![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
advantages/disadvantages between a 24" LCD & 30"?
- Thread starter camelass
- Start date
Except for the rather expensive NEC 2490, all the 24" monitors that I know of use PVA panels. The 30" Dell uses an S-IPS panel, which is higher grade with superior viewing angles. After using the 30" Dell, I found it to be the ultimate monitor for desktop and graphics design work.
The 30" resolution of 2560x1600 is very, very demanding in terms of gaming performance. If you're a gamer, you'd be better served with a 24" monitor unless you can afford to keep up with SLI upgrades.
The 30" resolution of 2560x1600 is very, very demanding in terms of gaming performance. If you're a gamer, you'd be better served with a 24" monitor unless you can afford to keep up with SLI upgrades.
I am a web/graphic designer and I am a heavy gamer as well. So I guess I'm a bit of both. I'd be willing to dump some money into a SLI solution with the current top end cards at the time of my build later on this fall but I am definitely not willing to upgrade every 6-12 months as some folks around here do.
The 30" has smaller pixel size than 24" (0.25 vs. 0.27 mm) which means the displayed text is smaller, even though the resolution is bigger.
I know 24" monitors which use TN panels (Acer x241Wsd, Samsung SyncMaster 245B) or MVA (BenQ FP241WZ, LG 245WP, 246WP).
Happy Hopping
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 7,847
Samsung 305T is 30", but they use PVA. From the review of the photos matching other 30", their PVA color reproduction looks better (the color is more vivid)
Do you have any issues with ghosting or trouble with viewing angles? With my current LCD at certain angles the image seems darker/lighter depending on which angle
I'm also interested in this debate when I would be replacing my old Samsung 213T. 24" kind of seems like a too large investment compared to the size gain over the 21". I did place my 21" a bit closer now so the resolution seems optimal now. Since the 30" has a bit smaller pixel size, I think there's no way I can place it much farther than my current LCD unless I increase the font and icon DPI but that doesn't make sense than. Or does it?
How far do you 30" owners keep your LCDs from you?
How far do you 30" owners keep your LCDs from you?
I sat the same distance from the 30" as I do from my 21", that is about 2 feet. A lot of my peripheral vision is filled by the 30" and, though I don't have to turn my head, I still have to move my eyes around quite a bit more to see all of the 30". This is an improvement over my dual monitor set up, which requires me to turn my head often.
If I were you I would definitly consider 2-24" monitors,that way while your web designing you gan get a good impression of your final product on one 24, witch are becoming more popular, while drafting on the other, or you can play a game @ 1920 x 1200 on one while the other is veiwing a page of your choise !
30's are nice but when i was checking out monitor's the 30's were kinda making me feel , like disconected or somthing . I have 1 26. If I could I would get another one of these bad boys . dual monitors offer more flexability.
Well I went to Best Buy and they had a gateway 24" on display that they let me browse around on a computer at the native resolution. All I have to say is WOW. I was half tempted to buy one while I was there. But my conscious prevented me from pulling the trigger and jumping on one. As of right now I am getting at least a 24". But I am curious to what a 30" looks like in person. I think the only place that might have one on display is Apple. So I guess ill have to give them a ring and see if they have one on display.
I'm worried about the viewing distance with a 30" I don't want to constantly scan the screen with my eyes or move my head just to see whats on it. My viewing distance from my current screen is roughly 24-26" I may be able to squeeze out a few more inches if need be but thats about it.
I'm also worried about uneven colors displayed on the monitor and ghosting. A few reviews I have read said that they had a few issues with the dell 30" in those areas. But from the threads I have read on here I haven't come across anyone with those problems.
As for the dual 24" setup I just don't have the desk space to have that
I'm worried about the viewing distance with a 30" I don't want to constantly scan the screen with my eyes or move my head just to see whats on it. My viewing distance from my current screen is roughly 24-26" I may be able to squeeze out a few more inches if need be but thats about it.
I'm also worried about uneven colors displayed on the monitor and ghosting. A few reviews I have read said that they had a few issues with the dell 30" in those areas. But from the threads I have read on here I haven't come across anyone with those problems.
As for the dual 24" setup I just don't have the desk space to have that
Go to BB an look for a 32" LCD if you want an estimate of size
. Aspect ratio's a bit off, and you got two extra inches, but hey...
I'd love to own a 30", but my main concerns are scaling, text size, desk space and scaling. I don't spend all that much for the latest and greatest so it's either the low resolution 1024 (I forget resolution) or the overkill 2056. Too much or too little, not good. Text size I could adjust through windows, desk space I can make space and finally there's price. I have a 24" and am pretty happy. Honestly, I would not mind having a 27" to use.
Also, hope you research the Gateway a LOT more closely if you are considering it.
. Aspect ratio's a bit off, and you got two extra inches, but hey...I'd love to own a 30", but my main concerns are scaling, text size, desk space and scaling. I don't spend all that much for the latest and greatest so it's either the low resolution 1024 (I forget resolution) or the overkill 2056. Too much or too little, not good. Text size I could adjust through windows, desk space I can make space and finally there's price. I have a 24" and am pretty happy. Honestly, I would not mind having a 27" to use.
Also, hope you research the Gateway a LOT more closely if you are considering it.
AdmiralFlameberg
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2006
- Messages
- 565
Also the WestingHouse L2410NM uses MVA
peTeMelster
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 198
The 30" monitors generally have worse specs than the 24" monitors, no HDMI (well, some 24" don't either), no portrait mode, and here's the worst one:
2560x1600 is awesome, but it's dual-link DVI. It does support single link DVI too, but for some reason, only up to 1280x800. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I believe that means you can't view a lot of the full HD stuff that is single link at full 1920x1080. Something along those lines - can someone explain it better?
2560x1600 is awesome, but it's dual-link DVI. It does support single link DVI too, but for some reason, only up to 1280x800. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I believe that means you can't view a lot of the full HD stuff that is single link at full 1920x1080. Something along those lines - can someone explain it better?
Good point. As far as I know, the Dell 30" can do the 2 aforementioned resolutions and that's it. I assume it can fill/stretch, but not 1:1 pixel mapping. For a monitor with that much 'mon', be a waste not to watch movies/tv/console games on. Anyways, you'll get blackbarred to death if it did have 1:1...
The dual link DVI situation is pretty much a non-issue, unless you have an outdated video card. If your graphics card has a dual link DVI port, then the monitor works at full resolution. Even the crappy Intel integrated graphics chips on most laptops have dual link DVI.
The Dell 30" does not have a built-in scaler, so it will only do 1280x800 or 2560x1600 desktop resolutions. Modern graphics cards can still do the scaling at other resolutions. Also, I'm fairly sure that the 3007 does do 1:1 mapping.
So, in conclusion, the 30" monitors can do everything that the other monitors can do, provided that you have a graphics card that was manufactured in the last couple years.
The Dell 30" does not have a built-in scaler, so it will only do 1280x800 or 2560x1600 desktop resolutions. Modern graphics cards can still do the scaling at other resolutions. Also, I'm fairly sure that the 3007 does do 1:1 mapping.
So, in conclusion, the 30" monitors can do everything that the other monitors can do, provided that you have a graphics card that was manufactured in the last couple years.
And I have a note about gaming performance. I have a single 8800GTX with my 30" and it does surprisingly well. In source based games it rips through them with 16X AF and 4X AA, but that's a rather outdated engine. Newer games like Call of Juarez, GRAW, FEAR, CoD2 etc also are very playable at native res but I can never use AA. Although AA does make quite a big difference visually, raw 2560x1600 with or without jaggies is pretty amazing.
1920x1200 scaled actually looks pretty decent too, but I never actually use it.
1920x1200 scaled actually looks pretty decent too, but I never actually use it.
Hardly any laptop can output 2560x1600 by itself (MBP being an notable exception).
How can you be sure it maps 1:1 if you say it does only 2 resolutions in the first sentance?
We could really use some hard evidence on that.
I double checked and it looks like you are right about that. The MBP and the high end laptops with dedicated graphics support full resolution. Otherwise, you're getting 1280x800.
It only has two native resolutions that fill up the whole screen. If you wanted to display 1920x1080 content from your PS3, you could do so with large black bars around the image, but your video card would have to scale the content to full screen because the monitor cannot.
One thing I got to say is that I got the Dell 3007WFP-HC for a week know and it is
perfect in every way, plus I am also running a cheap MSI 8600GT OC graphics Card and running flatout 2 at
Native resolution and other games at 1280x800 and it still looks good.
I was even told that games wont run with this graphics card at all, but they did
I even have Farcry at native resolution and it looks and runs OK.
and it isperfect in every way, plus I am also running a cheap MSI 8600GT OC graphics Card and running flatout 2 at
Native resolution and other games at 1280x800 and it still looks good.
I was even told that games wont run with this graphics card at all, but they did
I even have Farcry at native resolution and it looks and runs OK.
It's not about high end - X1600 in MBP (or 8600) isn't a high end graphic card. It's about the choice a manufacturer makes - and I just can't find a good reason why Dell or HP can't offer that as well (specificaly in workstation class notebooks).
Why the video cards has to scale the content if it can be mapped 1:1 like on the PS3 you're talking about?
Do you have any hard facts behind that or just speculating? If so, please post some pictures if you can, becouse I'm quite into the subject of 30" and never found any proof it can scale or map pixels.
Here is my simple response. Don't go 30 inch if you do the following.
1. Gaming. ( 30inch LCD will really tax your graphics cards. You can expect to spend loads on dual top end cards (crossfire/SLI) just keep up.
If you want large size and game, Suggest you get a 26inch LCD such as the NEC 2690 ..
1. Gaming. ( 30inch LCD will really tax your graphics cards. You can expect to spend loads on dual top end cards (crossfire/SLI) just keep up.
If you want large size and game, Suggest you get a 26inch LCD such as the NEC 2690 ..
I disagree!
Actually, the main reason for me to be interested in buying a 30" over a 24" or similar, *even* though it's really stretching my budget, is that a 30" can run 1280x800 (with or without fsaa), if the graphics card can't keep up with running games in the native resolution....whereas with a 24" you're pretty much screwed if your rig can't do 1920x1200. The point is that you don't want to interpolate/scale, but you still want things to be full-screen, so you have to use native, or 1/4th of the native resolution. On a 30", 1280x800 is exactly 1/4th of the native 2560x1600 resolution. Therefore the monitor can use 4 pixels (2 by 2) for 1 (1 by 1), which also forms a square. This makes the image just as crisp (read: not blurry) as if you were running native res. This trick doesn't work on a screen with a smaller native resolution, because 1/4th of 1920x1200 or 960x600 would be horrible in terms of jaggies. 960x600 is just too low. Anything below 1280 I've always found disgusting, especially considering that fsaa becomes too obvious at resolutions below 1280.
1280x960 (or in this case 1280x800) is (IMO) the best resolution to run games in in terms of it taxing the graphics card when your rig isnt top draw, yet still looks acceptable. Also, 1280x800 turns out to be the resolution that I use the most, measured over a longer period of time. I use a 7800GTX and I run 1280 all the time, usually with fsaa, the performance is great. Granted, on a big screen it won't look as good as it would on a 20" because jaggies get bigger just as everything else does, but with fsaa it will run better than 1920x1200 without fsaa, while - imo, although opinions may vary - image quality is comparable.
In my personal experience, 1600x1200 is hard enough to reach in recent games with anything other than top of the bill up-to-date hardware, let alone 1920x1200. So unless you always have an uptodate killer rig, I would recommend the exact opposite of what evilmedic has just said: get a 30" instead of a panel with a smaller native resolution, so that you at least have the option of dropping down to 1280x800.
I constantly see people overlooking this....
Am I missing something or have I just thought things through a little better than some?
My only concern is that 1280x800 won't look as good on a 30" as I think it will, due to the relatively low resolution showing up larger (be it without loss of crispness) and therefore the jaggies/fsaa becoming too noticable.
Regards,
Roenie
(my first post here, certainly not my first read)
Actually, the main reason for me to be interested in buying a 30" over a 24" or similar, *even* though it's really stretching my budget, is that a 30" can run 1280x800 (with or without fsaa), if the graphics card can't keep up with running games in the native resolution....whereas with a 24" you're pretty much screwed if your rig can't do 1920x1200. The point is that you don't want to interpolate/scale, but you still want things to be full-screen, so you have to use native, or 1/4th of the native resolution. On a 30", 1280x800 is exactly 1/4th of the native 2560x1600 resolution. Therefore the monitor can use 4 pixels (2 by 2) for 1 (1 by 1), which also forms a square. This makes the image just as crisp (read: not blurry) as if you were running native res. This trick doesn't work on a screen with a smaller native resolution, because 1/4th of 1920x1200 or 960x600 would be horrible in terms of jaggies. 960x600 is just too low. Anything below 1280 I've always found disgusting, especially considering that fsaa becomes too obvious at resolutions below 1280.
1280x960 (or in this case 1280x800) is (IMO) the best resolution to run games in in terms of it taxing the graphics card when your rig isnt top draw, yet still looks acceptable. Also, 1280x800 turns out to be the resolution that I use the most, measured over a longer period of time. I use a 7800GTX and I run 1280 all the time, usually with fsaa, the performance is great. Granted, on a big screen it won't look as good as it would on a 20" because jaggies get bigger just as everything else does, but with fsaa it will run better than 1920x1200 without fsaa, while - imo, although opinions may vary - image quality is comparable.
In my personal experience, 1600x1200 is hard enough to reach in recent games with anything other than top of the bill up-to-date hardware, let alone 1920x1200. So unless you always have an uptodate killer rig, I would recommend the exact opposite of what evilmedic has just said: get a 30" instead of a panel with a smaller native resolution, so that you at least have the option of dropping down to 1280x800.
I constantly see people overlooking this....
Am I missing something or have I just thought things through a little better than some?
My only concern is that 1280x800 won't look as good on a 30" as I think it will, due to the relatively low resolution showing up larger (be it without loss of crispness) and therefore the jaggies/fsaa becoming too noticable.
Regards,
Roenie
(my first post here, certainly not my first read)
R0achTheWarHero
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 488
I had a 28" for a day and it was too large for me to even use as a desktop pc monitor. I wouldn't go higher than 26 max.
Call me crazy but I have a 24inch now and think 22 might have been better for reading web pages and FPS gaming. You can see everything thats happening on screen with the 1680x1050 22inch but with a 24inch you have to move your eyes back and forth over vast distances and I don't think it's as comfortable for the eyes.
When you look at a large book in the bookstore they are usually about the same size as a 24inch LCD. While it's open there is a section on each side with a spine separating the middle. There is no spine separating the middle of an LCD screen so each page is absurdly wide and not really well thought out for being comfortable to reading.
I wish widescreen was 15:10 instead of 16:10
Call me crazy but I have a 24inch now and think 22 might have been better for reading web pages and FPS gaming. You can see everything thats happening on screen with the 1680x1050 22inch but with a 24inch you have to move your eyes back and forth over vast distances and I don't think it's as comfortable for the eyes.
When you look at a large book in the bookstore they are usually about the same size as a 24inch LCD. While it's open there is a section on each side with a spine separating the middle. There is no spine separating the middle of an LCD screen so each page is absurdly wide and not really well thought out for being comfortable to reading.
I wish widescreen was 15:10 instead of 16:10
[H]eatpipe
n00b
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 22
A few quick points...
I've made the mistake of trying to visually size-up a monitor at a huge store like Best-Buy.
Don't be fooled... The sheer volume of the place dwarves large monitors.
A 24" looked small there, but much larger on my desk. Ditto for a 27" TV.
The 30" LCDs are limited in resolution as stated above (ie: no scaler).
Also, as I read the reviews, they offer no OSD (On Screen Display) to calibrate colors/contrast/brightness,
this must be done through your video-card control panel which doesn't always apply to all apps
(I've been though this before).
This is troubling me.
As far as hardware, my older AMD FX-60/7900GTX system has handled my racing games
at 1920x1200 (Dell 24" HC) pretty well.
It can lag with all features piled on, but with standard effects at 4xAA/8xAF it gets 60-100FPS.
It's been very much like the monitor I ran for years at 1600x1200.
Many cards in the past year or so have been dual-link.
Even the power-saver XFX 7600GS that I put into my web/business computer is dual-link.
The factor for me is screen-type.
The 30" is S-IPS. (well, the Dell HC is)
And that is good thing (from experience).
I'm in the RMA-process for a PVA 2407WFP-HC now.
But, if I blow all that cash on the 30" (with all of it's limitations) will I kick myself in a years-time
when I can't afford the newest, greatest 100Mhz/LED-backlight/S-IPS 30" revision?
Dunno, can't tell... (and being the skeptic, they will probably mate the LED-backlight to a PVA/TN anyway)
I'm seriously considering the 30" for immersion.
After getting used to the 24", I started moving it closer and closer.
It's butted-up right against my Logitech G25 game steering-wheel now.
I didn't expect that.
Maybe a 30" wouldn't feel all that big (for games) after all.
Just some conflicting, rambling thoughts...
I've made the mistake of trying to visually size-up a monitor at a huge store like Best-Buy.
Don't be fooled... The sheer volume of the place dwarves large monitors.
A 24" looked small there, but much larger on my desk. Ditto for a 27" TV.
The 30" LCDs are limited in resolution as stated above (ie: no scaler).
Also, as I read the reviews, they offer no OSD (On Screen Display) to calibrate colors/contrast/brightness,
this must be done through your video-card control panel which doesn't always apply to all apps
(I've been though this before).
This is troubling me.
As far as hardware, my older AMD FX-60/7900GTX system has handled my racing games
at 1920x1200 (Dell 24" HC) pretty well.
It can lag with all features piled on, but with standard effects at 4xAA/8xAF it gets 60-100FPS.
It's been very much like the monitor I ran for years at 1600x1200.
Many cards in the past year or so have been dual-link.
Even the power-saver XFX 7600GS that I put into my web/business computer is dual-link.
The factor for me is screen-type.
The 30" is S-IPS. (well, the Dell HC is)
And that is good thing (from experience).
I'm in the RMA-process for a PVA 2407WFP-HC now.
But, if I blow all that cash on the 30" (with all of it's limitations) will I kick myself in a years-time
when I can't afford the newest, greatest 100Mhz/LED-backlight/S-IPS 30" revision?
Dunno, can't tell... (and being the skeptic, they will probably mate the LED-backlight to a PVA/TN anyway)
I'm seriously considering the 30" for immersion.
After getting used to the 24", I started moving it closer and closer.
It's butted-up right against my Logitech G25 game steering-wheel now.
I didn't expect that.
Maybe a 30" wouldn't feel all that big (for games) after all.
Just some conflicting, rambling thoughts...
[H]eatpipe;1031323247 said:
Same here.. the question is: Why are they doing this? Are the manufacturers somehow limited by technology? I wonder why basically all TFT's have an OSD, yet three (HP, Samsung, Dell) 30" monitors come without one and without a scaler? Jeez. And yes I too think that these are reasons not to get one. But that doesn't mean I'll buy a 24" anytime soon... I will just wait for a proper 30" to be released. I have some hopes for Samsung working on a newer version of their 305T, as pointed out by (iirc) behardware.com. It is said to have an OSD, but I have no clue as to when it will be available....
conghelach
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 582
Thats a very interesting post, I will try that on my 24 inch monitor, I am using an LG246wpbn and I actually use this monitor almost all of the time at 1280x960 especially for gaming works just fine, yes things are crisper at native but Im quite happy with the picture at non native with the eye candy turned up, 8800 gts here.
I've been wrestling with the 24" v 30" dilemma for a while myself.
Having been using 1600x1200 on my 21" monitors for 5-6 yrs & I really hated the thought of losing resolution even for gaming (idea about hooking my PC up to a 40" plasma). However the last few months I've been trying 1280x960 to see if I can live with it at all. It is good for gaming & I find forcing the AA to 16xQ mode gets rid of some the dodgy texture shimmering that I see otherwise. STALKER was obviously more more blocky, but actually playing the game rather than looking for 'problems' was fine. At no point to did I ever look at something & think "that's hideous" because of the jaggies. Desktop workspace is a little cramped though, but I've discovered I can tolerate that too. So my conclusion is your reasoning is good, for gaming at 1280x800 the 30" will be fine.
The viewable height of the 30" may mean you'll want to sit a little further back, say an extra 0.5-1' to compensate for the larger pixels. Not a problem
The thing holding me back from buying the 30" is lack of support for consoles - as you state 4:1 pixel mapping would nicely allow 16:9 1280x720p. Unless anyone knows different I don't think you can do that on a Dell, Apple or HP 30" screen.
I requested EIZO put 4:1 & 9:1 pixel mapping options in their 30" display, but I'm not holding my breath for it to happen (SX3031W is due around Sept)
Having been using 1600x1200 on my 21" monitors for 5-6 yrs & I really hated the thought of losing resolution even for gaming (idea about hooking my PC up to a 40" plasma). However the last few months I've been trying 1280x960 to see if I can live with it at all. It is good for gaming & I find forcing the AA to 16xQ mode gets rid of some the dodgy texture shimmering that I see otherwise. STALKER was obviously more more blocky, but actually playing the game rather than looking for 'problems' was fine. At no point to did I ever look at something & think "that's hideous" because of the jaggies. Desktop workspace is a little cramped though, but I've discovered I can tolerate that too. So my conclusion is your reasoning is good, for gaming at 1280x800 the 30" will be fine.
The viewable height of the 30" may mean you'll want to sit a little further back, say an extra 0.5-1' to compensate for the larger pixels. Not a problem
The thing holding me back from buying the 30" is lack of support for consoles - as you state 4:1 pixel mapping would nicely allow 16:9 1280x720p. Unless anyone knows different I don't think you can do that on a Dell, Apple or HP 30" screen.
I requested EIZO put 4:1 & 9:1 pixel mapping options in their 30" display, but I'm not holding my breath for it to happen (SX3031W is due around Sept)
1280*960? But that's a 4:3 resolution. You should try 1280*800 or something.
See if you can run a game or at 960x600 (will probably require some .ini file editing) if possible. I'd be very interested to hear about the results. The image quality should be comparable to running 1280x800 on a 30", you see...
ye - ive done the same test running 800x600 on my 19"'er (4:3) - that also compares to 1280x800 on a 30"... depending on what game u run it looks pretty good... quake 4 and doom 3 both look very nice with 16AAF and 4xAA (or whatever its called - i can never seem to remember)... on the other hand WOW looks pretty crappy - i guess it has something to do with detail features
Guys....a big WTF actually....as in WTF about the Dell and Samsung 27's?
IMO, a 30 is a dedicated OFFICE LCD, and only if you really can use the space.
Pro's of the 27's.
Noticeably bigger than the 24's.
Better for HDTV/DVD
Better for gaming.
Easier to read compared to 24's.
Not as massive as 30.
Dell 27 is feature packed.
Now what's the advantage of a 30 other than size....?
Will a 30incher with 2560x1600 really playback DVD's and HDTV well?
Will the extra 3 inches over the 27 blow your mind?
To my way of thinking, a 27 with 1080 res is about as perfect a combo of size and res you're gonna get, and going to 30 isn't worth it for gaming/multi-media...ie, I believe that if you have a 27, you then need a 37-40 to top it for games/mm.
IMO, a 30 is a dedicated OFFICE LCD, and only if you really can use the space.
Pro's of the 27's.
Noticeably bigger than the 24's.
Better for HDTV/DVD
Better for gaming.
Easier to read compared to 24's.
Not as massive as 30.
Dell 27 is feature packed.
Now what's the advantage of a 30 other than size....?
Will a 30incher with 2560x1600 really playback DVD's and HDTV well?
Will the extra 3 inches over the 27 blow your mind?
To my way of thinking, a 27 with 1080 res is about as perfect a combo of size and res you're gonna get, and going to 30 isn't worth it for gaming/multi-media...ie, I believe that if you have a 27, you then need a 37-40 to top it for games/mm.
From what I've read, Samsung's 30" offering does suffer from input lag quite a bit. The S-IPS panels in its Dell and HP counterparts are better in that respect, apparently.
@Dogmapog: Have you thoroughly read post 29? http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031322357&postcount=29
(btw, I don't really care much for video playback, I'm mainly a gamer so keep that in mind)
@Dogmapog: Have you thoroughly read post 29? http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031322357&postcount=29
(btw, I don't really care much for video playback, I'm mainly a gamer so keep that in mind)