Why does'nt 2560*1600 get benchmarked as much anymore?

[geforceftw]

A bunch of reviewers seem to be doing 1400p more often than 1600p. Is it a pricing thing?

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61310-nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review-7.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gB9-eIPLzM They only did 1440p and 1080p 

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6973/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-review/16

 

Are 1440p monitors more practical?

[WoodenMarker]

1440p monitors are usually quite cheaper and has the mainstream 16:9 aspect ratio..

[_ASSASSIN_]

16:10 is a rather odd ratio (not as common), no one really loves it

[geforceftw]

16:10 is a rather odd ratio (not as common), no one really loves it

I forgot about the aspect ratio...

[Hecknologist]

Much more $$ for more vertical height? no thank you. 21:9 on the other hand....

[felixbearpig]

its because its about the same performace, give or take 3 fps

[IdeaStormer]

16:10 is a rather odd ratio (not as common), no one really loves it

 

What? If you could afford it you'd love it, two pages side by side at full resolution, who would not love that?

[Recon-UK]

16:10 is superior for all types of content, but 1440p is cheaper.

[Stonep11]

I wish it got benchmarked more because it is quite different. About 11% more pixels. I love my Dell u3011 30" panel. So beautiful.

[MariusJS]

4K is coming soon, that might be a reason + it is not that big of a difference from 1440p... (Which I have )

[s3ns3]

16:10 is a rather odd ratio (not as common), no one really loves it

i really love it. and its better than 16:9 in like everything.

[SSOB]

You can also ask , why does 1920×1200 doesnt get benched? Same thing , 16:9 is cheaper , more mainstream and proibably better for video watching etc. ( No black bars)

[Arndroid]

16:10 is a master race aspect ratio.

Apple is using it, programmers are using it, you get more room in height, it's a superior experience.

 

Sadly, it isn't mainstream anymore, because of the hipster 1080p trade-mark. And therefore has become expensive.  

[Recon-UK]

16:10 is a master race aspect ratio.

Apple is using it, programmers are using it, you get more room in height, it's a superior experience.

 

Sadly, it isn't mainstream anymore, because of the hipster 1080p trade-mark. And therefore has become expensive.

Miss my 1050p monitor.

[Arndroid]

Miss my 1050p monitor.

I'm using a 22" 1680x1050 monitor right now, I would never trade it for a 1920x1080, hehe.

 

Anyhow, I am looking for a 2560x1600/2880x1800 IPS monitor, which is 22" or 24", but I can't find these anywhere... Anyone?

[wng_kingsley7]

4K is coming soon, that might be a reason + it is not that big of a difference from 1440p... (Which I have )

I'd agree to your post Marius but sh*ts going down when 4K monitors come out officially for gaming. Dropping a bomb of cash on the hardware.

[SSOB]

I'm using a 22" 1680x1050 monitor right now, I would never trade it for a 1920x1080, hehe.

 

Anyhow, I am looking for a 2560x1600/2880x1800 IPS monitor, which is 22" or 24", but I can't find these anywhere... Anyone?

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/5097/dell-ultrasharp-up2414q-review-uhd4k-op-24-inch

[Arndroid]

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/5097/dell-ultrasharp-up2414q-review-uhd4k-op-24-inch

Hah nice, but that's 4K, which is even more expensive. (Although, you might consider €1500 for a 24" 4K monitor cheap...ish)

[IdeaStormer]

Heck why not 640x480, imagine the numbers you could throw up with a modern day top of the line bling bling video card.

[TheProfosist]

Cause 1440p is far more common since it comes in 27in not 30in and is cheaper because of it. Also there are no non professional 30in 2560x1600 monitors, even the korean ones are at least $600 and are 10bit.

[TheProfosist]

16:10 is a rather odd ratio (not as common), no one really loves it

What, no one likes 16:10? The extra 120 pixels on 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 are a god send. Also 1920x1200 works far better than 1920x1080 for portrait.

16:10 for life!

[TheProfosist]

I'm using a 22" 1680x1050 monitor right now, I would never trade it for a 1920x1080, hehe.

Anyhow, I am looking for a 2560x1600/2880x1800 IPS monitor, which is 22" or 24", but I can't find these anywhere... Anyone?

Your not going to find a monitor with that pixels density on the desktop. I would wait for the 24in 4k dell. You could also get one of those older IBM displays or adapt a ipad or macbook display.

2560 by 1600 isn't as popular to gamer's because 16:10 cuts off some horizontal resolution and 16:9 does not. Plus, for shooters, racers, ect. games tend to favor 16:9 than 16:10 resolutions. 16:10 is good if you do a lot of productivity on your computer, gaming on the other hand I think is worse then 16:9.

{style_image_url}/attachicon.gif StarCraftRatiosFixed.gif

Here is a perfect example why 16:9 is better for gaming, there is pretty much no arguing on this one.

16:9 is popular with games since games are ports a good part of the time. Also if you go into say best buy you probably wont even find a 16:10 monitor since people know 1080p from their tv's. Its the same with low end tn lcds because they would rather sell it with 1080p because its a buzz word even though people dont know what it means. Lots of people think like this 1080p thats HD so its good I want that. Game developers always develop aimed at the majority (of their targeted audiance) because they want to make as much money as they can so almost no games are optimised for anything other than 16:9 and many cases 1080p.

[_ASSASSIN_]

What, no one likes 16:10? The extra 120 pixels on 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 are a god send. Also 1920x1200 works far better than 1920x1080 for portrait.

16:10 for life!

as In manufacturers don't care jesus

[TheProfosist]

as In manufacturers don't care jesus

I dont get how that is a reply to me but ok!

[FluffyNuggets]

I see tons of 2560x1600 benchmarks for cards. You actually see less 1440 benchmarks in reviews which kinda sucks for those of us with those monitors.