Jump to content

1200p (16:10) or 1440p (16:9) Display

mike911

I understand that there are multiple threads asking for monitor recommendations, but I'm not sure if I should merge my queries in their threads.

 

I'm considering Dell's UltraSharp monitors between U2713HM vs U2412M. Although they are in a different league as pointed out by GoodBytes

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/13942-dell-vs-asus/#entry156397

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/13903-looking-for-new-monitors/#entry153600

 

My needs is mostly for watching 720p videos and some casual games (Not a heavy gamer).

 

But its abit hard to justify the cost as a 1440p monitor cost about twice of a 1200p or 1080p monitor. I've heard about the korean monitors at a lower price point, but I'd would not like to take the risk. Plus it does not have multiple inputs.

 

I do understand that having more pixels would definitely be useful as there are more real-estate to work with. And should I need to downscale to lower resolutions it is still feasible. Part of the reason I'd picked 1200p is due to the aspect ratio as I'd prefer working with that aspect ratio.

 

I have a few combinations in mind and like to hear anyone's thoughts about it.

 

1. 1x U2713HM

2. 1x U2412M

3. 1x U2412M + 1x 32" LCD [Which adds up to the cost of a U2713HM]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because a monitor has an IPS panel doesn't mean that it will look great. I've heard a lot of positive feedback on Samsung's and ASUS' professional 1440p monitors though, so consider those as well. As for your combinations, the U2412M seems to be superior as shown here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260047

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Dave, I'll look into them too.

I'd like the looks of Samsung's PLS panel. the a850 series. which is matte black with the simple rectangle look. just that I was left to wonder if the $ would be worth to spend on a 27" panel that is to last a long time

iirc, dell's warranty for my country is 5 years. I need to check again for Samsung warranty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up Monoprices new 27in 1440p monitor as they have a zero dead pixel policy for a year and its $475.I just bought one it will be here tomorrow so i will be giving a small review on it for the forums..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey onegun, I'll keep a lookout for your review :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a u2412m and so far its been 100% perfect, power cable a bit sensitive when moving monitor. But performance wise its incredible!

Intel I7 2600k @ 4.5ghz, Asetek 510 LC Xtremegear liquid cooling system, PALIT GTX 780 Super Jetstream OC, 8Gb Kingston Hyper X blu series 1600mhz, 64Gb Crucial M4 series SATA III Gaming MLC SSD, 1TB Western Digital HDD 6.0gb/s,  Asus P8z68-v Pro Motherboard, Corsair Vengance K90 Keyboard,950Watt Cyberpower PSU, Cyborg RAT 5 ,  Coolermaster CM 690II case, Dell Ultrasharp U2412M 1920 x 1200

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you only mostly watch 720p videos and only casually game, stick to 1200p. No reason to waste the extra cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a u2412m and so far its been 100% perfect, power cable a bit sensitive when moving monitor. But performance wise its incredible!

 

I see, that's good to hear. Perhaps you can check if the power connector socket (Connected to the monitor) is loose? If you move the monitor alot, and it keeps giving you problems. Maybe you can log a case with Dell?

 

If you only mostly watch 720p videos and only casually game, stick to 1200p. No reason to waste the extra cash.

 

Okays, understood tabuburn. Its kind of twice the price for the 3 inches, with about twice of the pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okays, understood tabuburn. Its kind of twice the price for the 3 inches, with about twice of the pixels.

Rule of thumb is only pay for what you need.

 

Also, 1200p monitor's pixel count is 2.3 million while the 1440p is at 3.7 million. That's only about 62% more pixels. 4K is the one that has twice the pixels as 1080p.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an ASUS PA248Q 1920x1200 and I love it. does everything I need, wasn't overly expensive and doesn't murder my GPU.

- Silverstone TJ08B-E - Gigabyte Z87M-D3H - i7 4770k @ 4.0GHZ 1.2v - 16gb Kingston HyperX Black 1600 - Gigabyte GTX 770 OC 4GB -


- Silverstone Fortress FT02 - MSI Z77 Mpower - i5 3570k @ 4.0GHZ 1.09v - 8gb Mushkin Blackline 1600 - MSI GTX 670 PE -


- Lenovo T430 (1600x900) - i5 3210m - 8GB DDR3 1333 - nVidia NVS5400M - 256GB mSATA OS - 320GB HDD-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule of thumb is only pay for what you need.

Also, 1200p monitor's pixel count is 2.3 million while the 1440p is at 3.7 million. That's only about 62% more pixels. 4K is the one that has twice the pixels as 1080p.

4k has 4 times the pixels as 1080p which is why it's called 4k.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4k has 4 times the pixels as 1080p which is why it's called 4k.

Whoops. Made a typo there. My bad. It's 4x the pixels of 1080p but it's called for 4k because it starts at a resolution of 3840x2160 which, if you round off is the width, you get 4K. It's the same reason why 2560x1440/1600 are called 2.5K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops. Made a typo there. My bad. It's 4x the pixels of 1080p but it's called for 4k because it starts at a resolution of 3840x2160 which, if you round off is the width, you get 4K. It's the same reason why 2560x1440/1600 are called 2.5K.

you are correct sir.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, 4K is not a defined resolution yet.

You have 3840 × 2160, 4096 × 2160, 4096 × 3112, 3656 × 2664, and more. All different aspect ratios, but all "4K".

It's a bit of a mess right now. 3840 × 2160 might win, because its the smallest, so it will be cheaper, and that is what the consumer will buy, because its the cheapest.

Also,for TV broadcasting and recording, 3840 × 2160 will save money to everyone, as, again the resolution is lower.

 

If that is the case, I wonder if later we will have "true 4K', or "Full 4K". Kinda like HD resolution. Where we had 720p, and people jump on them, as it was HD, and later we had 1080p.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, Thanks for the replies. Unfortunately I should state what I am using now too. I'd have to spend money more wisely these few months. Which means my New PC will have to wait. I'll probably get the monitor first for my current notebook (nvidia quadro nvs 135m) for 720p videos and office notebook (intel HD4000 graphics) for work. Gaming will wait.

 

So I'm looking to use VGA for my notebook (Yes, Linus and everyone doesn't like it, I dont have a choice haha), and displayport for my office notebook.

 

Rule of thumb is only pay for what you need.

 

Also, 1200p monitor's pixel count is 2.3 million while the 1440p is at 3.7 million. That's only about 62% more pixels. 4K is the one that has twice the pixels as 1080p.

 

Yes Sir. That is one of the greatest concern that I at. Money is of some concern to me, but does not mean that due to cost I will not spend. As long as there are good reasons why its worthy of in the long run, no harm paying just one good time and let it last.

 

Oh my bad, so its 1.6 times for a 1440p monitor. Thanks for letting me know

 

 

I have an ASUS PA248Q 1920x1200 and I love it. does everything I need, wasn't overly expensive and doesn't murder my GPU.

 

Ooo, that ProArt monitor. I'd love its matte rectangular looks, which unfortunately Dell refreshed its ultrasharp series with curvy corners.

 

Whoops. Made a typo there. My bad. It's 4x the pixels of 1080p but it's called for 4k because it starts at a resolution of 3840x2160 which, if you round off is the width, you get 4K. It's the same reason why 2560x1440/1600 are called 2.5K.

 

 

Actually, 4K is not a defined resolution yet.

You have 3840 × 2160, 4096 × 2160, 4096 × 3112, 3656 × 2664, and more. All different aspect ratios, but all "4K".

It's a bit of a mess right now. 3840 × 2160 might win, because its the smallest, so it will be cheaper, and that is what the consumer will buy, because its the cheapest.

Also,for TV broadcasting and recording, 3840 × 2160 will save money to everyone, as, again the resolution is lower.

 

If that is the case, I wonder if later we will have "true 4K', or "Full 4K". Kinda like HD resolution. Where we had 720p, and people jump on them, as it was HD, and later we had 1080p.

 

Okays now I understand more on how these "K"s comes about.

But looking at the prices of the 4K TV's, other than 1 or 2 of those $1.5k, i dont think they are kind of affordable now, or anytime soon, unless they become the norm and commonly produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I prefer much more the look of the old UltraSharp series, with the sharp corners. The stand was also better.

It was going very well with the Dell Latitude E6400/E6500 look. Which Dell sadly change this kick-ass looking system to a 2000 are look to it. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I prefer much more the look of the old UltraSharp series, with the sharp corners. The stand was also better.

It was going very well with the Dell Latitude E6400/E6500 look. Which Dell sadly change this kick-ass looking system to a 2000 are look to it. :(

 

Yea sadly only the older premium models (U2410, etc.) have them now.

I did consider the S27A850 a thought before as replacing the sharper corner looks haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that all of them only have HDMI in which is useless for gamers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

well depends on what you need the monitor for. Otherwise just use an adapter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

well depends on what you need the monitor for. Otherwise just use an adapter?

That's not really the point. HDMI can do resolutions up to 4K but only at 30Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not really the point. HDMI can do resolutions up to 4K but only at 30Hz.

 

Opps. I didnt know that HDMI can do 4K resolution, always thought 1080p is the max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opps. I didnt know that HDMI can do 4K resolution, always thought 1080p is the max.

It can with HDMI 1.4a compatible devices but you are stuck at a refresh rate of only 30Hz whereas DisplayPort 1.2 compatible devices can support 4K @ 60Hz refresh rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can with HDMI 1.4a compatible devices but you are stuck at a refresh rate of only 30Hz whereas DisplayPort 1.2 compatible devices can support 4K @ 60Hz refresh rate.

 

Oh, now i know what you refer to about affecting gamers, because of the slower refresh rate. the output will look choppy,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, now i know what you refer to about affecting gamers, because of the slower refresh rate. the output will look choppy,

Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

like to ask something to think about.

does down scaling of 1440p to 720p looks better than 1200p or 1080p to 720p?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×