Inexpensive 2560x1440 or higher monitors?

[Vic Vega]

Looking to move up in the resolution world at home. Are there any relatively inexpensive high resolution monitors out there in the $400 price range? Most of what I see is $800 and up.

 

[Lonyo]

Nope, to put it simply.
The cheapest I've seen is a Samsung which is 27" 2560x1440, but it's still quite expensive.
In the UK it's about $700 before tax, but Newegg lists the same monitor at $900.

An HP ZR2740w might also be under $700, but that's the best you're going to get.

The cheapest way to get more pixels on your desktop is multiple monitors. It's cheaper to buy 3x1080p monitors than 1x1440p.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

More monitors is better than one bigger monitor. This should be a law of the internet or something.

 

[Grooveriding]

More monitors is better than one bigger monitor. This should be a law of the internet or something.

Completely subjective.

I would take my monitor over three 1080p or 1200p panels any day.

See ?

To the OP, 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 are always expensive. They haven't seen a price drop in years and years with the latest models still costing about $1200 or so. They're worth it though. Once you buy a 30" panel, it's one of the few purchases you never want to upgrade again, unless you happen to want a newer model of the same size. Every 30" IPS is pretty amazing, mine is 2 models behind the current U3011 and still looks better than anything I've seen in a smaller size.

 

[blackened23]

Looking to move up in the resolution world at home. Are there any relatively inexpensive high resolution monitors out there in the $400 price range? Most of what I see is $800 and up.

you can't buy a 1440 panel for 400$. Cheapest is around 700$

 

[superjim]

At some point, native resolutions will be so high that text will become unreadable at 2 feet away. Is Windows 8 shipping with a built in magnifier app? I understand wanting more res in gaming but sitting more than ~3 feet away from my 1920x1200 monitor is not fun when coding.

 

[peonyu]

At some point, native resolutions will be so high that text will become unreadable at 2 feet away. Is Windows 8 shipping with a built in magnifier app? I understand wanting more res in gaming but sitting more than ~3 feet away from my 1920x1200 monitor is not fun when coding.

True but we can increase font sizes.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Completely subjective.

I would take my monitor over three 1080p or 1200p panels any day.

See ?

To the OP, 2560x1440 and 2560x1600 are always expensive. They haven't seen a price drop in years and years with the latest models still costing about $1200 or so. They're worth it though. Once you buy a 30" panel, it's one of the few purchases you never want to upgrade again, unless you happen to want a newer model of the same size. Every 30" IPS is pretty amazing, mine is 2 models behind the current U3011 and still looks better than anything I've seen in a smaller size.

Nope.

 

[ther00kie16]

http://www.compsource.com/searches/search.asp?keyword=Zr2740w+
$675 with googmap code. Was ~$650 when it first came out. Oddity is that the only difference on HP's site between the 2 is the more expensive one is listed with
"Product colour Black and brushed aluminum" so maybe it has an aluminum shell as opposed to plastic?

Anyway, that's by far the cheapest 1440p monitor.
If you spend $100 more, you can get Samsung's PLS
http://www.costcentral.com/proddetail/Samsung_SyncMaster_S27A850D/S27A850D/11370660/

Wish they'd start selling Hazro. Their prices are very competitive and would help make 27" more affordable. Not to mention their stands and bezels!!!
http://www.hazro.co.uk/HZ27WB.php

 

[imaheadcase]

Nope.

Nope what? He is right, it is subjective. I'm in the same boat as him. I would rather have one big monitor than 3 multi-monitor setup.

 

[greenhawk]

No idea on price but Asus, I think it was them, was mentioned to be bringing out a new 2560 monitor, but no idea on prices. Being a new one, it might be a more reasonable price.

 

[lavaheadache]

everything about 2560 monitors expensive right down to how much power they draw in standby

 

[Pia]

I'd throw away my 2x 1920x1200 screens in a heartbeat to get one screen that was 2560x1440. That's 25% pixel count loss but having it all in just one screen would easily be worth it.

 

[nitromullet]

While they won't be 'inexpensive', you should keep an eye on factory refurbs. Most manufacturers sell their refurbs direct with a a warranty, and I've had really good experiences with refurbed LCDs.

I previously owned a refurbed EIZO 1920x1200 screen that I bought directly from EIZO at a fraction of the cost of a new one. I replaced that screen with my current refurbed NEC PA271W directly from NEC. The NEC was $800 for a screen that sells for over $1200 new. Both the EIZO and NEC came with a warranty and both of them looked brand new when I got them.

 

[nitromullet]

More monitors is better than one bigger monitor. This should be a law of the internet or something.

This is definitely debatable. Three screens does have some appeal for sure, but there are a few points to consider against them.

cost - three decent IPS panels aren't going to be cheap. Sure you can get TN panels, but all the larger screens you are comparing to are all IPS panels.

trend towards 1080p - 1920x1080 is not a lot of vertical as it is, make that 5760x1080 and you have a stupid wide display with not a lot of vertical space for any productivity tasks. Might be good for gaming, but not as good for web surfing as a single large screen.

video card requirements - running a 2560x1440 already requires significant graphics muscle, to get the best experience from your significant multi-monitor investment you'll probably need high end SLI or Crossfire. This is yet again additional cost. Plus, Surround/Eyefinity support still isn't really 100% yet, so you may be left playing on a single (small) screen in some cases.

the bezel - some people just don't like having the bezel break up their screen. I have dual 1600x1200 monitors at work and they are fine to work with, but my 2560x1440 single screen I feel gives me more usable space because it's one large desktop unobstructed by a bezel. That being said, I'm sure I could deal with the bezels in a three monitor gaming situation.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

You can get a Sony FW900 for 325$ it does Max Resolution 2304 x 1440 / 80.0 Hz

 

[Tencntraze]

Nope what? He is right, it is subjective. I'm in the same boat as him. I would rather have one big monitor than 3 multi-monitor setup.

Let's all calm down, there is middle ground. A 30" with two 20" widescreens in portrait, everyone's happy.

 

[Concillian]

At some point, native resolutions will be so high that text will become unreadable at 2 feet away. Is Windows 8 shipping with a built in magnifier app? I understand wanting more res in gaming but sitting more than ~3 feet away from my 1920x1200 monitor is not fun when coding.

Resolution doesn't increase, number of pixels does.

Font readability doesn't change when the distance between pixels is essentially the same.

20" 1680x1050 = 99.1 ppi
24" 1920x1200 = 94.3 ppi
27" 2560x1440 = 108.8 ppi
30" 2560x1600 = 100.6 ppi

Very little difference in actual resolution between typical 20 - 30" monitors. 30" monitors are only bigger.

And for actual high resolution displays (150ppi or larger) the solution is not a magnifier app, but fonts that also have higher resolution.

In time, I fully expect all displays to be capacitive touch displays where people will be able to pinch or pull just like on a tablet / smartphone to zoom in & out. But that's probably a while off yet.

 

[Ferzerp]

In time, I fully expect all displays to be capacitive touch displays where people will be able to pinch or pull just like on a tablet / smartphone to zoom in & out. But that's probably a while off yet.

For various reasons, no this will not happen.

Take your 30" monitor or HDTV. Now, pretend you are using it as a touch screen. Notice how close you are now to it compared to how close you normally are. Now try to pretend it is a touch screen for an hour or two. Now notice how fatigued your arms are.

Are you still sure this is a good idea?

 

[Concillian]

For various reasons, no this will not happen.

Take your 30" monitor or HDTV. Now, pretend you are using it as a touch screen. Notice how close you are now to it compared to how close you normally are. Now try to pretend it is a touch screen for an hour or two. Now notice how fatigued your arms are.

Are you still sure this is a good idea?

I didn't say that they'd ONLY be used with touch controls.

Of course you'd still use a mouse for what a mouse is good for, but zooming and such is more intuitive and easy using touch controls.

 

[zokudu]

I didn't say that they'd ONLY be used with touch controls.

Of course you'd still use a mouse for what a mouse is good for, but zooming and such is more intuitive and easy using touch controls.

Ctrl-+ seems damn intuitive to me.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Are most people buying a 30 inch monitor for its size or higher then 1080p resolution?

I know most people rant about how a 27 inch monitor at 1080p looks distorted at times so is the higher resolutions at such a size making that big of a difference?

Plenty of t.vs in the 40''+ range with a 1080p signal would these sooner or later receive the 1440p and 1600p resolutions as well or do they and they aren't cost effective for most?

Curious to know what people get with a 30'' 1440p or 1600p over a standard 24'' at 1080p is all imagine quality wise

 

[tynopik]

nvm

 

[Ferzerp]

Are most people buying a 30 inch monitor for its size or higher then 1080p resolution?

I know most people rant about how a 27 inch monitor at 1080p looks distorted at times so is the higher resolutions at such a size making that big of a difference?

Plenty of t.vs in the 40''+ range with a 1080p signal would these sooner or later receive the 1440p and 1600p resolutions as well or do they and they aren't cost effective for most?

Curious to know what people get with a 30'' 1440p or 1600p over a standard 24'' at 1080p is all imagine quality wise

Probably resolution (else they'd get a 1080p tv that happens to work well with computers and save money, but TV panels are typically crap in comparison to monitor panels). My U3011 is because of resolution.

It looks like the next TV standard may be 4kx2k (i rounded because the aspect ratio isn't set yet) of course, in a perfect world, this would be marketted as 2xxxp, but noooo, now they want to call it by the width instead of the height, so they call it 4k. So, roughtly 4x the pixel count of 1080p

 

[dajeepster]

For various reasons, no this will not happen.

Yeah.. they'd need to come up with an auto-clean function for certain websites :whiste: