors do.
a c 195 C Monitor
November 9, 2009 11:27:13 PM

I believe only 2560 x 1600 monitors supports 1280 x 800.

For example, both my 26" NEC and Planar monitors do not have 1280 x 800 as an option from ATI's drivers.
a b C Monitor
November 9, 2009 11:55:26 PM

All 2560x1600 monitors should support 1280x800 perfectly.

jaguar - I'm surprised yours don't support it - my Dell 2408WFP supports 1280x800, though it's an interpolated resolution, and doesn't look as sharp as it would on a native 2560x1600 or 1280x800 monitor.
a c 195 C Monitor
November 10, 2009 12:12:38 AM

cjl

Looking at ATI CCC, the closest resolution available to choose from is 1280 x 720.
November 10, 2009 5:46:22 AM

I meant all 2560x1600 should support it flawlessly. =D
My 23" Samsung 2343BWX 2048x1152 supports 1280x800 natively.

Though I do have one complaint... I wish most monitors supported 1:1 pixel mapping on all resolutions. Such as, if I want to play a game at 1920x1080 (or movie etc.) instead of the native 2048x1152. I'd be fine with cutting a inch of viewing area off to have a perfect picture. It has 1:1 pixel mapping for 2048x1152 and 1048x648.
November 10, 2009 1:27:49 PM

I contacted Chris Angelini, managing editor of tom's hardware, and asked him what he thought. He tried it on his Dell 3007WFP and here's what he said:


Quote:
Just tried it, and it looks awful if you’re still scaling to full-screen. Naturally, you can run anything less than 2560x1600 and not scale and have it run native-size without looking terrible


November 10, 2009 3:08:10 PM

I e-mailed a monitor company called Doublesight and this is what they told me:

Quote:


Hello Tyler,

Thank you for your interest in our DoubleSight Monitor.

To answer you question : YES. Once you set your monitor to “Single Mode” You may use 30”(2560x1600) monitor to display the resolution down to 1280x800 without any pixel breakage or smudging.

There will be NO quality reduction.

Hope this helps

Don Ryu

Service Manager

t: 949.253.1535 ext. 213

f: 949.253.1537

e: don.ryu@doublesight.com

w: www.doublesight.com


November 11, 2009 5:00:05 AM

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/professional-display...
178/178 viewing angle (important to me at least), 500 cd/m² (good for using in a really bright room. Most sites list it as 450, but Samsung lists 500 on its site, but the Samsung has many errors, so I can't say which to trust), and every video port you could need.
4000:1 static contrast ratio, 40000:1 dynamic. That's awesome.
Dual 5W speakers, which works if you want less desk clutter if you'd only use cheap speakers anyways (such as me).
I'm going to assume its

That's actually a really nice monitor. It's quality/size oriented monitor, while typically people just want the best resolution per buck.

One issue though, it's 780mm (30.7) inches wide. You said you only had a 29" space. Can you still fit it? If so, then I suggest you got for it.

I'm going to assume you're American. These are what I found from Google products, but you can also look at Bing shopping or whatever the hell you want.
$719.99 from Newegg. You pay shipping/taxes.
$628.84 from Provantage. You pay no tax, but pay shipping.
$649.88 from Amazon, you pay tax and shipping.
$656.00 from Compsource, you pay no tax or shipping.
November 11, 2009 11:11:32 AM

I may remove some shelves to make room for the 32". It's a lot cheaper and is guaranteed to work in the resolution I want.

Since the viewing angle is so wide, does that mean it’s an IPS panel? The screen isn't glossy, is it?

The only problem is that I don't need the speakers built-in.

Any idea where I can buy the stand for it?
November 11, 2009 7:14:52 PM

It will come with the legs, but I don't know about a stand.

I'm going to assume it's a PVA panel. PVA panels are Samsungs love child.
I can't seem to find it right away, but contact Samsung and ask what mounting it has (such as VESA 200 etc.) and you can find a proper stand form there.

With 450 (or 500) cd/m2, I don't either glossy or matte matters, as you will still get a great picture. Glossy screens do have better picture though. Yet again, ask Samsung.

Then just ignore the speakers, they're not visible.

Good luck.
December 19, 2009 12:51:11 PM

Just wanted to say that I bought the Samsung 320mp-2 and I love it. It's a 32" monitor with 4000:1 actual contrast ratio, 8ms reponse time, and 1366x768 resolution. If it has any input lag I haven't noticed it. I did have to remove some shelves to make room on my desk, but it was worth it. I sit a couple feet away and everything looks great on it.

Thanks for everyone's opinions and advice.
December 19, 2009 2:11:33 PM

Why thank us, we're a bunch of idiots?
I never bothered to research that large format professional monitors actually existed, and you found it all on your own. =D

Enjoy your extremely high quality 720p monitor. Soon as I have enough spare change lying around, hopefully I'm going to enjoy a nice 50" Samsung 8 series plasma. ^_^
!