I hate only being able to play games in 1680 x 1050 - where the 1920 x 1200 Monitors for crying out
2 / 2
Finally a part #. Acer has a part # for a real display with specs. Its just now a matter of time for them to get it down to stores. They claim jan 2010.
Acer Aspire GD245HQ
I am sort of bummed that its only 1080 high and not 1200 pixels.
LG has announced something, but has no details or part#, so they probably are just jumping the gun and are probably further away. I am a bit amazed that viewsonic or samsung havent come up with the next release of a 3d display since they both already make one.
Finally a part #. Acer has a part # for a real display with specs. Its just now a matter of time for them to get it down to stores. They claim jan 2010.
Acer Aspire GD245HQ
I am sort of bummed that its only 1080 high and not 1200 pixels.
LG has announced something, but has no details or part#, so they probably are just jumping the gun and are probably further away. I am a bit amazed that viewsonic or samsung havent come up with the next release of a 3d display since they both already make one.
Here you go Acer 24" 120hz monitor: [url="http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/nvidia-shows-its-3d-blu-ray-readiness-in-run-up-to-ces-acer-dem/"]http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/nvidia-...o-ces-acer-dem/[/url]
Guys, I might be completely wrong, but I don't really see 1920x1200 @ 120 hz happening even with a Dual Link cable. AFAIK 1680x1050 @ 120hz pretty much maxes it alreay.
On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).
Guys, I might be completely wrong, but I don't really see 1920x1200 @ 120 hz happening even with a Dual Link cable. AFAIK 1680x1050 @ 120hz pretty much maxes it alreay.
On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:45 PM']Guys, I might be completely wrong, but I don't really see 1920x1200 @ 120 hz happening even with a Dual Link cable. AFAIK 1680x1050 @ 120hz pretty much maxes it alreay.[/quote]
Yes, 1920x1080@120 Hz should be just about the maximum possible via Dual-Link DVI (needs about the same bandwidth as 2560x1600@60 Hz). 1920x1200 would need another good 10% more bandwidth, which DVI just doesn't provide.
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector (like [url="http://www.gizmag.com/projectiondesign-f35-projector/13574/"]this magnificient baby[/url] here).
Personally, I like my display resolution (or rather DPI value) as high as anyhow possible. While 1680x1050 on a 22" inch screen is bearable in games, it's just too pixelated for anything else. For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen and 1680x1050 on a 15.4" laptop, which are both fine.
1920x1080 on a 23" (or even 24") screen sounds a bit low, too. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:45 PM']Fermi? Hell's yeah![/quote]
Couldn't agree more, my good old GTX 285 is just about ready for retirement.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:45 PM']Guys, I might be completely wrong, but I don't really see 1920x1200 @ 120 hz happening even with a Dual Link cable. AFAIK 1680x1050 @ 120hz pretty much maxes it alreay.
Yes, 1920x1080@120 Hz should be just about the maximum possible via Dual-Link DVI (needs about the same bandwidth as 2560x1600@60 Hz). 1920x1200 would need another good 10% more bandwidth, which DVI just doesn't provide.
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector (like this magnificient baby here).
Personally, I like my display resolution (or rather DPI value) as high as anyhow possible. While 1680x1050 on a 22" inch screen is bearable in games, it's just too pixelated for anything else. For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen and 1680x1050 on a 15.4" laptop, which are both fine.
1920x1080 on a 23" (or even 24") screen sounds a bit low, too. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.
what's wrong with the GTX 285? why is it ready for retirement allready?
Intel Core i9-9820x @ 3.30GHZ
32 gig Ram
2 EVGA RTX 2080 ti Gaming
3 X ASUS ROG SWIFT 27 144Hz G-SYNC Gaming 3D Monitor [PG278Q]
1 X ASUS VG278HE
Nvidia 3Dvision
Oculus Rift
HTC VIVE
Windows 10
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 07:45 AM']Guys, I might be completely wrong, but I don't really see 1920x1200 @ 120 hz happening even with a Dual Link cable. AFAIK 1680x1050 @ 120hz pretty much maxes it alreay.[/quote]
It maxes the technology that is CURRENTLY available, but would you really expect us to think that what is currently available is the pinnacle of 3d technology -- that it will never expand beyond what we have now? Clearly not. Not only will there be 24" 1200x1920 120Hz monitors in the near future, there will be 36" and 42" ones marketed to the mainstream within the next couple of years -- the CEO of Sony has already said so.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 07:45 AM']On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).[/quote]
My dual 285's have no problem keeping up with anything & everything I can throw at them. The only thing I've found that stresses them to their limit is Crysis on ULTRA-HIGH in stereo mode (although it runs just fine on HIGH). As a matter of fact, they perform so well I'm not sure I'm even going to bother with Fermi, I may just skip a generation, kinda just depends on how widely adopted and beneficial DX11 turns out to be.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 07:45 AM']Guys, I might be completely wrong, but I don't really see 1920x1200 @ 120 hz happening even with a Dual Link cable. AFAIK 1680x1050 @ 120hz pretty much maxes it alreay.
It maxes the technology that is CURRENTLY available, but would you really expect us to think that what is currently available is the pinnacle of 3d technology -- that it will never expand beyond what we have now? Clearly not. Not only will there be 24" 1200x1920 120Hz monitors in the near future, there will be 36" and 42" ones marketed to the mainstream within the next couple of years -- the CEO of Sony has already said so.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 07:45 AM']On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).
My dual 285's have no problem keeping up with anything & everything I can throw at them. The only thing I've found that stresses them to their limit is Crysis on ULTRA-HIGH in stereo mode (although it runs just fine on HIGH). As a matter of fact, they perform so well I'm not sure I'm even going to bother with Fermi, I may just skip a generation, kinda just depends on how widely adopted and beneficial DX11 turns out to be.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']Yes, 1920x1080@120 Hz should be just about the maximum possible via Dual-Link DVI 1920x1200 would need another good 10% more bandwidth, which DVI just doesn't provide.
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector[/quote]
1920x1200@100 should be fine, but 16:10 screens are dying anyway, all upcomming monitors that are massmarket compatible [i]will[/i] be 1920x1080 - no choice - next stop is 2048x1152 aka 2K.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']Couldn't agree more, my good old GTX 285 is just about ready for retirement.[/quote]
HDMI 1.4 will have sufficient bandwith for this and up, and bet next gen nvidia crads an HDMI 1.4 interface.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.[/quote]
hehe, both here. Size and DPI matters! That's why I never would part with my Dell 30'' at home either :). Also, we have a Dell 24'' plus Sammsung 27'' each with MVA 1920x1200 panels here at work, from this I can tell 1920x1080 should be fine for fun and work on 23/24''. Personally and for gaming I won't settle for gaming with anything lower than 26'' @ FullHD (or 2K preferrably). The other thing to keep in mind with larger screens is that you really will want IPS or VA panels.
Ideally, I could imagine some savvy manufacturer taking one of the ubiquitous 26" VA TV panels with 120Hz and throw customized electronics in - that would make a killer gaming screen and could sell like hot cakes...
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']Yes, 1920x1080@120 Hz should be just about the maximum possible via Dual-Link DVI 1920x1200 would need another good 10% more bandwidth, which DVI just doesn't provide.
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector
1920x1200@100 should be fine, but 16:10 screens are dying anyway, all upcomming monitors that are massmarket compatible will be 1920x1080 - no choice - next stop is 2048x1152 aka 2K.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']Couldn't agree more, my good old GTX 285 is just about ready for retirement.
HDMI 1.4 will have sufficient bandwith for this and up, and bet next gen nvidia crads an HDMI 1.4 interface.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.
hehe, both here. Size and DPI matters! That's why I never would part with my Dell 30'' at home either :). Also, we have a Dell 24'' plus Sammsung 27'' each with MVA 1920x1200 panels here at work, from this I can tell 1920x1080 should be fine for fun and work on 23/24''. Personally and for gaming I won't settle for gaming with anything lower than 26'' @ FullHD (or 2K preferrably). The other thing to keep in mind with larger screens is that you really will want IPS or VA panels.
Ideally, I could imagine some savvy manufacturer taking one of the ubiquitous 26" VA TV panels with 120Hz and throw customized electronics in - that would make a killer gaming screen and could sell like hot cakes...
My personal preference has nothing to do with resolution. I have a 295 card overclocked 4ghz i7 all watercooled and it has difficulty running games in 3d with all features on high. Weird thing is games all run at solid 120 fps when not using 3d setting but turned on can drop into high 30s at points. If I turn off AA games work fine in 3D at steady 60 fps each eye. Graphics looks same on my samsung display with or without AA so I don't think increasing resolution will have big impact on image quality. What would make me buy new monitor in heart beat is hearing they have no ghosting since this ruins experience for me in games where this is noticable. Eye's struggle to converge images because of ghosting. If this is fixed in new monitors I will be in heaven. Only thing that could be better is if samsung is forced to replace my 3D ready monitor I received with my 3D Kit because of ghosting issues. Just my thoughts.
My personal preference has nothing to do with resolution. I have a 295 card overclocked 4ghz i7 all watercooled and it has difficulty running games in 3d with all features on high. Weird thing is games all run at solid 120 fps when not using 3d setting but turned on can drop into high 30s at points. If I turn off AA games work fine in 3D at steady 60 fps each eye. Graphics looks same on my samsung display with or without AA so I don't think increasing resolution will have big impact on image quality. What would make me buy new monitor in heart beat is hearing they have no ghosting since this ruins experience for me in games where this is noticable. Eye's struggle to converge images because of ghosting. If this is fixed in new monitors I will be in heaven. Only thing that could be better is if samsung is forced to replace my 3D ready monitor I received with my 3D Kit because of ghosting issues. Just my thoughts.
Acer Aspire GD245HQ
I am sort of bummed that its only 1080 high and not 1200 pixels.
LG has announced something, but has no details or part#, so they probably are just jumping the gun and are probably further away. I am a bit amazed that viewsonic or samsung havent come up with the next release of a 3d display since they both already make one.
Acer Aspire GD245HQ
I am sort of bummed that its only 1080 high and not 1200 pixels.
LG has announced something, but has no details or part#, so they probably are just jumping the gun and are probably further away. I am a bit amazed that viewsonic or samsung havent come up with the next release of a 3d display since they both already make one.
On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).
Fermi? Hell's yeah!
On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).
Fermi? Hell's yeah!
Yes, 1920x1080@120 Hz should be just about the maximum possible via Dual-Link DVI (needs about the same bandwidth as 2560x1600@60 Hz). 1920x1200 would need another good 10% more bandwidth, which DVI just doesn't provide.
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector (like [url="http://www.gizmag.com/projectiondesign-f35-projector/13574/"]this magnificient baby[/url] here).
Personally, I like my display resolution (or rather DPI value) as high as anyhow possible. While 1680x1050 on a 22" inch screen is bearable in games, it's just too pixelated for anything else. For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen and 1680x1050 on a 15.4" laptop, which are both fine.
1920x1080 on a 23" (or even 24") screen sounds a bit low, too. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:45 PM']Fermi? Hell's yeah![/quote]
Couldn't agree more, my good old GTX 285 is just about ready for retirement.
Yes, 1920x1080@120 Hz should be just about the maximum possible via Dual-Link DVI (needs about the same bandwidth as 2560x1600@60 Hz). 1920x1200 would need another good 10% more bandwidth, which DVI just doesn't provide.
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector (like this magnificient baby here).
Personally, I like my display resolution (or rather DPI value) as high as anyhow possible. While 1680x1050 on a 22" inch screen is bearable in games, it's just too pixelated for anything else. For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen and 1680x1050 on a 15.4" laptop, which are both fine.
1920x1080 on a 23" (or even 24") screen sounds a bit low, too. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:45 PM']Fermi? Hell's yeah!
Couldn't agree more, my good old GTX 285 is just about ready for retirement.
CPU: Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.40 GHz
GPU: Geforce GTX 480 @ 850/2000 MHz, Geforce GTX 460 (PhysX/CUDA)
RAM: 6 GB OCZ DDR3-1333 CL7
MOBO: ASUS P6T
PSU: Enermax Pro82+ 625 W
HDD: SuperTalent Ultradrive GX2 128 GB, 2x Seagate Barracuda 1.5 TB
SOUND: Creative X-Fi Elite Pro
DISPLAY: Dell 3007 WFP, Geforce 3D Vision on eMachines V700
INPUT: Logitech G5 + G11
OS: Windows 7 Professional x64
Intel Core i9-9820x @ 3.30GHZ
32 gig Ram
2 EVGA RTX 2080 ti Gaming
3 X ASUS ROG SWIFT 27 144Hz G-SYNC Gaming 3D Monitor [PG278Q]
1 X ASUS VG278HE
Nvidia 3Dvision
Oculus Rift
HTC VIVE
Windows 10
It maxes the technology that is CURRENTLY available, but would you really expect us to think that what is currently available is the pinnacle of 3d technology -- that it will never expand beyond what we have now? Clearly not. Not only will there be 24" 1200x1920 120Hz monitors in the near future, there will be 36" and 42" ones marketed to the mainstream within the next couple of years -- the CEO of Sony has already said so.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 07:45 AM']On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).[/quote]
My dual 285's have no problem keeping up with anything & everything I can throw at them. The only thing I've found that stresses them to their limit is Crysis on ULTRA-HIGH in stereo mode (although it runs just fine on HIGH). As a matter of fact, they perform so well I'm not sure I'm even going to bother with Fermi, I may just skip a generation, kinda just depends on how widely adopted and beneficial DX11 turns out to be.
It maxes the technology that is CURRENTLY available, but would you really expect us to think that what is currently available is the pinnacle of 3d technology -- that it will never expand beyond what we have now? Clearly not. Not only will there be 24" 1200x1920 120Hz monitors in the near future, there will be 36" and 42" ones marketed to the mainstream within the next couple of years -- the CEO of Sony has already said so.
[quote name='jmbuehler' post='963130' date='Dec 11 2009, 07:45 AM']On a further note, I'd love to be able to know what GPUs you guys are running, because my severly OCed GTX280 TriSLI is already struggling @ 1680x1050 with all the eye candy turned up (although admittedly I have to turn off one card alltogther, thanks for still not providing TriSLI support with 3D Vision Nvidia!).
My dual 285's have no problem keeping up with anything & everything I can throw at them. The only thing I've found that stresses them to their limit is Crysis on ULTRA-HIGH in stereo mode (although it runs just fine on HIGH). As a matter of fact, they perform so well I'm not sure I'm even going to bother with Fermi, I may just skip a generation, kinda just depends on how widely adopted and beneficial DX11 turns out to be.
Asus RIVBE • i7 4930K @ 4.7ghz • 8gb Corsair Dominator Platinum 2133 C8
2xSLI EVGA GTX 770 SC • Creative X-Fi Titanium • 2x 840 SSD + 1TB Seagate Hybrid
EVGA Supernova 1300W• Asus VG278H & nVidia 3d Vision
Phanteks Enthoo Primo w/ custom watercooling:
XSPC Raystorm (cpu & gpu), XSPC Photon 170, Swiftech D5 vario
Alphacool Monsta 360mm +6x NB e-loop, XT45 360mm +6x Corsair SP120
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector[/quote]
1920x1200@100 should be fine, but 16:10 screens are dying anyway, all upcomming monitors that are massmarket compatible [i]will[/i] be 1920x1080 - no choice - next stop is 2048x1152 aka 2K.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']Couldn't agree more, my good old GTX 285 is just about ready for retirement.[/quote]
HDMI 1.4 will have sufficient bandwith for this and up, and bet next gen nvidia crads an HDMI 1.4 interface.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.[/quote]
hehe, both here. Size and DPI matters! That's why I never would part with my Dell 30'' at home either :). Also, we have a Dell 24'' plus Sammsung 27'' each with MVA 1920x1200 panels here at work, from this I can tell 1920x1080 should be fine for fun and work on 23/24''. Personally and for gaming I won't settle for gaming with anything lower than 26'' @ FullHD (or 2K preferrably). The other thing to keep in mind with larger screens is that you really will want IPS or VA panels.
Ideally, I could imagine some savvy manufacturer taking one of the ubiquitous 26" VA TV panels with 120Hz and throw customized electronics in - that would make a killer gaming screen and could sell like hot cakes...
Beyond 1080p, you'd need to go for more then one DVI connector
1920x1200@100 should be fine, but 16:10 screens are dying anyway, all upcomming monitors that are massmarket compatible will be 1920x1080 - no choice - next stop is 2048x1152 aka 2K.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']Couldn't agree more, my good old GTX 285 is just about ready for retirement.
HDMI 1.4 will have sufficient bandwith for this and up, and bet next gen nvidia crads an HDMI 1.4 interface.
[quote name='Reaping_Ant' post='963152' date='Dec 11 2009, 02:27 PM']For work, I'm using 2560x1600 on a 30" screen. Most people, however, seem to prefer monitor size to resolution.
hehe, both here. Size and DPI matters! That's why I never would part with my Dell 30'' at home either :). Also, we have a Dell 24'' plus Sammsung 27'' each with MVA 1920x1200 panels here at work, from this I can tell 1920x1080 should be fine for fun and work on 23/24''. Personally and for gaming I won't settle for gaming with anything lower than 26'' @ FullHD (or 2K preferrably). The other thing to keep in mind with larger screens is that you really will want IPS or VA panels.
Ideally, I could imagine some savvy manufacturer taking one of the ubiquitous 26" VA TV panels with 120Hz and throw customized electronics in - that would make a killer gaming screen and could sell like hot cakes...