Read more.Quote:
The AOC G2460PQU and the BenQ RL2460HT vie for gamers' eyes.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The AOC G2460PQU and the BenQ RL2460HT vie for gamers' eyes.
I like the look of the AOC but come on USB2 in this day and age......
The BenQ; just doesn't look right to me. :/
This kind of thing is getting old... 24-inch 1080p monitors? Isn't that screen size a little big for that resolution?
Yeah, *blah *blah lots of features *blah. This is why hardware manufacturers don't push the boundaries anymore, 2560x1440/1600 was supposed to be the standard a long time ago, but look, these manufacturers didn't even push that kind of market.
We would have had 23-inch 4k monitors by now, but nooo. Even tablets went past 1080p - Tablets, of all things!? heck, video/photo editors could have used that resolution for more productive purposes. Giving it to tablets only made them more expensive.
Good that Samsung released a sub-$1k 4k monitor, not expecting some high end quality from it, but that's actually a good start considering a breakthrough in the pricing.
To be fair Dell are currently selling a 24" 4K monitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoloSwag
Yeah but its way above $1k. Better quality though.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
I was referring to your comment about how "we would have had 23-inch 4k monitors by now, but nooo"Quote:
Originally Posted by YoloSwag
Ahh, what I meant was, 4k monitors actually being the standard today or at least a bit widespread at a low cost. Like back when Crysis came out, monitors above 900p weren't really that popular and now it's widespread 1080p everywhere. And Crysis was back in 2008, that was about 6 years ago, back then you'd see reviews at 2560x1600 which was pretty cool. Some reviews today have 4k reviews but 4k for the regular consumer isn't much of a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
I'm pretty much saddened by the slow progression of things, of course not much hardware can handle games at max settings at 4k but we shouldn't blame it on the manufacturers its pretty normal considering it was even hard to get decent frames with Crysis at very high at 1600x1050 with an 8800GTX. But in a short time everyone started having 1080p monitors around $200(at least from where I'm from).
That's what I'm trying to point out. Tablets having higher PPI with more functionality (of course) than a 27-inch monitor with a lower price sounds really bad. That technology could have been used more productively if it was given to Desktops.
People with self-owned businesses, trying to make some cash off some home made photo/video editing would definitely benefit from a higher resolution monitor, ceteris paribus, more space helps with productivity. Heck, you could put a bunch of things on the screen at the same time. Note that we're talking about amateurs here not some professionals working for a company who pays for higher grade hardware :D
I would love one of those!
I don't know why for sure we do not have 4K monitors for £150 to £200 or even 1440p for quality retail products, I know you can get Imports of questionable quality, some good some bad.
Probably high volume demand, lots of consumers and business people now use laptops the desktop market is not booming, may even be shrinking.
Why would they want to invest in production facilities when we have just had or even still in a global financial crisis ?
Most desktop users I would think are happy with 1080P screens, it's not what enthusiasts may want, but the big manufacturers are coming out with nice screens.
It's just not commodity prices, (Yet).
120/144Hz is lovely, and 24" is a decent enough size for a gaming monitor - but I'm also really disappointed that manufacturers haven't even managed to get out 1440p @120Hz units.
It's possible with today's hardware to run 1440p at 120Hz, despite the very widespread and false assertion that DVI cannot cope with the bandwidth (although some poor cables might have issues but that's not related to the DVI standard). The two main issues are a driver cap (which has been patched out by ToastyX) and the monitor itself. There are some overclockable displays out there that will run >100Hz at 1440p, but why hasn't any manufacturer taken up the challenge to make a display specifically to run at these speeds?
There are enough gamers out there who are happy either:
a) to reduce image quality in the effort to get rock solid 120fps (with or without lightboost)
or
b) to spend more on graphics capabilities (maybe using SLI or crossfire where required)
Hell, I'd be happy to shell out in the region of £500 for a high quality, 120Hz lightboost 1440p monitor.
Turns out I missed the announcement from Asus:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roobubba
http://rog.asus.com/296652014/news/rog-announces-the-pg278q-swift-27-inch-wqhd-g-sync-gaming-monitor/
Hopefully other manufacturers will take up the challenge!
These are targeted at gamers, so low response times and high refresh rates take priority over resolution. Combine that with 4K and I doubt any single GPU currently available could cope; the market for that sort of thing is also markedly smaller). We're getting there though. Looking forward to the release of the ROG swift from Asus.
As for those complaining about the price, it's new tech, what the hell were you expecting?
The most impressive is 144Hz and 2ms gaming monitors, but it a lot a money. I think Asus VG248QE is a best choose.