What would be a sweet high end no expense spared monitor for gaming?

Well, I recently got a Dell U3011, and I couldn't be happier. The colors are great, and the resolution is incredible (2560x1600). I would certainly recommend it for an excellent high end monitor.

two monitors i've used for gaming...

Sony bravia 1080p 40" LCD 1920x1080
Viewsonic vp201b 20.1" LCD 1600x1200

2560x1600 would give you higher definition but you will have to increase the UI so that you can actually make out text.. unless you have hawk eyes. also keep in mind that resolution is only as good as the source images. last, such high resolutions could strain even high end graphics solutions on newer games.


my suggestion? buy a nice high quality 22" lcd monitor. I can vouch for viewsonic pro's being great (and they have a rotate feature) but I have heard dell makes a decent monitor as well. as for resolution 1920x1080 (or 1600x1200 for 4:3 format) should be fine.

The optimal size? Well they say bigger is always better and I have yet to see a problem with that theory. I have a 30" 2560x1660 monitor as well and it does great.

Though any monitor at that size and resolution is definitely a high end IPS or S-PVA, designed with wide color gamut for professional work. Although you said no compromise, the price of a 2560x1600 H-IPS monitor would cost about $1500. It might be more than what you expected. The Dell U2711 is cheaper at $1000 with a 2560x1440 resolution.

120hz and 240hz you see on TVs are irrelevent. Those TVs don't take real 120hz sources. A graphics processor simply creates frames that shouldn't be there to make the image appear more smooth but at the cost of artifacts and extremely high input lag.
If you want something 120hz, make sure it says 3D on it. However anything 120hz/3D cappable would be a TN panel at 1080P resolution or lower. Which doesn't give as good color, viewing angle, resolution as large format displays like the Dell U3011.

A good place for reviews is TFTcentral.co.uk

Not really. A 30 inch monitor at 2560x1600 is roughly the same number of pixels per inch as a 22-23 inch 1080p, so the text size is about the same. It is true that it strains graphics solutions in games though, and you do need a very high resolution source to take advantage of it. One of its huge benefits is the ability to have multiple windows open at once with plenty of room in each though.

How far away you plan to be from your monitor makes all the difference in what size you should get. I use 1920x1200 at 17'' on a laptop screen and text isn't noticibly small at all, even though the pixel pitch is so tiny, because i sit fairly close to thescreen. Since 2560x1600 at 30'' has a much larger pixel pitch than 1920x1200, technically the text will be a lot larger than it is on a laptop (typical 30'' pixel pitch is also higher than the more "normal' 1440x900 for 17'' laptops). If you're going to be very close to your monitor, a larger size might not be a good idea. If you have a 3 or 4 foot desk, it might be a great idea. Whatever size monitor you decide on, a higher resolution is better, and will produce a clearer/sharper image.
Don't buy TN for panel speed unless you go for a 120hz monitor, as refresh rates are way beyond noticible lag on all models at 60Hz (for most people) 120Hz lets you display a 120fps image though, which would be nice for gaming. Technically, some form of PVA or IPS screen has a better image than a TN, but whether it's worth the sometimes high price increase is debatable. Usually companies don't advertise what panel type their monitors use, so unless you go for a 120Hz monitor (which will always be TN) you would have to look that up yourself. Myself, I wouldn't worry about which type of panel I'm getting all that much, as for most purposes, a monitor is a monitor. 120Hz is better for gaming, and PVA/IPS is better for image quality, but neither is better as far as price is concerned so its more or less a matter of how much you want to spend and what you want to use it for.
If you really want the best of the best, you could go out and buy an eizo monitor, but be warned, they are very very expensive, complete overkill for anyone who isn't a graphic design professional.

Eizo and NEC only had the advantage of a 16-bit LUT and comes with Colorimeters. Otherwise it is just like a Dell, a LG.Display H-IPS panel + W-CCFL backlighting on a fancy stand.

A graphics design has no problem giving out an extra $1000 for a intergrated LUT but average users don't need that kind of color accuracy. You can get very very good color accuracy without the LUT, not that super accuracy matters for movies and video games anyway.

Eizo and professional NEC monitors also tend to have relatively high input lag due to internal image processing which includes usage of the LUT. My NEC LCD2690WUXi has an input lag of 32ms which is approximately 2 frames.

However, some monitors just have high input lags, I think the initial Dell 2407WFP had an input lag of 50ms, but that monitor does not have a LUT nor does it do internal image processing. However, this is going off topic......

Every monitor would have some form of image processing if it has an OSD. Most monitors would have an OSD except for those early S-IPS monitors with no controls what so eve which gives them little to no input lag.

I also noticed that input lag is slightly different from monitor to monitor. I see that TFTcentral's testing doesn't match up with other sites. The testing methods are similar, plug in a CRT or no inputlag LCD and take pictures with high speed clocks running. When taking pictures with a fast shutter, input lag is never the same number, you would have to average it so I guess other factors like graphics card and what is dispalying must matter as well.

@waffle - yes the text would be around the same size if you placed it at the same distance as you sit from a smaller monitor. however, for some that might seem visually overpowering. keep in mind this guy hasn't used anything bigger than a 21".

Guys, you should get back on topic. He needs a monitor that will work well for gaming, not graphic design or the like. I understand he did say no expense spared... but over $1500 is a bit crazy for the average user.

to update my recommendations:

I still say that the 22" I described would suit a person used to nothing bigger than a 21". large monitors take some getting used to. this would also be a cheaper option at $300-$650

I do like the idea of the 30" dell previously mentioned. if your hardware can support it in games and if you have $1000 laying around this might be worth thinking about. keep in mind just how big this monitor is though.

since you arent used to a large monitor this might not apply... but as I stated i use my 40" 1080p for gaming. at 4 feet away it works beautifully. prices range from about $700-1600 depending on brand, led/ccfl, hz, 3d ready/not.

op: you might want to follow up to this post and give us a better description of what you want. also a dollar amount to stick to is always a good idea.

Thanks for all the responses.

I've decided to drop down to 1920x1080 or 1920x1200..... which resolution is better for gaming? I know the 1920x1200's are a little more expensive, but I'm not concerned about that - seems to be fewer of them out there though, with newegg.com having a pretty limited selection.

I would say the monitor will be about a couple of feet away from me.

Currently considering the Dell U2410 or ASUS VW266H. Any thoughts on those?

Of the two, I'll take the Dell.

Agreed - the U2410 is a gorgeous monitor.