People calling 24" ""budget"" is a huge issue.

[Kilrah]

Never understood why people would say that... A display shows you an image, that you see just like any other.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

12 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Never understood why people would say that... A display shows you an image, that you see just like any other.

smaller size with same resolution has better dpi which no one cares

 

[cafe]

On 10/3/2019 at 5:15 AM, Mihle said:

Majority of people like him and me do not play competitively, we play for enjoyment, and bigger monitor makes the enjoyment better.

 

(up to a max size that is opinion based tho, for example I would most likely never go above 32", tho I have not used it personally)

being worse than you can be doesnt seem very enjoyable.

[Mihle]

1 minute ago, RelativeMono said:

being worse than you can be doesnt seem very enjoyable.

It doesn't matter. Bigger than 24" screen = more inmersion = more enjoyable. 

I literally don't care how good I do in games as long as I do ok and it's fun. You don't have to be good at something for it to be fun. If you don't understand that you have something to learn.

[cafe]

4 minutes ago, Mihle said:

It doesn't matter. Bigger than 24" screen = more inmersion = more enjoyable. 

I literally don't care how good I do in games as long as I do ok and it's fun. You don't have to be good at something for it to be fun. If you don't understand that you have something to learn.

i have nothing to learn on this subject compared to you lol.

i think youre missing the whole point of this thread.

the thread is to say that calling 24" budget is an issue because the monitors will stop being made by quality brands

as evidenced by the lack of 24" 140hz ips panels at 1080p

 

edit: there is nothing more enjoyable that stomping people like you in multiplayer and ruining their enjoyment. Theres nothing more enjoyable than being good enough to stop someone from being able to even play the game.

 

[Mihle]

12 minutes ago, RelativeMono said:

i have nothing to learn on this subject compared to you lol.

i think youre missing the whole point of this thread.

the thread is to say that calling 24" budget is an issue because the monitors will stop being made by quality brands

as evidenced by the lack of 24" 140hz ips panels at 1080p

 

edit: there is nothing more enjoyable that stomping people like you in multiplayer and ruining their enjoyment. Theres nothing more enjoyable than being good enough to stop someone from being able to even play the game.

 

Again, you simply do not understand that you do not have to be good at a game to have lots of enjoyment with it. If everyone did, why do the worst players continue to play? They don't play just to play, they have fun doing what they do.

And you don't know how good or bad I play so....

[Doobeedoo]

Personally I too also hate there's lack of higher spec 24" monitors. Everyone seem to force these oversized, ultrawide, curved VA panels ugh. We have enough of them already anyway. I plan to get a new monitor and it seems 27" would be what I can get only. There's not a single 24" 1440p 144Hz IPS monitor. I wanted to move from 1080p but on the same size. I like 1440p PPI on 24". Then again 27" is bigger and as a fps player that's quite noticable. Really 27" would be max I'd like if no 24" option. 

There's a 1440p 240Hz IPS in the works and that'd be amazimg to have. 

[RainingTacco]

On 10/3/2019 at 6:07 AM, RelativeMono said:

What is wrong with people on /r/monitors

Its funny saying 1440p is a normal resolution. It will be dead in few years, because its not an industry standard. It still has a good longevity when compared to 16:10 resolutions, which were super popular for few years, and all that vanished in the blink of an eye. Back then people also said that 16:10 is future :D. 4K will be a new standard and i reckon that a 500usd 4k 144hz monitors with IPS will be available in 5 years max. Until then, if you have the spare cash, go ahead and buy 1440p 144hz. 

[RainingTacco]

4 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Never understood why people would say that... A display shows you an image, that you see just like any other.

According to this calculator, you are sitting too close to the monitor.The minimum viewing distance for 50 inch 16:9 monitor is 0,79m. You are wasting some peripheral screen space. I can't imagine how much strain on the eyes this can cause looking at UI elements that are usually on the sides of the screen. 

https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator

 

[jones177]

Smaller monitors do seem to be cheaper so budget does apply.

 

If you prefer smaller monitors it is an advantage.

When my main hobby was fishing I prefered small boats. Being closer to the water was important to me. Since smaller boats are cheaper I consider my preference an advantage.

 

I have a 55" TV. I rarely turn it on because I prefer to watch shows and movies on my 32" monitor. 

 

Do I like large monitors or small TVs? 

 

 

 

 

 

[cafe]

26 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Personally I too also hate there's lack of higher spec 24" monitors. Everyone seem to force these oversized, ultrawide, curved VA panels ugh. We have enough of them already anyway. I plan to get a new monitor and it seems 27" would be what I can get only. There's not a single 24" 1440p 144Hz IPS monitor. I wanted to move from 1080p but on the same size. I like 1440p PPI on 24". Then again 27" is bigger and as a fps player that's quite noticable. Really 27" would be max I'd like if no 24" option. 

There's a 1440p 240Hz IPS in the works and that'd be amazimg to have. 

WAIT!

There are 24" 144hz 1080p monitors coming out

after i eat ill go find the link! We have hope!

the problem is how long it took.

[CTR640]

On 10/3/2019 at 5:36 AM, RelativeMono said:

"The new Nitro XV273 X monitor features Full HD resolution (1920x1080) with up to 240 Hz high frame rate, DisplayHDR™ 400 and IPS^[1] native 5ms and G2G 1ms (0.1ms min.) response time "

 

that cannot be 240hz while being ips, right?! if so that is insane

Search to Asus ROG Strix XG17. It's a portable 17.3" monitor that has 1080p IPS 240Hz. Very insanse!

I'm so looking forward to it. Hopefully nVidia DSR will work too.

 

And yes, 27" is way too big, I once had a 27" monitor and the very next day I returned it. Then I have 24", it's alright but still big. Now having a 22" VA monitor and love it. Also having a the G-Story 17.3" monitor too, it's very nice! But unfortunately it's restriched at max 30Hz when selection resolutions higher than 1080p. I am thinking of returning it.

 

On 10/3/2019 at 5:21 AM, RelativeMono said:

I'm getting really annoyed at people calling 24" a budget size of monitor.

Companies are also refusing to make an IPS that is 144hz while also being 1080p at that size. It's actually insane. 

I personally have a 144hz IPS at 27" and its too big, not to mention its 1440p and I'm miserable with it. 1440p only cuts in half what your fps could be at 1080p and 27" feels just too big. 

I also never want to be burdened with a non ips monitor again. That is actually horrible. 

It's not about money 

If there was a 144hz IPS 1080p 24" monitor i would pay $1k np. For the "premium" of getting a lower res and smaller screen.

 

Example of the insane logic that gives me a headache. 

Bad-Motha's reply gave me cancer.

[RainingTacco]

7 hours ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

smaller size with same resolution has better dpi which no one cares

 

For a normal viewing distances, you would need a 20 inch 1080p display to match a 27 inch 1440p display for the same visual fidelity. And 20 inch is too small for immersion. The bullshit talk about PPI is really annoying. Yes you can have a smartphone with 6 inch screen with a 640x480 resolution having same visual fidelity as 27 1440p from normal viewing distance, but seriously who would like to play like that, when you can have this fidelity at a much larger screen? I can watch 144p from 2 meters away and have same fidelity as 27 1440p from 5 meters, but you can't workaround about fact that at this distance your eyes wont resolve fine details otherwise seen from close distance. You also cant workaround about the fact that 144p vs 1440p will always have more pixels, hence more POSSIBLE INFORMATION [imagine a situation where pixel size or dot size as it is called has same physical size, so 24 1080p vs 32 1440p, you still get more details on the same objects ingame, given the same ingame FoV!, example object take 1/6 of horizontal width of screen, in 1920 its 320px, in 1440p its 427 px  ] , and for example on 144p you wont see a fine mesh no matter how close you watch the screen, whereas on 1440p you will, given the normal viewing distances. So this bullshit talk about PPI is completely detached from reality. When comparing monitors always assume realistic scenario -a viewing distance of 0,6m, an eye FoV of 140*. You want to fill this FoV while still being on the boundary of Visual Acuity distance. So for example the perfect monitor for gaming would be 32 inch 4k monitor, viewed from 0,6m. 

https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator

[cafe]

8 minutes ago, RainingTacco said:

For a normal viewing distances, you would need a 20 inch 1080p display to match a 27 inch 1440p display for the same visual fidelity. And 20 inch is too small for immersion. The bullshit talk about PPI is really annoying. Yes you can have a smartphone with 6 inch screen with a 640x480 resolution having same visual fidelity as 27 1440p from normal viewing distance, but seriously who would like to play like that, when you can have this fidelity at a much larger screen? I can watch 144p from 2 meters away and have same fidelity as 27 1440p from 5 meters, but you can't workaround about fact that at this distance your eyes wont resolve fine details otherwise seen from close distance. You also cant workaround about the fact that 144p vs 1440p will always have more pixels, and for example on 144p you wont see a fine mesh no matter how close you watch the screen, whereas on 1440p you will, given the normal viewing distances. So this bullshit talk about PPI is completely detached from reality. When comparing monitors always assume realistic scenario -a viewing distance of 0,6m, an eye FoV of 140*. You want to fill this FoV while still being on the boundary of Visual Acuity distance. So for example the perfect monitor for gaming would be 32 inch 4k monitor, viewed from 0,6m. 

https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator

you want more frames = 1080p

you want less peripheral blur = 24" at 2 feet or 1 1/2 feet or so

and you want to be able to see them, so 144hz-240hz 
if you actually believe 32" is optimal like actually your opinion, you are a complete psychopath. If not, then im mistaken.

also 1080p is better at 24" than 27" 

 

[Mick Naughty]

It is budget. Cheaper and smaller. 

 

Or else id have some ultra wide 1440p and a pair of cards to run it. 

 

I use a budget 240hz monitor and a cheap card to run it. 

[cafe]

2 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

It is budget. Cheaper and smaller. 

 

Or else id have some ultra wide 1440p and a pair of cards to run it. 

 

I use a budget 240hz monitor and a cheap card to run it. 

wow, you have a high iq, good insight 

[Mick Naughty]

1 minute ago, RelativeMono said:

wow, you have a high iq, good insight 

Glad we agree. 

[RainingTacco]

1 hour ago, RelativeMono said:

you want more frames = 1080p

you want less peripheral blur = 24" at 2 feet or 1 1/2 feet or so

and you want to be able to see them, so 144hz-240hz 
if you actually believe 32" is optimal like actually your opinion, you are a complete psychopath. If not, then im mistaken.

also 1080p is better at 24" than 27" 

 

24 inch at 1 1/2 feet needs a high resolution for appropriate visual fidelity, a 4k res would be ideal. 1080p would be bad, unless you have shortsightedness

[cafe]

2 minutes ago, RainingTacco said:

24 inch at 1 1/2 feet needs a high resolution for appropriate visual fidelity, a 4k res would be ideal. 1080p would be bad, unless you have shortsightedness

youre giving me aids cancer

[RainingTacco]

2 minutes ago, RelativeMono said:

youre giving me aids cancer

Excellent. 

[cafe]

3 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Personally I too also hate there's lack of higher spec 24" monitors. Everyone seem to force these oversized, ultrawide, curved VA panels ugh. We have enough of them already anyway. I plan to get a new monitor and it seems 27" would be what I can get only. There's not a single 24" 1440p 144Hz IPS monitor. I wanted to move from 1080p but on the same size. I like 1440p PPI on 24". Then again 27" is bigger and as a fps player that's quite noticable. Really 27" would be max I'd like if no 24" option. 

There's a 1440p 240Hz IPS in the works and that'd be amazimg to have. 

https://www.displayninja.com/new-monitors/#AUO_IPS_Panels

24.5″ 1080p 240Hz 1ms (GtG) DisplayHDR 400

November 2019 ($389)

Acer Nitro XV253Q X

[Doobeedoo]

5 hours ago, RelativeMono said:

https://www.displayninja.com/new-monitors/#AUO_IPS_Panels

24.5″ 1080p 240Hz 1ms (GtG) DisplayHDR 400

November 2019 ($389)

Acer Nitro XV253Q X

Yeah this one is what I'm interested in.

IPS 27″ 1440p 240Hz December 2019 N/A monitor name 

[Vishera]

9 hours ago, RainingTacco said:

Its funny saying 1440p is a normal resolution. It will be dead in few years, because its not an industry standard. It still has a good longevity when compared to 16:10 resolutions, which were super popular for few years, and all that vanished in the blink of an eye. Back then people also said that 16:10 is future :D. 4K will be a new standard and i reckon that a 500usd 4k 144hz monitors with IPS will be available in 5 years max. Until then, if you have the spare cash, go ahead and buy 1440p 144hz. 

The thing is that the there are so many pixels in modern monitors that the difference between modern resolutions is significantly less noticeable than it used to.

For example the difference between 800x600 to 1280x720 is massive,unlike the difference between 1080p to 1440p which is less noticeable.

[MadAnt250]

14 hours ago, RelativeMono said:

you want more frames = 1080p

you want less peripheral blur = 24" at 2 feet or 1 1/2 feet or so

and you want to be able to see them, so 144hz-240hz 
if you actually believe 32" is optimal like actually your opinion, you are a complete psychopath. If not, then im mistaken.

also 1080p is better at 24" than 27" 

This is all opinion, just like how I believe 1600x1200 (sometimes 1920x1440) resolution on a 19"-22" monitor is the best for gaming at a desk. I have two monitors, a 19" and a 20.1", anything bigger hurts my eyes.

[cafe]

2 hours ago, MadAnt250 said:

This is all opinion, just like how I believe 1600x1200 (sometimes 1920x1440) resolution on a 19"-22" monitor is the best for gaming at a desk. I have two monitors, a 19" and a 20.1", anything bigger hurts my eyes.

youre not wrong though

your are closer to the truth than most people

you have to have high hz though or its pointless