Just as the title suggests, why are PC's stuck at 2560x1600 maximum resolution? there doesn't appear to be any news on higher resolution displays, and the newest dell 30" monitor that gets released next year is still stuck at 2560x1600. I have noticed 2560x1440 16:9 displays dropping in price and becoming more readily available which is a good thing but nothing in the news about 2880x1800 or higher.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why are we still stuck at 2560?
- Thread starter Chaoss
- Start date
hmm... I've not yet experienced 2560x1600, let alone anything higher.
1080p is beautiful to me.
What's the reason to go higher? I thought at that res its hard to even see the pixels when you're looking for them, let alone when you're just using the computer.
Maybe you got hawk eyes?
1080p is beautiful to me.
What's the reason to go higher? I thought at that res its hard to even see the pixels when you're looking for them, let alone when you're just using the computer.
Maybe you got hawk eyes?
steveotron
n00b
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 61
Do you have a graphics card that could handle anything more than that for things like gaming? I wouldn't mind higher resolutions for normal work, however.
wabbitseason
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,511
Please not this again. Resolution is the last parameter that should be improved right now. How about: response time, black level, refresh rate, color depth. For starters.
hmm... I've not yet experienced 2560x1600, let alone anything higher.
1080p is beautiful to me.
What's the reason to go higher? I thought at that res its hard to even see the pixels when you're looking for them, let alone when you're just using the computer.
Maybe you got hawk eyes?
I was the same way until a few weeks ago when I got a Dell U3011 30", been using a Dell 2405 24" for 7 years now. Going from 1920x1200 to 2560x1600 is a game changer in every way. While I enjoy gaming on the new 30", I can say that even day to day use like reading web pages and looking at pictures is significantly better at 2560x1600. I was browsing my photos of my 1 1/2 year old son and I was amazed at the detail I'm able to see in photos now that I missed or didn't see before on my 24" 1920x1200 monitor. Smaller details just seem to come through with such clarity that it feels like you were missing out on a lot at lower resolution.
My priorities in putting together a display setup:
1a. color quality;
1b. resolution;
3. build quality;
4. ergonomic options;
5. input options;
6. energy efficiency.
When it comes to resolution, I want usable resolution -- I want to be able to display more information on my monitors. Right now, I satisfy this preference by adding additional monitors. I've had to slim down my system a bit lately, but I use a PA271W flanked by two 2090wuxi in portrait.
I want higher resolution, but the PPI on the 27" is about as high as I want to go. I'll have to wait for a larger 4K panel to come out, as I don't think the extra 160px of a 30" is going to have a dramatic impact on my workflow. A 4k 16:9 monitor -- 3840x2160 -- would have to be 40.5" to roughly approximate the pixel density of a 27".
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?f70dab36985caebd335bd39dd377aa57
I'm not really interested in a higher resolution monitor that increases the sharpness of its image, but doesn't increase usable space. I'm content with the image quality on my current monitors. The "retina" display approach to resolution irritates me, to be honest, but I hope that it will have collateral effects pushing the market forward.
I'd like to see a 33" 16:9 3200px x1800px monitor. It's the same height as a 30", but an extra 3.5" wide. The pixel density is higher than a 27", but I think is probably still on the same side of usable.
1a. color quality;
1b. resolution;
3. build quality;
4. ergonomic options;
5. input options;
6. energy efficiency.
When it comes to resolution, I want usable resolution -- I want to be able to display more information on my monitors. Right now, I satisfy this preference by adding additional monitors. I've had to slim down my system a bit lately, but I use a PA271W flanked by two 2090wuxi in portrait.
I want higher resolution, but the PPI on the 27" is about as high as I want to go. I'll have to wait for a larger 4K panel to come out, as I don't think the extra 160px of a 30" is going to have a dramatic impact on my workflow. A 4k 16:9 monitor -- 3840x2160 -- would have to be 40.5" to roughly approximate the pixel density of a 27".
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?f70dab36985caebd335bd39dd377aa57
I'm not really interested in a higher resolution monitor that increases the sharpness of its image, but doesn't increase usable space. I'm content with the image quality on my current monitors. The "retina" display approach to resolution irritates me, to be honest, but I hope that it will have collateral effects pushing the market forward.
I'd like to see a 33" 16:9 3200px x1800px monitor. It's the same height as a 30", but an extra 3.5" wide. The pixel density is higher than a 27", but I think is probably still on the same side of usable.
And my opinion is very different. I would prefer taller aspect ratios for doing day to day stuff than a wider monitor. I hate the way a 16:9 monitor feels for browsing the web, it just feels like I'm missing a lot of information top to bottom and since most web pages scroll up and down and rarely wide to side, an extra 3.5" of width is just silly to me. I think 16:10 ratio monitors are fantastic for daily work.
You should try 20" 4:3 in portrait mode - it can show a 8.5"x11" page of paper at 100% zoom. That's one of the big appeals of the 20"-30"-20" PLP setup. The 20" can also show nearly any website without horizontal scrolling (unlike many widescreen monitors in portrait mode).
Because very few people are buying even 2560x displays, so there isn't a big push for even higher resolution monitors. But if you have the money you can get ready for the leading edge:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/05/viewsonic-vp3280-led-4k-monitor-hands-on/
"... could ship by the end of the year, costing "about the price of a car."
I posted this type of question a while back as well. If you use your computer for any type of photography or video work having more resolution is important. My digital photos far exceed the resolution of 1080p. I know it sounds a little a little odd, but I feel customers dont know that they need it. Once you use it, you will never want to move back from the higher resolutions.
Ahh, I see.
Chrisroman
Gawd
- Joined
- May 29, 2011
- Messages
- 692
hmm... I've not yet experienced 2560x1600, let alone anything higher.
1080p is beautiful to me.
What's the reason to go higher? I thought at that res its hard to even see the pixels when you're looking for them, let alone when you're just using the computer.
Maybe you got hawk eyes?
For leisure and entertainment, 1080p is great. But if you're making money with your system, then you will likely need more.
Thoughts on vertical resolution:
1. I think 1080px vertical resolution is too small. In landscape, the "above the fold" region is just too small, to the point where vertical scrolling is necessary on too many web pages, and there isn't enough content shown in a text editor or spreadsheet. The monitors are also just barely too narrow to be comfortable used in portrait, where you still run into horizontal scrolling in inconvenient places. (this will change as more web designers adopt responsive layouts, by the way).
2. I think 1920px vertical resolution is too tall. When I put a 1920x1200 monitor in portrait, I really do have an uncomfortable time using parts of the screen. The screens need to be at their lowest heights for decent ergonomics, and that puts the bottom of the screen at too low a height for decent visibility, regardless of panel type/viewing angles. It's just not very comfortable to use monitor space that is too low or too high relative to your eyes. This is actually more a function of the y-height in inches than pixels, and higher pixel density gives a bit of flexibility in terms of optimal vertical resolution.
Bottom line, I think there's a sweet spot for vertical resolution, and it rests between 1200 and 1920 pixels. I use two 1200x1600 monitors in portrait, and think they are pretty optimal, but I think 1440 works well enough, and I think 1800 with tight density would work well too.
Thoughts on horizontal resolution:
1. A typical document will need between 1000-1200 pixels of horizontal space for proper rendering (and "white space" matter too, not just in design, but in window layouts).
2. Any horizontal monitor resolution > 1200 but < 2400 is has serious usability problems. I can't display a full document there. I can maybe do widgets, or other apps that don't need much breathing space, but the use is limited.
The above explains why, I think, 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 are the standard resolutions for "large" monitors. They let you comfortable render two full documents side by side.
The only real benefit of moving up from this is if you can have three regions that potentially render full documents/pages side by side. So you need at least 3200-3600x1600-1800, which could realistically be a 2.35:1 -- 3760x1600, for instance. And unfortunately, software at the OS level isn't well suited to this type of resolution. Even things like aero-snap assume that you are only going to bifurcate your screen. You'd have to arrange the center screen by hand.
NB: I don't game, don't consume much media, and don't do a lot of photo editing. I do a lot of writing, both text and code, and a lot of web-work -- development, design, and research.
I posted a thread a while back about 28" Quad HD displays, the panels are being manufactured but so expensive only specialist products are using them. Hopefully they will be used in consumer products before 4K TV becomes mainstream, I would've expected there to be demand from PC users anyway, and with any luck high res tablets will increase consumer awareness and demand for high PPI displays on the desktop.
hmm... I've not yet experienced 2560x1600, let alone anything higher.
1080p is beautiful to me.
What's the reason to go higher? I thought at that res its hard to even see the pixels when you're looking for them, let alone when you're just using the computer.
Maybe you got hawk eyes?
That's the point.
Seeing pixels isn't a good thing, and the aim isn't to fit more information onto the screen, but to make the information more comfortable to look at.
We have anti-aliasing in games because the pixel density is much lower than our eyes resolution.
Ideally the resolution should be so high that we won't be able to see any jaggy lines even without AA.
In print the minimum for anti aliased Graphics is considered 300dpi, and 1200dpi+ for black and white text (usually over 2400dpi). Consumer monitors are stuck at under 100ppi/dpi.
Moving pictures are again something different, as we're not able to notice that much resolution once it's moving. (so for fast paced games normal anti-aliased HD is sufficient resolution as long as there are enough explosions on screen)
But quality of simple 2D graphics like text hasn't improved for over 10 years, although it's the most noticeable shortcoming of todays monitors, once you compare them to print graphics.
(text on monitor vs. text in books, a great eyeopener is to out print a sreenshot of a website vs. printing it using the print command, one will have printer resolution the other monitor graphic resolution, looking terribly pixelated).
So an ideal monitor close to perfect in both movement and resolution would have to be about 300dpi when sitting close. (about 8000x5000 pixels for 32'' would adequately fill our field of vision)
at 240Hz
(many claim we don't see more than 15/30/60 whatever images per second... but research tels us it's above 200fps... so the argument "we don't need more than 15fps" is somewhat similar to doubting that more ppi would make things smoother)
Contrast, color dept, gamut, maximum brightness etc. are also an important issues (HDRI-monitors) especially for dynamic moving graphics like games...
But text quality (dpi/ppi) is the only one affecting all users that aren't illiterate, all other shortcomings are mainly only affecting graphic professionals and recreational purposes.
Screw higher res. We need LARGER PANELS. I for one would like to see 32" and 37" monitors at 1440p or 1600p.. 30" is starting to show it's age. I'm also of the mind that a 37" 16:9 panel would be awesome for gaming (maybe even a curved surface).. would replace the need for eyefinity and all the other multi-panel crap.
I'm hoping that Apple's move to "retina" resolutions might start driving the industry forward in resolution with panel size to naturally follow. Imaging a 3800x1900 panel or similar on a 37" LCD !!!!
1000
I'm hoping that Apple's move to "retina" resolutions might start driving the industry forward in resolution with panel size to naturally follow. Imaging a 3800x1900 panel or similar on a 37" LCD !!!!
1000
Quicksilver_
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 988
You can get a resolution higher than 2560x1600, the IBM T221's have a resolution of 3840×2400
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors#IBM_T220_.289503-DG0.29
Of course, take a look at the plethora of problems this monitor has. It's simply not practical. Hell, my 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC runs hot too. Larger resolutions have not been made very well for gamers, they're more for photo editing or medtechs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors#IBM_T220_.289503-DG0.29
Of course, take a look at the plethora of problems this monitor has. It's simply not practical. Hell, my 30" Dell 3007WFP-HC runs hot too. Larger resolutions have not been made very well for gamers, they're more for photo editing or medtechs.
Last edited:
Ya, high resolution 4K monitors may come out next year at a somewhat reasonable price (under say four grand) [See Sharp's 31.5" panel], but they will still be stuck at 60 Hz.
IMO 60Hz stinks for gaming. My 1440P Catleap running at 132 Hz I fear is going to be the best you can get for a few years still. Not a bad place to be stuck at though as the monitor is pretty awesome.
IMO 60Hz stinks for gaming. My 1440P Catleap running at 132 Hz I fear is going to be the best you can get for a few years still. Not a bad place to be stuck at though as the monitor is pretty awesome.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,874
because the majority of the worlds computer users just finally got over 1024x 768 and just getting itno 720p and 1080 resolutions.
Supply and demand, there is no mass, profitable demand for higher than 2560 x displays, most people arent going to spend close to $1k for a monitor.
Supply and demand, there is no mass, profitable demand for higher than 2560 x displays, most people arent going to spend close to $1k for a monitor.
It's kinda sad that most will skimp on the one component that will likely be around for many years...
And It just sucks that the high end price-range of ten years ago no longer exists.
We have medical displays costing 15000+ with features normal users don't need.
And we have Korean 27''/30'' Displays below the $500 range.
Everything in between doesn't really have that many benefits unless you're doing professional graphic editing, as contrast, size and resolution aren't superior to the cheaper stuff. (and they are inferior in the refresh-rate department)
in 2001
You could get an
entry level
IBM T54A 15'', 1024x768 (msrp ~$1000) corresponding to todays $200 full HD 22''ers
and high end
IBM T210, 20.8", 2048x1536 (msrp ~$6000) which today would be something like a $1200 qaudHD 32'' monitor.
And if we still had a true ~$5000 professional high-end range outside of medical we'd be looking into High-ppi, 240Hz HDRI stuff to eventually trickle down into the consumer space.
... But then again that was before IT-bubble burst, and people noticing that Bill and Barneys plan to give people free houses won't work out in the long run also doesn't really help sell expensive monitors... It's 2012... I want my nuclear powered hovering skateboard... ''OTL
There were possibilities for Advances happening like field-emission-displays.
But investors are cautious and didn't want to give Field Emission Technologies the capital to buy that plasma panel factory to make professional-grade non ghosting 30'' flat CRTs that don't deteriorate in image quality over time as they don't age like OLEDs but also have true 1:200000 static contrast and additionally 240Hz capability.
High-end Monitor technology "advancement" is frustrating and the best way to think about it is not to do so.
It's depressing, and we need to be thankful if we don't end up with all monitor resolutions above 1920x1080 being discontinued in the long run. (like we were stuck at 60Hz since the introduction of LCDs)
As ridiculous as it might be, but our best allies at the moment are mobile phones and Apple-Marketing.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,371
While I like higher rez for desktop real estate and static imagery, I'm more interested in better motion on a gaming monitor and wish that would be the push instead. I agree on the higher hz input screens being great for a smoother feel, but personally I think a very low response time TN with aggressive response time compensation/overdrive combined with the higher hz is the way to go for appreciably more blur reduction in addition to the smoother movement through a higher number of screen updates (two different things). As always with monitor tech, it comes down to tradeoffs even at higher hz. (The ips have better resolution and color, and color uniformity, the TNs have much lower response times and aggressive RTC).
.
I totally disagree with the idea that we need larger than 30" displays at a desk, especially in regard to games. If you could assign a primary monitor space in the middle of a screen with all extents beyond it being increased view field, so that all scene elements remained a normal monitor viewing distance size to your perspective, it might make sense. A primary monitor area in your focal viewpoint where all HUDs, notifications, pointers, chat, etc remained. Making a jumbo wall of monitor in front of your face, over-sizing all scene objects and putting the scene and HUDs, etc into your periphery makes no sense at all to me. Eyefinity aspects visualized. A custom primary monitor space in the middle of a larger monitor would be nice for a sense of immersion, but eye bending to the periphery is crap. I had a 37" westinghouse at my desk at one point and in no time the "wow" factor wore off and it became obvious that it was a bad idea.
.
PPI is relative to your viewing distance, which is why a 1080p tv in a living room looks adequate. They are supposed to make 4k tvs (some likely VA for the blacklevels, which is typically bad for a gaming monitor due to ghosting, trails, and most have bad input lag). Regarding 4k TV's - in my experience, I haven't noticed resolution being a problem for a 1080p TV in modest sized rooms until the TV's reach 70"+ in size. They are also supposed to make QFHD (Quad Full HD) panels which are "4x 1080p" resolution at 3840x2160. As far as I know, they are due to be 60hz and ips, which is a low hz and ips are typically poor response times of 7ms+ to 10ms+ which imo are bad vs FoV movement smearing/blur in games. While I would enjoy using a 3840x2160 ips for desktop/apps, with and influx of 27" 2560x1440's being $300 - $400, I can't see many people jumping on a QFHD at an early adopter price tag (I know I wouldn't).
.
I totally disagree with the idea that we need larger than 30" displays at a desk, especially in regard to games. If you could assign a primary monitor space in the middle of a screen with all extents beyond it being increased view field, so that all scene elements remained a normal monitor viewing distance size to your perspective, it might make sense. A primary monitor area in your focal viewpoint where all HUDs, notifications, pointers, chat, etc remained. Making a jumbo wall of monitor in front of your face, over-sizing all scene objects and putting the scene and HUDs, etc into your periphery makes no sense at all to me. Eyefinity aspects visualized. A custom primary monitor space in the middle of a larger monitor would be nice for a sense of immersion, but eye bending to the periphery is crap. I had a 37" westinghouse at my desk at one point and in no time the "wow" factor wore off and it became obvious that it was a bad idea.
.
PPI is relative to your viewing distance, which is why a 1080p tv in a living room looks adequate. They are supposed to make 4k tvs (some likely VA for the blacklevels, which is typically bad for a gaming monitor due to ghosting, trails, and most have bad input lag). Regarding 4k TV's - in my experience, I haven't noticed resolution being a problem for a 1080p TV in modest sized rooms until the TV's reach 70"+ in size. They are also supposed to make QFHD (Quad Full HD) panels which are "4x 1080p" resolution at 3840x2160. As far as I know, they are due to be 60hz and ips, which is a low hz and ips are typically poor response times of 7ms+ to 10ms+ which imo are bad vs FoV movement smearing/blur in games. While I would enjoy using a 3840x2160 ips for desktop/apps, with and influx of 27" 2560x1440's being $300 - $400, I can't see many people jumping on a QFHD at an early adopter price tag (I know I wouldn't).
Only a matter of time before this becomes mainstream...
over 10 years ago, comparable price-range, 22'', 3840×2400res:
10 years ago, 15'' display 2048×1536res:
There have been quite a few high resolution offerings on the market, but so far mainstream has failed to pick them up.
And especially in the laptop space we've seen a decrease rather than increase in high res offerings.
4K will come, but I wouldn't expect it to go mainstream before either TV broadcasts or a monopolist picks it up,
it's moving in the direction but a professional high end monitor has no relevance as far as consumer availability is concerned.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,371
As others have already said in this thread, apple and "retina display" type marketing will probably up rez on macbooks and perhaps an early mac-LG desktop QFHD/"retina"display in an imac desktop and a standalone monitor like they did with their 2560x1440 cinema display. Others could follow Inc LG itself since it had a marketing poster indicating QFHD at CES which showed a desktop sized screen of 27" in addition to several TV sizes.
.
I still think upping rez past 2560x1440 is not as important as making advancements in displaying motion, which is where lcds fails the most. Extreme rez us just a push now more as a marketing ploy label "ultra super retina higher than high HD plus"
.
I still think upping rez past 2560x1440 is not as important as making advancements in displaying motion, which is where lcds fails the most. Extreme rez us just a push now more as a marketing ploy label "ultra super retina higher than high HD plus"
I'll just quote this for absolute truth...
DiabloRojo
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 251
Yes, this particular bit of unfortunate truth and the underlying groupthink behind it, makes me want to stab my eyes out. Assuming the demand is created within the Fruit-base, then we get to hear about how glorious they are for 'looking forward' and giving us this amazing tech that we never could have fathomed before, that we never could have understood how badly we needed it.
This is one thing DICE actually got right in BF3. The option exists to move hud components towards the center of the screen for exactly this reason. Since I just went from a 20" to a 27" at 2560x1440, the setting came in handy instantly. So at least the issue is understood and someone knows how to deal with it.
We are selling synaptic wave adapting neural bio-links for $1799.99. They work by screwing them through your temples into your frontal lobe and intersecting with your optical nerves. It provides a resolution of near infinity and your eyes will be nearly obsolete. In fact after this implant your eyes typically will no longer function ever again due to the massive technology boost to your new electronically assisted photon reactive ultra view sockets. This is all conveniently powered by a "new" lighter than last years 17lb backpack containing the power supply and liquid hydrogen cooling system to prevent micro-optical transmissive cellular photo transpolar circuitry burn out. In very rare cases without proper cooling of the sockets the original eyes have been known to start working again causing customers to commit suicide due to the depressing reality of having normal low resolution eyeball based visual inputs again.
Contact me for further questions and if interested a consultation on this profound technology.
Contact me for further questions and if interested a consultation on this profound technology.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,371
The ability to move and resize the HUDs, pointers, notifications, chat boxes etc is welcomed, but is only one part of it (Rift is another game that is highly customizable in this way out of the box, WoW can via mods)... however the primary scene elements themselves going jumbo sized and into your periphery is still eye bending and makes a huge wall screen in front of your face at a desk a bad option in my experience. The linked eyefinity photo gives some idea - with the implication being that you want the main scene elements to remain sized to fit your focal view. The only way to do that with a larger than 30" monitor is to push it back further, off a desk on its own stand/pillar, which is essentially shrinking the monitor to your perspective anyway. So there is a "sweet spot" in my opinion regarding focal view of scene, view distance, ppi relative to your view distance, and scene element size relative to your viewing distance (scene elements = mostly the in game models and environment architecture, but also HUDs, etc). I was hypothesizing about the ability to assign a primary monitor space in the middle of a larger high rez "wall of monitor", outlining something like an invisible window frame. Think of it like running windowed mode on a huge high rez monitor, but the borders of the window are invisible and the extents outside of the primary space are all seamless FoV addition.
...No games do that now that I am aware of, and the closest thing to adding peripheral monitor space without jumbo-sizing the onscreen models and environment is landscape ( LLL ) eyefinity - though it stretches the sides on some games and of course has bezels.
Without something like this virtual primary monitor space assignment (or perhaps bezel-less tiling of monitors which utilize a primary monitor/space) using a larger than 30" monitor or array at a desk is to me like putting your face up to a 60" TV and playing a game. That is an exaggeration , but you can see my point I think.
Last edited:
I know people that actually play games on PC with lower resolutions than their monitors own native resolution. When i ask them why in the world they play on this resolution, they say they dont mind it and actually like the soft/ blurry picture it gives.
Most games on PS3/X360 run on 1280x720 and demanding games run on even lower resolution! The fact that there is no big outcry over how crappy, blurry picture you get with console games, just proves how low most peoples standards are regarding resolution.
Most games on PS3/X360 run on 1280x720 and demanding games run on even lower resolution! The fact that there is no big outcry over how crappy, blurry picture you get with console games, just proves how low most peoples standards are regarding resolution.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,371
yep, thats sad. Some notable ones have run at x702 even (no thats not a dyslexia typo) and in the 600's. Not only resolutions are digested happily but low frames per second (24-30fps, etc), many models have high input lag of 36 - 48ms on TVs, screen blur (and ghosting on VA tv's). Don't get me started on hard-coded gamepad "physics" either.
...
.
lower resolutions were a decent option on CRTs in order to get higher hz settings available, and less demand on the gpu that would give higher fps on more demanding games. I can't stand non-native resolution on LCD's though.
.
Regarding the bluray joke, I would only watch a movie on a VA tv or plasma for the black levels and detail-in-blacks. 1080p is adequate for gaming considering I get a very low response time + aggressive response time compensation + 120hz input along with it in a 27" size. I dedicate that TN monitor to gaming though, and use a 27" 2560x1440 ips for desktop/apps.
.
...
.
lower resolutions were a decent option on CRTs in order to get higher hz settings available, and less demand on the gpu that would give higher fps on more demanding games. I can't stand non-native resolution on LCD's though.
.
Regarding the bluray joke, I would only watch a movie on a VA tv or plasma for the black levels and detail-in-blacks. 1080p is adequate for gaming considering I get a very low response time + aggressive response time compensation + 120hz input along with it in a 27" size. I dedicate that TN monitor to gaming though, and use a 27" 2560x1440 ips for desktop/apps.
.