Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ASUS MX279H 27-inch LED-Lit AH IPS Monitor

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

  • #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