New Monitor opinion/advice

[DoolittleRaider]

I am planning a New Rig. My last monitor has died on me...it was a 2007-era Samsung 244T 24 Inch 1920X1200 LCD monitor which worked perfectly for me and my Flight Simming needs (until it died). Excellent image quality, colors, response times etc.

Researching current state-of-the-art Monitors, I've discovered that LED's are the thing now, at 1920X1080 native resolution, and one of the very best, highly reviewed/recommended monitors is the Viewsonic 27” VX2753MH LED with 1 ms response, and 30,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, but only 0.311 pixel pitch. Roughly $330 plus tax and/or shipping

Alternatively, the Viewsonic VX2453MH-LED 24-Inch LED monitor with the same 30,000,000:1 Dynamic contrast ratio, slower but still excellent 2Ms response, and a 'better' pixel pitch at 0.27. Approximately $200.

As I understand it, the larger 27" monitors because of the larger pixel pitch size are actually blurrier when viewed from the same distance as the 24 inch monitors with smaller pixel size.

My question is: Is it really worth going for a Larger Monitor screen size of 27 inches if I need to sit farther back from it to attain the same sharpness as a 24 inch monitor??? I am only concerned with Flight SImming and other Gaming use, not concerned with a larger screen to simultaneously display more documents or othehr such 'business' stuff.

I'll try to set up a poll if I figure out how to do that.

[ElAurens]

I'm more than pleased with my LED Samsung PX 2370.

Oh, and I voted 24 simply because I have no room for anything larger.

[Qpassa]

24" 1920x1200

[sorak]

Also keep in mind. That if you computer is more on the low spec you might want to get a monitor that has a lower Native Resolution. The reason is because if you needed to lower the resolution down for games to make it run better its going to look like crap being that its not in its lower resolution. But using a Native Resolution of a 1280 x 1024 monitor will look alot better. Thats what i use right now on a 19inch monitor because Im on a lower spec computer.

Just giving a side note.

puff puff

[sorak]

Id go with the 24 inch though.. Since your brain doesnt detect anything above 5ms anyway.

[xnomad]

I got one of these back in June:

LG IPS226V-PN 21.5"W, IPS PANEL, 1920x1080, 16:9, 5MS, D-SUB, DVI-D, HDMI

http://www.lg.com/au/it-products/monitors/LG-led-lcd-monitor-IPS226V-PN.jsp

I'm very happy with it, a great price for an IPS LCD and these guys make the panels for Dell. Great dot pitch as well.

I used to have a CRT (1280x1024) prior to getting this one and the jump up in resolution to this flat screen did cost me a few FPS in COD, so watch out the higher you go the worse your FPS will be. I ran almost everything on maximum settings on the CRT but had to lower some settings when using the LCD.

Also for size, I'm of the opinion that in games size doesn't matter. You focus on the game and don't notice if it's 27 inch or 21 inch. I think size for monitors is for more desktop real estate when you are editing multiple documents etc. For a better dot pitch (for spotting the enemy at a distance) you'd want a high resolution on a smaller surface, so if two monitors have the same resolution but one is larger, then take the smaller one.

[NedLynch]

Also keep in mind. That if you computer is more on the low spec you might want to get a monitor that has a lower Native Resolution. The reason is because if you needed to lower the resolution down for games to make it run better its going to look like crap being that its not in its lower resolution. But using a Native Resolution of a 1280 x 1024 monitor will look alot better. Thats what i use right now on a 19inch monitor because Im on a lower spec computer.

Just giving a side note.

puff puff

+1

[AndyJWest]

Logically, if you need to sit further away from the larger monitor to get the same degree of sharpness, it would seem to be of little benefit - though it is only 12.5% bigger anyway. I'd get the smaller monitor, and spend the money saved on an SSD, a better graphics card, or something of the kind.

[AndyJWest]

Erm, cheesehawk, if the monitor is going to have to be further away to get the same level of shapness, it isn't going to improve peripheral vision, is it?

[Jatta Raso]

i have a 24'' syncmaster (2ms) and it's just perfect. i'd go for the 24''. with a 27'' you're either at max res (very hard system requirements for CoD) or you're looking at a stretched lower res image, which will look blurry. and believe me, if jaggies look bad on a 24'' on a 27'' they look horrible; you won't get away with a 27'' without pretty good AA especially on lowered res (again a burden on system specs) so take this factors into account.

[Red Dragon-DK]

If you are planing yourself for a new rig, I would go for a 24 inc screen, prepaired for 3D. That way you have the option to go there, if its something for you.

When my last screen died on my after good service, I bought an Acer 24 120 HTZ. And I have not regretted a second. The pictures are crystal clear and I have plans for a 3D kit, if reports about it are good.

But when it comes to the end, its a matter of taste. And that was my 2 penny.

Hope you find a great one.

[JG52Uther]

For a laugh I hooked up my computer to my 42" TV yesterday.CoD looks brilliant at that size!
Unfortunately my wife would get a bit upset if I kept it like that, but I am going to replace my 22" samsung monitor with a 32" TV now...
Probably not as good a picture as a dedicated monitor, but with my eyesight I can't tell much difference, and for me size does matter! ;)

[Ataros]

Ideally
IPS for great colors (much-much better than TN ones)
120Hz and Stereoscopic-3D support
27inch or more for immersion (but make sure your videocard can handle the resolution)

I remember a thread about 120Hz setereoscopic-3d $800 projector which can be an option.

ps. Not sure if LEDs still use IPS/TN technology though.

[yakaddict]

You should concern yourself less with the size of the monitor and more with its respective rezolution and features. A 1080p monitor does not look good at 27". Consider the ceiling for that at 24". Anything above that should be a higher rezolution. Also, consider how far from the monitor you will be and how powerful your computer is. Running CloD on anything above 1080p requires very significant hardware unless you lower the rezolution. Ther other thing to consider is the panel type itself. There is twisted nematic (tn), pva and cpva, and IPS (in plane switching). IPS is generally regarded as the best for its mix of high response rate, high color accuracy and viewing angles. TN has the fastest response rates but terrible colors and viewing angles. IPS panels come in around 8 to 5ms response rates and have incredible colors. CPVA panels have about the same color quality as IPS, sometiems better, but inferoir viewing angles and horrible response rates. I currently run a dell IPS panel that while technically rated at 8ms is closer to 5ms for most colors and would never look back at a TN monitor. The so called ghosting at that response rate on these monitors is simply not significant enough to justify a TN when the color accuracy is so good on an IPS panel. Usually its overlooked but once you start to use one you see colors and details you would never otherwise notice and the overall effect is more profound. A good IPS panel at 23" can be had from asus for about $230 and from dell for about $300. They are more expensive than the average TN but the average TN isnt really very good, and higher performance TN monitors usually end up costing about as much. Just my take on this, hope it helps.

[JG5_emil]

I have a 27" monitor which has a native res of 2560x1440 but i play clod in 1920x1080. It looks fine and when AA is sorted out will be even better.

I vote 27" !!

[Igo kyu]

Why do monitors jump from 1920 * x to 2650 * x?

Currently you can get a 1920 * 1080 from about £120, but the cheapest 2560 * 1440 (16:9, I'd rather have 4:3) is about £650. I want to see some 2200 - 2300 * x monitors, if the quality was okay I'd buy one today, I'm currently using 1600 * 1200, 1920 * 1080 would be a downgrade and 1920 * 1200 isn't enough of an upgrade to be worth the price.

[FFCW_Urizen]

You should concern yourself less with the size of the monitor and more with its respective rezolution and features. A 1080p monitor does not look good at 27". Consider the ceiling for that at 24". Anything above that should be a higher rezolution. Also, consider how far from the monitor you will be and how powerful your computer is. Running CloD on anything above 1080p requires very significant hardware unless you lower the rezolution. Ther other thing to consider is the panel type itself. There is twisted nematic (tn), pva and cpva, and IPS (in plane switching). IPS is generally regarded as the best for its mix of high response rate, high color accuracy and viewing angles. TN has the fastest response rates but terrible colors and viewing angles. IPS panels come in around 8 to 5ms response rates and have incredible colors. CPVA panels have about the same color quality as IPS, sometiems better, but inferoir viewing angles and horrible response rates. I currently run a dell IPS panel that while technically rated at 8ms is closer to 5ms for most colors and would never look back at a TN monitor. The so called ghosting at that response rate on these monitors is simply not significant enough to justify a TN when the color accuracy is so good on an IPS panel. Usually its overlooked but once you start to use one you see colors and details you would never otherwise notice and the overall effect is more profound. A good IPS panel at 23" can be had from asus for about $230 and from dell for about $300. They are more expensive than the average TN but the average TN isnt really very good, and higher performance TN monitors usually end up costing about as much. Just my take on this, hope it helps.

If you are purely a simmer, i too recommend a IPS panel, but if you are into other games as well, an IPS´s respond time + the lag that occurs until the picture is actually shown on screen, can be a disadvantage. In that case, better stick to a TN panel or better yet, use a CRT ;) .

[T}{OR]

You should concern yourself less with the size of the monitor and more with its respective rezolution and features. A 1080p monitor does not look good at 27". Consider the ceiling for that at 24". Anything above that should be a higher rezolution. Also, consider how far from the monitor you will be and how powerful your computer is. Running CloD on anything above 1080p requires very significant hardware unless you lower the rezolution. Ther other thing to consider is the panel type itself. There is twisted nematic (tn), pva and cpva, and IPS (in plane switching). IPS is generally regarded as the best for its mix of high response rate, high color accuracy and viewing angles. TN has the fastest response rates but terrible colors and viewing angles. IPS panels come in around 8 to 5ms response rates and have incredible colors. CPVA panels have about the same color quality as IPS, sometiems better, but inferoir viewing angles and horrible response rates. I currently run a dell IPS panel that while technically rated at 8ms is closer to 5ms for most colors and would never look back at a TN monitor. The so called ghosting at that response rate on these monitors is simply not significant enough to justify a TN when the color accuracy is so good on an IPS panel. Usually its overlooked but once you start to use one you see colors and details you would never otherwise notice and the overall effect is more profound. A good IPS panel at 23" can be had from asus for about $230 and from dell for about $300. They are more expensive than the average TN but the average TN isnt really very good, and higher performance TN monitors usually end up costing about as much. Just my take on this, hope it helps.

Seconded. With one minor remark: ~8 ms response is nonsense and factory values should be neglected when discussing response times. Read a few reviews (tftcentral.co.uk or prad.de) and observe some real testing and comparisons.

With that in mind I can not recommend enough, from price and quality perspective, by far the best bang for the back monitor today: Dell U2412M (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm).

With todays hardware and CloD in mind, you will want to avoid anything higher than 1920x1200 resolution.

[badfinger]

I have a 42" Vizio 1920x1080 120hrz about 4-5 ' in front of me that, I think, works great. With a set on headphones on, and IR5, I get immersed pretty quickly.

binky9

[Insuber]

Do not give up the 1200 height. 1920x1080 look like a damn' pillbox slot.

Cheers,
Insuber

[Blackdog_kt]

Don't get too hung up on response times, they are measured in two different ways with the faster method usually being quoted, which happens to be the one that occurs less frequently in actual use: a white to black response time is faster than a gray to gray one, but it's not very often you see colours jumping from one extreme to the other during normal use, unless you're running a screensaver for rave parties :-P

Also, don't give too much credence to quoted viewing angles, especially for TN panels, unless you can see the monitor in action. The specifications standard for a given angle to be considered viewable is the image retaining a mere 10% of its original brightness/contrast, in other words you almost can't see jack at that point yet the angle is considered viewable :-P

My decision process would be:
1) Do i want to use a 3D capable monitor? If yes, this restricts choices a lot due to the need for 120Hz refresh rates.
2) What kind of resolution can i comfortably expect to run with my current GPU setup? If i need to upgrade my GPU will i also need to upgrade my power supply? These are added expenses that can easily factor into the complete cost of a monitor change.
3) What kind of monitor size presents a comfortable dot pitch at the aforementioned resolution? For example, if i use a 30" monitor with a lower resolution those pixels will be big enough to start at me ;)

I've never owned a TN panel although i've used many, i went straight from a 17" CRT to a 22" Dell IPS 2209WA ultrasharp with a true zero pixel defects 3 year warranty and on-site replacement.

The monitor features minimal input lag, 8ms gray to gray response time and is vastly superior to TN panels in terms of colours and viewing angles (no discoloration bands on the top/bottom of the panel, true 180 degree viewing angles, in short the colours don't change every time i move my head). Ergonomics and durability of the stand are top notch (height, pivot, even vertical rotation for coding/reading and editing text files).

This model has been replaced by the new series, but i think they are using the same line of LG-made IPS panels (e-IPS, which is an economy IPS panel range). Their new series offers displayport connectors for the new GPUs which my model lacks. It might be worth it to see reviews for them though because a couple of the new models have higher input lag than mine.

The main drawbacks of IPS panels is price (in the higher spectrum monitors used mainly for image/video editing) and increased brightness of black colour. The black can be fixed if you choose a monitor with a built-in polarizer, but i think this increases input lag.

As for ghosting, it was the first thing i tested and the only way to create ghosting was to hook up my head tracker, fire up IL2 and move around so fast that my neck hurt, ie it's perfectly fine for normal gaming use. I also play a bit of Team Fortress 2 from time to time and while i'm not a dedicated FPS player i have no problem ranking among the top 5 people on my team after half an hour so of game time even when playing as a sniper, ie there's no perceptible ghosting and input lag to mess up my aim.

[badfinger]

I'm jealous of you. At my last job, I was looking at a 2011 40" KDL-40EX723 from Sony (who our company worked with, would have been a freebie), but business took a dump and I got laid off before I got my monitor! :(

Cheesehawk,

Hope things turn around in the near future. Keep flying and smiling.

binky9

[Jatta Raso]

Cheesehawk,

Hope things turn around in the near future. Keep flying and smiling.

binky9

+1

[JG5_emil]

Why do monitors jump from 1920 * x to 2650 * x?

Currently you can get a 1920 * 1080 from about £120, but the cheapest 2560 * 1440 (16:9, I'd rather have 4:3) is about £650. I want to see some 2200 - 2300 * x monitors, if the quality was okay I'd buy one today, I'm currently using 1600 * 1200, 1920 * 1080 would be a downgrade and 1920 * 1200 isn't enough of an upgrade to be worth the price.

look at hazro

not so expensive

[kilosierra]

I have one Samsung SyncMaster BX2450 LED.

A very good monior at a reasonble price. Nothing fancy, but a good and fast display.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

You should concern yourself less with the size of the monitor and more with its respective rezolution and features. A 1080p monitor does not look good at 27". Consider the ceiling for that at 24". Anything above that should be a higher rezolution. Also, consider how far from the monitor you will be and how powerful your computer is. Running CloD on anything above 1080p requires very significant hardware unless you lower the rezolution. Ther other thing to consider is the panel type itself. There is twisted nematic (tn), pva and cpva, and IPS (in plane switching). IPS is generally regarded as the best for its mix of high response rate, high color accuracy and viewing angles. TN has the fastest response rates but terrible colors and viewing angles. IPS panels come in around 8 to 5ms response rates and have incredible colors. CPVA panels have about the same color quality as IPS, sometiems better, but inferoir viewing angles and horrible response rates. I currently run a dell IPS panel that while technically rated at 8ms is closer to 5ms for most colors and would never look back at a TN monitor. The so called ghosting at that response rate on these monitors is simply not significant enough to justify a TN when the color accuracy is so good on an IPS panel. Usually its overlooked but once you start to use one you see colors and details you would never otherwise notice and the overall effect is more profound. A good IPS panel at 23" can be had from asus for about $230 and from dell for about $300. They are more expensive than the average TN but the average TN isnt really very good, and higher performance TN monitors usually end up costing about as much. Just my take on this, hope it helps.

This, a thousand times this! As goddess is my witness, I will never own TN panels again!

[Igo kyu]

look at hazro

not so expensive
They still go from 1920 * x to 2650 * x, and on the web I'm seeing that for £500, which is pretty expensive to me, and the vibe I'm getting is that the quality may not be as good as I want. I still think a 2200 to 2300 * x screen should be doable, and ought to be a lot less expensive than these silly 2650 * x sizes that even very powerful graphics cards struggle to play games on.

[DoolittleRaider]

Thanks to all for the excellent comments/advice. I am getting educated.

My variation on the original question now is: What are the pros and cons of 1920X1080 versus 1980X1200. I know the trend in monitors is towards 1920X1080. Why? Again, I am primarily inteterested in flight simulations (COD, ROF, A10, and others), plus some First Person Shooters like the other COD (Call of Duty:MW series).

FYI, at this point in the discussion I am definitely turning towards a 24" monitor, TN rather than IPS because even the "economy IPS" monitors are at least twice the price of TN monitors, and I think I'd want the faster 2MS response time over the IPS 8MS response. I also note that the recommended IPS monitor (Dell U2412M) has dynamic ratio of 2,000,000:1 versus the TN monitor's 30,000,000:1 ratio....that must mean something, right?

Any further advice will be appreciated. Thanks again.

[Wolf_Rider]

I'm more than pleased with my LED Samsung PX 2370.




+1

[xnomad]

As for IPS and response time, if you get an IPS LED like the LG that I've got you get the best of both worlds. I don't think there are many manufacturers out there that do IPS LED other than LG.

I know it's good because not only do I fly sims I play TF2, DOD or Quake Live and I can be found at the top of the leader board on most servers I play on. I'm 34 and I'm kicking these 14 year olds at their game. :grin: so there is no display lag or ghosting.

As for immersion on larger monitors I'm not having any of it. When you are focused in the game you can't honestly tell me you are aware the monitor is bigger? You develop a tunnel vision. When I watch a movie at a Friend's with a huge TV and I come home and watch a movie at home I can't tell the difference whilst I'm watching. It's like reading a book you don't notice the book when you get engrossed. The only difference is that at the friend's house you have to sit further away. Big TV's are for bigger rooms not for wow factor.

[Tvrdi]

Make sure it has superior IPS panel. No color shifting at angles and picture looks much better. Also look for low input lag. If you want 24" ill go for Dell U2412M or HPZR24W and if you want 22" take Dell 2209WA. All of these monits had low input lag. Low response time advertised on cheaper monitors (TN panels) is fake and, in fact, modern IPS monitors are faster.

[Igo kyu]

I know the trend in monitors is towards 1920X1080. Why?
Because they want to only make TV panels, and if they can make monitors all be the same as cheap TVs, then they can make the monitors cheaper.

TVs want to be 1080 high to show films, which are usually even wider than that, so even on a 1920 * 1080 display films have black lines above and below.

It's all about aspect ratios, of which there are many:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29

[Blackdog_kt]

Thanks to all for the excellent comments/advice. I am getting educated.

My variation on the original question now is: What are the pros and cons of 1920X1080 versus 1980X1200. I know the trend in monitors is towards 1920X1080. Why? Again, I am primarily inteterested in flight simulations (COD, ROF, A10, and others), plus some First Person Shooters like the other COD (Call of Duty:MW series).

FYI, at this point in the discussion I am definitely turning towards a 24" monitor, TN rather than IPS because even the "economy IPS" monitors are at least twice the price of TN monitors, and I think I'd want the faster 2MS response time over the IPS 8MS response. I also note that the recommended IPS monitor (Dell U2412M) has dynamic ratio of 2,000,000:1 versus the TN monitor's 30,000,000:1 ratio....that must mean something, right?

Any further advice will be appreciated. Thanks again.

Like i said before (and yakaddict did so as well), if you do some reading up on how most of these specs are measured you'll see that they are not definitive, far from it.

The dynamic ratio is the ratio of full-blast white to pitch-dark black. It's supposed to be a measure of how good the monitor is at color variation but it's easy to manipulate to the manufacturer's favor due to the way the specs are defined: get a monitor with bad black colours, pump up it's white to the level it's burning holes in the customer's retinas and voila, according to specs your monitor has an incredible contrast ratio, but in reality it's a monitor that displays washed out black colours and annoyingly bright whites :-P

Also, make sure you know if the response times are black to white or gray to gray (g2g). On the same monitor, a g2g response time is slower than the black to white one, guess which one most panels quote in their specifications, another marketing trick ;)

However, a black to white response time is the least useful metric between the two. Imagine that the liquid crystals are shutters that manipulate how much light from the monitor's backlight lamp reaches the user and then think about the usual amount of colour variation you need a monitor to display during everyday use. It's not that often we get alternating frames of totally dark to totally bright colours, right? In fact, most of the time our monitors have to display variations between a middle range of colours and brightness values. In other words, g2g response time is what weighs more in how "fast" your monitor is during everyday use, unless you are running epilepsy-inducing screensavers :-P

A 8ms gray to gray response time is nothing to scoff at, a 2ms black to white response time however while impressive on paper tells you nothing about how the monitor performs in everyday use.

Another thing against TN panels is that most (if not all of them, i just don't know if it has been improved in the meantime) are incapable of true 32-bit colour depth. They can only do 24-bit colour and to create the illusion of 32-bit colour they swap pixels between different colours to come up with the ones they are missing.

The main reason to go for a TN panel is cost and yet, some of the so-called "gaming monitors" with TN panels are almost as expensive as IPS ones. If you really want to go for a TN panel for cost reasons my suggestion would be to get one with no "fancy" features like 120Hz refresh rates to really play up their advantage of lower cost: if a TN panel is approaching IPS prices, either get the IPS or a cheaper TN one.

Finally, keep in mind that different manufacturers may use the same panels in many of their models and if you are willing to shop around you can find the same panel (aka same image quality) at cheaper prices, due to differences in ergonomics (stand, etc) and connectors/plugs supplied by each manufacturer.

For example, my Dell 2209WA uses an IPS panel made by LG. A couple of months after i bought it, LG released a model of their own using the exact same panel that was cheaper. How? Well, my Dell simply had a better stand and a bezel with an integrated USB hub, while the LG had a cheaper one.

In that sense you could try to find similar panels between Dell, LG and Hazro monitors and see what you are willing to give up to get a better price. One model might have more connectors or even a USB hub and be more expensive, the other one might lack a couple of input jacks and be cheaper, another one might be similar to the previous but have a 1 year warranty instead of a 3 year one, etc.

Take a look at the ones suggested by Tvrdi for a start. As long as input lag is low and g2g response time is 8ms or less you have nothing to fear in terms of ghosting. ;)

[DoolittleRaider]

Again, thanks for the education Blackdog, and others.

Pressing forward/deeper, I'd like opinions in terms of Gaming...COD, ROF COD:MW, A10...What Aspect ratio (and native resolution) would be best for that set of software/games?

Generally I'm still not clear on advantages of 16:10 versus 16:9 monitors and aspect ratios, vis-a-vis Gaming.

I do watch *avi movies/TVepisodes, DVD ripped movies, on my PC Monitor. Would it matter in any way whether I had a 16:9 or a 16:10 native resolution Monitor?

Any clarification/advice will be appreciated.


P.S. I found these comments in a review of the Dell U2412M: "The Dell U2412M is not a true gaming monitor – no IPS panels offers that experience – but for most gaming, even semi-fast gaming, I see it as a fairly good solution. If you are a serious FPS or racing enthusiast I suggest you look for a 120 Hz TN panel instead" @Blackdog...this seems to run counter to your opinon. Any comments?

[Igo kyu]

Generally I'm still not clear on advantages of 16:10 versus 16:9 monitors and aspect ratios, vis-a-vis Gaming.

I do watch *avi movies/TVepisodes, DVD ripped movies, on my PC Monitor. Would it matter in any way whether I had a 16:9 or a 16:10 native resolution Monitor?
Hm, I don't play those games. I do play a lot of games, but they tend to be older games than those.

I think the thing about monitors and games is, the smaller the resolution of the monitor, the easier it is for graphics cards to draw images on it.

If all you cared about was games, the smaller the resolution the better (within limits: 800 * 600 was better for weak graphics cards, but boy was it ugly, but even that was much better than 640 * 480). However, if you want to look at text, then the more depth you have, the better. On the other hand, if you want only to look at cinema movies, then the width is paramount, up to a certain point, for movies the extra depth of a 1920 * 1200 screen is wasted. For old TV shows, the aspect ratio was 4:3, and height becomes an advantage. You tube movies were often in 4(width):3(height), and probably looked bad full screen on any size screen, but then again I'm judging that on animated GIFs which are all I've seen.

In the end, you have to decide what matters to you.

[DoolittleRaider]

Link the comment's origin? If its a comments section on a review, could be wrong, but either way, I'm interested!

See under "Response Time and Games" near end/bottom of Review, and also 3rd paragraph of "Conclusion"

[Zaltor]

I have 3 of these in crossfired eyefinity at 5760x1080

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005230

[Blackdog_kt]

With regards to the aspect ratio, flight simming was a factor in my decision to get my 22" IPS. It runs a somewhat lower resolution than most monitors (1680x1050) which makes it easier on the graphics card and it's 16:10.

That wasn't much of an advantage in IL2, but in flight sims with true widescreen mode like CoD it does give a bit of usable extra vertical space that i find useful: easier to check the sky above or keep tabs on the target in a banking turn during a dogfight.

[SFF_Karhu]

Hi.

Any opinion on this Hazro27 (http://www.hazro.co.uk/HZ27WC.php) monitor( IPS, 6ms, low input lag and the PRICE!)

Can my GPU, amd radeon 6970, handle the resolution 2560x1440? Or must I buy a 6990 or nvidia gtx580?

Has anyone 27 monitor with resolution 2560x1440 and playing Clod smoothly?