Is a 27' 1080 too grainy when sitting close (sniping on BF3?)

Antisthenes

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2011
48
0
18,530
0
I'm a perfectionist, but don't have enough money to buy a 1500 dollar monitor, so I am considering to buy one of these:

Dell U2711
HP ZR2740
Asus VG278H (120hz)

I am only going to use the monitor for gaming. Have a GTX 680, soon SLI. MOBO: Asus x79. CPU: i7-3820. Here is the dilemma. I hate microstuttering and ghosting, so a 120hz is nice in that regard, but I fear that I will get annoyed by the 1900x1080 resolution. And I know that I will look closely for reduced sharpness as a result of fewer pixels. I like to sit close to the monitor, especially when sniping, so do you think I will get too bothered by this, or is the Asus VG278H so good that the sacrifice of resolution is worth it?

Or will 680 SLI be able to run 2500x1400 in a way which is smooth, no microstuttering or microflimmering?

Let me stress that I am a perfectionist, though not completly obsessed by it. I'm pretty happy with my old HP w2408h, and after tweaking the colours of BENQ XL2420T I liked that one too. But found a dead pixel so returned the BENQ and still feel satisfied with the HP, though I could clearly see the difference between 60 and 120hz.

I will rather sacrifice some colour quality if it is necessary to experience a smooth gameplay, no microstuttering or microflimmering, on very high settings. But certainly don't like grainy pictures, so will not choose 1900x1080 if pixels are too large. What do you recommend?
 

Antisthenes

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2011
48
0
18,530
0
I don't use anything less than 24', so the question only applies to whether it is worth getting a 27' 1080 res when being a relative perfectionist regarding gaming, or if a 680 SLI can run a 27' 2500x1400.
 

farrengottu

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2011
912
0
19,160
56
i feel my 27s look great, being 1080p screens. sure higher resolutions are nice but 3 27" 1080p screens cost about the same as a 27" 2560 x 1440 monitor and look better for games.
 

steelviper

Honorable
Mar 19, 2012
113
0
10,680
0
I have a Dell 2709W, 1920x1200 monitor and all games look great not grainy at all. and all im running is a radeon 4870X2
 

ubercake

Splendid
Moderator
27" 1080P looks great. I don't notice any pixelated imagery.

Of course, the 2560x1440 will be much sharper, but when you start looking at those monitors, you need to start considering input lag issues and ghosting with the IPS monitors of this resolution, especially when it comes to the multi-player first-person shooters. There is definitely a trade-off. Fast response, poor viewing angle, and sub-par color in the 1080P TN monitor or superb color, superb viewing angle, ghosting and input lag with the IPS monitor. The TN is all about responsiveness whereas the IPS is all about quality.

I can't wait for the day of a good IPS 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor with 120Hz refresh with a 1 or 2ms response time. The ghosting and input lag are the only things keeping me from going with these monitors at this time.
 
I like my 27" and do not notice graininess. Although if you are such a perfectionist, and you look close enough, you could probably make out some imperfections, mostly when it comes to text. In a game like BF3 and gaming in general, it should be a lot less noticeable.

The amount of GPU power needed for 2560x1440 is similar to that of 1080p 120hz, if you are trying for near 120 FPS. The only difference is you also need more CPU power for 120 FPS.
 

catatafish

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2012
448
0
18,810
17
I'm using the Planar 27" 1080 that they post coupon codes for here on Tom's for $209. I see no pixels and no squares when it should be smooth. Although I don't snipe much, the times that I have, I never had a moment of "oh damn I can't shoot his head because when I move my mouse the cursor jumps too much from pixel to pixel". But then again, I hate sniping and I'm not very good at it, so consider the source.

Personally, I don't play at a 20 degree angle from my computer so I couldn't care less about color quality at angles. I pretty much sit right in front of it, and I'm about 5 feet away.

There is no way I would trade resolution for size after playing on a bigger screen.....especially for BF3. At 27" I'm very immersed. I plan on buying two more of the Planars and can't imagine trading 3 monitors at that resolution for 1 24" monitor at 1600. But I'm old, half blind so again, consider the source.

One thing about vision....you tend to get used to whatever it is you're looking at. Sure, comparing things side by side you will see "omg that 1600 is so much crisper" but for me, there is no substitute for enemies running around 3" tall rather than half that size.
 

monsta

Splendid
My Samsung 27.5 inch looks amazing with detail , no grainy pixelling at all. Once you go 27 inch any smaller monitors looks really small and hard to go back to.
You got nothing to worry about.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
5
I also have a 1920x1200 LCD running on a 4870x2. Not grainy at all. Very crisp. I'm not quite ready to take the plunge to a 30" monster for the before mentioned reasons. Certainly, were I to buy a new LCD, the 120 Hz thing would trump resolution...
 


He is looking at getting 120hz 1080p or 60hz 2560x1440. If he is getting 1080p at 120hz and wants to utilize the hz, he's going to want as many fps as possible up to 120 FPS, which takes twice the power as normal. I personally do the same for 3D Vision, which requires the system to draw 2 images for every frame. One for each eye.
 
480 SLi gets 100fps + in crysis 2 DX11 on max settings at 1080p, i doubt 680 SLi will have any issues.
I just tested it myself with 2 680's. I did have to disable the 3D Vision drivers (they sap power) and force max refresh rate for Crysis 2 to go into 120hz mode, but I was getting between 100-120 FPS. I imagine the dips are due to my i7 920. It is OC'ed to 3.8Ghz atm, but it definitely could be faster with Sandy Bridge.

I just tested Metro 2033, and it too can achieve near 120hz most the time. In the outputs, with all the people around, it drops, but I believe that is a CPU bottleneck and it doesn't effect combat. I also don't have the fastest CPU.
 

Desert Eagle

Honorable
Mar 26, 2012
107
0
10,710
6
I have a 27 inch Asus that I game on. I sit about 2 to 2.5 ft from the monitor and it looks great to me. I like the size. I wouldn't go back to a smaller screen after owning this one.
 
Like you all have noticed by now, it's a perspective (or non objective) situation.

My point is... If you feel you're seeing blocks, then you're too close to the screen and if you don't want to change how far you are from the screen, get a smaller one, but keep the resolution :p

Cheers!
 

catatafish

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2012
448
0
18,810
17


Agree on both points. It's quite subjective.

There is a sweet spot between the distance/resolution/size function and it just varies some by each person.

And I have a feeling the OP won't need to put his face so close to the monitor if he's using a 27".

But then again, he might get all Rainman if he detects a pixel.

OP you may want to go to a big box store and check one out personally. It's a good bit of money to return one with shipping and all.

For now, I'm going to blame my low KDR on all the kids with 120hz monitors at 1200 res rather than my spastic mouse hand :).

 
I could see it being a CPU issue, however a 920 is a decent cpu still..
It's decent if overclocked, which mine is at 3.8Ghz at the moment. It is still slower than the new Sandy Bridge systems that also OC much higher, but not enough to upgrade yet. I'll be waiting for a significant upgrade before I pull the trigger.
 

Antisthenes

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2011
48
0
18,530
0
Thanks for all replies! Went to a store but it did not have a pc monitor, only a 27 1080 Samsung TV, with a Blu-ray Toystory movie running, no game, so was actually satisfied with what I saw, and the seller said that games will not look worse than the Blu-ray movie, so I wonder if this is correct?

But I did notice all the block pixels, which I really have to focus on to see on my 24', so if I play desert maps, which has much light, I'm a bit concerned that I will notice all the squares. If I see this grid up close, I will not go Rainman, just major Hulk :) No, kidding, but with my 24' I like to sit about 40-60 (70?) cm away, a little over an arm's length (I'm 178 cm).

As mentioned, no ghosting and no stuttering is more important than perfect colours, so think the Asus is best for now, unless someone disagrees.
 
It is true that games will look crisper than blu-ray. Quite a lot better actually, and generally monitors have higher quality screens from my experience. My LCD TV has a horrible picture when I plug my PC to it, but it looks pretty good for movies. I'm not sure why that is.
 

bavman

Distinguished
May 19, 2010
1,006
0
19,360
46
Dude if you have a gtx 680 setup theres no reason not to get a 1440p display. When I switched from 1080 to 1440 it looks so much better in everything. I anywhere from 1.5 to 2 feet from my display and I can never see pixilation. Its beautifully crisp. Your gtx 680s should have absolutely no problem with battlefield.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS