Negative progress in monitor technology?

[Chiropteran]

Where are the higher resolution monitors? Nearly 3 years ago I bought a 2048×1152 dell monitor on some deal for less than $300. Yet today I still don't see anything larger than 1920X1200 at newegg for less than $800. What is with the lack of progress, or worse, negative progress? Most screens are actually getting smaller, 1920X1050 being the norm. WTF?

 

[Cogman]

You've noticed correctly. The "HD" standard has been a huge disservice to computer monitors.

 

[exar333]

Where are the higher resolution monitors? Nearly 3 years ago I bought a 2048×1152 dell monitor on some deal for less than $300. Yet today I still don't see anything larger than 1920X1200 at newegg for less than $800. What is with the lack of progress, or worse, negative progress? Most screens are actually getting smaller, 1920X1050 being the norm. WTF?

I agree 100%

People want cheap, and anything HD meets the needs for 95% of the masses. Most people don't now anything about resolution, brightness, or anything else related. They want moar HD and a 'flat-screen' and that's enough.

As the average selling price of computers go down, the monitors have gotten cheaper and cheaper as well. Spending $500 on a monitor was the 'norm' 10-15 years ago for a solid screen/size, but now it's more like $200. You get what you pay for, and most people are fine with a $150 22'' TN monitor they get with their Dell/HP system.

Kind of funny that folks will pay ~$100/month for internet access but balk at paying an extra 100-200 on a monitor of MUCH better quality. That's why we are giving away our future to China. Cheap Cheap Cheap....

 

[n7]

It's a sad, sad market filled with fail.

I cannot believe the lack of advance with resolutions available to us consumers.

We've gone from 1920x1200 down to 1920x1080, and 2560x1600 to 2560x1440.

And we've had those resolutions forever...it appears nothing higher is going to be an option forever at a consumer level for us.

Sickening.

 

[blackened23]

Where are the higher resolution monitors? Nearly 3 years ago I bought a 2048×1152 dell monitor on some deal for less than $300. Yet today I still don't see anything larger than 1920X1200 at newegg for less than $800. What is with the lack of progress, or worse, negative progress? Most screens are actually getting smaller, 1920X1050 being the norm. WTF?

I don't agree with this at all. Screens are getting bigger and cheaper constantly and its amazing that just 7 years ago that monitors of the same size cost 4 times as much as they do now. Around the year 2000 a 19" CRT screen was the norm and the price range was far above what you are paying now for a 27" led 1080p screen - which can easily be had for 250$ for a quality model. 250$ is much less expensive than large CRT's were back in the day.....

If you want 2560x1440, its available. Its not widely adopted because most grahpics adapters can't handle it "well", in other words you won't be able to play games or do graphics intensive work well at that resolution without some serious graphics hardware.

If you want 2560x1440 its there. Because not a lot of customers want it due to not having corresponding graphics processing power adequate for it, expect to pay a premium. Its not hard to understand.

 

[Borealis7]

its not entirely true, you do get better technology for lower prices these days.
120Hz without input lag, ultra fast response times and 3D, LEDs with HUGE contrast ratios, average diameter of a monitor release these days is 23" with more and more monitors being 24" in diameter.

just a couple of years ago these features were scarce and demanded a very big premium.
generally the inverse Moore's law is in effect here. prices are cut in half about every 2 years.

 

[blackened23]

its not entirely true, you do get better technology for lower prices these days.
120Hz without input lag, ultra fast response times and 3D, LEDs with HUGE contrast ratios, average diameter of a monitor release these days is 23" with more and more monitors being 24" in diameter.

just a couple of years ago these features were scarce and demanded a very big premium.
generally the inverse Moore's law is in effect here. prices are cut in half about every 2 years.

This as well. LED screens have gotten MUCH cheaper over the years --response times and quality have also increased dramatically. I just can't agree with the OP.

 

[Chiropteran]

This as well. LED screens have gotten MUCH cheaper over the years --response times and quality have also increased dramatically. I just can't agree with the OP.

Over the years? Sure. 10 years ago they cost a lot more. But it feels like the past 3 years almost no progress has been made. The whole 3d 120mhz thing, sure that is sort of progress, but it's something I don't care one bit about. Higher resolution is what I want. As I said in the original post, there was a monitor I bought some 2-3 years ago for less than $300 with 2048X1152 res, yet today the options in that price range are all significantly smaller.

It's not just a problem with lack of progress, but a huge price gap. There are plenty of 1920X1050 monitors in the $100-$300 range... and then nothing bigger until you get to $800+. Why isn't there an option for those people willing to pay a little more for a higher resolution? I have a $600 monitor budget, but I can't actually buy anything with higher res than a cheap $150 value monitor? WTF?

 

[KingstonU]

I just want greater than 1080p on a screen between 40" and 50" damnit!!!

 

[mcturkey]

Sure there have been significant improvements in display technology. In fact, pretty much every meaningful spec has improved significantly. Compare a modern 20" LCD to a 20" CRT from a decade ago, side by side, and tell me which one looks better. Then look at the price tags, even unadjusted for inflation. LCD is pure win.

At least, until we get to resolution, which has progressed at the lower end, but remains largely stuck in the mud when at the higher end. 4K may change that, but not for awhile.

 

[blackened23]

Over the years? Sure. 10 years ago they cost a lot more. But it feels like the past 3 years almost no progress has been made. The whole 3d 120mhz thing, sure that is sort of progress, but it's something I don't care one bit about. Higher resolution is what I want. As I said in the original post, there was a monitor I bought some 2-3 years ago for less than $300 with 2048X1152 res, yet today the options in that price range are all significantly smaller.

It's not just a problem with lack of progress, but a huge price gap. There are plenty of 1920X1050 monitors in the $100-$300 range... and then nothing bigger until you get to $800+. Why isn't there an option for those people willing to pay a little more for a higher resolution? I have a $600 monitor budget, but I can't actually buy anything with higher res than a cheap $150 value monitor? WTF?

First of all, what are you doing at 2560 x 1440? I'll just take it you're not a gamer, because good luck with that unless you have a monster gtx 580 sli setup. Secondly, the options are there but since there isn't a high demand for it, prices will be higher.

Suck it up. That being said, you can get the HP 27" IPS ZR2407 (i think) panel with a native 2560x1440 resolution for about 650$. Initial reviews indicate that it is fantastic, and much cheaper than competing Dell / NEC 27" ips screens. You need to look harder for your future monitor :sneaky: The HP uses the same LG IPS panel that the NEC's and Dell 27 IPS screens do...in short its basically the same monitor just much cheaper.

 

[Cogman]

First of all, what are you doing at 2560 x 1440? I'll just take it you're not a gamer, because good luck with that unless you have a monster gtx 580 sli setup. Secondly, the options are there but since THERE IS VERY LITTLE DEMAND for it, prices will be higher.

Just because YOU don't know what someone can do with 2560x1440 resolutions doesn't mean that everyone does have an application for them. Higher resolutions are quite useful for a variety of things, from surfing the web, to video editing, to just general usage benefits. Gaming isn't the only thing that computer have to be used for.

The reason demand died is because the consumer got complacent. HD became a buzz word that stopped advancement. This is NOT a good thing. Manufacturers stopped producing the higher resolutions because they could produce lower resolution monitors at a higher price because they where "HD". In other words, they cut their manufacturing prices AND got more money out of the deal.

 

[WMD]

I would love a 10 megapixel monitor as well. But with graphics hardware advancing so slowly I doubt I can run my games it at 120fps within the next 5 years. High end cards today cannot even run the more demanding games maxed at 1680x1050 60fps. I would pick the lower res monitor anytime over paying more and running non native resolution.

 

[nitromullet]

in short its basically the same monitor just much cheaper.

I haven't compared this new HP screen because it wasn't out yet, but when I bought my NEC the IPS 30" and 27" screens from Dell, HP, and NEC were all pretty different in terms of what they offered consumers although they were all using the same 30" and 27" LG panels. One isn't really better than the other depending on what you're looking for in a monitor, but they are quite different.

 

[Markbnj]

The reason demand died is because the consumer got complacent. HD became a buzz word that stopped advancement. This is NOT a good thing. Manufacturers stopped producing the higher resolutions because they could produce lower resolution monitors at a higher price because they where "HD".

Eh, I don't think it's quite that simple. The advancements have happened, but as with all consumer technologies it's about packaging features. Years ago I paid $1100 for a Nanao 17" CRT with amazing speed and high resolution, and I was very happy with it. Not much later I paid almost $1500 for a 17" NEC and I was happy with that for a long time too. It wasn't really a consumer marketplace at that time. Now the realities of the market demand packaging features into a low-cost offering, and since 1920 x 1080 is all that's needed to play the highest resolution videos that are available to consumers, that's what they put in.

I think it sucks, too. Was just going through the process of picking a new monitor and I think I will be getting the 24" Dell E-IPS panel at $350-ish, because it's 1920 x 1200 and I can't stand the idea of losing 120 lines that I have had on my screen since 1995 .

 

[RussianSensation]

I just want greater than 1080p on a screen between 40" and 50" damnit!!!

:thumbsup:+100:thumbsup:

I'd rather have a 2560x1600 37 inch than something like a 24 inch with something like 5120x3200.

I have a 17 inch with 1280x1024 as a spare and when I use it, I sit about 1.5 feet away from it. I can't discern a single pixel and I have 20/20 vision. What the industry needs are larger screens for $300-500 (such as 30 inch with 2560x1600), not 23 inch monitors with 2560x1600 resolution imo. The real stagnation has happened at the 30" range and above. A 30 inch monitor is still > $1000 after 10 years. For people who have been gaming on larger plasma or LCD monitors, it's hard to get excited about higher resolution alone anymore.

Toshiba has released a 6.1 inch 2560xx1600 monitor. The entire has been innovating more for smartphone screens than for PC/LCD monitors. It's sad really, but that's where the demand is. I think the next push will come when HDTV 1080P standard is raised. Until then, it's going to be the same mediocre landscape of $300 24 inch LCDs and $1000 30 inchers.

 

[Golgatha]

I have a Samsung 23in LED TV that I use for my monitor. 23in widescreen at 1920x1080 looks fine to me, and I don't have to break the bank to run my games on it by needing SLI or Crossfire to get stable framerates.

 

[Golgatha]

:thumbsup:+100:thumbsup:

Why? I sit about 18in away from my monitor when I game. My 23in fills up my entire field of vision.

 

[wirednuts]

id like to see the dot pitch and color of an iphone screen at 30"

 

[SlowSpyder]

I wouldn't mind seeing better panels become more mainstream, but I am not sure I would want more resolution then current offerings. I'm not definitely saying higher resolution would be worthless, but I'm not sure it'd really help much either while it would require that much more video card to game on.

The 960x540 resolution of my 4.3" phone display certainly looks nice, but I also hold it much closer to my face. Imagine that pixel density on a 24" monitor... you'd need a LOT of video card to play today's games.

 

[wirednuts]

you'd need a LOT of video card to play today's games.

pffft... i just want to see it. im not saying i could afford it

 

[iCyborg]

There's also the matter of connector interfaces. HDMI 1.4 maxes out at around 2560x1600@60 or 3D 1080p, it can go to 4Kx2K but only at 24/25 Hz which is poor for monitors. HDMI spec is owned by people from TV world so they mostly care about HDTV. DP 1.2 can go to 3840×2160, but AFAIK there are 0 display devices out there that support 1.2 right now, although some are supposed to show up next year, and I believe AMD will have DP1.2 certified GPUs before that. Not to mention pro panels with 10 or 12 bpp. Data goes from GPU uncompressed, and at high resolutions, that's a lot of data, e.g. DP1.2 is ~17Gbps.

 

[Cogman]

There's also the matter of connector interfaces. HDMI 1.4 maxes out at around 2560x1600@60 or 3D 1080p, it can go to 4Kx2K but only at 24/25 Hz which is poor for monitors. HDMI spec is owned by people from TV world so they mostly care about HDTV. DP 1.2 can go to 3840×2160, but AFAIK there are 0 display devices out there that support 1.2 right now, although some are supposed to show up next year, and I believe AMD will have DP1.2 certified GPUs before that. Not to mention pro panels with 10 or 12 bpp. Data goes from GPU uncompressed, and at high resolutions, that's a lot of data, e.g. DP1.2 is ~17Gbps.

Yeah, that, I think, is a big problem (the lack of compression) We could save a lot of bandwidth if we required monitors to support some sort decompression algorithms. Even a lossless algorithm would save some significant amounts of bandwidth.

 

[AdamK47]

I'd rather see TN panels eradicated and replaced with IPS or better panels before we move on to the resolution progression.

 

[Ferzerp]

As I said in another thread (that some silly person tried to insult me in).

The technology has improved, but that technology isn't in mainstream monitors. Sadly, we are locked in to crappy resolutions though. 16:9 replacing 16:10 is bad.

If you look around, you can find quality LCDs still (but yes, resolution choices are limited), but if you are trying to shop on a budget, you're going to steer towards the cheap crap that has saturated the market.