Monoprice Announces 27-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor for $390
tested.com
tested.com
Please please please increase vertical resolution. I look back on the days of 16:10 fondly and wish we could end up back there or better.
I'm pretty sure that Windows has a setting for it too buried in the graphics card display settings somewhere.
It doesn't specifically ask you to pick your subpixel layout, but rather shows you a bunch of different renderings and asks you to pick the one you think looks best.
Depending on your DPI settings, one can consider turning off subpixel smoothing at this res. At 4k you should certainly consider it. Plus, I'm sure various implementations are better than others. Does the iPad have this problem?
iOS does not use subpixel rendering at all, possibly due to the inconsistence of text rendering in different orientations.
I'd be really happy with three huge 4:3 displays but that will never happen.
It's a calibrated IPS monitor, 24" 1920x1200 (i.e. 16:10).
I have one and it's great.
Honestly, I hate using my HP now. It's a great monitor, but the 2560x1440 resolution on the Asus is amazing. Side by side, the Asus knocks the HP out of the park.
TLDR: It is not worth the downgrade in screen size and resolution just to get a 16x10 aspect ratio. You will never regret going for the 2560x1440 monitor instead.
Now we're seeing this with OLED displays, too. Much better contrasts, and even having some special properties like being bendable, but cost more than regular LCD's or even IPS LCD's.
It sucks, because I like 16:10 too.
My monitors are CCFL so they use a lot of power hence the desire to replace them eventually.
Sure, I'd prefer 2560x1600 than 2560x1440, but it really isn't a big deal.
And you can get 16:10 versions of those IPS panels, which then sport a 2560x1600 resolution. About $550+ if you buy from the same Korean dealers (search for e.g. "Crossover 30Q5").
I use one of these cheap 2560x1440 displays. 99% of the time, I treat it as two portrait displays, each with an effective resolution of 1280x1440 (8:9 aspect ratio). My ideal monitor would be an enormously wide curved display, providing a similar workspace to a triple-monitor setup but without the inconvenience of bezels.
I'll be interested in 1440p when the displays hit 22 - 24" inch range and the PPI approaches 150. I'd really like to wait for 4k resolution displays to take off, and get shrunk down to 27". That would be much more reasonable pixel density. Using classic displays (or heavens forbid, an 800p laptop at 17") is just so jarring compared to my 250 PPI tablet.
nitpick: it's "ceteris" not "certeris"
It is the same thing as FOV in FPS games. Some people get really bad headaches with narrow FOV on widescreens, some don't. If the 1440p 27" display is good enough for you, then just don't buy a more expensive 4k display at that resolution. Or get a 32" 4k display and get more space. I'm gonna get the 27" one because it feels easier on my eyes, probably at a price premium. I'm fine with that, I just want the pixel density.
I tried to skimp and buy a cheap passive Dual-Link DVI - Display Port adaptor but it didn't work so I had to buy an active one. I'm pretty sure that Dual-Link DVI adaptors have to be active and they start at $70 http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&c...
The early Apple thunderbolt dual DVI adapters also reported had problems. However, I have a recent version and the problems are worse. Occasionally when waking up the laptop the screen will have pixel snow. Rebooting the adapter solves the problem.
I gave up, splashed $100 on the official apple (active, USB powered) one, and it worked straight away.
It did work straight up with my PC desktop though (almost all decent new GPUs have DL-DVI output), so you don't always need to compromise with a wire purchase.
27" is too big for my desk and would rather not have to move my head side to side to see everything.
3 years warranty (though i've heard they replace your broken display with returned ones which might or might not be faulty) , color calibrated and no-dead-pixel-guarantee...
Edit: Ah, seems the display mentioned by parent has LED backlighting compared to CCFL in mine - of course i'd prefer the LED too ;)
LED backlighting is still a consistency nightmare, with bleed and clouding being the norm.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-FIRST-FSM-270YG-27-LED-2560x1440...
There's a blog post about them here:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/the-ips-lcd-revolut...
http://www.microcenter.com/product/384780/EQ276W_27_IPS_LED_...
No, according to your link Microcenter is selling with a one year warranty. The OP article indicates Monoprice will use a three year warranty.
I wonder how likely a monitor like this is to fail in year two or three.
(Note that I didn't downvote, I'm just giving a plausible explanation as to why someone might.)
> As you've come to expect from Monoprice, we stand behind our products and offer a full 1 year warranty, which is at least 3-4 times what is offered by other monitor manufacturers.
Compare GMail's grey highlights to see the difference.
They were originally a reseller of the Korean small batch monitors and decided to seek their own distribution channel. The company is focused around gamers (hence the questionably cheesy name), offering an "overclocked" model capable of reaching 120Hz refresh rate (which lets you play games at 120 frames per second), but I use their ME model (60Hz, but multiple inputs, including Display Port) for my office. I had nice screens before, but the Overlord screens have blown me away so far. The real estate is fantastic.
The reputable resellers or new brands offering these screens typically offer a 'Pixel Perfect' guarantee at a small up-charge ($20-ish) to guarantee the screen was inspected and had no dead pixels in the warehouse before shipping to you.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I did substantial research before purchasing.
I can have my IDE split my files into two panes @ 120 character widths and they'll comfortably fit in a single monitor, including the sidebar containing the tree. This is great for TDD!
Unfortunately it appears the price has jumped to $620 (http://www.compuplus.com/insidepage.php3?id=1218348). They have been sold out since they started, so I'm guessing they just want to match demand.
I was considering jumping on the 27" Korean monitor bandwagon a few months ago when it was all the rage and decided to wait and now it seems like the prices have gone up across the board, like monitors that were just about $300 before are now $450+.
Not a single problem with it.
Windows' approach is by just upscaling each window, which makes things blurry.
Linux' approach is by letting you set the DPI in dozens of config files (eg one for GTK+, one for QT, ...), but at least the end result looks "reasonably" what you want.
The Apple approach is some kind of misguided middle ground. Applications are fooled in to thinking that they are rendering on a "normal" sized screen but they are actually rendering 2x2 blocks for every single pixel. Then the whole screen is resized in to whatever resolution that it actually has.
Lets say you pick the "Looks like 1920 by 1200" option (why not just give me a percent scale?). The app thinks it's rendering at 1920 x 1200, it's actually rendering at 3840 x 2400, and then the thing gets scaled down to 2880 x 1800.
Can't you just let the damn app render at the actual resolution of the screen and give it a percentage scale?
Apparently some models are good for gaming. Must be privileged a model with a single input to avoid input lag, and a model with a potential overclock: In that regard, the Yamakasi Q270 SE seems to be the one standing out.
My ideal would have been a 27" display at the same DPI and aspect ratio as our old iMac, the same panel just cut a bit bigger, but those don't seem to exist. In the end I went for a mac Mini with a Dell 24" at the same 1920x1200 as our old monitor.
If you want to go the resolution: They're set per user, so only the people with reduced vision need the more visible resolutions
http://www.bresink.com/osx/TinkerTool.html can change fonts all over the place for MOST apps.
I've got a 23" LG here, weighs 6.5 lbs. with adapter ;-)
Of course, if I was rooted in one place, I would love 2 27" monitors, the more screen real estate the better
With their 3-year advance replacement warranty and non-glossy screen, you want the dell for $100 more.
Is this true? None of my Apple devices have ever had a dead pixel, but I always assumed that even one dead pixel would be enough to convince the Genius Bar to give me a replacement. Anyone have first-hand experience with dead pixel warranty replacement on Apple devices?
On these size screens, Apple won't replace <11 dark (dead-looking) or <9 light (stuck-looking) pixels. HP's policy is about half that. Lenovo is like 4 or something. Some of the other manufacturers have even more complex policies which depend on the position of the stuck/dead pixel.
And in practice, if you complain well enough in the store, Apple may replace for you even if you're under the line.
[1] When I say "they", I mean these 27" IPS panels, whether they're from Apple, Dell, HP, or some random Korean company.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/sna.aspx?c=us&cs=19&#...
tl;dr: full replacement within even just 1 bright pixel if the display is an UltraSharp (IPS), same dark pixel policy as rest of their monitor line.
This is better than even Apple's policy. Long story short I think I'll be buying Dell monitors for the next while.
I've found this out because i wanted to swap out my U2711 which has some issues when it's warm in the room - it might just go blank for a few seconds and then go back on again...
However since that is quite seldom (sometimes once a week, sometimes 3-4 times in an hour and then returns to normal) i've refrained from returning it cause one could get an even worse model - or so i've read..
What their official policies say and what they actually do are pretty different, it seems.
It is unrelated to their policy for their Macs and displays.
For months, people who know what’s up have been buying Cheap Korean 27-inch monitors because they’re made from the same panels as high end monitors. But for a third of the cost. Monoprice is selling 2560×1440 IPS monitors for $390, in that same spirit. They use the same LG panels as the 27-inch iMac (except Apple only takes the best; these are the rest), but Monoprice is offering a 3 year warranty and they check every panel for dead pixels–most Korean monitors, which are imported or sold on ebay, don’t do that.
http://thewirecutter.com/2013/01/some-future-gadgets-id-mayb...
I remain optimistic though. We won't need 300dpi on standard computer monitors, because we sit so much further away from them. My current cinema display still looks pretty decent compared to 'retina' portable devices.
I have that one, worth every penny.
Now I can recommend these to people who are less able to cope with dead pixels, etc. Have to love monoprice for doing to monitors what they've done for cables.
http://www.apple.com/displays/ still says that only MBP and iMac can do it.
It's really funky. Intel HD 4000 has the ability to drive this high of a resolution but only over DisplayPort, HD4K+HDMI or HD4K+DUAL_DVI is a no-go, so be warned. If you have integrated graphics, you will need an external card (unless your mobo has DisplayPort out). I've got an Nvidia now driving it over Dual link DVI.
So, yeah, if you're bummed about these not being available, there's tons on eBay, alibaba, etc.
A few other tips:
First, Intel HD4000 can drive these displays but it must be over DisplayPort. Yes, this means that my Macbook Air (2012) with the Apple Dual link DVI adapter works fine with it. However, my desktop with HD4000 mobo does not have DisplayPort so I'm now driving it with an NVIDIA GTX660 over Dual-link DVI.
Second, many of these displays output incorrect EDID information requiring that you manually modeset in Xorg to get it to work with Nvidia's proprietary drivers. (Nouvaeu seems to figure it out on it's own, but it's a bit of a dog at that resolution).
Third, most of these lack upscaling support meaning you must be able to output at its native resolution; no hooking an xbox up to one.
edit: Sorry to link downthread, but turtlebits stumbled upon one that might not have these limitations/faults: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5040906 before anyone jumps on the ebay link below.
1) Are Ebay/alibaba retailers trustworthy? I'd hate to be shipped a lemon (assuming they even ship outside the US).
2) Why must it be DisplayPort? Doesn't it support HDMI/DVI?
2. I have no idea why HD4000 won't drive that 2560x1440 resolution over DVI/HDMI. I just know that HD4000 has that prowess to output it and I read somewhere that it only works over DisplayPort. So far, based on my HD4000 MBA and desktop, that seems to be true. I'll see if I can find you a source on that.
edit: This is not the exact same ebay listing, but is from the same person and is the same product that I purchased: http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Crossover-27Q-LED-P-27-DVI-D-Dua...
edit2: Sources on the HDMI/DVI/DisplayPort discrepancy: http://communities.intel.com/message/160909#160909
Thanks anyway!
That ebay listing indicates that GTX 4xx's and 5xx's are supported. I would suspect yours will be fine.
Thank you for your help.
2. the Catleap range takes Dual-link DVI, which requires the powered adapter for (I use Apple's one for the MBP, and bought an extra minidisplayport -> displayport adapter for my work laptop).
not work for one of these displays, coupled with a Macbook Air (2012)?
>> Are Ebay/alibaba retailers trustworthy?
I think that most people don't give bad reviews even after a bad experience. You might expect a bad experience once out of 50 times with a seller having a 98% rating, but I have found it to happen much, much more often.
To your second question, it's funny to me that my old Macbook Pro (2007) could drive it out of the box, as it had the large DualLink DVI port on the side. My newer Macbook Pro (2011) has to use Apple's Thunderbolt to DualLink DVI adapter, which works great, but is one more thing to think about.
Fully working, no dead pixels, slightly non-uniform backlight (it could be seen only on black background). The display is really great for the price.
The only downside for me is glossy screen, but it seems there are no cheap 27'' korean matte displays.
DVI-A/I/D Single link supports up to around 1920x1200
* DVI-I/D Dual Link supports 2560x1600+
* HDMI <=1.2 supports up to 1920x1200
* HDMI 1.3 supports up to 2560x1600
* HDMI 1.4 supports up to 4096×2160
* HDMI1.3 intro'd different category cables, cat1 and cat2 (Sometimes called 'High Speed'). cat2 supports the higher res.
HDMI and DVI Single Link are compatible (you can get simple adaptors and hdmi-dvi cables). Note, single link only, ie HDMI to DVI adapter connected to a dual link cable and display will be act like DVI Single Link
HDMI w/Type B connector and DVI Dual Link are compatible, however as far as I know there were no HDMI Type B products ever made.
So you cannot convert HDMI>DVI to achieve 2560x1600
* To get 2560x1600 over DVI, you need a dual link card, display and cable
* To get 2560x1600 over HDMI you need a card with a >1.3 port, display and a >1.3 cat2 cable.
* Additionally, regardless of the HDMI standard supported by your card, it may not be capable of outputting 2560x1600 (The presence of a display port or dual link DVI is a good indicator)
So in theory most modern setups should support 2560x1600 over HDMI. In practice not so much, a few problems:
* Some displays and adaptors may claim to support >1.3, or not specify the version, and actually be <1.3
* Some displays and adaptors may be >1.3 but limit what they will output or display.
* Some displays may be >1.3 but report a lower max resolution in their EDID. Bypassing this/setting a custom mode may work just fine.
* Even if you do manage to get everything working together, you may experience general instability and errors.
TL;DR avoid HDMI for high resolutions if you can, it'll save you a lot of hassle.
Here's my rudimentary/half forgotten understanding gleamed from the PCH datasheet and random internet browsing:
* HDMI/DVI both use TMDS and share the same encoding/formatting for video and control. The Intel chipsets defines 9 TMDS lines for a port which are identical/interchangeable between the HDMI/DVI ports: 3 Data pairs, 1 control pair and the hot plug detection.
* The 3 data pairs, the control/clock pair and the hotplug pin form the connections of a single link DVI-D connector.
* The DVI spec identifies the max pixel clock of a single link DVI connection as 165Mhz
* Higher pixel clock requires dual link, via an extra 3 data pairs, which are not defined by intel in the datasheet
* HDMI uses a single link connection, with 3 data pairs, control pair, and hotplug. (Except type B connections which were dual link, but never actually produced by anyone)
* HDMI <= 1.2 defined a maximum pixel clock of 165Mhz (same as DVI). So at this point the video and control data is compatible with DVI, same pins and max clock
* HDMI1.3 upped it to 340Mhz over a single link. Which is incompatible with DVI, which increased max res by adding more lines, rather than change the existing ones
This is where I make a bit of a leap: as far as I know, since the lanes used for HDMI/DVI are defined interchangeably, they are limited to a max clock of 165Mhz, the DVI maximum.
So even though these cards are listed as HDMI1.4, the video data produced is effectively maxed at DVI-D single link/HDMI<=1.2 compatible.
TL;DR again: the intel HD graphics (Specifically the HD4000 and HD2500, but assumably the earlier ones as well) are limited to single link DVI-D and the equivalent pixel clock over HDMI, effectively 1920x1200. DisplayPort does doesn't share this. If you have an Intel adaptor, and want >1920x1200, you're gunna want to use DisplayPort.