Poll: Where do you most want a high-DPI display?

High-DPI screens are all the rage these days. Apple deserves credit for starting the trend with the Retina display on the iPhone 4, and it’s followed up in stunning fashion with the 2048×1536 pixels spread across the new iPad’s 10" panel. Rumors abound that next-generation MacBooks and ultrabooks will feature high-DPI displays, as well. Microsoft has even detailed how Windows 8 will scale with higher pixel densities.

We’re clearly on a path to greater pixel densities, but high-DPI displays remain relatively rare outside a handful of devices. In our latest poll, we’re curious to see where you’re most eager to see an increase in the number of pixels per square inch. Do you covet a high-DPI smartphone screen or would you prefer to have a higher pixel density on a tablet, notebook, or desktop display? You can cast your vote below or in the middle column on the front page.

Our last poll asked readers to predict the gaming performance of Kepler, which has finally appeared in Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 680 graphics card. The GTX 680 offers roughly equivalent overall performance to the Radeon HD 7970, vindicating the 21% who figured the two cards would be neck-and-neck. 44% of voters though the GTX 680 would be faster than AMD’s best, while 10% figured it would be slower. The two card are close enough that one can find examples where each one is better than the other. Everyone’s a winner, sort of.

The remaining 25% thought Kepler’s gaming performance would be insufficient to impress resident pessimist Krogoth. His response to the GTX 680 seems to be devoid of disappointment, which may be as close as the guy gets to being impressed by anything.

Comments closed
    • ultima_trev
    • 8 years ago

    I would like higher DPI PC monitors but I’d also like more compact PC monitors. A 15″ PC monitor with a res of 1440*900 or 1680*1050 would be perfect.

    • Mr Bill
    • 8 years ago

    I am pretty satisfied with my 24″ BenQ FP241VW @ 1920×1200 (WUXGA) for my desktop. Its perfect for WOW.
    [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/2787/3[/url<] My 15.6" laptop at 1366x768 is quite inferior particularly with respect to color and viewing angle.

    • albundy
    • 8 years ago

    i dont. i want super vibrant crisp AMOLED TV’s that i can roll up and take with me anywhere i go, like the flexible ones samsung displayed at CES.

    • riviera74
    • 8 years ago

    I voted desktop since those are most likely to have them widely available on non-Apple hardware. Notebooks for me would be a very close second. Anything smaller may or may not be worth it.

    • ET3D
    • 8 years ago

    Everywhere. For notebooks I want 1366×768 killed and replaced by 1080p, and I want something better for 17″ notebooks. For desktops I want as much as I can get in a reasonable size display – don’t want to need a 30″ monster for 2560×1600. For tablets, well, I guess we’re getting there. Smartphone, I’d be okay with 720p.

    Only place I don’t feel the need is TV. On PC’s I just like a lot of stuff open at the same time, and on smaller devices I want to be able to browse and read nicely, but a TV is a single task thing, and I noticed on my HDTV that when I watch I care more about the content than about the image quality. I’ve gone through half of a movie not noticing that is was playing in SD instead of HD because it was interesting enough to watch.

    • Skullzer
    • 8 years ago

    The poll should be renamed ” I most want a high-DPI display on my ______ RIGHT NOW!”

    • fantastic
    • 8 years ago

    I have little use myself. I can’t see the pixels on my TV at 1080P unless I’m right up to the screen, my smartphone is out of date (unlocked), I don’t have a tablet or notebook and my desktop is good enough for now. Apple does not drive the rest of the world.

    I’m more interested in wide color gamut, fast, low power monitors at a reasonable price. It’s weird that the super fast TVs with huge screens cost just a little more than some monitors and still use MORE power than the TVs. I’d be using a 40″ LCD TV instead of a monitor if it wasn’t 40″. I prefer a 22-24″ monitor. The TVs now have LED backlights, web browsers, “apps” and WiFi. The monitors still have fluorescent backlights, slow displays and huge pricetags.

    The speed hit from the high DPI displays might be worth investigating. Does this force a shopping spree for the rest of the system by upgrading your monitor? Can integrated video handle these things?

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Distance, size of screen, and preferred subjective quality.

    • travbrad
    • 8 years ago

    Desktops and notebooks for me. I voted for desktop because that’s what I spend more time using, but a higher DPI would be nice on a notebook too (since they are generally lower resolution than a desktop).

    A higher DPI/resolution could be a problem when trying to play games on a slow notebook GPU, but I don’t really use my laptop for games so it wouldn’t be a problem for me.

    • Coyote_ar
    • 8 years ago

    Got an old Dell 2707wfp for my main screen, was planning on changing it for something 27″ 16:10 or 30″ 16:9 … but didnt see anything worthy yet.
    I guess im keeping this one till i see something close to 3840×2160, and able to run 120hz … that would be something i would upgrade too…
    Plus i guess nv/ati would really appreciate the challenge to their GPUs to move such high res/refresh. high res isnt an issue for today’s GPUs.

    • bhtooefr
    • 8 years ago

    Voted notebook. I’m already running a 2048×1536 display on my ThinkPad, but I want MOAR.

    I do have a 3840×2400 22.2″ desktop display, and that’s actually enough there. And, I find that my usage models don’t work well with desktops.

      • Namarrgon
      • 8 years ago

      T220? I came so close to getting one recently, but just couldn’t quite justify it… They really are awesome in many ways (and not so great in a few), but a 200 dpi monitor would be soo nice.

    • Madman
    • 8 years ago

    I think 44% voting for Kepler being faster are probably right. We are seeing midrange cards rebranded as highend cards as of now. At least that’s the impression from the news – GT104 vs GT110.

    • Thanato
    • 8 years ago

    For Graphic art.I draw on a Wacom monitor all day. I would really like to see a dpi that’s higher than 94 pixels. I spend a fair amount of time with my face fairly close to the monitor so I would especially notice the difference. Also there’s a good chance it will allow me to work better with images zoomed out, which is about the only problem I have atm.

    For gaming.. I would say at 300dpi there’s a good chance that monitors of that degree of resolution would work well outside their native resolution. So setting a game to 100dpi could help with fps afterwards setting it back to 300dpi would be great for reading. In the long run it might push developers to make games even better, not to mention future hardware tech for PC would have a longer future (you know before it’s all cloud based( I might be crazy)(I might not)).

    For a tablet… it seems a bit gratuitous, but it seems that the technical feet of manufacturing high dpi monitors has to start somewhere, so I just hope Apple doesn’t bogart the tech.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 8 years ago

      I hope I don’t live to see the day were computing is all or even primarily cloud based. Unless we each have our own servers in our homes that we access through the internet.

    • Ashbringer
    • 8 years ago

    The smaller the display the less dpi you’ll need for clarity. As opposed to larger screens where the difference is much more noticeable.

    For portable devices I’d worry about battery consumption and screen glare. Especially screen glare in sunlight. Your device emits less light to save power, but at the cost of being able to see it. Portable devices today are getting pretty sad in battery life.

    For Desktops and TVs where the screens get much larger, that’s where high dpi matters the most. At that point, power consumption isn’t important.

      • Namarrgon
      • 8 years ago

      Surely you have that backwards? Perhaps you’re confusing dpi with resolution.

      A smartphone with the ~40dpi typical of large TVs would have a resolution of only 160×90, with chunky great pixels bigger than this period -> . But a 55″ TV that was 300dpi would have a resolution of over 14K x 8K… 112MPix, when most people can barely make out 2Mpix at normal viewing distances.

      A display’s dpi should be inversely proportional to its viewing distance. 300 dpi for phones, 200dpi for desktop displays, and 50-100dpi for TVs.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Definitely a correlation between the size of the display, distance from display, and the relative ‘clarity’ amount. People seem to be confusing how all of these relate to each other.

      Depending on what you’re looking for the relative clarity is completely different for every person; so in every scenario with the size and display ratios being equal, you would want higher PPI in all devices if you want higher clarity (depending on your tastes).

    • Airmantharp
    • 8 years ago

    Laptops hands down.

    1080p/1200p is great for desktop use. We could use more, but it’s passable, and higher resolution and higher DPI 27″ and 30″ screens exist.

    Smartphones are already there. Heck, my Galaxy Note is 1280×800. That’s bigger than most sub-notebooks.

    Tablets are there with 1200p+ becoming available.

    TVs are there, at least for legacy programming- as 4k TVs become available, we should start seeing higher resolution sources streamed and on media.

    • cobalt
    • 8 years ago

    I think having more pixels on the desktop is more useful, but we’re less desperate for high-DPI displays there. I’ve got two monitors on my desktop, and I can add more thanks to better multi-display support in recent years from both brands of video cards. And at least we’ve got 2560×1600 displays as an option on the desktop. We rarely see laptops out of the 1366×768 regime.

    Therefore, the correct answer is Notebook.

    • JohnC
    • 8 years ago

    I voted for smartphones, and if I could – also for tablets. Those are the only devices close enough to my eyes where I can notice the difference between resolutions/pixel density. TV’s are already fine with the current full HD resolution, even with PC connected to them (I never sit close to TV, even when using it as monitor, so everything looks fine to me). Many notebooks already have displays with good enough pixel density – I can’t see individual pixels and EVERYTHING looks sharp enough for me on my 13″ MacBookPro (but then again, I don’t use it with my face pressed against its display and with screen brightness set to max). Desktops can have some benefit especially for professional work related to 2D/3D graphics modeling and image editing, though for entertainment and misc usage (including browsing, e-mail usage, using MS Office programs, playing games) my current monitor’s resolution/pixel density is perfectly acceptable so I don’t really care for that.

    • Farting Bob
    • 8 years ago

    For all things, obviously, but Desktop is what i use all the time, so desktop is the priority, although it seems very like it’ll be the last one to get a DPI boost. You know it sucks when you can buy a 10″ tablet with the same resolution as the supposedly high end 24″ monitors. But i guess it is very hard to scale it up. 240DPI on a 4 inch screen is going to be far easier than 240DPI on a 27″ screen.

    • Arclight
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]Poll: Where do you most want a high-DPI display? -Desktop[/quote<] FOCK YEAH, i checked that box. Yes Sir, yes Sir.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    Desktop monitors for FFS. I’m tired of being stuck on 1080p and a IPS display isn’t a answer for a gamer. The response times are too slow, especially on high res displays.

    So, it’s not just wanting a high res display, it’s also wanting a display with a 2ms response time and 120+hz refresh rate, preferably not in a 30″ mind blowing form too. I’m still perfectly happy with my 23″ display and anything larger and I’ll start needing to move my head around to look at the whole thing.

    I almost want this as much as I wanted improvements to HDs, actually more now since then SSD revolution. Monitors have stagnated ever since HD resolutions have come out for TVs and it’s sad.

      • Grape Flavor
      • 8 years ago

      Different strokes for different folks. Some people prefer the image quality of a large IPS display to the blazing speed of a 120 Hz TN panel.

      Yeah it would be nice if we could have both, and maybe some day we will, but for now you’ve got to choose whatever’s more important to you.

      I game on a 24-in, 60 Hz, 1920×1200 IPS panel all the time and it’s great. If you prefer something else then that’s fine.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        I would enjoy the image quality too if I could get it in a faster response time. I’m all for IPS if it performed as well as TN panels in motion scenes, just like you’re saying.

        Both could benefit from higher pixel counts and refresh rates though, even if a IPS can’t get the faster response times of TN. Currently all high DPI displays (above 1080) are IPS displays though.

      • Airmantharp
      • 8 years ago

      You should look up HP’s ZR30w. No input lag, as it has no OSD (and doesn’t need one), and no ghosting, as it’s response times are less than 16.7ms at worst.

      I do agree that a 120Hz 2560×1600 (or greater!) IPS LCD would be awesome, but after paying out for one 30″, I’m not too sure that I could convince myself to afford another :).

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        16.7ms makes me a sad panda… fast response time for me is <=3ms. I’m pretty sure you would get ghosting on a 16.7ms display or at the very least heavy blurring playing a FPS when you do spin shots. Clever positioning of that fact btw.

          • Airmantharp
          • 8 years ago

          16.7 = 1000/60; that’s where I got the number. Anything less than 16.7ms [b<]across the spectrum[/b<] will not exhibit ghosting. BTW, I have pretty fast eyes, definitely faster than my reflexes, and I cannot see ghosting on my ZR30w. I can, however, see noticeable 'dark area' ghosting on my 27.5" Hanns-G, which is rated at 3ms. It has horrible contrast.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            60 being a highly subjective number you use for your formula. I understand what you’re saying about gtg response times, even outside of that 2-3ms is well below 16.7

            And yes, some manufacturers outright lie about their response times and refresh rates (some 120hz monitors don’t even accept 120hz input). There isn’t any sort of certification board or anything that tests monitors. I am using a LG L227WTG which is reputably the best gaming panel on the market and I still see blurs and smears in high action scenes.

            • Airmantharp
            • 8 years ago

            60Hz is the input frequency :). Halve that for 120Hz, and you get 8.3ms.

            I do admit that few, if any, panels can actually refresh the full spectrum fast enough to completely avoid ghosting. But they’re getting close, and I’m damned if I can notice it in my 30″.

            For comparison, I have a relatively ancient Samsung 204b TN monitor that has wretched ghosting; I definitely know just how bad it can get. When compared to a CRT monitor when I bought it years ago, I was amazed at just how bad it was, but it didn’t affect my gameplay, at that time primarily in latency-sensitive Counter-Strike.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Ah, I was under the impression you were referring to human perception. That aside, response time can still influence perception below your magical number. The clarity of the picture would still be influenced by how fast the pixels change from one state to another.

    • hubick
    • 8 years ago

    I want a 30″ 4k monitor!

    There exists: Eizo DuraVision FDH3601, 4096×2160, 36.4″: [url<]http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html[/url<] But it's $34,844 USD!! How about $4k for 4k, then we'll talk πŸ™‚

    • Parallax
    • 8 years ago

    Higher PPI might also make some displays cheaper. A dead pixel isn’t so much of a problem if it’s too small to be seen, so even panels with some defects could still be comfortably used. I’d gladly accept a few almost impossible to see dead pixels in exchange for a better display (though the displays will need to hit >200ppi for that to happen).

    • LiquidSpace
    • 8 years ago

    I don’t watch tv, and haven’t been really playing much on my PC recently, all these newly released games are junk. as for a tablet, I don’t really need one yet. I’ve voted for Smartphones.

    • Lazier_Said
    • 8 years ago

    Notebooks.

    I don’t sit close enough to a desktop display let alone a TV to even see the pixel pitch.

    I don’t care about rich graphical content on a phone, that just kills the battery faster.

    I don’t care about tablets period.

      • Dr_b_
      • 8 years ago

      thumbs up for notebooks. Stare at one all day every day, want better screen. Laptop screens are mostly lacking in both screen rez and quality.

      • A_Pickle
      • 8 years ago

      It honestly blows my mind that companies are racing for the bestest DPI on their precious smartphones and tablets.

      When, since the death of Windows Mobile, have you used a smartphone or a tablet that displayed tiny interface elements or a LOT of information on screen? Because that’s what DPI is good for, increasing the amount of information that can be displayed in the same physical space. Tablets and smartphones, running touch-optimized apps, tend to have large, finger-pressable interface elements, and medium to big text elements.

      The high DPI just isn’t really necessary, especially considering the lack of detail that games on such platforms have.

      Give me a high DPI desktop or laptop screen, I can be happy with 1280×800 on my tablet and 800×480 on my phone.

        • Beelzebubba9
        • 8 years ago

        …have you ever used an iPad 3 next to an iPad 2? Or an iPhone 4 next to an iPhone 3GS? I’m not going to pretend that my opinion or experience is universal, but the difference is huge to me.

        Also, it’s not that tablets or smartphones are more suitable for a high resolution, it’s just that their OS vendors (especially Apple) have a much tighter control over the platform, so unlike Windows, rapid shifts are possible.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          This^

      • jensend
      • 8 years ago

      Amen. Lots of people clamoring for >4K desktop/TV resolutions; there’s no point*, as your eye only has so much angular resolving power and a healthy viewing distance means that individual 4K pixels are just a handful of arcseconds. Meanwhile, the laptop viewing distance is much much closer and so many laptops out there are still using 1366×768.

      *Exception: some people might use a single very-high resolution screen much the same way many people use multimonitor setups today- having single tasks/visuals take only a small portion of the space and having several visible at once. Then you end up a lot closer to the screen and the effective resolution for discussing your eye’s resolving power is the resolution of the portion of the screen you’re using for a single task rather than the resolution of the entire monitor..

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Distance, size of screen, and preferred subjective quality.

    • DeadOfKnight
    • 8 years ago

    What I REALLY want is 16:10 back as the standard widescreen ratio.

    However, I chose “notebook” because this 1366×768 trend is intolerable.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      What I really want is a 50″ Retina res 48:10 aspect ratio (16:10 x 3) seamless panel monitor.

      I would die a happy man.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Give it up already.

      16:10 is dead. The entertainment industry decided it is. End of story.

        • Beelzebubba9
        • 8 years ago

        Apple still feels otherwise!

          • ImSpartacus
          • 8 years ago

          The MBA11 is 16:9.

          Still if there’s any company that can say fuck you to the status quo, it’s Apple.

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 8 years ago

            So are the iMacs, IIRC. But the 13″ Air and all of the MacBook Pros are 16:10 and PROUD!

            I hope 16:10 doesn’t die. πŸ™

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            I wonder if Apple will keep 16:10 when they expand the MBP resolutions.

            The chassis is more than a few years old. Adding mSATA SSDs (like MBA) and removing the disk drive would be a good time to just overhaul the chassis. And if they overhaul the chassis for another 5+ year lifespan, they [i<]might[/i<] take the time to switch to 16:9. Apple certainly isn't afraid of sweeping changes. Of course, that's just empty speculation. I doubt Apple will change the MBPs to 16:9, since they are perfectly satisfied with using a non-standard aspect ratio on their iPhone and iPad.

    • Grape Flavor
    • 8 years ago

    I’m not really interested in high DPI for two big reasons:

    A. It’s pretty much useless for gaming. Sure it sounds like it would nice to have 2560×1600 in your 24 inch monitor but if you want your video card to actually render at that resolution you’re in for a hell of an expensive ride. Look at any GPU benchmarks and you will quickly see that affordable graphics setups simply cannot render at that resolution in modern games with high settings, and deliver acceptable frame rates.

    B. The content is simply not designed for it. Most things are either going to be scaled or are going to be really tiny. The user interface may take advantage of high DPI, but websites and video content for the most part do not. So what’s the point right now?

    To be perfectly honest I think the high DPI trend is more a product of the Reality Distortion Field than anything else. It’s nice in theory but the tangible benefits are limited and it increases cost.

      • GTVic
      • 8 years ago

      It would be very useful for graphics designers and CAD. The discrepancy in quality of display vs print is enormous. With CAD you want to see vector lines at any angle without stair stepping with fine degrees of width for differentiation. The other requirement would be large size hi-res black/grey 22×34 electronic paper to kill the printing requirements, hopefully color in the future.

      For the general public, a high res large display with a vector based, scalable graphics system would allow high resolution graphics combined with larger readable user interface elements (toolbar buttons, icon captions, menu drop-downs, etc.). This is very important for productivity especially with older users who have trouble with the small size of current UI elements.

        • Grape Flavor
        • 8 years ago

        Graphics designers and CAD are a niche use. I’m talking about the mainstream user. And what does DPI have to do with large user interface elements?

        Kind of ticked that I got downvoted when everything I said is easily verifiable fact. Sorry to rain on your parade but for a lot of things high DPI doesn’t bring any improvement.

        I shouldn’t have to explain to people on a tech site that a 480p/720p/1080p YouTube video is going to be the same resolution regardless of whatever crazy DPI on your device. Or that your video card renders slower when you quadruple the pixel count. It’s common freaking sense.

          • superjawes
          • 8 years ago

          Um…I wouldn’t call CAD niche…certainly not public domain, but there are a LOT of CAD users out there. And on top of that, anyone workin in large spreadsheets or multiple documents at once would benefit from higher DPI, which amounts to more real estate.

          Sure, single applications are probably good at single monitor 1080p, and I would probably be fine scaling things down from higher resolutions in favor of better performance, but I would also like that extra real estate when working on stuff.

          I’m not knockin’ your posts down, and what you’re saying is correct. I just think that almost everyone would use and appreciate the extra density.

      • geekl33tgamer
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]It's pretty much useless for gaming. Sure it sounds like it would nice to have 2560x1600 in your 24 inch monitor but if you want your video card to actually render at that resolution you're in for a hell of an expensive ride.[/quote<] If your ponying up the Β£/$ (and it will be expensive) for a screen like that, what's the additional cost of some Crossfire / SLI action in there too to make it render smoothly?

        • Grape Flavor
        • 8 years ago

        If you want to buy $1000 worth of graphics hardware every couple of years, then good for you. The vast majority of PC gamers are unable or unwilling to do so.

          • Parallax
          • 8 years ago

          You can always run at a lower res for more speed and let the video card/monitor scale it up.

            • Grape Flavor
            • 8 years ago

            Exactly. But then it’s not going to look any better than a lower-DPI display of that same resolution, is it?

            In fact it will look worse because it is scaling and not native res.

            • Farting Bob
            • 8 years ago

            I recently tried to convince somebody on another forum that his single GTX570 was absolutely fine, but he wanted to get a second one and SLI because of a single reason. HE COULDN’T PLAY BF3 ON ULTRA, AND HAD TO DROP IT DOWN TO VERY HIGH. I gave up at that point. I cant tell the difference outside of screen-shots and 1 or 2 occasional things that stick out between max and max -1, but some people are willing to pay hundreds extra just to move that slider all the way to the right. These people wont be satisfied at playing games at anything less than the maximum their monitor and game allows.

            • superjawes
            • 8 years ago

            I think it’s all uncanny valley when it comes to those “Ultra” resolutions anyway…

            You should give him the article on micro-stuttering, though. I was considering SLi for awhile until I saw that, which is exactly why I come to TR.

            • geekl33tgamer
            • 8 years ago

            FWIW, I’ve not really noticed the micro-stuttering (I use Crossfire) and believe it’s actually over hyped as an issue that in most cases the human eye can’t actually detect.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          Being expensive is different from useless no?

      • JohnC
      • 8 years ago

      I agree that it is useless for gaming – what’s the point of higher res on desktop monitors if game developers mostly take into consideration the resolutions of HDTVs (and the very limited about of video memory in game consoles) when deciding on game’s texture resolutions?

        • Grape Flavor
        • 8 years ago

        Well to be fair, display resolution is important in of itself sometimes. Psychonauts may have the muddy textures of a 6th gen console game, but I can tell you, it looks a hell of a lot better at 1920×1200 on my 24″ monitor than it would had I hooked up a 480i console.

        But obviously I agree that high DPI is more trouble than it’s worth for gaming. It’s going to kill your performance. If Apple is really rendering those iPad games at 2560×1536 then good for them but it’s just not practical for PC with current video card technology (unless you have the $1000 SLI setup).

      • Airmantharp
      • 8 years ago

      I think you’re wrong (being polite here):

      I use a 2560×1600 monitor, [b<][i<]specifically[/b<][/i<] for gaming. Why? Because higher resolution means higher detail, and that's important to me. I play all manner of games- Battlefield 3 (and Bad Company 2 before it), RPG's like the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series, Skyrim, The Old Republic, and have a backlog of games on Steam to run through. The sensationalism behind the '$1000 SLi' setup is also quite overblown. I use a mid-range ATX board, a 2500k (overclocked) with the bottom-of-the-line Corsair H60, basic Corsair 1600MHz C9 RAM, and a pair of ~$250 HD6950 2GB cards. A 650watt PSU powers it all. Nothing special. My point is, that if you [b<]want[/b<] to run at a higher resolution, you can, and the cost is largely centered around getting a second GPU. Further, micro-stuttering DOES exist, but it's not a huge issue. It's something you have to take into account and adjust for, but it can be mitigated to the point of irrelevance. It's also very likely to disappear as attention to the issue is brought to card makers.

      • Wolfram23
      • 8 years ago

      What…? If you want to run 1080p Ultra settings that’s expensive too. Or do you suggest sticking to a 15″ 1280×1024 because it’s cheaper to max out graphics?

      And honestly why do you need to max graphics? I am sporting a pair of 5850s from 2 years ago, and I was able to run BF3 at 5760×1080 at medium/high settings with solid framerate (45+). My biggest issue was lack of VRAM. When I finally get a 2560×1440 27″ monitor I fully expect to play at high settings (no AA). Sure, it’s not “fully maxed” but so what? The huge display and higher DPI will give a better overall experience.

      Right now you can get a pair of 6870s for around $320-350 and easily play games at 2560×1440/1600 at high settings.

      That’s half the price (or less) than the monitor itself.

      And I don’t think I’ve ever heard of games “not scaling” to high res displays. Eyefinity is a different matter, but that has a lot to do with the aspect ratio. Pretty sure every review of high end GPUs out there covers games at 2560×1600 and you don’t hear them complaining.

      • Beelzebubba9
      • 8 years ago

      Any modern videocard should have little trouble running games at 2560×1600 without AA, which is pretty useless at that resolution and pixel pitch anyway.

      Personally, I can’t wait for higher resolution displays. I shelled out $1000 for a Dell 2405FPW in 2006 because I wanted the most pixels I could afford and have consistently put money where I could get the highest reasonable resolution. Both Mountain Lion and Windows 8 will support high resolution displays from a UI perspective, and the display on my iPad 3 is a minor revelation, so at least for me higher pixel density is far from a product of the RDF.

    • UberLaff
    • 8 years ago

    Where’s the all of the above? I never want to see a pixel again.

      • wmgriffith
      • 8 years ago

      I agree with this. I would want to get as close to an analog display as possible. I think the practical limit is above the DPI where you are unable to distinguish between straight rendering and anti-aliasing (font-smoothing, 3D, whatever). While I’m dreaming, I would want MS to put all of the scalable vector graphics work necessary into Win7 because I don’t want to use 8.

      I scream, “Authentically analog!” Anyone with me?

        • UberLaff
        • 8 years ago

        “Authentically analog!”

      • Grape Flavor
      • 8 years ago

      Most of the pixels you’ll be looking at aren’t shrinking anytime soon regardless of your display.

      Maybe the proliferation of high-DPI displays will eventually drive higher resolution content but until then it’s going to be little more than a novelty.

    • End User
    • 8 years ago

    Here is an overview of current displays and how close they are to Retina [url<]http://goo.gl/014bV[/url<]

      • ImSpartacus
      • 8 years ago

      Looks like I’ve been outdone.

      Here I was, thinking I’m so smart with this one:

      [url<]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AiFQ4kItU_vrdHRwaFBwdVhCc1pObXdSbExQZDNEY1E&output=html[/url<] Gonna have to up my game to beat this guy...

      • dpaus
      • 8 years ago

      I’m very surprised that chart doesn’t include Apple’s 30″ Cinema Display

        • derFunkenstein
        • 8 years ago

        It doesn’t exist anymore.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 8 years ago

      Looks like the transformer prime is seated quite nicely on that list.

        • internetsandman
        • 8 years ago

        The full HD version, which is actually the Transformer Infinity, if I recall correctly. I think the regular prime has a much lower resolution

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      6ft from a 50″? I am 9ft from a 100″, and I’d prefer it to be bigger.. and with 1080p, I can see the pixels. I want to quadruple the pixel density (4K – 2x in each direction) and increase the screen diagonal size by 50%… I think that’d get me very close to ‘ideal’

        • mcnabney
        • 8 years ago

        You are sitting a little close to a screen that size. Your content viewing angle is over 40 degrees, which is bad. You should probably move 3′ back or reduce your screen size to 80″. That will make it easier for your eyes to see all of the content and the pixels will be less distinct.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          Sure, but then I wouldn’t feel like I’m “in the movie”.. and I can move my eyes/head to see what’s happening at the edges.

          I know the theory and the “recommendations” from experts for “appropriate” distance from the screen, but I think sitting closer gives me a better movie-watching experience… as long as the pixels aren’t visible.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Have you looked up the ‘expert’ distance? Pretty much every manufacturer has a different recommended distance matched with each screen size. Even bodies like THX vary. I guess that’s what happens when something is very dependent on the users preferences. XD

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance[/url<]

      • mcnabney
      • 8 years ago

      I disagree with your distance assumptions for laptops.

      People do not hunch over when they use smaller laptops and lean way back when they use larger ones. You should assume that the user will hold the laptop where it is most comfortable to type – which means that they should all have very similar distances with greater space between the keyboard and screen allowing slightly longer viewing distances.
      Your chart shows the smallest MacBook Air with an 11.6″ and the larger MacBook Pros at 17″. I just measured my own viewing distance on a 15″ laptop I am using right now and it is 22″. Your chart is grossly exagerating the perceived DPI of all of the laptops based upon unnatural viewing distances. I tried getting to 11″ viewing distance and I have to literally curl up over the device. Nobody does this.

    • NeelyCam
    • 8 years ago

    I want a yacht, a sunny Saturday, and a case of good IPA

      • Thatguy
      • 8 years ago

      I second this. Well except for the IPA… bleck.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        Lagers are for kids. IPAs are for real men/women.

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          Hard lemonade/cider FTW!

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 8 years ago

            Man, those are such girly drinks!*

            *(not that there’s anything wrong with that)

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            That’s why I like them… most beer tastes like piss, including the more exotic ones. Those taste like piss with honey or piss with a hint of lemon. This is of course with the exception of some finely brewed light beers. One of my personally tolerable ones is Grainbelt Premium, which is produced in Minneapolis.

            Wine and other alternative hard drinks can be quite good on the other hand… Maybe I’m just more of a wine guy. :l

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Or maybe you haven’t tried good microbrews..?

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            My step-dad homebrews for a hobby for what that’s worth. I try beers… it’s not like I’ve had Beast and thought they’re all the same, all the ones I’ve tasted aren’t to my liking. I really dislike heavy and dark beers. The ones that I find more enjoyable are usually really light or well filtered.

            It really comes down to a matter of preference though, like people who really like coffee (coffee also tastes really bad IMO, but it’s good as a cooking ingredient or in another beverage). Some beers taste better then others, but it really comes down to me not liking the taste of yeast and their accompanying excrement from what I can tell. It could be I just haven’t had that ‘magical’ beverage too…

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 8 years ago

            Whatever – wine is awesome too!

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Red, yes. White, no. Chardonnays look like piss.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            White wine so does not look like piss… At least not anymore then a light beer.

            Personally not a huge fan of dry wines. Reds and whites can be dry.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Light beer looks like piss as well.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Well at least it doesn’t taste as much like piss as lagers and stouts. Guess it just doesn’t have the radiant kidney infection brownish-red.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Sorry, but I rather have kidney damage from IPA than drink that light beer piss.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Kidney infections generally cause you to urinate blood… which is also usually the same sickly color as some laggers… I didn’t mean it would cause a kidney infection. >>

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            I know.. I wanted to emphasize my commitment to not drinking light beer..

            Think of the first time you tried beer. Did you [i<]really[/i<] like it? You probably didn't... but you kept trying because of peer pressure, and eventually you realized it's not that bad... besides, if gave you that nice buzz. Fast forward a few years. You've tried all sorts of buzz-generating liquids, including a wide variety of beers. When someone asks you what your favorite beer is, you don't say "yeah! the first one I ever tried!". You have something of a more educated guess like "Sam Adams", because that one was a bit different from the others, and your friends told you it's really good. You take another two years, move to another part of the country, and - again because of peer pressure - you try something else. This 'else' tastes strange; interesting and scary at first, but after a while it tastes kind of good. You're not sure why, but - unlike when you drink the 'light piss' - you notice the flavor in your mouth whenever you take another sip. Suddenly, you have discovered something magical. Now, substitute "NeelyCam" on each "you" and you have a real story that took place 6 years ago.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Yeah… I’ve done similar Neely, minus drinking due to peer pressure… I’ve also mysteriously traveled the country in search of the fabled liquid beverage… >>

            I keep a open mind and pallet… Just because I say beer tastes like piss isn’t because I had a bad first time, rather because that’s what it tastes like to me. Some is better then others, but it all pretty much has the same nasty flavor to it, just the way coffee is. I don’t drink it because other people are drinking it either or because I want to get a buzz. I try different things, but if I have the choice between a beer, wine, a hard cider, or hard lemonade, I pick the cider > wine > lemonade > beer. Depending on how good the wine is, that can move up to the front or the back of the list.

            Thank you for sharing this window in time with me though. I will think of how many years you spent drinking nasty liquids because your peers did it every time I have a beer from now on and treasure it. XD

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Not drinking due to peer pressure – drinking [i<]bad beer[/i<] because of peer pressure. I used to be a cider drinker, but even the driest ones I could find are rather sweet. Since discovering IPAs I don't touch ciders much anymore

          • Chandalen
          • 8 years ago

          Upvote to IPA, down with the bitter haters!

          • Thatguy
          • 8 years ago

          Haha count me out of that category than, ;). I just can’t seem to enjoy beer as a general rule. I can’t find one i enjoy and they all taste like hops to me. Liquor, that’s another story. πŸ˜€

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            You’re more hardcore than I am but hats off!!

          • Airmantharp
          • 8 years ago

          I’ll stick with my Bocks, thank you.

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 8 years ago

      Make it a Sam Adams and I’m in.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        You rock sir.

      • dpaus
      • 8 years ago

      Win your Medfield bet, and you could at least get a 6-pack of IPA…

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        It was not a <that_which_shall_not_be_named> bet – it was a bet on Intel’s 22nm chip dominance at the end of 2013.. or do I remember it wrong?

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          If I remembered wrong, please correct me instead of shoving thumbs down my azz. Please.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            Thumbing Neely down is the in thing at the moment… gotta fit in.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            You did well. NC approves.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            I disprove of your approval, and the consequent edit in between when I thumbed you and when the comment window popped up.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            NC approves this, too.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            I can do this all night…

            …mainly because I’m bored and Family Guy doesn’t cut it anymore. πŸ™

      • Goty
      • 8 years ago

      IPAs are bad. Just another place where you’re wrong. πŸ˜‰

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 8 years ago

        I’m gonna go ahead and disagree on the “IPA’s are bad” comment…. [url<]http://beeradvocate.com/lists/popular[/url<] Beer snobs/dorks/connoisseurs think pretty damn highly of IPA's. I think you just haven't had -that one brew- that'll change your opinion forever.

          • Goty
          • 8 years ago

          You’re probably right, but I’ve always been partial to darker ales and wheat beers.

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 8 years ago

            Weihenstephaner is my top choice, when I can afford it.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            I like me a good stout, and I thoroughly liked this one too:

            [url<]http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/220/73131[/url<] But IPA is my go-to beer. Favs: [url<]http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/16353/39201[/url<] [url<]http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/173/25265[/url<] [url<]http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/863/7971[/url<] The sad thing is that back then when I though "american beer"=Bud/Coors/Miller, I thought Finnish beers were great. Now, every time I visit Finland I realize how mediocre finnish beer really is, and I miss my american IPAs..

    • Plazmodeus
    • 8 years ago

    I am a bit of a high-dpi obsessive. I have a dell u2711 which has a moderately high DPI for a desktop display, I love it for photo work. I have an iPhone 4. Its ok, though not much use beyond being nice to look at. I just bought a new IPad, and that is the BOMB. The display on the new iPad is incredible, miles ahead of the previous display.

    Now if only I could get rid of iTunes and all of its headaches…

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 8 years ago

      iOS 5.1 enabled OTA updates, so you shouldn’t need iTunes any more.

        • Wolfram23
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t know what that means but if I can put music on my iPod/iPhone without iTunes… woot!

        That program is so terrible. I’ve had to uninstall and manually clean it’s crap out multiple times because it stops working – particularly after an “update” but sometimes it just does it on it’s own.

    • Peldor
    • 8 years ago

    I chose desktop although notebooks probably need the most improvement overall. There have been a lot of terrible low-res offerings even in expensive notebooks.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 8 years ago

      The tech is there no one uses it. I think creating new higher DPI tech for desktops and TVs would net us the largest gain. You can get a descent note book all you need to do is buy a mac πŸ˜›

      • burntham77
      • 8 years ago

      I agree, but the problem is a lot of notebooks suffer from poor GPUs, like Intel’s integrated offerings. If more notebooks had Nvidia or AMD mobile GPUs that offered some reasonable performance, that would be the first step. Then we could see more notebooks with higher res displays, even if it was just 1080p.

      The 2048×1536 displays are nice, but really only have a practical use in 27-30 inch monitors.

        • Airmantharp
        • 8 years ago

        Not at all-

        Intel’s graphics have far exceeded what’s need for any display included in a laptop currently shipping.

        For games, you’re right, but that’s a slippery slope. You’ll never get a laptop that performs as good as a desktop, there’s just not enough room; so ‘good enough’ has to be defined relatively.

        And for me, Intel’s HD3000 is definitely ‘good enough’ for most things I want to play on my laptop! The only game that needs help is SW:TOR, which could be solved by drivers and the development team updating the game to allow lower settings.

    • jjj
    • 8 years ago

    I don’t want high DPI.
    I don’t want TN,don’t want glossy,want higher res and bigger monitors at sane prices (30″ 2560×1600 are priced the same now as a few years ago),want OLED screens and maybe after all that i might care about higher DPI.
    High DPI is what the marketing folks like and, to some extent, even that is a mistake since most folks got no clue what a screen’s resolution means and DPI even less.

      • omf
      • 8 years ago

      You realize that higher DPI = higher res given the same physical dimensions, right?

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t think he does but I know what he means πŸ˜› I agree the premium on high DPI monitors has not changed in 5 years yet 1080p & 1200p monitors have come down to nothing including many IPS displays as well.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 8 years ago

      [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density<]Resolution is MEASURED in dpi (or ppi).[/url<] Resolution is not the raw amount of unique dots that a display has, it is the amount of detail in a medium. We incorrectly say things like "I want 1080p resolution," but a pixel count is not a resolution. You need a display size to calculate the resolution. Holding everything else constant, 1080p on an 80" HDTV has less resolution than 1080p on the 10.1" Transformer Prime.

        • Thatguy
        • 8 years ago

        I thought resolution was measured in the number of pixels being displayed and dpi took into account the size of the screen AND the resolution? Have i been confused all this time?

          • Grape Flavor
          • 8 years ago

          No he’s just making stuff up. Resolution has always meant the numbers of pixels in each direction.

            • Thatguy
            • 8 years ago

            That’s what i thought.

            • Namarrgon
            • 8 years ago

            Actually, he’s quite correct in the technical sense. “Resolution” refers to the ability to resolve detail, which in most variable-size mediums (like paper) has always been more usefully expressed in dpi or lpi.

            However, one could certainly argue that “resolution” as used in the field of computing, and fixed-size monitors specifically, has almost always referred to the total number of pixels in a display device, not the density, and it’s futile trying to change that now.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            [i<][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch<]"Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of devices in various contexts; typically computer displays, image scanners, and digital camera image sensors."[/url<][/i<] Just because marketers have broken the rules so many times that its become an embarrassingly pitiful convention doesn't mean that those marketers were correct. Display resolution is measured in units of pixels per distance, typically pixels per inch or ppi. That is based on [i<]how our eyes work[/i<] and not on how many laptops Best Buy wants to sell.

          • Alexko
          • 8 years ago

          Originally, resolution referred to what we measure in DPI, and the number of pixels in each dimension was called definition.

          I would imagine that many people weren’t aware of this distinction, including marketing people and consumers. So over timeβ€”and a lot of misuse, some would argueβ€”the two words have become interchangeable. As a result, DPI is used to measure what we now tend to call “pixel density” or something similar.

          Note that we watch Full-HD TV sets: high-definition, not resolution, since the latter can vary depending on the size of the TV set. But these days, if you complain about your laptop having a resolution of 1366Γ—768, few people apart from ImSpartacus are likely to be bothered, even though he’s arguably right, or at least would have been 30 years ago. Nowadays even Merriam-Webster or the Oxford Dictionary have relatively identical definitions (no pun intended) for the two words.

            • ImSpartacus
            • 8 years ago

            Yup, it’s embarrassing how marketing can skew formally correct conventions.

        • Grape Flavor
        • 8 years ago

        I’m sorry but that’s not the mainstream definition of “resolution”. Maybe that’s what the word means to you but that’s about it. Don’t confuse people.

          • GTVic
          • 8 years ago

          Doesn’t seem like he put much thought/intelligence into his comment or his username. I was going to respond as well but why bother…

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      I’m not really concerned about pixel density either. My rig has trouble pushing pixels on new games at 1080, last thing i want is for games to stagnate for another 10 years because we don’t have the gpu power to run the screens.

      edit: i know some of you are going to claim that we have gpu power going to waste, but i don’t think bf3 looks like crap, and it’s hard on current cards. I realize you can run it beautifully at high res on an expensive rig, but i don’t want to have to purchase new gear every 6 months.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    Desktop monitors have more than just the need for higher resolution holding it back. High end IPS displays still don’t have LED back lighting yet for no legit reason. LED back lighting is going to go the way of the dinosaur before monitors get them. IPS is cool and all but PC monitors are really lacking in allot of other departments and have been for a long time, lighting and darks are the leaders. Screens that usually have good darks lack hugely in the middle range or have no color accuracy at all.

      • iatacs19
      • 8 years ago

      LED has a limited color gamut compared to WCCFL.

        • willmore
        • 8 years ago

        You’re kidding, right?

          • anotherengineer
          • 8 years ago

          No he’s not. LEDs EMF band is very narrow/specific due to the nature of doping the semiconductor to get that wavelength from it.

          White LEDs are still fairly new, and usually give off a bluish tinge (cold) or yellow tinge (warm) white.

          WCCFL – Wide (color/gamut) Cold Cathode Florescent Lighting is needed to achieve 100% adobe/ntsc color gamut.

          Having a 8-bit panel or higher helps, vs the 6-bit that most panels are nowadays, including the eIPS models.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            I think your kinda out of date, your sighting issues from years ago. It hasn’t been this way for a while. The adobe spec is a bit missleading, my 2007 dell “adobe” spec monitor had such poor grays/blacks even after calibration it always throws things off a little and that was adobe spec. I sincerely feel that its a racket at this point. Doesn’t matter as another poster sighted odds are they will leap frog the LED tech and go straight OLED or something. Its just silly IMHO how Dell has been selling the same monitors with slight, ever so slight variations the better part of this last decade.

            • Waco
            • 8 years ago

            No, he’s not. LEDs still don’t have the color range that a real WCCFL does.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            Oh, man. I love it when someone gets a good sciencing on the internet.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            As others have sighted the Tech is out there just no in back light panels.

            • Chrispy_
            • 8 years ago

            I thought the equivalent to WCCFL was RGB LED matrices?

            My old Dell Studio 17 laptop had a 1080p RGB LED-backlit screen and it was nice.

            It would have been even nicer if they used a panel with decent contrast and blacks that weren’t mid-grey, but I guess attrocious panel quality has been par for the course in laptops these last 5-6 years.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            That was my impression as well.

      • anotherengineer
      • 8 years ago

      “High end IPS displays still don’t have LED back lighting yet for no legit reason”

      Well the legit reason is “high-end” IPS panels usually support ~100% of the adobe gamut, which LED backlighting can’t do yet, niether can plain ccfl, they need wg-ccfl backlighting.

      That’s why only the eIPS panels have LED backlighting. The exception would be HP’s Dreamcolor, which I believe has 3 individual primary color leds, and runs almost 3k

      I look forward to the day also when I can get a 30″ wide gamut IPS monitor using LEDs that runs a true 120hz refresh rate for under a grand.

      However I think OLED TV’s will become ‘mainstream’ before that happens.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        From what I know about LED light tech… there is no reason for that. I understand no major players produce BL panels that support that but FTR LED’s have WAY more range than CF’s or whatever they use right now. I know this as an aquarist I’ve done extensive research on LED’s for lighting at different temps etc. LED’s simply are the best they can be whatever you want them to be. They just have to make them right.

        A 1,300 dollar monitor can pioneer a little here and make their own back panels.

        As you’ve said its likely that LED will get leap frogged here as the display companies have been too busy sitting on their hands this round.

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 8 years ago

          If they can basically creat new tech for a 500 dollar tablet and a phone they can pioneer for premium displays. At that LED is yesterdays news and developing that would probably not have a return as they are 3 years behind. OLED and other techs are way out ahead of that now.

          End of the day I can make do with 1080p on my desktop display if we get other things like faster refresh rates, better back lighting or WHATEVER etc. I might be wrong but I see many other issues holding back desktops than just DPI.

        • willmore
        • 8 years ago

        Ahh, that explains iatacs19’s comment. The assumption there was that LED==white LED. I was thinking of using primary colored LEDs.

        I guess I find it strange that more displays aren’t using RGB LEDs.

        Than again, I keep wondering when a very high resolution monochrome displays with fast refresh rates and strobed RGB LEDs.

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 8 years ago

          There is no real reason, RGB LED’s are only expensive as no one uses them. Volume will bring costs down pretty quick. End of the day they could easily make LED’s work if they cared too.

            • willmore
            • 8 years ago

            That positive feedback loop is a real PITA.

            “Why does everyone use *old tech*?”

            “Well, it’s cheaper.”

            “Why is it cheaper?”

            “It’s made in higher volume.”

            “Why is it made in higher volume?”

            “Because everyone uses it.”

            FFFFFFFFFFF….

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            ha ha yeah, lol. This is a premium product that they charge bank for without really overhauling it for over 5 years. I think they could start justifying the premium buy pioneering a little.

          • Yeats
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<]I guess I find it strange that more displays aren't using RGB LEDs.[/quote<] RGB LED is more expensive and not as "thin" as edge-LED. I, too, wish that RGB LED were in greater use. It is sufficient to accommodate the entire aRGB gamut. I don't know it suffers from the same "PWM flicker" issue that some people are supposedly sensitive to when using edge-LED.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            EDGE LED is not very good we want a uniform back panel for all the bells and whistles. LED’s done right would be cooler, use less energy, cheaper eventually and not take up anymore room that the current back-lighting method.

            • willmore
            • 8 years ago

            Especially since a high speed monochrome LCD + strobed RGB LEDs would be 3x more efficient as there would be no color filters wasting 2/3 of the light. Plus, if you wanted wider color gamut, just move to pentile illumination–the pannel wouldn’t need to change.

            Heck, you could even have different display modes. A higher speed mode for games that minimizes the delay between colors (who’s horribly concerned with wide color gamut in a game?). A 24Hz mode for movies with wide color gamut. A ‘still’ mode for viewing photos that has wide color and luminance ranges.

            And the only differences is software settable modes in the display. ‘Cheaper’ displays could have only RGB LEDs. Higher end ones could have RGB+Y or even more colors.

            • Wirko
            • 8 years ago

            That LCD would have to be [i<]really[/i<] fast to allow strobing at several hundred Hz. Otherwise you'd get the nice rainbow effect that you already can admire if you happen to have a low end DLP projector. [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Light_Processing#The_color_wheel_.22rainbow_effect.22[/url<]

            • willmore
            • 8 years ago

            To some extent, yes, that would be one of the downsides of such a system. I was thinking in the region of 240Hz or a bit faster should be pretty good.

            This is why I think it would be beneficial to have multiple modes depending on the useage at the time–games would not care as much about color fidelity–if the GtG time of the monitor was a bit slower than the RGB frame rate, you’d get some color artifacts, but who cares if a color is a tad off in a video game?

            For more static images, the frame rate could be dropped down until the GtG time proved to be no concern–allowing for full purity of 10 bit color, etc.

            A smart display could even decide the mode by itself in some cases, probably. πŸ™‚

        • burntham77
        • 8 years ago

        Indeed, an LED version of something like Dell’s 3011 30 inch display would be very nice.

        • odizzido
        • 8 years ago

        That’s what I want too….an LED IPS 120hz monitor….high DPI would be nice as well.

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 8 years ago

          desktop monitors really need to step it up in the refresh department as you sighted. 120 hz is old tech and shouldn’t be such a stretch sorry. Heck 240 hz is old tech at this point.

      • Wolfram23
      • 8 years ago

      HP ZR2740W is a 27″ 2560×1440 IPS with LED backlighting. And you can get them for around $600.

      Just saying.

      I voted desktop, since that’s what I use mostly.

      I’d also like to point out, with regards to the “need $1000 graphics”, that is crap. One of the most demanding aspects of gaming performance is anti aliasing – you know, that thing that was invented specifically because of low dpi causing jagged edges? Take that away and a 7870 could push high settings at 1440p.

        • Namarrgon
        • 8 years ago

        Modern AA isn’t just super sampling. 4x MSAA etc al are a lot less demanding than running at double the resolution.

          • Wolfram23
          • 8 years ago

          No kidding.

          Still, I ran 5760×1080 on my 5850s no problem. BF3 on Medium/High (SSAO, no AA, FXAA on High, Textures on High, and a couple other settings on High) with solid 45-60 fps. There was a little stuttering as the VRAM was pretty much maxed out but mostly it ran really well.

          I can imagine at 2560×1440 I would be able to run at High no AA with similar performance.

          Technically I spent $600 on my GPUs, but right now a pair of 6870s or 560s would have similar performance at around $400-500. That’s a far cry different from $1000 worth of GPU (SLI 680s).

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        Yes, It still helps with jaggies, even high DPI displays are vulnerable to this you literally have to go retina to remove the visual presence.

          • Wolfram23
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah, and I’d love to have “retina” monitors at 20-30″. That would be amazing.

          And yes, I realize that would take significantly more powerful hardware than 2560×1600, but I think we’re getting there.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      Insightful threads found under the parent.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah very. I’m enjoying this. Don’t know why the original post got -2

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          Your post doesn’t actually make it seem like LEDs have a downside, which they do. I personally didn’t even consider the limited light spectrum of LEDs till it was brought up in this thread.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 8 years ago

            What temperature do they not reach? Not being sarcastic just that I was pretty sure that LED’s had passed that threshold a while ago as that is what spurred their sudden adoption for aquariums. LED’s scale so well. They’ve got everything from 3,000k to 20,000k out there right now(probably some even higher just not what I look for so don’t know). Not to mention RGB LED’s.

            • Bensam123
            • 8 years ago

            From my understanding it’s not about what temperatures they reach, rather the narrowband of the spectrum that each diode is only capable of emitting, so you need multiple diodes to do a full spectrum (as other people pointed out up the way).

            Almost all LED displays (which I’ve seen) use only one type of diode. White diodes don’t just produce white light, but rather use a phospher material and a LED of a different color (usually blue) to produce white light. The light itself isn’t usually pure white light and parts of the spectrum are brighter (such as blue for a blue diode) then other parts.

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode#White_light[/url<] This is actually why I really dislike florescent lights and LEDs specifically. They produce almost 'unlight' compared to a incandescent. It makes it harder to discern certain colors and can be hard on the eyes for prolonged exposure. Given I see the need for florescents in high traffic, always on, light areas, but for a sitting room or a reading light, incandescents or halogens are still the way to go IMO. I'm personally surprised no one has made a LCD that is backlit by a halogen or incandescent, sorta like how projectors or LCD based DLPs work.

      • ShadowEyez
      • 8 years ago

      I totally agree that desktop monitors have more than just the need for higher resolution. And yes, IPS is cool!
      Saying that IPS displays don’t have LED back lighting for “no legit reason”? Really? I’m sure it comes down to cost, and engineering ability to achieve a desired cost. Because I’m sure if producers could make one at a target price/profit point, they prolly would.

      Not to worry, I’m sure they’re working on it – it’ll prolly be done around the time LED back lighting goes the way of the dinosaur and high retina displays w/oled is the norm :-p

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        Its just annoying my rather primitive plasma has better color than my “adobe” qualified monitor because the back lighting they still incorporate doesn’t get good blacks. The supposed accuracy is still way off visually IMHO. Its better than most monitors but not as good as some of the better TV’s and the flippin new ipad.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    If TV’s had higher res I could actually do computing on them. I though 1080p would be high enough… I was wrong.

      • Airmantharp
      • 8 years ago

      4K TV’s should be a boon for living room computing. I think I’ll wait for them to hit ~$1500 for a Plasma before I buy a new TV (would be my first in 10 years!).

        • mcnabney
        • 8 years ago

        You will be waiting for at least three years for that price.

          • kamikaziechameleon
          • 8 years ago

          Probably but still it will be worth it. I’d happily drop 2 grand for a worth while display.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 8 years ago

        Dude, my dream!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This