# ASUS Introduces PB298Q Ultrawide 21:9 Panoramic Monitor



## Sin (Aug 9, 2013)

ASUS announced the PB298Q, a 29-inch widescreen monitor with an ultra-wide 21:9 aspect ratio and 2560 x 1080 resolution. The PB298Q features an AH-IPS (Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching) display for rich, vibrant color and wide 178-degree viewing angles. It has a narrow 0.8mm bezel design which helps create the illusion of a frameless, edge-to-edge display. It also has rich connectivity options, ASUS-exclusive technologies, and an ergonomic stand with tilt, swivel, pivot, and height adjustments allow for enhanced productivity.



 

*Increasing productivity with a panoramic 21:9 display*
The 2560 x 1080 resolution of the ASUS PB298Q is 33% wider than standard Full HD display and, together with its 29-inch diagonal, is equivalent to two non-widescreen, 5:4 aspect ratio, 17-inch monitors placed side by side. The 21:9 aspect ratio gives more room for multiple windows, removing the need for a secondary desktop monitor. The ultra-wide resolution also means users can view more columns in a spreadsheet, with up to 13 more standard-sized columns than a conventional Full HD monitor. 

The LED-backlit AH-IPS display gives extremely accurate color reproduction, making the PB298Q ideally suited to both professional and home use. 178-degree wide viewing angles also mean that images don't wash out when seen from either side, or above and below. Paired with a narrow 0.8mm bezel design, it helps create the illusion of a frameless monitor that delivers edge-to-edge visuals.

*Extensive connectivity and exclusive technologies*
The PB298Q display has an array of connectivity options for wide compatibility with a range of multimedia devices. Video inputs include DisplayPort, HDMI, and Dual-link DVI ports, while audio can be played through built-in 3W stereo speakers. 

With an 80,000,000:1 ASUS Smart Contrast Ratio and a 300cd/m² brightness rating, the ASUS PB298Q display delivers life-like visuals by adjusting backlight luminance to achieve the darkest black and the brightest white shades. The exclusive ASUS MultiFrame software lets users organize multiple desktop windows, arranging them in an orderly fashion where they don't overlap.

ASUS Splendid Video Intelligence Technology also ensures vivid colors in every situation, with its six modes easily activated using a designated hotkey. The PB298Q also comes with QuickFit Virtual Scale with on-screen guidelines for an actual-size preview of images prior to printing. The PB298Q also features a sturdy stand with adjustable tilt, swivel, and height (up to 150mm), while a pivot joint allows the display to be rotated through 90 degrees for portrait use.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 9, 2013)




----------



## Jabber024 (Aug 9, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> http://imageshack.us/a/img845/6539/ymbs.jpg



WHHHYYYYY does anyone want this. Seriously.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 9, 2013)

Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.

Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 9, 2013)

Pfffff,....

I want one!

Hell, I want three!!!


----------



## radrok (Aug 9, 2013)

What's going to be up next? 3840x1080?

32:9 gogo -.-

Would love a 4:3 monitor though, like 2560x1920.


----------



## zinfinion (Aug 9, 2013)

I'm amused at the instant derision this aspect ratio receives. Playing in 16:9 now is like being a horse wearing blinders.

16:9 1920x1080





21:9 2560x1080





All that extra inherent FOV is an amazing benefit. Also, due to how the forum scales the images, it gives a rather false impression that the 21:9 shot is shorter vertically. It is not, they need to be viewed with the vertical height held constant to get the jist of the difference in aspect ratio.

Would I prefer a 21:9 with even more resolution, say a 3418x1440? Yes, absolutely. But since that is not an option, I'll take a 21:9 aspect ratio over any resolution 16:9.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Aug 9, 2013)

zinfinion said:


> I'm amused at the instant derision this aspect ratio receives. Playing in 16:9 now is like being a horse wearing blinders.
> 
> 16:9 1920x1080
> http://i.imgur.com/UJGIVOO.jpg
> ...



16:10 at 2560 x 1600 with the same FOV is even better. Another factor is the fact that at least here in Norway a 27" 2560 x 1440 screen is cheaper than all 29" 2560 x 1080 screens.

Also. Not all games hare hor+, about half is ver- and then 21:9 is horrible.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Aug 9, 2013)

These are kind of interesting monitors for certain uses.  But since they are general priced at $400-$500 or more, why would you get one instead of 2560x1440?

Pricing on monitors is all screwed up.


----------



## zinfinion (Aug 9, 2013)

Brusfantomet said:


> 16:10 at 2560 x 1600 with the same FOV is even better. Another factor is the fact that at least here in Norway a 27" 2560 x 1440 screen is cheaper than all 29" 2560 x 1080 screens.
> 
> Also. Not all games hare hor+, about half is ver- and then 21:9 is horrible.



16:10 (regardless of resolution) is actually an even more restricted FOV than 16:9, just as 4:3 is even more restricted than that.

16:10 1920x1200





16:10 2560x1600





16:9 1920x1080





16:9 2560x1440





21:9 2560x1080






As for games being hor+ or vert-, the vast majority are hor+, only a very rare few are vert- any more.



PopcornMachine said:


> These are kind of interesting monitors for certain uses.  But since they are general priced at $400-$500 or more, why would you get one instead of 2560x1440?
> 
> Pricing on monitors is all screwed up.



Don't think of a 2560x1080 as a shortened 2560x1440, think of it as a widened 1920x1080. The reason to buy it is for the 21:9 aspect ratio and the inherent FOV boost, not the vertical resolution.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 9, 2013)

Brusfantomet said:


> 16:10 at 2560 x 1600 with the same FOV is even better. Another factor is the fact that at least here in Norway a 27" 2560 x 1440 screen is cheaper than all 29" 2560 x 1080 screens.
> 
> Also. Not all games hare hor+, about half is ver- and then 21:9 is horrible.



The same is true here in the USA. That is to say that a 27" 2560x1440 monitor can be found for less then the typical price of a 2560x1080 monitor. To be clear though, those 2560x1440 monitors are off brand Korean imports compared to name brands such as Asus, Dell, HP, Samsung and so on.  Even an Acer 2560x1440 monitor will likely cost about ~$550 USD. 2560x1600 typically cost more and touch the ~$1000 USD range (name brand).

Comparing name brand to off brand is apples to oranges although if there is a market we are likely to see Korean imports of 21:9 2560x1080 monitors as well some time in the future. 

Why someone would want a 21:9 monitor is clearly up to the individual and it does seem a bit of a niche market but I doubt its something that could be explained to someone who doesn't want one.  People have a tendency to see only what they want to see.


----------



## Roph (Aug 9, 2013)

But they're the same panels. LG IPS and Samsung PLS. The "brand" you're choosing is basically what shape and logo for the monitor housing.


----------



## zinfinion (Aug 9, 2013)

Octavean said:


> Why someone would want a 21:9 monitor is clearly up to the individual and it does seem a bit of a niche market but I doubt its something that could be explained to someone who doesn't want one.  People have a tendency to see only what they want to see.



QFT. It is absolutely a niche market, one I don't see taking off or surviving sadly. Which is strange, as I doubt many people would want to go back to 4:3 (12:9) after having been accustomed to 16:9. 21:9 is just the next increase in wideness.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy one either, I'm just demonstrating an aspect (oh the puns) that the manufacturers really fail at since they don't seem to even be considering the gaming market, which is where these displays really shine. For business desktop work, 2560x1600 all the way. For games, the wider the better.

Also, were these displays either 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 I don't think the 2560x1440/1600 crowd would be quite as flummoxed.




tigger said:


> Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.
> 
> Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.



The :9 is inherently meaningless. A 16:10 could just as easily be called a 14.4:9. I'd prefer if everyone went divisor free.

1.25 = 5:4
1.33 = 4:3
1.60 = 16:10
1.77 = 16:9
2.37 = 21:9


----------



## Octavean (Aug 9, 2013)

Roph said:


> But they're the same panels. LG IPS and Samsung PLS. The "brand" you're choosing is basically what shape and logo for the monitor housing.



I have two Auria EQ276W 27" monitors I bought from Microcenter for ~$399 each. I've seen the same monitor with different names on it such as Overloard and Nixeus NX-VUE27 as well as some others that cost more or less then the model I bought. I know how good the off brands can be.

Thats besides the point though. I wouldn't just lump them all together because its convenient or helps make the point of an argument.

Just because the panel is the same or quasi doesn't mean all monitors are the same anymore then any SSD using the same controller or any DIMM using the same memory chips will be exactly the same.   There is just more that goes into these products. 

Also, as much as I like my Auria EQ276W 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitors I probably wouldn't have bothered with them if HP, Dell, Asus and others had comparable prices.  This is probably true for most people so the off brand monitors of this type are also filling a niche. A niche that could close if the prices of these things ever go down significantly. 

The Auria EQ276W has some minor quirks but I know how to work with them and rarely see them. I don't believe that companies like Dell, HP, Asus and so on would have let such minor issues stand though.  I think the same is true for a lot of these off brand monitors. I think you often get a better quality product when you pay more.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 9, 2013)

zinfinion said:


> Also, were these displays either 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 I don't think the 2560x1440/1600 crowd would be quite as flummoxed.



I don't know maybe,....

As I have said before those typically interested in such a monitor ratio probably wouldn't benefit much from an increase in resolution.  However, lets say they made these 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 monitors. The price would likely be in the same range as 4K  monitors  at 3840x2160 just like 2560x1080 monitors are similarly priced to some 2560x1440 monitors. 

So the question then is would those who want that 3418x1440 or 3840x1620 resolution pay ~$3500 for it in a ~30" or so package,....???

Money talks, BS walks,.....


----------



## Frick (Aug 9, 2013)

tigger said:


> Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.
> 
> Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.



Ye gods people STILL say that?



radrok said:


> What's going to be up next? 3840x1080?



Considering it's pretty common to have two 1920 monitors side by side... I'd say that would be pretty cool. Dual monitor gaming ... but without bezels? With a slight curvature to it, it would rock.


----------



## radrok (Aug 9, 2013)

Frick said:


> Considering it's pretty common to have two 1920 monitors side by side... I'd say that would be pretty cool. Dual monitor gaming ... but without bezels? With a slight curvature to it, it would rock.



I'd rather use a 3840x2160 monitor


----------



## burtram (Aug 9, 2013)

I want one of these, but mostly to free up desk space, while giving me more desktop real estate. I've seen them in person, and they are short enough to not block my tv, and I can put my second monitor to use somewhere else (since I only use it for all my desktop icons anyways).


----------



## PopcornMachine (Aug 9, 2013)

zinfinion said:


> Don't think of a 2560x1080 as a shortened 2560x1440, think of it as a widened 1920x1080. The reason to buy it is for the 21:9 aspect ratio and the inherent FOV boost, not the vertical resolution.



Why not think of 2560x1440 heightened 2560x1080, that you can still run games in a window at 2560x1080 and have more space for other things.

My point is that if there's no cost incentive to buy this size panel, I will happily make do with the extra pixels.


----------



## BorisDG (Aug 9, 2013)

So ugly screen ratio ...


----------



## lemonadesoda (Aug 10, 2013)

Bring back 5:4 or 2K:2K.  Give me an air traffic control monitor. At a price I can afford.

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/atc/sq2804/index.html
http://aydindisplays.com/files/Air Traffic Control/Documents/30281ATC_datasheet.pdf
http://www.barco.com/en/products-so.../28-lcd-main-display-with-led-backlights.aspx


2k:2k in 20" or 27" format. Perfect.


----------



## sno.lcn (Aug 10, 2013)

x1200, and make it much larger and I'd probably be in for one or a few for the office.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 10, 2013)

sno.lcn said:


> x1200, and make it much larger and I'd probably be in for one or a few for the office.



This.

I am screaming to every 21:9 monitor article to make them at least *36-38"* in diagonal size, or the same vertical size as a 27 incher, and with a resolution of *2800x1200*. 
Those 29" are just to damn small. Seriously!


----------



## 1c3d0g (Aug 10, 2013)

Thank you, zinfinion, for bringing facts and an overall sense of sanity back into these forums. Lots of people are spouting crap from their mouths when it comes to monitors these days. :shadedshu


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 10, 2013)

My phone is 21:9


----------



## Brusfantomet (Aug 10, 2013)

zinfinion said:


> 16:10 (regardless of resolution) is actually an even more restricted FOV than 16:9, just as 4:3 is even more restricted than that.
> 
> 16:10 1920x1200
> http://i.imgur.com/5f4hwfu.jpg
> ...



or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 10, 2013)

Frick said:


> Ye gods people STILL say that?



I don't get what you mean


----------



## Octavean (Aug 10, 2013)

PopcornMachine said:


> Why not think of 2560x1440 heightened 2560x1080, that you can still run games in a window at 2560x1080 and have more space for other things.
> 
> My point is that if there's no cost incentive to buy this size panel, I will happily make do with the extra pixels.



From the rampant complaining about 27" monitors at 1920x1080 with very clear cost incentives over 27" 2560x1440 monitors (some 1920x1080 units starting to come in at under ~$200 USD) is pretty clear such things won't make a lot of people happy no matter what.

The thing about an in between product is it can be difficult to price.  If there is still a market for 21:9 monitors over time one would expect to see prices drop to something a little lower then typical 2560x1440 monitors but then again its still a niche market.

Products with limited mass appeal simply don't have the numbers with respect to demand in order to increase production that leads to lower cost.


----------



## MadMan007 (Aug 10, 2013)

Brusfantomet said:


> or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.



Exactly. Fewer pixels is fewer pixels, period. A 2560x1440 monitor is inherently better than a 2560x1080 because it can *always* display the same exact image AND has more pixels to display more when possible as well...people just need to understand how to set their scaling between game, OS, and video drivers.

There is absolutely no advantage to having the same horizontal resolution with lower vertical resolution unless one is an irrational black bar hater, but they probably don't understand why more pixels is better anyway.


----------



## SaltyFish (Aug 10, 2013)

tigger said:


> Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.
> 
> Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.



Technically, this "21:9" thing is really 64:27... but marketing wanted associations with 16:9 because people are dumb. "21:9" also happens to be less of a mouthful.

4¹:3¹ = 4:3
4²:3² = 16:9
4³:3³ = 64:27

...notice a pattern?


----------



## RejZoR (Aug 10, 2013)

I'm still using 5:4 monitor and i'm perfectly fine with it. Plus i don't have any performance issues with anything, even if it's a just released triple A super duper title. It will run smoothly with max posssible settings. Unless it's bugged to hell in which case it doesn't matter what monitor you have.

Only reason why i'd want a 1080p monitor is to record videos and upload them in FullHD to Youtube. Recording them in 1280x1024 makes them squashed down into 720p which is dumb...


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 10, 2013)




----------



## Phobia9651 (Aug 10, 2013)

I can see this monitor having its use, and zinfinion has some fair points.
Important to note is that 21:9 is the native cinema aspect ratio, and I think a lot of blu-ray movies nowadays support that aspect ratio. So for diehard movie fanatics this screen makes perfect sense. Also like zinfinion said having a better horizontal FOV in games is also a major plus.
Though personally I prefer a multimonitor setup compared to an ultrawide monitor, simply for the fact that I like to have the ability to have a browser/chatwindow/PDF/spreadsheet/hardwaremonitor/whatever open on my second screen when gaming.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Aug 10, 2013)

This is a good aspect ratio. But it needs more pixels. Maybe 4096 × 1714 (cinema scope 4K). With a little curvature, it'll give more than 68 degrees of horizontal FOV. 1920 x 1080 gives only 32 degrees.


----------



## zAAm (Aug 10, 2013)

As someone who plays with triple surround 5200x1050, I can really see the point of the wider aspect ratios. I also regularly worked with quad monitors next to each other. Alas, this format won't be for everyone, especially for those stuck in a particular mindset...


----------



## micropage7 (Aug 10, 2013)

zAAm said:


> As someone who plays with triple surround 5200x1050, I can really see the point of the wider aspect ratios. I also regularly worked with quad monitors next to each other. Alas, this format won't be for everyone, especially for those stuck in a particular mindset...



yeah, it just like triple monitors blend into 1 monitor, but if triple monitor can placed surrounded it just flat from left to right


----------



## Frick (Aug 10, 2013)

tigger said:


> I don't get what you mean



Because that ship has sailed man. It was a valid complaint in like 2007, but now it's sort of too late.


----------



## buggalugs (Aug 10, 2013)

I think they're great. I can see a lot of uses for these. People who use 2 screens, the ability to have 2 webpages open, or a word document and a webpage side by side, that kind of thing is invaluable for a workstation. 

 Things like video or audio editing would be awesome on this ratio, where you could see much more of the timeline. 

 The resolution is not so huge that your average graphics card could run gaming without crippling the framerates. I personally don't like multi-monitor gaming, mainly bezels and the space it takes but this ratio is a good compromise.

 If they make a 120hz model I would be very interested. New things are always a little more expensive when they are first released. When the price stabilizes they should be not much more than a 1920:1080 monitor. I think they would appeal to the masses who just buy one 1080p screen and don't want to go high res 27" 1440p.


----------



## micropage7 (Aug 10, 2013)

buggalugs said:


> I think they're great. I can see a lot of uses for these. People who use 2 screens, the ability to have 2 webpages open, or a word document and a webpage side by side, that kind of thing is invaluable for a workstation.
> 
> Things like video or audio editing would be awesome on this ratio, where you could see much more of the timeline.
> 
> ...


yeah the most nice is when you do video editing, image editing or work that need wide space
i still think its triple monitor with one wide display


----------



## ypsylon (Aug 10, 2013)

21:9 equally useful as 'Snooze' button on smoke alarm...


----------



## CounterZeus (Aug 10, 2013)

Brusfantomet said:


> or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.



not all games allowed it online and is sometimes considered as cheating


----------



## lZKoce (Aug 10, 2013)

CounterZeus said:


> not all games allowed it online and is sometimes considered as cheating



That was Blizzard's excuse for not making Diablo 2 with more resolution options. Even now, SC2, has a difference with resolutions, but not a big one. I think tournaments are locked with certain resoluiton/aspect ratio in order not to offer more visible space to each player.


----------



## Frick (Aug 10, 2013)

lZKoce said:


> That was Blizzard's excuse for not making Diablo 2 with more resolution options. Even now, SC2, has a difference with resolutions, but not a big one. I think tournaments are locked with certain resoluiton/aspect ratio in order not to offer more visible space to each player.



In D2 it made (makes) tons of sense. SC2 largely looks the same no matter the resolution iirc.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 10, 2013)

Brusfantomet said:


> or, you know, increase the FOV on a 2560 x 1600 monitor so that you get the wide FOV AND the extra height.



Not a viable option, unless you like unrealistic stretched thin world.


----------



## erixx (Aug 10, 2013)

I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications. 
I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor 

Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars


----------



## MadMan007 (Aug 10, 2013)

erixx said:


> I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
> I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
> Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor
> 
> Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars



You don't _have to_ use 100% of your display space, I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. You can run 2560x1080 on a 2560x1440 display, get the wider aspect FOV advantages if there are any, and have more pixels when you can use them. The only advantage these monitors might have is if they introduce a new price point between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 monitors (and no, black bars is not a disadvantage, anyone who says so is just wrong.)


----------



## Duke456 (Aug 10, 2013)

That bezel dimension seems a bit suspect at 0.8mm. Surely it's 0.8cm or 8mm.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 10, 2013)

erixx said:


> I read a lot of snob and posh here... more pixels is always "nicer" but also requires more graphics power with all its negative implications.
> I actually have experienced this as I have one of these sized ultra wides. I went from 1920x1080 to this 2560x1080 and and I get a framerate hit in maxed out games, but wow do I love the size. And the improved fonts!
> Our world is mainly horizontal, so for games and movies it is brilliant. And for comparing/working with two text documents or whatever two programs is also nice (not that you cannot do it with whatever monitor
> 
> Mouses are also advertised with absurdly high resolution: I have mine turned halfway down. Similary, this is really just a question of your needs and taste: no need to start religious wars



Thanks for the input.

Generally speaking I tend to prefer experimentation. I suspect that I would favor such a 21:9 monitor but ideally I would have to actually try it myself to say for sure.  User testimonial is the next best thing other then reviews IMO.

Someone simply shooting it down having never tried it is of no use to me.

Like I said I have two 27" 2560x1440 monitors as well as three 27" 1920x1080 monitors in a triple monitor setup. I personally would probably buy a 4K monitor as my next upgrade but again I would very much at least like to try one of these 2560x1080 monitors and no I don't think simply running one of my 2560x1440 monitors at 2560x1080 would be analogous and yield the same experance other then in theory not necessarily in actual practice.  

If I'm accessing a computer using a tablet with a higher resolution then the PC that experance isn't the same as actually using the PC either,....even if the tablet scales down to the same resolution.

There is also the issue of personal preference.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 10, 2013)

tigger said:


> Maybe if it was 2560 x 1200, just maybe.
> 
> Why are most monitors xx:9 nowadays? I hate 16:9 and any :9 screen.



The :9 makes no difference.  It is just describing the aspect ratio, not the resolution.  You hate 1080 monitors, not :9 monitors.  If you want a 1200 high resolution then 21:9 would be 2800x1200, that is still a xx:9 aspect ratio, but with a 1200 high resolution.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 10, 2013)

Those conversations will never stop. 

I remember 20 years ago, when SVGA modes were as rare as today's 1440p. Actually I think the first OS ever to provide support for SVGA mode (or a resolution bigger than 800x600), was Windows 3.1. Back then monitors with 14" and 15" were as popular and spread as today's 24" and 27". I remember that 800x600 was the 1080p of today, while higher resolution and bigger monitors were as expensive as today's 1440p ones. And yes, most of the games were running in DOS with 320x240 resolution, while only some new and rare games were using 640x480.

Point is, the users will never be satisfied, even if their 24" monitor would be with a resolution like 7680x4320, some idiots will still complain that it was better a resolution of 7680x4800, because of extra pixels and stuff, etc, etc, etc///


----------



## radrok (Aug 11, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> Those conversations will never stop.
> 
> I remember 20 years ago, when SVGA modes were as rare as today's 1440p. Actually I think the first OS ever to provide support for SVGA mode (or a resolution bigger than 800x600), was Windows 3.1. Back then monitors with 14" and 15" were as popular and spread as today's 24" and 27". I remember that 800x600 was the 1080p of today, while higher resolution and bigger monitors were as expensive as today's 1440p ones. And yes, most of the games were running in DOS with 320x240 resolution, while only some new and rare games were using 640x480.
> 
> Point is, the users will never be satisfied, even if their 24" monitor would be with a resolution like 7680x4320, some idiots will still complain that it was better a resolution of 7680x4800, because of extra pixels and stuff, etc, etc, etc///



I'd just say everyone is different and it doesn't need name calling even if it's targeted to abstract/fictitious people.

To chime in I can honestly tell you that at a normal monitor distance anything above 110-120PPI would be wasted (for many people around).

In my honest opinion and experience 2560x1440 would be the ideal resolution for let's say a 24 incher.

I would love, for example, a 39" 3840x2160 display, it basically would make a perfect 3Dstudio + Photoshop "blackboard".


----------



## Wile E (Aug 11, 2013)

Eh, at least it's better than 1920x1080.


----------



## buggalugs (Aug 11, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> Those conversations will never stop.
> 
> Point is, the users will never be satisfied, even if their 24" monitor would be with a resolution like 7680x4320, some idiots will still complain that it was better a resolution of 7680x4800, because of extra pixels and stuff, etc, etc, etc///



 I so agree with you. Resolutions and ratios is a personal preference. There is no right or wrong choice. People have different needs and preferences.

 People who say more resolution is always better doesn't understand the market. If you ask the average person who knows nothing about computers, many don't like high-res monitors because it "makes everything look small". Now I know there are scaling options in some cases but the average person doesn't want to muck around with that, and it doesn't work in every situation.

 I know an older guy who was convinced on a forum to buy an expensive 27" Dell 1440p monitor, only to return it a few weeks later because he had trouble seeing things that used to be bigger on his old monitor. There is a reason 1080p is a mainstream resolution. Its adequate for most uses and cheap, and you don't need an expensive graphics card to run it.

 Personally I think the more options the better. More aspect ratios, more resolutions is a good thing....


----------



## erixx (Aug 11, 2013)

So happy to see that some of the relativism I put forth is melting down the initial bipartisanism.

And I also can confirm that numerous times people I visited had not set up their monitors correctly. That must be the reason why MS moved the "Resolution" configuration from the "Display properties" to the more immediate desktop Context Menu. But then you still have people in the woods that are unaware of the "right click", hehe....


----------



## radrok (Aug 11, 2013)

erixx said:


> So happy to see that some of the relativism I put forth is melting down the initial bipartisanism.



I still think that so much horizontal space and such limited vertical space is pointless 

Like, you can have both. I can set my 30" to 2560x1080 without having to sacrifice for good the 1600p portion of my monitor.


----------



## Slomo4shO (Aug 11, 2013)

Still waiting on a 5670x1080, 5670x2160, 7680x1440, or 7680x2880 display so I can replace my 3 monitors for a bezzle free display


----------



## Octavean (Aug 11, 2013)

Slomo4shO said:


> Still waiting on a 5670x1080, 5670x2160, 7680x1440, or 7680x2880 display so I can replace my 3 monitors for a bezzle free display



I hear you but something like this is still fairly nice:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039801131&postcount=163

Honestly my triple monitor 5760x1080 setup has a wider bezzle then what is shown in the link above but the bezzle doesn't bother me.  I honestly don't even notice it when I am gaming.  So much of this stuff IMO is simply mental and personal preference.


----------



## Slomo4shO (Aug 11, 2013)

Octavean said:


> So much of this stuff IMO is simply mental and personal preference.



I would rather not have bezzles if I can help it. I was simply expressing my personal preferences .


----------



## Octavean (Aug 11, 2013)

Slomo4shO said:


> I would rather not have bezzles if I can help it. I was simply expressing my personal preferences .



Oh I hear you brother,....

I was only saying I can take it or leave it. I don't feel it hinders my overall experience and these sort of things are kind of up to the individual and their tolerances.

Sort of like how some people can tolerate the existence of 1080 products and others freak out at the mere mention of them,....which is kind of their cross to bear,...


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 11, 2013)

Octavean said:


> I hear you but something like this is still fairly nice:
> 
> http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039801131&postcount=163
> 
> Honestly my triple monitor 5760x1080 setup has a wider bezzle then what is shown in the link above but the bezzle doesn't bother me.  I honestly don't even notice it when I am gaming.  So much of this stuff IMO is simply mental and personal preference.



This is neat!


----------



## Octavean (Aug 11, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> This is neat!
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v725/l88bastard/blocks.jpg



Yes indeed that is neat,.....too,.... 

If I buy a Seiki Digital SE39UY04 39-Inch 4K Ultra HDTV (~$699 USD) as an upgrade for my Wife's 27" 2560x1440 monitor I can then repurpose her 2560x1440 (and one other) monitor into a 5x 27" setup at 3240x1920 in portrait mode. She doesn't game so it should be a fairly decent upgrade for her too,....

If I were to do that then I would definitely need some serious GPU power to push that quasi 4K resolution. That single GTX 670 certainly wont cut it,...


----------



## radrok (Aug 11, 2013)

Couple 780/Titan would be fine, though.

Beware that the Seiki is 30Hz, I wouldn't game on that.


----------



## Octavean (Aug 11, 2013)

radrok said:


> Couple 780/Titan would be fine, though.
> 
> Beware that the Seiki is 30Hz, I wouldn't game on that.



Quite right,...

If I bought the Seiki 39" 4K as a desktop display it would be for my Wife and her telecommuting system not for me. She uses a VPN to access her work iMac (2560x1440) and it takes up her local 2560x1440 screen. It would be beneficial for her to have a higher local resolution and 3840x2160 would fit the bill nicely. She doesn't game or use any graphically intensive stuff so 30Hz shouldn't be an issue. For a developer / programer it should be a great match!

I would definitely game on the subsequent 5x27" setup at 3240x1920 that I could build using her current 2560x1440 monitor if I bought her the Seiki though,.....

I'd like a couple of GTX780 cards but I might try and get by with a couple of HD 7970 if I were to go for it,....


----------



## radrok (Aug 12, 2013)

What do you mean for 5x27"?


----------



## Octavean (Aug 12, 2013)

radrok said:


> What do you mean for 5x27"?



I mean five 27" displays rotated to portrait mode.

So instead of the three 27" landscape screens at 5760x1080 it would be five 27" displays in portrait mode at 5400x1920.

I messed up the math earlier when I said 3240x1920 because that would be for only three monitors not five,....


----------



## radrok (Aug 12, 2013)

Okay, that's what was bugging me 

For that kind of setup you would need an Eyefinity setup because as far as I am aware Nvidia Surround does not support more than 3 monitors


----------



## erixx (Aug 12, 2013)

radrok said:


> Okay, that's what was bugging me
> 
> For that kind of setup you would need an Eyefinity setup because as far as I am aware Nvidia Surround does not support more than 3 monitors



3 in surround mode and 1 more for... logging LOL


----------



## Player433 (Aug 12, 2013)

*Interested in 21:9*

I am very much interested in a 21:9 ratio, but I wish they would increase the size to at least 32 inches or an equivalent 27" with extra wings.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Aug 14, 2013)

Yeah, those monitors are just to damn small.


----------

