Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ASUS MX279H 27-inch LED-Lit AH IPS Monitor

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    4K monitors will be more common over the next 8 months as the 28-inch panels are now widely available and the new GPUs coming in that time are all 4K capable with video decoding for 4K h.264. Save your money!

    Comment


    • #17
      No DisplayPort? Pass.

      Originally posted by elapsed View Post
      What's going on with the lack of DVI sockets in new screens??

      HDMI has a latency overhead that makes it inappropriate for gaming.
      Lack of DVI is fine, it's an obsolete standard, DisplayPort is the official successor. But no DisplayPort is the strange thing. It's even a royalty-free VESA standard, unlike HDMI. And like DVI.

      Originally posted by Serafean View Post
      Well, for starters "because we can" is a pretty good reason. Pushing the limit is always fun.
      Other than that, I guarantee that after reading for a long time on a low(er) DPI display my eyes hurt a lot more than on a high DPI display. Admittedly at some point it starts getting useless, but we're not there yet.

      My main issue with this (and most) screens is the useless 16:9 ratio. I have two 4:3 displays connected to my main PC, and I wouldn't change them even if you gave me a 16:9 for free (I'd consider 16:10).
      People are a lot better at reading vertically than horizontally => for written content widescreen makes no sense at all. Hollywood won that battle
      We're there already if you sit far enough from the screen (which you should). Though for a 27" it's a bit extreme, yes, because for it to become "retina" your eyes need to be 107 cm away from the screen. On my monitor (21.5") the distance for that is only 86 cm. You can test other configurations here: http://isthisretina.com/

      Also, one thing I don't like about high resolutions is the bad backwards compatibility of certain games and whatnot. FPS games adapt to higher resolutions perfectly, but things like older RTS games? If they used static images, then increasing the resolution increases the area you can see, but the items in the area become extremely small.

      As for the ratios, I agree, 16:9 is not really good for reading. Though some monitors allow you to flip the screen to get 9:16 instead (but at least on my tablet it's even less good for reading that way, because pages always have margins that take a lot of space, and the size of the screen is lower than an A4 page, of course). In general I feel that 1:1 might be a pretty good standard, which also allows for extensibility with multiple monitors. Monitors are flat, yet our vision is circular, so the more break points, the less distortion there is.

      Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
      The only reason I use big screens is for daily work. They offer as much pixels as two separate monitors, but without the frames in between. For webdesign, code on the left, browser on the right. For latex, code on the left, pdf-viewer on the right. And in general, it allows a lot of multitasking without hiding any windows.
      Yes, that's certainly a fair rationale. The thing with 1920x1080 is not the height, but the width. 1920/2=960 which is less than 1024, the baseline lowest resolution people tend to optimise their programs or webpages for. So for having two things open simultaneously, you generally need 2048 or larger width (usually a bit larger, as you also need to deal with window decoration space). However, there is still the problem of window managers. You need to use a tiling one to make the most use of it. While with dual monitors you can use the desktop paradigm to manage them separately, so you can work efficiently without switching out the window manager or changing the usual habits.

      Personally I'm considering going for a dual-monitor setup right now, as some things I do could really benefit from it in terms of productivity, and my current monitor is pretty bad as it is...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by elapsed View Post
        What's going on with the lack of DVI sockets in new screens??

        HDMI has a latency overhead that makes it inappropriate for gaming.
        DVI is being phased out by manufacturers of GPUs and HDMI is cheaper to implement now not to mention that it's preferred simply because there are far more HDMI devices like game consoles, smartphones, and tablets than there are DVI devices.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
          DVI is being phased out by manufacturers of GPUs and HDMI is cheaper to implement now not to mention that it's preferred simply because there are far more HDMI devices like game consoles, smartphones, and tablets than there are DVI devices.
          Yes, but HDMI is shit for anything > 1080p. You can blast 2560x1440 @ 120 Hz and 32 Bit colordepth (about 14 Gbps of data) over a short high quality Dual-Link DVI connection. Try that with HDMI. I haven't seen HDMI 2.0 anywhere.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
            No DisplayPort? Pass.
            Lack of DVI is fine, it's an obsolete standard, DisplayPort is the official successor. But no DisplayPort is the strange thing. It's even a royalty-free VESA standard, unlike HDMI. And like DVI.
            DP comes once DVI is dead, which happens with the next generation of monitors that will do away with LVDS. Then many monitors will be packing HDMI and DP.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
              DVI is being phased out by manufacturers of GPUs and HDMI is cheaper to implement now not to mention that it's preferred simply because there are far more HDMI devices like game consoles, smartphones, and tablets than there are DVI devices.
              How is HDMI cheaper to implement, when it has royalty fees? Also, for PC monitors, HDMI has some issues, at least in Windows, as graphics drivers misidentify such monitors as TVs and then display things improperly.

              Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
              DP comes once DVI is dead, which happens with the next generation of monitors that will do away with LVDS. Then many monitors will be packing HDMI and DP.
              Sure takes a while to die. Then again, VGA is still around, and it's terrible (in my university virtually all projectors use VGA, and many of those fail to display different colours and/or flicker and have low resolutions).

              Comment


              • #22
                Another thing Michael didn't mention is whether or not it uses Pulsed Width Modulation to control brightness. PWM causes flicker when not at full brightness but is annoyingly quite common.

                Hmm, I use a 2560x1440 27" monitor. Great for coding work with different documents on each half of the screen, and I actually find 16:9 bearable at this size. I would recommend it (Dell something or other) but with 4k around that might be a better option... smoother fonts are somewhat underrated.

                Oh, yeah, HDMI sucks... despite HDMI 1.3 being nearly 8 years old, my new laptop only supports HDMI 1.2 with a max resolution of 1200x1080. Stupid...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                  So for having two things open simultaneously, you generally need 2048 or larger width (usually a bit larger, as you also need to deal with window decoration space). However, there is still the problem of window managers. You need to use a tiling one to make the most use of it. While with dual monitors you can use the desktop paradigm to manage them separately, so you can work efficiently without switching out the window manager or changing the usual habits.
                  or maybe you just need a good non-tiled window manager.

                  With my setup:

                  Windows-Key + left click moves windows, Windows-Key + right click resizes. No hunting for window titles or borders.
                  Shortcuts to move a window across the left half, across the right half, to the right upper quarter or the right lower quarter.

                  That serves pretty much all my needs. I'm sure I might save a few milliseconds here and there if I bothered to learn a tiled window manager, but then again the way I'm using it now is still faster than my old dual-monitor setup. Back then, when I wanted a window on the other screen, I had to unmaximize, drag the window to the other screen, then maximize - three actions. Today it's one hotkey, and there's no 4cm of frames between the pictures.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Cyborg16 View Post
                    Hmm, I use a 2560x1440 27" monitor. Great for coding work with different documents on each half of the screen, and I actually find 16:9 bearable at this size. I would recommend it (Dell something or other) but with 4k around that might be a better option... smoother fonts are somewhat underrated.
                    Im in the 27" 2560x1440 camp myself. When I really need to be in work mode, I grab my two 24" 1080P screens from the basement and put them in portrait orientation on each side. That way, I can work in the middle monitor, have groupware open on the left, and use the right monitor as my scratchpad and web browser. The benefit is that I can still see 'everything' regardless of where my current focus is.

                    I almost wish that Apple would sell 1440x960 screens for use as 'wings' for their iMacs and 1600x900 screens as wings for their cinema displays.
                    Last edited by russofris; 03-14-2014, 02:39 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      At 21", 1080p (my monitor's res) is decent. I can imagine 1440 being comfortable for a 27" monitor.

                      What really bothers me is when they put an ultra-bright backlight and have no way to dim it...I could swear my monitor's bezel was black when I bought it--it's turning red near the screen edges. lol

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Considering all the ASUS products showing up recently, I would presume they're sending these to Michael. Good journalists, such as those on BenchmarkReviews, disclose this right at the beginning of their articles. Not to mention Michael is biased towards anybody giving him free stuff... :/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MWisBest View Post
                          Considering all the ASUS products showing up recently, I would presume they're sending these to Michael. Good journalists, such as those on BenchmarkReviews, disclose this right at the beginning of their articles. Not to mention Michael is biased towards anybody giving him free stuff... :/
                          Mmmmm, I presume that you are presuming...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            If you had the choice between a 27 inch with 2560x1440@60FPS and a 27 inch with 1920x1080@120FPS which one would you buy and why? I ask this because I think higher framerate is more important than higher ppi but I could be wrong because I have no experience with either.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Ferdinand View Post
                              If you had the choice between a 27 inch with 2560x1440@60FPS and a 27 inch with 1920x1080@120FPS which one would you buy and why? I ask this because I think higher framerate is more important than higher ppi but I could be wrong because I have no experience with either.
                              Humans can't physically see more than about 70-80 fps, so I fail to see the need for 120fps (or god forbid the even higher we-sell-placebo numbers, 240hz 480hz etc). 60Hz LCDs are perfectly comfortable to me, so I'd get that one.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                                Humans can't physically see more than about 70-80 fps, so I fail to see the need for 120fps (or god forbid the even higher we-sell-placebo numbers, 240hz 480hz etc). 60Hz LCDs are perfectly comfortable to me, so I'd get that one.
                                Actually the 120Hz displays are more often than not for 3D : 2x60Hz. It kind of makes sense...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X