24 or 27 inch

[mikaelis]

Fellow codexers, I am now buying new PC setup and have the fucking head-spinning problem with the monitor, or rather its size.
To start with: the choice is between 24 and 27 inch. The question is for those of you who have either 24 or 27 inch 16:9 ratio:
How are they? Too big? Too small? I am planning to use it mostly for gaming, but also as a replacement for TV set (mostly for movies). Don't know which too choose. 24 seems good on my desk, but 27 would always be better while seating on the couch watching and watching
I am just wonderingabout the compromise between quality and size. Specifically, I am thinking about IIYAMA 2473 HDS and 2773 HDS. Is it worth 70 GBP to go for the bigger screen considering my needs?

EDIT::

Fuck, sorry for posting here, was supposed to be in GD/

 

[Turisas]

16:9 is popamole, go with the superior 16:10.

 

[mikaelis]

16:9 is popamole, go with the superior 16:10.

Would do that for sure, but they are much rarer and expensive now in those popamole days, or?

 

[Gragt]

Yeah, I also wanted to pick a 16:10 when my old screen died but it was harder than it was worth, so i took a 16:9. Stil good for what it is.

Anyway about your question, I did not want a screen too big but in the end I settled for 24 because the others available at smaller size were more expensive and got worse reviews than the one I got now. I find that it's a good size, and I probably wouldn't mind bigger, but I'm fine with it that way. I'd say that a bigger screen could be nice if you plan to sit a bit away from it, for watching movies or playing games with a pad, but 24 is still nice. If you have no special needs and aren't sure about paying more for a size increase, I don't think it's worth it.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Get an IPS screen whatever you do. Prices on these have dropped significantly. I swear to you that you will never go back.

 

[Haba]

For desk use, even 23" is large. I couldn't see myself using a bigger screen really. Multiple screens yes, but not bigger.

 

[Destroid]

Dell make a good 24" 16:10. You can still get a high quality 4:3 20" from them too. We should probably sticky one of these LCD threads we get every few months.

 

[Gragt]

Ah yes, IPS is the way to go.

 

[sea]

24-inch LCD is fine if you have a regular setup. Anything bigger is generally too big unless you sit back from your computer a bit. If you're just a couple of feet away you should be just fine.

As for 16:9 vs. 16:10... 16:10 gives more vertical space for desktop use, but most games and movies are made for 16:9 and so don't play well with 16:10. It's worth noting that with most games, you will see less of the screen at 16:10 than 16:9, and that many games, due to being designed around 16:9, don't play so well with 16:10, featuring graphic anomalies like HUD stretching etc. If you're primarily a gamer I would say get a 16:9 screen, while if you want something better for straight desktop use, 16:10 makes a bit more sense.

IPS panels are much better as far as colour reproduction goes, but if you're a twitch gamer you might want to go with a TN panel instead, as even with technology improving every few months, there's still significantly more input lag with an IPS panel than TN. I'm already extremely sensitive to input lag as it is, so I fear anything rated more than 5ms latency would throw me off a good deal. Additionally, TN panels, especially on larger monitors, tend to look pretty good these days - a far cry from the 17" LCDs that were common a couple of years back. Once you have your monitor calibrated a TN panel can look pretty great.

 

[Gragt]

That's fun, because I've always been sensitive to input lag as well (a reason why I kept my CRT so long), and I notice none on my IPS screen. Either it's just fine, or my senses got dulled with age. :D

 

[Destroid]

24-inch LCD is fine if you have a regular setup. Anything bigger is generally too big unless you sit back from your computer a bit. If you're just a couple of feet away you should be just fine.

As for 16:9 vs. 16:10... 16:10 gives more vertical space for desktop use, but most games and movies are made for 16:9 and so don't play well with 16:10. It's worth noting that with most games, you will see less of the screen at 16:10 than 16:9, and that many games, due to being designed around 16:9, don't play so well with 16:10, featuring graphic anomalies like HUD stretching etc. If you're primarily a gamer I would say get a 16:9 screen, while if you want something better for straight desktop use, 16:10 makes a bit more sense.

IPS panels are much better as far as colour reproduction goes, but if you're a twitch gamer you might want to go with a TN panel instead, as even with technology improving every few months, there's still significantly more input lag with an IPS panel than TN. I'm already extremely sensitive to input lag as it is, so I fear anything rated more than 5ms latency would throw me off a good deal. Additionally, TN panels, especially on larger monitors, tend to look pretty good these days - a far cry from the 17" LCDs that were common a couple of years back. Once you have your monitor calibrated a TN panel can look pretty great.

Input lag is highly variable by model, it's not really useful to generalise by panel type.

 

[ChristofferC]

24-inch LCD is fine if you have a regular setup. Anything bigger is generally too big unless you sit back from your computer a bit. If you're just a couple of feet away you should be just fine.

As for 16:9 vs. 16:10... 16:10 gives more vertical space for desktop use, but most games and movies are made for 16:9 and so don't play well with 16:10. It's worth noting that with most games, you will see less of the screen at 16:10 than 16:9, and that many games, due to being designed around 16:9, don't play so well with 16:10, featuring graphic anomalies like HUD stretching etc. If you're primarily a gamer I would say get a 16:9 screen, while if you want something better for straight desktop use, 16:10 makes a bit more sense.

IPS panels are much better as far as colour reproduction goes, but if you're a twitch gamer you might want to go with a TN panel instead, as even with technology improving every few months, there's still significantly more input lag with an IPS panel than TN. I'm already extremely sensitive to input lag as it is, so I fear anything rated more than 5ms latency would throw me off a good deal. Additionally, TN panels, especially on larger monitors, tend to look pretty good these days - a far cry from the 17" LCDs that were common a couple of years back. Once you have your monitor calibrated a TN panel can look pretty great.

I just want to point out that the 5ms is for transitioning from gray to gray. Other transitions are usually slower so the number doesn't say much.

 

[sea]

Yeah I know about the numbers being more or less bullshit, but even so usually higher numbers do indicate longer response times all the same. I'd have to try an IPS panel before buying it, though, whereas just about any TN is guaranteed to be lag-free.

 

[Metro]

For desk use, even 23" is large. I couldn't see myself using a bigger screen really.

This.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I don't have a problem playing 60FPS FPS on my IPS screen. There's also an option for gaming content.

 

[Haba]

I don't have a problem playing 60FPS FPS on my IPS screen. There's also an option for gaming content.

I have one of the most responsive IPS screens on the market and the input lag is bad. But then again I recently transitioned from CRT, so...

 

[Humanity has risen!]

You get used to it after a while, and don't even notice anything.

 

[Multidirectional]

Go with 27 inches if you can I say. It might seem too big at first but you'll be glad eventually. Shit, I started using 32 inch TV as a replacement for my old 19 inch CRT and got used to it very quickly.

 

[Turisas]

As for 16:9 vs. 16:10... 16:10 gives more vertical space for desktop use, but most games and movies are made for 16:9 and so don't play well with 16:10. It's worth noting that with most games, you will see less of the screen at 16:10 than 16:9, and that many games, due to being designed around 16:9, don't play so well with 16:10, featuring graphic anomalies like HUD stretching etc. If you're primarily a gamer I would say get a 16:9 screen, while if you want something better for straight desktop use, 16:10 makes a bit more sense.

Jealous 16:9 user talk.

Nonsense that it'd be "most" games that suffer from those - if all you're playing is straight console ports, you're not a PC gamer anyway.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Get an IPS screen whatever you do. Prices on these have dropped significantly. I swear to you that you will never go back.

While there's no question colour accuracy on IPS panels is superior, that's simply not important for gaming.

Personally, I'd go for a 120hz display over IPS for gaming. Apart from the ability to do 3D on them (which is not for me), the refresh rate brings the panel up to CRT standard and is noticeably smoother and easier on the eyes than std 60hz panels. Be warned though, once you've used one for gaming, you can never go back.

I have an Asus 23" 3D monitor - but if I was buying one today I'd get the new led backlit 27" model.

BTW: I also have an IPS monitor I use for other things.

 

[praetor]

pixel response time has little to do with imput lag. it's more of a ghosting/blur thing.

 

[Destroid]

Well, whatever you decide to do, take a look at the reviews from tftcentral.co.uk they are very comprehensive.

 

[abija]

Personally, I'd go for a 120hz display over IPS for gaming. Apart from the ability to do 3D on them (which is not for me), the refresh rate brings the panel up to CRT standard and is noticeably smoother and easier on the eyes than std 60hz panels. Be warned though, once you've used one for gaming, you can never go back.

The refresh requirement for CRT has nothing to do with LCD and that high value it's only beneficial if you play shooters and your rig is cruising at 120fps.
OT: If the panels are same quality, go for 27 or even higher (but at 1440p or w/e the next resolution after 1080 is). You'll get used pretty fast regardless of your desk size. Worst case scenario you disable scaling and play in lower resolutions.

As for all the other common problems (response time, colors, uneven back lights) there's only one solution, you need to check the monitor before buying and see what you tolerate and what not.

 

[praetor]

Well, whatever you decide to do, take a look at the reviews from tftcentral.co.uk they are very comprehensive.

+1. best monitor review site around

 

[commie]

As for 16:9 vs. 16:10... 16:10 gives more vertical space for desktop use, but most games and movies are made for 16:9 and so don't play well with 16:10. It's worth noting that with most games, you will see less of the screen at 16:10 than 16:9, and that many games, due to being designed around 16:9, don't play so well with 16:10, featuring graphic anomalies like HUD stretching etc. If you're primarily a gamer I would say get a 16:9 screen, while if you want something better for straight desktop use, 16:10 makes a bit more sense.

Jealous 16:9 user talk.

Nonsense that it'd be "most" games that suffer from those - if all you're playing is straight console ports, you're not a PC gamer anyway.

Always funny to read about the 16:9 v 16:10 debate when everyone knows that all the good games are for 4:3.