1440p questions

[Adaraas]

So, I'm getting a 1440p monitor, one of my concerns though is that I'm not sure what to get.

 

I'm really leaning towards the Asus PB278Q, as I've never had issues with asus, but I was looking at this monitor

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BUI44US/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2MW5SRGCYTJJO

 

I just wanted to know what everyone thinks about it.

 

Now, before you recommend any Korean monitors off of Ebay, I really really hate shipping time, and I was talking to a friend, and his took 3 weeks to get here, so that bothers me, second thing that bothers me is the fact that I've basically never heard of these monitors before.

 

I know everyone recommends them, I just can't seem to get the trust for it.

[Sarcasm]

I would consider a 2560x1600 instead, but I just happen to be an advocate and firm believer in 16:10 ratios.

[_ASSASSIN_]

yeah, korean monitors have reliability and build quality issues
the monitor should be fine, but the ultrasharp is better, but the Pb278Q is cheaper so take that in consideration

[CoolBeans]

Xstar/Shimian

[_ASSASSIN_]

I would consider a 2560x1600 instead, but I just happen to be an advocate and firm believer in 16:10 ratios.

because yay for games that don't support it?

[Sarcasm]

because yay for games that don't support it?

Well all I know is that Metro does NOT like this ratio. I get worse frames with this than my 4890 did on a 1080p panel.

[_ASSASSIN_]

Well all I know is that Metro does NOT like this ratio. I get worse frames with this than my 4890 did on a 1080p panel.

a lot more games don't, because it isn't a popular resolution

[Drown]

I'd go for the ASUS simply because I like to have the best built quality possible and they do have a good CS. I never tried XStar's monitors, they look great and they can be a real steal, but I guess there's a bit of luck involved.

[Sarcasm]

a lot more games don't, because it isn't a popular resolution

No, Metro just happens to have terribad optimization.

[Kirihuna]

I would consider a 2560x1600 instead, but I just happen to be an advocate and firm believer in 16:10 ratios.

16:10 is the best ratio tbh

 

but sadly, when you increase that last half of the ratio by one, the price doubles....

[Kirihuna]

a lot more games don't, because it isn't a popular resolution

More games are set for 16:9 + 16:10 than they are for 21:9 and 48:9.

 

16:10 isn't much different than 16:9, it's just a few pixels in height. Smaller studios, like Metro's studio, won't support it. But huge studios and AAA titles should.

 

Dota 2 supports 2880x1800 if you're wondering. Pretty much a 1 man team with a few helping hands.

[jscho]

I would consider a 2560x1600 instead, but I just happen to be an advocate and firm believer in 16:10 ratios.

I've always wondered why they were called a 16:10 ratio, wouldn't it be logical for it to be simplified to "8:5"?

Just a thought   

[Hyydrah]

I've always wondered why they were called a 16:10 ratio, wouldn't it be logical for it to be simplified to "8:5"?

Just a thought   

The first digit (16) is greater than 10, which implies that the panel will be longer horizontally. Simply saying "8.5" wouldn't give this information.

 

Not only that, but people are more familiar with it. We (at least in Canada) use the metric system quite a lot but will sometimes use imperial measurements as tradition (coincidentally screen sizes, for instance).

[penance]

Check out the Viewsonice VP2770, guy on Ebay selling them for $499.99, its a refurb but has 3 year warranty from Viewsonic. I got mine this week and its awesome. Recommend looking for NCX reviews on this monitor.

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/300986938323?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

[jscho]

The first digit (16) is greater than 10, which implies that the panel will be longer horizontally. Simply saying "8.5" wouldn't give this information.

 

Not only that, but people are more familiar with it. We (at least in Canada) use the metric system quite a lot but will sometimes use imperial measurements as tradition (coincidentally screen sizes, for instance).

I don't think you followed me haha. It's mathematically correct to simplify ratios isn't it? 16 : 10 would become 8 : 5. It says the exact same thing and is the same in every way, just simplifed. I was just curious as to why is hadn't been like that.

[Kirihuna]

I don't think you followed me haha. It's mathematically correct to simplify ratios isn't it? 16 : 10 would become 8 : 5. It says the exact same thing and is the same in every way, just simplifed. I was just curious as to why is hadn't been like that.

I assume because 16:9 is the farthest it can go to, so 16:10 it written the way it is to be easily comparable. 

[Hyydrah]

I don't think you followed me haha. It's mathematically correct to simplify ratios isn't it? 16 : 10 would become 8 : 5. It says the exact same thing and is the same in every way, just simplifed. I was just curious as to why is hadn't been like that.

No, I understand.  It's just that there would be transition issues (due to tradition) and you wouldn't be able to tell if the panel was longer horizontally or vertically given just "8.5" rather than "16:10".

[jscho]

No, I understand.  It's just that there would be transition issues (due to tradition) and you wouldn't be able to tell if the panel was longer horizontally or vertically given just "8.5" rather than "16:10".

Well, you would be able to tell... 8 being the x axis, just like every other aspect ratio, and 5 being the y axis. therefore 8 : 5.

If it were 5 : 8 (or 10 : 16) it would be a vertical monitor.

 

[Hyydrah]

Well, you would be able to tell... 8 being the x axis, just like every other aspect ratio, and 5 being the y axis. therefore 8 : 5.

If it were 5 : 8 (or 10 : 16) it would be a vertical monitor.

 

But it's not a ratio, it's expressed as a single number. This will add confusion.

 

Also, if you had a ratio of 10:16, 10/16 = 0.625, which would not be useful. This will cause a lot of problems as well.