AOC Q2963PM Monitor Review: 2560x1080 Is A New Way To Play

[ceberle]

Does it tilt?
Having 2 in chain of those, tilted on the side, would be very nice for productivity apps, like coding, etc.

If by tilt, you mean rotate to portrait mode; no it does not.

-Christian

 

[ceberle]

You totally forgot to compare it to Dell U2913WM for little more there's 3years NBD warranty etc.. not to mention how does it compare picture-wise? Probably same panel used on both.

Right now, all 21:9 monitors use the same LG part. We'll have the NEC EA294WMi review done soon. And we're working on getting the Asus entry as well.

-Christian

 

[Max_x2]

Well i sure hope it performs better than the 2460 that i bought, and returned after a week of calibration without success. Every whites were yellowish. I bought a BenQ GW2450, now that's the way to go!

 

[falchard]

Nice price for such a large IPS panel monitor.

 

[Ceee9]

i been awhile since u let the word out of reviewing this kind of aspect monitor, without a doubt this is kinda complex review(maybe it was me) just i hope there is more real time example in the review and probably a little benchmark comparing 1080,1440p, and this monitor and images of wathing movie and gaming on the desired surrounding that u pointing at the last page of this article

probably will consider this monitor other than else, at least i will wait until more new 21:9 monitor next year

 

[toddybody]

Before I bought my 2560x1440 display, I thought heavily about the newer 2560x1080 displays. Very cool concept, but I think the daily usability of them diminish because of it's vertical res. IMO, one of those displays in portrait mode would be it's best implementation; fantastic for page/doc viewing.

 

[moogleslam]

What is the vertical height of the display itself (minus bezel/stand)?

 

[master9716]

I own triple 27" Asus Monitors , For me to upgrade they would have to sell a 32" version that I can stick in the middle and keep my current 27" for the side.

 

[Ceee9]

im sure because it only 1 year since the first LG release the first monitor at this resolution(im sure there already some tv with this before even lg launch it)

u are same with me bro, im waiting for 120hz or more and 3d support, and probably flat side not with that "boulder" at the side of the monitor

 

[InvalidError]

I thought heavily about the newer 2560x1080 displays. Very cool concept, but I think the daily usability of them diminish because of it's vertical res. IMO, one of those displays in portrait mode would be it's best implementation; fantastic for page/doc viewing.

Except many websites and applications are designed with horizontal resolution of 1200+ pixels in mind so anything below 1200 is very likely to end up with horizontal scrolling. So IMO, 1200p is the minimum resolution for optimal portrait use.

I have a 22" 1080p LCD almost permanently in portrait mode and horizontal scrolling bugs me quite a bit when I use it for something that does not quite fit right in such a narrow screen.

 

[ceberle]

What is the vertical height of the display itself (minus bezel/stand)?

The viewable area is 26.65 x 11.43 inches.

-Christian

 

[Ceee9]

and how much the height different from the base and the monitor?

 

[Ceee9]

i mean the spacing between the base and the monitor itself

 

[nebun]

nice side to side view....does not work very well for games because of the limited up-front view....it does not have height adjustment.....this is the biggest downfall for most monitors these days.

 

[bpdski]

Nice monitor. Now what I'd really like to see is a 3792x1600 IPS display. I probably couldn't afford it though

 

[knowom]

Nice to see more of these displays, but the price needs to drop down to around the $200-$250 range.

You can get two 1080x1920 displays for about that price which actually provide more resolution overall consumers aren't stupid.

 

[InvalidError]

You can get two 1080x1920 displays for about that price which actually provide more resolution overall consumers aren't stupid.

Large panels with more pixels carry higher risk of defect so they usually come with a significant premium attached. There is also a premium due to these models being relatively low-volume production so there aren't nearly as many units to spread R&D, tooling and other mostly fixed costs on. And then you have the premium for the sake of being premium that often gets tacked on top of that.

If you are ok with getting a bunch of whatever monitors have the lowest $/pixel regardless of quality, input selection, adjustability and other features, getting a bunch of disposable $100 1080p panels makes sense.

If you are a professional of some sort who could really use more pixels in any one dimension and would very much prefer not to have bezels between screens in a multi-display setup, paying the premium to fit more pixels per piece of glass might be much easier on your nerves.

Ex.: 1200p might be only 10% more pixels than 1080p but I would gladly pay a 30% premium for it just to eliminate horizontal scrolling when I use my 1080p UltraSharp in portrait mode. Problem is most 1200p screens of similar quality cost more than twice as much as what I paid for my 2212. (Bought it on sale at 60% off.)

 

[bowzef]

make a isp with 120hz with low input lagg, then everyone will buy it, simple as that idc how you get there use 2 dvi ports use a display port 1.2 idc give it to me or i'm sticking to TN 1080p 120hz for rest of my life, its simple as that all i care about is input lag is lowest.

 

[Tson]

As an owner of the Dell U2913WM, with the same size and resolution, I thought I'd relay my experiences from a productivity point of view.

Firstly, this is the resolution monitor you want if your setup is restricted to a single screen, or you have overhead space limitations. For me I tried a dual monitor setup before this, to get the extra screen real estate, but ultimately I had to give up on it as my desk space just didn't conveniently accommodate it. The reason I choose not to go with the more common 2560x1440 was two fold. One, my desk has a hutch above it that didn't allow for the added height, and second the price (though minor) was more for what I perceived to be a lower quality screen.

What the 2560 wide resolution monitors regardless of height allow for is a much more comfortable side by side windows 'snap' experience. I like to snap my windows left and right in Windows 7 to give that perfect 50/50 windows orientation when working. At 1920 wide (your typical FullHD screen) I still found many programs and websites to feel squished. I found after snapping the windows I'd often find myself adjusting the widths wider to accommodate what I was working on. With the extra pixels of the wider monitors I'm finding the 50/50 split to be perfect for just about everything.

Ultimately, in my opinion, it is the 2560 width that is important. If your desk can accommodate the taller monitor then go for it. But if it can't the 2560x1080 in my opinion is absolutely an option.

I can't speak for the AOC, but the Dell U2913WM is a phenomenal choice. Color representation is better then any monitor I've ever owned. I bought the Dell to replace an eight month old 1920x1080 Asus monitor that gets rave reviews online but that I always found to be atrocious. I knew I had problems with its color but failed to realize how bad the color really was on the Asus I replaced until I had it side by side with the Dell. But that wasn't my purpose of posting a comment so I'll leave it at that.

I think the article gives a deceptively negative review of the aspect ratio from a productivity standpoint by making the majority of its observations against the larger 2560x1440 aspect ratio rather than the more common 1920x1080.

I would agree though, that if your space allows and your pocket book doesn't cringe, the 2560x1440 would be the better choice. But if you fall into my category where the hutch above your desk doesn't allow for you to place the taller monitor under it the 2560x1080 resolution is the perfect choice.

 

[InvalidError]

What the 2560 wide resolution monitors regardless of height allow for is a much more comfortable side by side windows 'snap' experience. I like to snap my windows left and right in Windows 7 to give that perfect 50/50 windows orientation when working. At 1920 wide (your typical FullHD screen) I still found many programs and websites to feel squished.

This is fundamentally the same reason I want 1200p or better for portrait-mode: too much stuff is designed for near-1280-wide monitors/windows so 1080p in portrait does not quite cut it either - too narrow, just like 960-wide split-screen.

 

[Ceee9]

so tson, how good is the dell monitor compared to this aoc?

 

[Tson]

so tson, how good is the dell monitor compared to this aoc?

Sorry Ceee9, I really can't say. Haven't seen the AOC in person. My comments weren't intended to compare the Dell to the AOC but rather give my opinions on the native resolution. I will say the Dell has amazing color. I've been very happy with it. And the input choices on the Dell are terrific. Only criticism is the changing of inputs goes through the menu and its a bloody nuisance.

Someone in the comments earlier made the suggestion that this form factor is uncommon enough that these screens are probably all the same panel. Wouldn't surprise me if he's right.

 

[Ceee9]

oh okay, thanks for it~

 

[Ryan Klug]

This monitor format seems like a great compromise for someone who doesn't have the space for a triple monitor setup. I use 2 1080p monitors for work, but could easily see how one extra-wide one would be fine with Aero snapping. No bezel would be the best for gaming, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

 

[ubercake]

This monitor format seems like a great compromise for someone who doesn't have the space for a triple monitor setup. I use 2 1080p monitors for work, but could easily see how one extra-wide one would be fine with Aero snapping. No bezel would be the best for gaming, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

While this is true, they are selling 2560x1440 monitors (ok, so they're lower-end but still if it's resolution and color accuracy you're going for...) for the same price these days. They need to drop the price of these things if they want to sell a large quantity of these.

The fact of the matter is 1080p monitors are currently well over-priced for the most part. 1080p monitors are also the most popular monitors and most available these days. The industry doesn't want to lower the revenue stream from that type of monitor yet because they have a very efficient production process with this size panel. Until they lower the price of standard 1080p monitors, we won't see any special higher resolutions for reasonable prices.