Looking for a new 24-27" gaming monitor; cost isn't a priority.

[CrazyWolverine]

Hi folks, I realize I'm new to the forum here, but I was wondering if I could get some advice on a new monitor purchase.
For the tl;dr-ers, I did my homework and filled out the Monitor preference table below. For everyone else, I provided more details in the "Additional Comments" section. I would appreciate any and all feedback.

Approximate Purchase Date: Within the next month (May 2011)

Budget Range: $200-$1000

Monitor Usage from Most to Least Important: Gaming (Mostly FPSes), watching movies/videos, text editing (programming), surfing the internet

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: Amazon.com, Newegg.com

Country of Origin: United States

Brand Preferences: No strong preferences

Physical Size (Diagonal): 24-26 inch

Resolution(s) You'll Consider: 1920x1200, 2560x1440, 2560x1600

Inputs Needed: At least DVI, DisplayPort preferred

Panel Type(s) Desired: IPS (I wouldn't write off a REALLY good TN panel with 120 Hz and good color reproduction, though)

LED Backlight: Indifferent

Speakers: Indifferent

Wall-Mount: Indifferent

Stand Functions: height, tilt, swivel (mostly indifferent)

Additional Comments: I'm upgrading from a BenQ FP19G+, and I want a display with (generally) equal or better response time (8 ms GTG, I believe), so that I don't notice more ghosting than I do now. Low input lag would be preferred. I do not care about 3D support.

Basically, I've got quite a bit of cash to spend on a new monitor, but I intend to use it for at least 3-4 years and I want to make it count. I've done quite a bit of research, but I still can't make up my mind . At this point, I've had my eyes on the Dell U2410/U2711, I loooove the idea of an IPS panel, but I'm worried that I could see a lot more ghosting than I do with my current display (I'd appreciate knowing if this would be the case).

Again, I'd appreciate any and all feedback, and hopefully one day I'll be able to contribute to these forums in turn. Thanks in advance!

(Edit: edited post to be less vague, and narrowed my search down to a 24" monitor to keep things simple.)

 

[jaguarskx]

You need to narrow down on what you actually want 'cause if you are listing $200 - $1200 price range, 1920 x 1080 to 2560 x 1600 resolution and either IPS or TN panel, then you pretty much sound indifferent.

 

[CrazyWolverine]

Well, what I wanted to get across was this:

1. I'd be willing to consider 24 or 27 inch monitors (in case a really good monitor didn't have 24" or 27" brethren).
2. I'd much prefer an IPS panel, but if there was a *really* good TN panel display out there, I wouldn't write it off.

I seem to have failed at that, though . I'll narrow down the search to 24-inchers to keep it simple.

 

[cjl]

If you really are willing to spend that much, I'd get a Dell U2711 personally. It's a great monitor, although somewhat near the upper end of that range.

 

[jaguarskx]

The Dell U2711 2560 x 1440 resolution monitor is probably a good choice. But for me the DPI is a bit too high which makes text harder to read. I would prefer to buy a 30" 2560 x 1600 like the Dell U3011 because the DPI is lower than the U2711 which makes text a bit easier to read.

 

[cjl]

That's true. I personally love high DPI (though I went for a 30 incher for the aspect ratio), but part of that depends on how far you plan on sitting from it and your vision. Text can be a bit small on a really high DPI monitor (and the windows scaling isn't perfect).

 

[CrazyWolverine]

Believe me, I am certainly tempted by both the U2410 and the U2711...the only thing, as I mentioned before, was that I didn't want to take a "backward" step in screen latency as compared to my current monitor, since I do quite a bit of gaming. Of course, that's why I'm asking the community...I simply don't know the pleasure of owning one of these . Would either of these monitors be able to hang with a 6-year-old TN panel during games?

 

[cjl]

Absolutely. I doubt you'd notice any difference in response time or ghosting, and the image quality itself will be much better.

 

[wildpluckings]

Believe me, I am certainly tempted by both the U2410 and the U2711...the only thing, as I mentioned before, was that I didn't want to take a "backward" step in screen latency as compared to my current monitor, since I do quite a bit of gaming. Of course, that's why I'm asking the community...I simply don't know the pleasure of owning one of these . Would either of these monitors be able to hang with a 6-year-old TN panel during games?

I use my Dell U2711 mostly for multimedia work where it really shines but I play some Guitar Hero on it. Being a rhythm game video latency means everything and yes, I have noticed worse performance on the Dell U2711 compared to the Samsung SyncMaster 245B I used to play on. Probably talking 15ms or so but you'll notice it if you are religious about instant feedback/responsiveness. I don't feel any difference on FPS games (Crysis 2, Portal) but if you are used to playing competitive online then you may feel different.

As a "competitive" gamer, I wouldn't trade my U2711 for anything else regardless. It might give you peace of mind to know I played Halo Reach on an 8 year old CRT screen instead of my 40" HDTV because I wanted to do better online! If you aren't an extreme/hardcore FPS gamer it isn't much of an object. Otherwise, the 120hz 3D monitors seem to get a lot of positive feedback from gamers maybe you should consider one of those?

 

[cjl]

wildpluckings: can't you set/calibrate the latency in Guitar Hero to compensate for a slight lag? I know you can in Rockband, but I haven't played Guitar Hero...

 

[wildpluckings]

wildpluckings: can't you set/calibrate the latency in Guitar Hero to compensate for a slight lag? I know you can in Rockband, but I haven't played Guitar Hero...

you can, but for technical reasons Guitar Hero 3 for the PC performs best with the video latency set to 0ms. For this reason (running at 0ms video lag) I can identify exactly how much latency there is between input and response. Again, the Dell U2711 was a small step backward from my Samsung 245B in terms of latency but unless you are playing at an extremely high level it will not significantly affect your gaming performance.

 

[CrazyWolverine]

you can, but for technical reasons Guitar Hero 3 for the PC performs best with the video latency set to 0ms. For this reason (running at 0ms video lag) I can identify exactly how much latency there is between input and response. Again, the Dell U2711 was a small step backward from my Samsung 245B in terms of latency but unless you are playing at an extremely high level it will not significantly affect your gaming performance.

Well, it also seems that the Samsung 245B had a 5 ms average latency, which is nearly half of my current monitor's latency. If it's a "small step backward" for you, then it might not be a step backward at all for me!

I've also been looking around (being the paranoid buyer I am) at TFTcentral's tests of new monitors, and I've noticed that the U2711 and U2410 are very competitive even with modern TFTs due to their very good response-time calibration capabilities. Maybe I'll look a bit into 120 Hz monitors as you mentioned, though....those seem to do extremely well even in the "worst-case" ghosting and input-lag scenarios.

 

[wildpluckings]

Well, it also seems that the Samsung 245B had a 5 ms average latency, which is nearly half of my current monitor's latency. If it's a "small step backward" for you, then it might not be a step backward at all for me!

I've also been looking around (being the paranoid buyer I am) at TFTcentral's tests of new monitors, and I've noticed that the U2711 and U2410 are very competitive even with modern TFTs due to their very good response-time calibration capabilities. Maybe I'll look a bit into 120 Hz monitors as you mentioned, though....those seem to do extremely well even in the "worst-case" ghosting and input-lag scenarios.

For testing I've just tried some Pro Evolution Soccer since this is a game where I used to notice considerable ghosting (when clearing the ball from the goal area to the halfway line for example) I have to say, the U2711 handles it good enough on par or better than other monitors I've used. I would still recommend you google "U2711 Gaming". I might be content but many reviewers recommend 120HZ monitors like the Samsung 2233rz. I think it depends whether you are a hardcore FPS player willing to sacrifice image quality/performance/money for that edge.

 

[wildpluckings]

Also, reviewing your first post it appears you do not intend on doing any multimedia work. Resolutions greater than 1920x1200 will have these side effects:

■ a higher pixel pitch making text more difficult to read
■ worse performance in your games due to the extra resolution
■ extra cost

I think 24"/1920x1200 or 1920x1080 would be perfect

 

[MauveCloud]

Also, reviewing your first post it appears you do not intend on doing any multimedia work. Resolutions greater than 1920x1200 will have these side effects:

■ a higher pixel pitch making text more difficult to read
■ worse performance in your games due to the extra resolution
■ extra cost

I think 24"/1920x1200 or 1920x1080 would be perfect

Technically, the pixels per inch is higher, but the "pixel pitch" is lower (or, as I prefer to call it, tighter), and for most programs you can adjust the font size to compensate.
As far as performance, ultra-high resolution monitors can also display at lower resolutions such as 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, though those resolutions may have interpolated pixels; you also have the option of using 1280x720 or 1280x800, at least one of which can be scaled to exactly double in each direction. The closest option I'm aware of for a lower-resolution monitor is running 800x600 on a 1920x1200 monitor (where it would be scaled to 1600x1200 if you're preserving aspect ratio). Also, the tighter pixel pitch will make aliasing less obvious, so you can probably run games at native with lower antialiasing settings and mitigate the performance hit.

 

[farsuka]

I personally have two dell U2711s and they're quite amazing, haven't ever noticed any ghosting.

 

[CrazyWolverine]

Also, reviewing your first post it appears you do not intend on doing any multimedia work. Resolutions greater than 1920x1200 will have these side effects:

■ a higher pixel pitch making text more difficult to read
■ worse performance in your games due to the extra resolution
■ extra cost

I think 24"/1920x1200 or 1920x1080 would be perfect

You make an excellent point here. I purchased my last graphics card (HD 6870) a few months ago, thinking that I wouldn't need to go beyond a 1920x1200 resolution. Well, if I go higher than that, I could certainly see the framerate in my games take a hit. Plus, I wouldn't want to read microscopic text at a higher resolution, (and I certainly wouldn't want to run at a lower resolution with interpolated pixels on a larger monitor). Perhaps 1920X1200 is right for me....

On top of that, the U2410 seems have ever so slightly better RTC correction to prevent image ghosting, so maybe the U2410 would be a logical choice.