When will 30 inch display become mainstream

How much time will it take for 30 inch display having resolution of 2560 x 1600 come into Mainstream? Right now it is on less demand therefore extremely expensive. I can't wait to get one for my next upgrade.

The price of Dell 3008WFP Ultra Sharp is completely out of question

Most people are not in need of a 30" display as it is too big/expensive for most people needs. I wish it did go mainstream so that I would get one hehe. It's the only monitor size I have not gotten yet.

Along with the size its the massive resolution of 2560 x 1600 that will make a whole lot difference in gaming world

When 30" displays become cheap, there will be something bigger, better and higher resolution out that people will move onto.

Right now on my 22", with my eyes level with the top of the screen, i notice that the bottom part is a slightly different shade because it's now at a different angle without needing to stand up. I'd imagine that it would be worse for a 30".

BTW, the left and right sides are different shades from the center too.

I don't think it'll happen.

I know a few people who have switched from 24" units to 22" with no complaints. 24" and up starts to impose space, size and viewing angle non-uniformity issues. Please don't take this to mean that larger screens have no place. They do and I own a 30". However I do not expect this format to be mainstream any more than I expect a PC case with 20 hard drive bays to become mainstream. 30" either means that the display is far away from you, aka large table or that you are going to be moving your head as you scan it.

Sly said:

Right now on my 22", with my eyes level with the top of the screen, i notice that the bottom part is a slightly different shade because it's now at a different angle without needing to stand up. I'd imagine that it would be worse for a 30".

BTW, the left and right sides are different shades from the center too.

Click to expand...

I think 30 inchers use better panels than cheap 22 inchers. You probably have a TN panel, I think 30" screens use IPS

Remember when 1600x1200 was the extreme top end? That was back in 2000. In 2002, 1600x1200 was still the top end.

The first time HardOCP reviewed video cards at 1920x1200 was probably in March 2006, using the Dell 2405FPW. Just three months later, in June 2006, we see HardOCP using the Dell 3007WFP.

It's a little more difficult to pin down when HardOCP quits using older resolutions. As near as I can tell, they quit using 1600x1200 resolution in late 2007, and also around the same time stopped using 1280x1024 for anything but Crysis. Curiously, the first mention I find of HardOCP testing at 1680x1050 is much later, in April 2008.

So: 1600x1200 was the top end display from 2000 until early 2006, and 1680x1050 became the mainstream in late 2007. Call it a 2 year gap between the time 16xx resolution was no longer the top end and when it became mainstream. This would, in theory, suggest that 2560x1600 won't become mainstream until 2 years after it is no longer the top end resolution.

But that assumption would be wrong. I predict that 2560x1600 will NEVER become mainstream. Because of the way the TV display market is spilling over into the computer display market, I believe that 1920x1080 will become the mainstream resolution, and stay that way for a very long time, as long as 1600x1200 was king if not longer. The whole television and movie industry is gearing up for 1920x1080 content, with no particular plans for going higher, because more is not needed for any television that would conceivably be in a mainstream home. Since all the content will be in 1920x1080 resolution, there will be no pressure to make displays with higher resolution.

Development of better displays after 1920x1080 becomes mainstream will be focused in increasing the Hz of the display rather than the resolution. A 1920x1080 display running at a true 120Hz (meaning, receiving 120Hz from the video card, which today's fake 120Hz LCD TVs do not do) would require more performance than a 2560x1600 display at 60Hz, but looks much better because ghosting is cut in half.

evilsofa said:

Remember when 1600x1200 was the extreme top end? That was back in 2000. In 2002, 1600x1200 was still the top end.

The first time HardOCP reviewed video cards at 1920x1200 was probably in March 2006, using the Dell 2405FPW. Just three months later, in June 2006, we see HardOCP using the Dell 3007WFP.

It's a little more difficult to pin down when HardOCP quits using older resolutions. As near as I can tell, they quit using 1600x1200 resolution in late 2007, and also around the same time stopped using 1280x1024 for anything but Crysis. Curiously, the first mention I find of HardOCP testing at 1680x1050 is much later, in April 2008.

So: 1600x1200 was the top end display from 2000 until early 2006, and 1680x1050 became the mainstream in late 2007. Call it a 2 year gap between the time 16xx resolution was no longer the top end and when it became mainstream. This would, in theory, suggest that 2560x1600 won't become mainstream until 2 years after it is no longer the top end resolution.

But that assumption would be wrong. I predict that 2560x1600 will NEVER become mainstream. Because of the way the TV display market is spilling over into the computer display market, I believe that 1920x1080 will become the mainstream resolution, and stay that way for a very long time, as long as 1600x1200 was king if not longer. The whole television and movie industry is gearing up for 1920x1080 content, with no particular plans for going higher, because more is not needed for any television that would conceivably be in a mainstream home. Since all the content will be in 1920x1080 resolution, there will be no pressure to make displays with higher resolution.

Development of better displays after 1920x1080 becomes mainstream will be focused in increasing the Hz of the display rather than the resolution. A 1920x1080 display running at a true 120Hz (meaning, receiving 120Hz from the video card, which today's fake 120Hz LCD TVs do not do) would require more performance than a 2560x1600 display at 60Hz, but looks much better because ghosting is cut in half.

Click to expand...

But isn't this thing true that 1920x1080 is for Console gaming instead of PC gaming??

When they make 30" monitors smaller so that they can fit on more people's desks. Say the size of a 24" or 26" monitor.

Well.. the thing about 1920x1080 16:9 aspect ratio lcd monitors is not having to deal with the black bars on the top and bottom. Plus, not all monitors have 1:1 pixel mapping and therefore it stretches the image.

maverick786us said:

But isn't this thing true that 1920x1080 is for Console gaming instead of PC gaming??

Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with gaming. Gaming is barely an afterthought to display manufacturers. 1920x1080 will replace 1920x1200, just like 1680x1050 replaced 1600x1200, for all the same reasons. 1600x1200 is for all intents and purposes dead, and 1920x1200 is definitely on the way out. The first true 120Hz 1920x display will be a 1920x1080.

Vinnard said:

I think 30 inchers use better panels than cheap 22 inchers. You probably have a TN panel, I think 30" screens use IPS

Click to expand...

That's the only way 30" can be mainstream, unless they can make IPS cheap.

maverick786us said:

How much time will it take for 30 inch display having resolution of 2560 x 1600 come into Mainstream?

Click to expand...

They never will. Too much space taken on the desk, too many pixels.

An average computer user is perfectly happy with a 19-22" monitor and doesn't require anything more. 24" already belongs to the enthusiasts, who couple them with new power-hungry expensive graphics cards.

It's just a matter of time before 24" monitors with 1680x1050 start appearing; they have to be placed a bit further from the viewer, which has a positive effect with TN panels, as the vertical shift is slightly better. Samsung is supposedly experimenting with those and should release a few models by this year's end.

2560x1600 will never be mainstream, nor will 1920x1200. It's just not necessary.

But I've read majority of viewers in this messageboard consider 1920 X 1200 resolution to be the perfect gaming platform. So I thought that 2560 X 1600 will make it almost realistic by adding 70% more pixels

This is a niche forum, as all hardware-related forums are. Of course it's all skewed towards the top end here.

Mainstream means "whatever your mother has for playing Solitaire and checking cooking recipes" or "whatever your sister uses for her MySpace and Facebook accounts". 1920x1200 just doesn't belong in any of those categories, and most certainly never will.

Here's my 2 cents worth..

30" will not become a standard. It simply breaks down to most people not having the requirements for such a large display, and having the necessary space for one. I'm not sure what the average is, but for gamers, I know several that game on 22"-24" , and several that still game on 15"-19".

Eventually, as prices go down, more people will purchase 30" displays, but honestly that is quite large, and it's my best guess that no matter what the price, there will still be a demand for smaller monitors.

What I think we will see in the long run are improvements in quality, higher resolutions, and more 'green friendly' stuff.

I have the 24" Soyo *VA monitor (19x12), and was trying to imagine a 30" in it's place.

While the hardware-whore in me was thinking "soooo sweeeet," the reasonable side was thinking, "that's a further 6" diagonal, which would basically completely fill the 'monitor area' of mydesk, and I'd be looking left and right to see the entire screen."

I don't know if 19x12 will go away, but the fact that 19x10 is the new de facto standard for HD will play out in regard to monitor size/pixel count. Everything from 22"-26" is running this res., and probably will continue doing so, while the Hz is bmped and panels are improved.

In short: I expect some sort of new display tye before 30" LCDs become mainstream. Holographic projection maybe?

It will become maintsream when human beings finally make the next step in their evolution to become 10 foot tall giants (on average).

24" is about the right size for my desk and for the distance I am from the monitor at my desk. I probably won't ever buy a 30", but rather get multiple 24"s.

prices started to drop, but it seems they have gone back up. I almost bit when that nice NEC went to 999.

I'll never opt for a 1920x1080 screen as long as the 1920x1200's are made. I just think that they are far too short and make you scroll way too much when working on documents or browsing...... The fact that they are going to be cheaper than ones based on HDTV's resolution is just a fact that volumes will push their price down further. Hopefully there is a big enough market to keep the 1200's around. If not I'll end up buying a 30" one.... So all hopes not lost - just keeping me broke.

I sit about 2 feet away from my LCD. 30" does not seem that large when you have one on your desk.

Anyway 30" will not become mainstream solely for the fact that most consumers are going towards the smaller end (aka notebooks) now.

maverick786us said:

How much time will it take for 30 inch display having resolution of 2560 x 1600 come into Mainstream? Right now it is on less demand therefore extremely expensive. I can't wait to get one for my next upgrade.

The price of Dell 3008WFP Ultra Sharp is completely out of question

Click to expand...

I am going to be very forthcoming... It you find it too expensive = you cannot afford it. Or, it basically means you are not the target customer.

In my opinion, $900 is not a luxury for such a display.

p.s. I do not mean to be impolite... When I lived in Europe I would never dream about buying such a monitor because it was simply out of my price range, not to mention more high-end computer parts. You have the most affordable prices of "everything" in the USA and you are still complaining. )-:

The Dell 3008 is $1926 where I live

evilsofa said:

In 2002, 1600x1200 was still the top end.

Click to expand...

actually in 2002 we had the Samsung 240T, plastic frame Cinema HD Display, Sony P232... and some others that I cant remember right now. (24'' was ~ $4000 back then)
Quite a few cards of the time were capable of driving a 1920x1200 display digitally at the time but often not rated by the manufacturers accordingly.

To the when will 30'' be mainstream part.. um.. the resolution won't ever really be mainstream unless there's a general move of the OS to resolution independence, which wouldn't stop at a mere 100ppi (pixels per inch).

1920xX is sufficinent to display the current HD standard that will be in place for the next decades so there is no use for more resolution for the average (non multitasking) consumer.

The actual mainstream 30'' displays are already available in the form of 28'' TNs and 32'' TVs,.. 30'' WQXGA will probably stay specialized equipment, used by those that need it.

how long was 1024 x 768 the most common desktop resolution?
i am sure it will be some time for 1680 x 1050

not everyone has great eye sight.

i could see 1440 x 900 being the next main stream resolution.

OK I presume, they might never come into mainstream, however is there any possibility for the price of 30 inch displays to decline within an year or to, so that it comes in the level of what current 24 inch displays are offering?

Iching said:

I am going to be very forthcoming... It you find it too expensive = you cannot afford it. Or, it basically means you are not the target customer.

In my opinion, $900 is not a luxury for such a display.

p.s. I do not mean to be impolite... When I lived in Europe I would never dream about buying such a monitor because it was simply out of my price range, not to mention more high-end computer parts. You have the most affordable prices of "everything" in the USA and you are still complaining. )-:

Click to expand...

Its not about being the target customer. Offcourse with some savings I can afford 2000 bucks for Dell 3008WFP. But its not worth to spend that much amount. If you compare to the price of Dell 2408WFP (630 US$), I don't know the perfomance difference I will get between these 2, but I won't consider it worth spending more than thrice for that thing.

I own and love a 30" LCD (3008WFP), but agree with the "they'll never become mainstream" team. The price and high-end video card requirement (for games, graphics, etc.) will keep 30"ers off the desks of most people.

I'd say that the 30" have been in the same position as 24" was in 2005 for a while now. It's roughly at the same price point and just as then, the price premium for the last increase in resolution comes at a premium.

The price advancements of the 30" has been quite spectacular (as with 24" and most before it). Remember though, an IPS 24" monitor is still quite a lot of money, and compare that to a IPS 30" and the relative price difference isn't that big. What has happened with 24" (and monitors in general) isn't just that they are getting cheaper - they are getting worse as well.

With a bit of luck though we might be spared from a 30" TN panel. Thechnologies such as e-IPS could be quite a big deal for a 30" monitor, and you would "just" need to cut the price in half to be quite close to an 24" IPS monitor today.

Although the same could be said about 24" a few years ago. When apple released the 30" I thought it was ridiculous, even I as an enthusiast looked dreamy on 24" displays - thinking that only an enthusiast would really want something as large as that.
Yet here I am with a 30" monitor, and not only that - my father recently got a 24" display and he loves it.

I have a hard time to grasp that he would really want or need a 30" display, but that was exactly what I thought about 24" displays before. Granted there should be a limit somewhere...

And 30" really seem to be on the edge, larger than that and you will have to move your head to follow everything on the display. But theoretically, 30" could become quite common. There will always be a lot cheaper alternatives though and seeing how people only go after low price something like 30" will never really become mainstream. And thats probably why ~24" is so popular now, they are dirt cheap. The cheapest barely costs more than much smaller displays.

Also I don't believe that the market will 'allow' that the top of the line display (resolution and size) to become mainstream. And I don't see the next step either. Ok, 32" or something isn't hard to imagine - probably with the same resolution to make text a bit easier to read. But for something really new to come out I think we will have to wait for resolution independent operating systems, that will really stir things up.
Manufacturers are probably afraid of doing high-resolution displays simply because moste people will find the text too small and the market for it would be minute. I think thats a real problem with TFTs, the only way to get a larger resolution is to get a larger display - you don't necessarily want that.

I'd personally love to see 24" 1680x1050 monitors.

I use a 22" 1680x1050 and seems perfect. Maybe going to 24" (whether 1920x1080 or 1680x1050) is feasible for computer use, but anything bigger seems too big for the distance you sit at from a computer screen. Even if they use IPS on 30" now, if 30" becomes mainstream, they will convert them all to TN anyway and the vertical viewing craps out. Seems like all monitors are going 16:9, so if you like 16:10 for PC use take good care of what you have. I just hope they don't start making glossy LCDs like what they did to about 95% of netbooks and laptops.

30" as a desktop monitor is simply too big for the mainstream, hell theres a shit load of people who still buy and use 32" as a decently sized living room TV(I wouldn't, I can't do smaller than 40" for a TV IMO, but...), and I own a 30" Dell, I love it, and oneday want to get triple 30" monitors when I can afford it but, I doubt 30" will become mainstream anytime soon.

evilsofa said:

...The whole television and movie industry is gearing up for 1920x1080 content...

Click to expand...

I certainly hope that's not the case with the movie industry and theater viewing given film's much superior resolution, but I think you're referring to Blu-Ray there...

For desktop use, I think 37" is a good size, if it can be mounted to avoid neck strain...

(Currently using a 40" with a custom mount....)

As the monitors get less expensive in the larger sizes more people will buy them.
Most people are price driven.

30 inch monitors can be had for around 600-700 if you are patient and shop around.
Also if you are willing to take a refurbished or used monitor.

maverick786us said:

How much time will it take for 30 inch display having resolution of 2560 x 1600 come into Mainstream? Right now it is on less demand therefore extremely expensive. I can't wait to get one for my next upgrade.

The price of Dell 3008WFP Ultra Sharp is completely out of question

Click to expand...

When the price of 30 inchers drop under $300. It's all about the benjamins.

Most 24 inchers can be had for about $300 or less. Most 30 inchers are over $1000.
If you want to go dual display with 24 inchers and you get TNs, you can get that setup for $400 or less vs $1000 for the single 30".
And you'll get more desktop space 3840x1200 vs 2560x1600. 4.6 million pixels vs 4 million pixels. Again it breaks down to dollars.

I would disagree with the comments about 30" monitors taking up too much desk space or having too many pixels. If anything, it is far too small to meet modern demands for visual informaton and a single 30" LCD monitor setup would be considered inadequate for many modern office environments.

In the past, your typical enthusiasts would have a visual setup that blew away the office setup. Today, big business leads the way when it comes to fast access to visual information (i.e. overall monitor size).

Multi monitor setups have been "mainstream" for several years now and many modern office environments use at least 2 monitors, because fast access to visual information helps productivity. My current office contains several thousand people with no one having less than two monitors (except for pure admin staff, and there are very few). Same as my previous employer. My office setup (3 x 22" monitors) is small compared to those of some of my collegues, but still provides much more visual information than my home office setup with it's tiny 27" monitor.

So when will 30" monitors go mainstream? Well, big business appears to be leading the way and if offices start to use 30" monitors, this will drive the price down, and it will eventually go mainstream. But why should they? Sure there is a pressing need to have more easily accessible visual information, but 30" LCD monitors are expensive and actually inadequate, and the multi monitor option is far more cost effective and gives bigger benefits. I suspect that what we will see going forward is either multiple monitors going mainstream with enthusiasts or OLED technology taking off in business environments and then going mainstream - a big stretchable OLED equivalent to 3 x 22" monitors would be better than a 30" LCD.

I worked in a company with about 6000 employees. According to an inventory check, three people had more than one monitor (all were in IT), and less than ten had something bigger than 19" (all were in video production). How about that?

Matija said:

I worked in a company with about 6000 employees. According to an inventory check, three people had more than one monitor (all were in IT), and less than ten had something bigger than 19" (all were in video production). How about that?

Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make - that you work in an industry where employee costs are not that high, and rapid access to information along with per person productivity not that critical. Perhaps a non-western nation with a less mature technical infrastructure? Am I close?

Fair enough, but in western nations especially, employee costs are very high, and there are many information driven industries that not only put a premium on per person productivity but view rapid information access as a competitive advantage. And this is a growing trend.