Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do you prefer the 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 spec?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share

Do you prefer the 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 spec?

Total: 26 votes (14 blank votes)

  • 2560x1600, 30", 16:10, 100.63ppi
  • 54 %
  • 2560x1440, 27", 16:9, 108.79ppi
  • 47 %
September 15, 2011 10:06:01 AM

I was just curious about the preferences here.

2560x1600:
30" monitor
16:10 ratio
100.63 PPI

2560x1440:
27" monitor
16:9 ratio
108.79 PPI

I personally own a 27" 2560x1440 monitor. I like the finer dot pitch and the fact that I get almost the same resolution in a smaller package. I lose 160 horizontal lines of space, but that doesn't matter much to me because the 2560px width is still preserved, and screen width is more important than height. Also, there's the price between. Typically the 27" model will cost less than the 30" bigger brother.

If I were to upgrade this monitor, it would probably have to be a 4K monitor in order for it to be worth it. I know that Eizo already released one, but it's $36,000 at the moment. :??: 
a c 105 C Monitor
September 15, 2011 3:55:55 PM

i dont have either.

i'm using a 40 inch 16:9 1920x1080 television as a screen. my backup monitor is an old 4:3 ratio 20 inch 1600x1200 monitor. as my pc is a gaming/media setup i have zero need for a 2560x monitor.

---

my thoughts are that there are three kinds of people who buy super hi-def monitors such as those:

people who want to play games at crazy high resolutions. in this case 16:9 is probably better as it is a more common format and you will not get black bars in cutscenes or if you watch the occassional movie. 1080p content will still look worse than on a 1920x1080 monitor though.

people who use the resolution for work related purposes. in this case 16:10 ratio is better because if you bought such a high-def monitor to begin with there is normally a reason. typically this is for more screen real estate. having the extra x160 means you can have more windows or more toolbars open at once which can increase productivity.

people who buy one just because they can. in this case it doesnt matter what they buy as its just for show. 16:10 might render side-by-side webpages better.

---

i agree that 4000x monitors would be nice but first we need hardware that can render at that resolution without delay (without going 3x sli) and 4000x content. until that happens its worthless to all but a select few.

for your own information... quite a few years ago a company developed a 20 inch 1:1 ratio monitor capable of 10000x10000 resolution. details were so small you needed a magnifying glass to see them. pretty awsome tech. also the price was lower than that 4k monitor you listed! i think it was only like 15-20 grand.
a c 195 C Monitor
September 15, 2011 10:17:32 PM

My monitors are only 1920x1200, however...

I prefer 16:10 aspect ratio monitors so that automatically leads to 2560x1600 resolution monitors. Also, the 27" 2560x1440 resolution monitors are smaller than their 30" counterparts; while that means higher DPI, it also mean that text can be harder to read because they will be smaller than on a 30" monitor.
Related resources
September 16, 2011 5:05:58 AM

I second Jaguar on this one. I love the 16:10 ratio... it looks more spacious.
June 29, 2012 7:28:45 PM

you guys must have bad vision or something to not be able to discern or read the text.
I still run an old dell on one work station that is 17"... but it has more "screen real estate" than these bigger lcd's. which to me look like crap from a graphics/design perspective.

The Dell Trinitron is 1600x1200 pixels at 17" resolution with 117PPI. This is what was called .21 dot pitch back in the day...

My old Viewsonic is 2048x1536 at 21", 121PPI. I got it for free at a yard sale. That is why I don't see why people are spending 100s on these inferior lcd's which might be flat and save space but the picture is WORSE, esp if you do professional graphics work, web design, publishing, photgraphy, cad, etc.

My main workstation laptop is 17" 1920x1200 macbook pro at 131PPI, pretty optimal IMO... Both are within an optimal range.

The text is fine on ALL of these.

So saying the 27"... it's actually a bit high, only 110ppi. makes massive screen space, and things will look BETTER on it than blown up to 30" at a lower ppi actually. This is assuming no gamma/contrast issues native to the display.

Once things become so "big" they cease to be useful b/c you have to move your head, 30" you have to move your head a bit unless you are watching a movie, 27" is actually pushing it a bit.

Delay is not an issue, that is an issue for kiddie gamers. You won't see higher for you b/c there isn't an experience. If you are working with graphics or photos, you are often editing at the pixel level and need to see each individual pixel clearly and accurately.

This is basically what the new macbook retina display does (at least for pixels on photos so you can blow it up without pixelation to 2880xwhatever it is on a 15" screen. The desktop display is 1920x1200 still, which, is still pretty perfect.
!