27" 2560X1440 monitor Vs. 32" 1080P TV

[Colin.B]

So I want to upgrade my monitor from a 23 inch Samsung to either a 27 inch 2560x1440 or A 1080p tv as the title suggests. I know there's quite a difference in resolution but there's also a noticeable difference in size. I'm of two minds - better pq, smaller screen size or "worse" pq, bigger display. I really cannot make up my mind. I was going to go cheap on the 2560 if I do get one and get one of the QNIX ones as every review I read of them is quite positive, especially for the price. I'd liken it to buying an Insignia t.v except for the fact there seem to be good reviews out there. Any other 2560 is likely out my price range I'm afraid, unless a good one can be found for around 350 which is highly unlikely.

 

Any thoughts on which route I should go? Oh. I'm using a GTX 660SC and will likely buy another one for SLi unless the upcoming 760s are cheap enough and offer enough of  a performance upgrade. (Haven't checked out the reviews on them yet but either way, that isn't what this thread is about...Although, given the GTX 660 is about 50 bucks cheaper I may go the SLi route.)

 

Thanks in advance, as always!

[kaborka]

IMO, there's no comparison. The 32" TV will produce very grainy, barely readable text due to the coarse pixel spacing.

27 inch 2560x1440 = ~.23mm pitch. 32" 1080p =~ .35mm. The anti-aliasing on your SLI would be wasted.

 

I recently got X-Star 27" 1440p Samsung PLS matte panel from EB vendor "hulustar" -- $305 delivered.  It is stunning! I'll never go back.

[+longgonebn Subscriber²]

I also picked up the same X-Star, that resolution and screen is amazing, can't go back!

[YounGMessiah]

Im going to grab that X-Star that seems like a good buy :)

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Definitely go for 2560x1440.

 

I've recently upgraded from 24" Dell 1920x1200 to 27" Dell 2560x1440 and I'm amazed at the higher level of detail in games - it makes me want to replay all of my favourite titles again! I've realized that this is the defacto resolution the recent games are developed and meant to be played at.

[PsychD]

Go for the 2560x1440, I've never regretted choosing it.

Bought an 27" Achievea Shimian 2560x1440 a year ago. I have never thought about going back to 1080p.
At the time I bought mine they were very popular on many sites, as they were functioning great and were cheap, only downside was the fact it was shipped all the way from South Korea, so it took a few weeks for it to arrive.
 

[REM2000]

As long as you have the graphical grunt, then the higher the res the better :)

[Colin.B]

Alright, now for the tough decision: Matte or glossy :P

[ashpowell]

27inch deffo..

[Colin.B]

Just ordered a 27 inch matte. I like glossy finishes but what the hell, why not save 10 bucks. Thanks for all the unanimous decisions :)

[primexx]

how is this even a question? TVs are not monitors, period.

[Andre S. Veteran]

It depends entirely on what you're using the monitor for... For watching movies and playing games, 32" will be way more immersive and the 1080p resolution will allow you to play at decent framerates at native res, which will look actually more crisp than playing at a non-native res on the 1440p monitor. If you want to drive 1440p correctly you'll need much more power than a GTX 660.

 

For productivity though I'd go with the higher res monitor all day; sharper text, more virtual estate.

[Colin.B]

how is this even a question? TVs are not monitors, period.

 

I primarily use my PC for gaming and when I had my computer hooked up to our T.V in the living room things looked quite good sitting 6 feet away and there was no noticeable input lag. The only time I've ever had issue using a TV as a monitor was with web browsing and picture editing. I had a 32 inch 720p oncce and it was horrible as a monitor but it was 720p and I was sitting 3 feet away. 

It depends entirely on what you're using the monitor for... For watching movies and playing games, 32" will be way more immersive and the 1080p resolution will allow you to play at decent framerates at native res, which will look actually more crisp than playing at a non-native res on the 1440p monitor. If you want to drive 1440p correctly you'll need much more power than a GTX 660.

 

For productivity though I'd go with the higher res monitor all day; sharper text, more virtual estate.

 

I will be playing games primarily along with some photo editing. It's a shame I saw this after I ordered. You would have perhaps changed my mind haha, As for power, I'mm likely going to use SLi or get a 760. I know the 660 SLi will be adequate but the memory bandwidth on the 760 is appealing. Usually I upgrade, skip a generation and upgrade again when it comes to GPUs.

[+longgonebn Subscriber²]

Don't worry about his comment, I watch all kinds of media 1080P or even less and they look amazing on the 1440P resolution. They look much better.

[kaborka]

The main caveat with the cheap Korean monitors is the panels may have bad pixels or light bleed. I was lucky and got a good one. See discussion. For easier returns, buy from Monoprice.

 

The Samsung matte panels have a light coating that isn't at all grainy (unlike Dell's). I'm next to a window and can't use glossy.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Don't worry about his comment, I watch all kinds of media 1080P or even less and they look amazing on the 1440P resolution. They look much better.

It's impossible to do better than 1:1 pixel mapping between source and monitor. A 720p frame looks worse on a 1080p display than on a 720p display because the 1080p display has to interpolate it 3:2. The same thing happens for a 1080p frame on a 1440p monitor (with a 4:3 ratio).

[McKay]

I briefly had a Samsung 32inch LEDTV as my monitor when I first got my desktop. It was horrendous, blurry text, everything was giant. I bought a 27 inch 2560x1440 Dell Ultrasharp now and it was like a breath of fresh air.