TR Forums

Hi Guys:

I'm an up and coming computer re-seller and occassionally take in some hardware I would never splurge for on myself for personal use. Case is POINT... I just took in a pair of 2011 27 in imacs with 2560 x 1440 res running an i5 sandy bridge and HD6970m ..8 gigs ram etc etc...

I'd never drop that much dough on myself to play games as I'm currently running an AMD Phenom X4 980 @ 4ghz 8 gigs ram gtx 660 with 23 in Dell IPS that I only spent about $700 total on... (*Win 7 pro)...

I've been struggling with what super HD looks like and so when this imac arrived today I immediately loaded my steam games and saw two that I liked playing that were also downloadable on the mac side. Metro Last Light and Serious Sam BFE..

HONESTLY..... I just do not see a big difference at all between the eye candy on these two systems... What am I missing.... Ex. I would definately not spend an extra $300 to $400 just to get a higher res Monitor as it was just not that noticeable..Would a PC system be different at that resoltion. I am assuming that APPLE has used top notch hardware in this monitor 27 inch LED backlit IPS (yes the HD6970m is very slow vs todays pc cards...it's a mobile gpu) THOUGHTS!

The extra pixels are more noticeable when using productivity software than when displaying a full screen anti-aliased game. Having said that, I prefer to game at 2560x1600 rather than a lower resolution.

Also, surely, you would appreciate the larger display size?

The 1440p and 1080p monitors have similar DPI, so you will not see much of a difference.

Try running Skyrim on a 15'' retina MBP, if you ever get the chance, using a high-res texture mod. Enter a house and look at the tapestries on the walls - they look stunning in a way that no amount of AA can approach.

We are reaching a point where the size of the pixels limits the quality of the graphics we can display, as per the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. We can still improve game physics, lighting models, etc but we cannot display *more* information, as required for true photorealism.

To do that we need, simply put, smaller pixels. In other words, 4K monitors. Bring them on!

(Note: I'm not joking. High-DPI monitors make a huge difference when gaming! We are on the cusp before a major revolution in graphics quality.)

A high-resolution display is a big help in gaming immersion. It's also very noticeable when you're at long ranges. At 2560x1600, I can actually make out that there's an enemy silhouette there rather than just a a blob that you see at lower resolutions.

You don't have to spend a fortune to get a 27" WQHD 2560x1440 IPS LCD monitor these days.
http://www.monoprice.com/products/produ ... p_id=10509
http://www.monoprice.com/products/produ ... p_id=10489
http://www.microcenter.com/product/3847 ... yPort,_USB
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R4 ... el&_sop=15

Apple is a marketing company that happens to have a technology department. Their tech is no more advanced than anyone else, you just pay more because of the brand name. All LCD panels come from LG, Samsung, and a couple of others. That's also why the cheapo Korean wonders do so well--they run the very same display as the big guys but without many features.

To be honest, even i cannot notice the change once i have crossed the Full HD resolution. Hence shifted from 27" LED to a 42 inch Panasonic plasma as my PC monitor - Yeah, i could notice the picture lag in led and LCD, so finally settled with Plasma.

I'd kill myself if I had to use a 1080p desktop display on any platform.

NovusBogus wrote:

Apple is a marketing company that happens to have a technology department.

That is a bogus statement.

BlackStar wrote:

The 1440p and 1080p monitors have similar DPI, so you will not see much of a difference.

PPI is not the issue. Desktop real estate is what 2560x1440 displays bring to the table.

NovusBogus wrote:

Apple is a marketing company that happens to have a technology department. Their tech is no more advanced than anyone else, you just pay more because of the brand name. All LCD panels come from LG, Samsung, and a couple of others. That's also why the cheapo Korean wonders do so well--they run the very same display as the big guys but without many features.

Vastly inaccurate statement. Yes, in general, they use many of the same components. But nobody in the market makes a notebook or ultrabook nearly as good as a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air.

matdem1 wrote:

I'd never drop that much dough on myself to play games

No OS X user that I know of, including myself, buys an OS X rig to play games. We all build PC's to get our gaming fix (and soon Steam Machines).

Not strictly true. I game on my 27" iMac. It's not what I bought it for but it's capable of it so I see no real need to buy a separate box to game with should the desire take me.

That said, I'm not a heavy gamer and most my gaming time recently has been taken up by LOTRO

In the case of the OP, I don't think he's making a fair comparison as the monitors are different sizes. I bet he'd notice a pretty big difference if he compared a 27" 1080p monitor to the iMac display.

matdem1 wrote:

HONESTLY..... I just do not see a big difference at all between the eye candy on these two systems...

If the game looks the same on both platforms, I'd say the programmers did a good job porting the game. Of course, the game could not be graphics intensive, and it would look the same running on "the best computer in the world".

What am I missing.... Ex. I would definately not spend an extra $300 to $400 just to get a higher res Monitor as it was just not that noticeable..Would a PC system be different at that resoltion. (clip) THOUGHTS!

I'm not sure you can really tell anything by comparing OS X to Windows, aside from learning you can game while using OS X. They are two really different beasts. Windows uses DirectX while OS X uses OpenGL. A better test would be to install Windows on the iMac then try the games.

I eat all the resolution I can get. High res monitors are worth it.

I went for a triple 1080p setup instead of a higher res, since the overall screen space is higher for a similar cost, I have the space for it, and video sources (i.e. YouTube) are in 1080p as standard. Perhaps in the future, I'll have to switch to screens that give more workspace.

BlackStar wrote:

The 1440p and 1080p monitors have similar DPI, so you will not see much of a difference.

What he said.

Given the size difference between the two screens, what you ended up seeing is that you have the bigger screen (which is a good thing!) but it doesn't look any sharper, which is probably what you'd be expecting.

End User wrote:

BlackStar wrote:

The 1440p and 1080p monitors have similar DPI, so you will not see much of a difference.

PPI is not the issue. Desktop real estate is what 2560x1440 displays bring to the table.

PPI is the EXACT issue in the OPs argument. The reason you won't notice much/any difference between a 27" 1440p (109ppi) and 23" 1080p (96ppi) monitor because both are displaying (roughly) the same amount of detail per inch (same PPI). The only difference is that the 27" monitor is giving you a larger window to look through.

There can always be the aspects of comparing one monitor to another, but the Dell listed may very well use the LG 23" version of the same panel Apple is using in that iMac.

I still want a 27" Nyquist limited monitor only needs to be oooh 600ppi.

keltor wrote:

There can always be the aspects of comparing one monitor to another, but the Dell listed may very well use the LG 23" version of the same panel Apple is using in that iMac.

I still want a 27" Nyquist limited monitor only needs to be oooh 600ppi.

I know what you mean, but I just have to be that smartass that points out that all monitors are Nyquist-limited in the amount of information they can display.

But a 600ppi monitor would be sweet all around. Proper high-contrast fonts (no hinting or subpixel AA artifacts), no more jaggies or texture sparkling, no more blurry graphics due to over-compensating AA!

BlackStar wrote:

keltor wrote:

There can always be the aspects of comparing one monitor to another, but the Dell listed may very well use the LG 23" version of the same panel Apple is using in that iMac.

I still want a 27" Nyquist limited monitor only needs to be oooh 600ppi.

I know what you mean, but I just have to be that smartass that points out that all monitors are Nyquist-limited in the amount of information they can display.

But a 600ppi monitor would be sweet all around. Proper high-contrast fonts (no hinting or subpixel AA artifacts), no more jaggies or texture sparkling, no more blurry graphics due to over-compensating AA!

I want a monitor that can produce a black line on a white background that is as small as I can possible see (and my vision corrects to 20/12.5) AND that said line is at least 2 pixels wide.

DPete27 wrote:

End User wrote:

BlackStar wrote:

The 1440p and 1080p monitors have similar DPI, so you will not see much of a difference.

PPI is not the issue. Desktop real estate is what 2560x1440 displays bring to the table.

PPI is the EXACT issue in the OPs argument.

Poorly worded on my part. PPI is not why you buy a 27" 2560x1440 display instead of a 23" 1080p display (although the PPI on the 27" is better). For me the 27" 2560x1440 display is all about desktop real estate.