Monitor - S27A950 or S27A850 ,which one?

[Codex]

You've got SLI right? If you can manage an extra $100 why not go multi monitor?

I had an older Samsung 27" 1920x1200 but just got 3 x SA700D 120Hz monitors from Scorptec for $900.

It's amazing, 5760x1080, I rate going from a single display to multi like getting TrackIR for the first time.

Only drawback is current active display port adapters are locked at 60Hz, but I've contacted a couple of suppliers at CES and they're telling me 120Hz adapters should be available in about 3 months time.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by He111

Hmmmmm, i'm on the horns of a dilemma .. ouch! Do I ; ..

(a) go for the Samsung S27A950 monitor with 1920 x 1080 resolution, 2 MS G-T-G response time, 120 Mhz frequency @ about $600 .. or

(b) go for the Samsung S27A850 monitor with 2560 X 1440 resolution, 5 MS G-T-G response time, ??? frequency @ about $800

The 850 has great resolution but am worried about the response time. Does anyone have this monitor, does it run CloD ok?

Thanks

.

i wouldnt worry about the response time if i were you, its a minor issue that is not really relevant anymore (and hasnt been an issue for the better midrange monitors for 5 yrs or so). only the cheaper range of TN based gamer monitors is still hyped for their speed (often because their actual display quality is so much worse then normal midrange monitors which might be a few msec slower, and they have little else to boast about to the uninformed general public, so they use "speed" as a smokescreen for quality).

your biggest potential problem, for a pc system you will use both for gaming and general use, is the extra pixels your pc will need to push to display the higher pixel count in the higher resolution monitor. in my opinion the higher resolution is not worth while, it will cost you a small fortune in multiple gfx cards to try and game at that resolution. even if you have deep pockets, better save that potential extra cash to later go to a multi monitor setup to get better peripheral vision. a good monitor will also outlive many other components on your pc that you might need to upgrade over time (cpu and gpu) to stay in the performance zone needed for current games, and each time having to upgrade multiple gfx cards will get very expensive.

i have been using a dell 27' (1920 x 1200) for the last 5 years, and its a very good resolution for both general use and gaming. font sizes are about right in most programs (you can for ex display two A4 word documents or two web browsers side by side and have the text easy to read from normal viewing distance), and you have a significantly larger gaming window compared to 23' or 24' users who have the same resolution (and hence can use a wider FoV setting in il2/CoD).

also remember that ever since its inception in il2, and still with CoD today, some users have been using LOWER resolutions then their standard 1920 x 1200 (or 1080 often now) to try and improve frame rates and dot visibility, for people to deliberatly go for a system with 40% more pixels to push per same monitor size is maybe not the best choice right now (note: you could run the higher rez monitor at 1/2 is resolution potentially to improve fpsec, but that kinda defeats the purpose imho). also some gamers have even been using 40' or 50' tv screen lcd's at 1920 x 1080 in order to get better screen sizes (and better FoV's), and some gamers with high resolution 30' pc monitor lcd's have been running them at 1/2 resolution in oreder to get decent fpsec's in il2 (or be able to spot dot's of other aircraft).

one other thing to be aware of, it is possible the lower resolution model you quoted is using TN based technology for the panel, which would make it a 6 bit monitor (most mid range and better monitors are 8 bit color), and i would warn you against those lower quality "gamer" panel, partic at the premium prices when people think they are getting a "good" monitor.. dont be to quick in making a rushed impulse buy, but do your homework first. as a start maybe look at some of the good independent tech reviews at sites like prad.de etc.. other superficial reviews from most mainstream computer mag's are often superficial beatups of products made by advertisers in that same mag, so are often over rated by their reviewers because that is how the publishers make their money.

when i changed from using CRT's to LCD monitors years ago, i returned the first 2 lcd monitors i bought the next day because they were so much worse then the good viewsonic CRT i had been using the previous years. after that i held onto my money and did my homework for a few weeks, and then bought my first good lcd ( which i was happy with, and which was noticable better then the first 2 misbuy's i had made). some years after that i bought the larger 27' i am still using now (selected after lots of tech reviews), and i have been very happy with this one to.

remember, the hunt is much more fun then the kill and the end product you get you will have to live with for some years to come, long past your urgency to spend your money has died away

Edit: /\/\ How did I not see that post?

If you're going with the second monitor you have to remember at the native resolution you're going to have to push an extra 1,612,800 pixels. That's 77% of the first choice, and that's a hell of a lot of extra number crunching. Playing Clod on the first might mean being able to play everything close to max, and on the second one everything close to medium if you want to keep the native resolutions.