Linus Torvalds: 2560x1600 Needs To Be Next Standard

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]Good luck playing a game on a laptop @ 1600.[/citation]

A buddy of mine bought an i7 + 7000 series Radeon "gaming" laptop and even that thing struggles with moderns games at 1080p. Now he wants a desktop, understandably.
 
Issue is profit margins. Higher res LCDs cost more but def would be nice to have! Though big business will charge a premium for high res and release them slowly in order to profit from each version from current res to high res. Sigh...
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]give me a sub 600$ 2560x1600all i want...really all i want.[/citation]

The Korean 30", 2560x1600 monitors are down to $598.
 
[citation][nom]ivanto[/nom]That would be an incredible standard. Curious, what hardware is need to support smooth UI and experience ?-IvanTO[/citation]

Prolly didnt do well with its $17K price tag...lol.
 
Just give me 2560x1600 in the 22ish inch range for desktop monitors at an affordable prince and I'll be happy.
 
ditto on the high res desktops.
Upgraded to 2560@1440 on a 27" screen this year. Games look wonderful.

But getting windows to make everything readable was a PITA, and some applications are still to small. I suspect windoze is the main reason whey high-rez displays arent taking more.
 
Meanwhile desktop monitors are once more another part of computing getting slapped in the face by mobile markets. I can't even get a goddamn 24" 2600x1600 monitor for less than $500.
 
Hmm cheapest 25x16 monitor on newegg right now ... about 1200 bucks... I think linus needs to go back to working on linux and make a unified installer and get off the friggin command line idea so more people will accept his horrible operating system rather than telling us what the next big thing should be.

[edit]Oh and the other issue with that resolution is you cant game on it (generally speaking) without going ultra high end gpu or even multicard solutions. I guess you could have said the same thing about 16x12 back in 1997 but no one was saying we needed to make 16x12 the standard back then. So the people who can use this res for something other than movies are people doing graphic design or cad work... which is why the prices are so high... no gamer is going to try to push that many pixels with a $100-200 video card so the market for monitors that can do that res is about as large as the market for people who want tri sli... aka very few. Hell look at the THG charts for their extreme settings @ 25x14 (not even 25X16!)... a $500 gtx670 in crysis2 gets about 27fps! A ~$200 gtx560 gets all of 21fps! You cant game on that![/edit]
 
I COMPLETELY FREAKING AGREE! I've been so frustrated with everything being stuck at these stagnate resolutions!!!

I mean, 1080 is REALLY only 2MP... and 2MP was SO 1998 haha

I remember having a 19" tube monitor that I could play UT2 at 1600x1200 and we haven't really moved on since, what? 1998?

They are just milking a matured techology for cash because people are so amazed at 1080 TVs and the fact that most people are still rocking 19" 900p LCD screens for their PCs and 15" 768p screens for their laptops cuz they haven't upgraded in like 5 years...

Dry
 
[citation][nom]soccerdocks[/nom]No, its certainly not pointless. You would easily be able to tell the difference in those resolutions even at that size.[/citation]

that is fair for some , my eyes just mucst not be good, my wife's laptop has a 13" 1080p monitor and if i set it to 720 p i honestly can only slightly tell any difference, heck i can't tell a difference between my 720p phone (galaxy nexus) and her laptop in 1080p and my phoenis definatly higher pixel density , i do not doubt that there are people with better vision than I but for me i won't be able to see a difference on smaller screens... but i do see it in larger screens, 2560x1600
beats the hell out of 1080p at 20ish inch screens , i see a real difference there
 
4k should really be the new high end and 1440 or 1600 should be the mainstream it's ridiculous that you won't see any difference in monitors unless you want to double or triple the price. wheres the middle ground??
 
[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]that is fair for some , my eyes just mucst not be good, my wife's laptop has a 13" 1080p monitor and if i set it to 720 p i honestly can only slightly tell any difference, heck i can't tell a difference between my 720p phone (galaxy nexus) and her laptop in 1080p and my phoenis definatly higher pixel density , i do not doubt that there are people with better vision than I but for me i won't be able to see a difference on smaller screens... but i do see it in larger screens, 2560x1600 beats the hell out of 1080p at 20ish inch screens , i see a real difference there[/citation]

100ppi is about the sweet spot for monitors, 150 would be pushing it for usefulness, but thats about were you wont see pixles anymore, unless you are trying to find them by getting closer.

[citation][nom]scannall[/nom]The Korean 30", 2560x1600 monitors are down to $598.[/citation]
you able to give me a name to look for? i know i have seen higher resolution monitors for cheap, but that was a 1440p and i dont want a 16:9 i want a 16:10
 
higher resolution as standard would be excellent for desktop resolution, productivity and daily use. but i don't see many gamers being able to play at native resolution without breaking the bank for a new gpu.
 
10 years and we barely budge until apple makes the first move. i may never by their products, but they are pushing the industry forward. remember when the first ipad came out and how everyone laughed and thought it would be failure because its a giant itouch? now look at those people now. they all want a tablet, and the laptop industry is slowing. dont even get me started on the now non-existing netbook market.[chromebooks dont count]
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]100ppi is about the sweet spot for monitors, 150 would be pushing it for usefulness, but thats about were you wont see pixles anymore, unless you are trying to find them by getting closer. you able to give me a name to look for? i know i have seen higher resolution monitors for cheap, but that was a 1440p and i dont want a 16:9 i want a 16:10[/citation]


Search eBay for 2560x1600. It will turn up a bunch of them. 30" starting at $598.
 
[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]that is fair for some , my eyes just mucst not be good, my wife's laptop has a 13" 1080p monitor and if i set it to 720 p i honestly can only slightly tell any difference, heck i can't tell a difference between my 720p phone (galaxy nexus) and her laptop in 1080p and my phoenis definatly higher pixel density , i do not doubt that there are people with better vision than I but for me i won't be able to see a difference on smaller screens... but i do see it in larger screens, 2560x1600 beats the hell out of 1080p at 20ish inch screens , i see a real difference there[/citation]
The Nexus is pentile though (shared subpixels). I've also seen 13" 1080p laptops, and I think those actually aren't much worse (at the same screen distance, that is - I know that's not realistic usage).
 
I've got 2560x1440 (27") at home and 2560x1600 (30") at work... and I wouldn't mind a bit more. Sitting at normal viewing distance they both have similar perceived resolution to my older 25" 1920x1200 monitors. They don't look 'retina' but they do let me shut off AA in games and still not see much in the way of jaggies or screendoor... slightly noticeable - makes me think 3k would take it away entirely.
 
[citation][nom]JohnA[/nom]Sorry, but you are an idiot. Why would you think that a TV and a computer should have the same display? TV is passive, where the peripheral vision makes the image more life like. Computers are interactive, and we can work better with the 16:10, especially those of use that do CAD or even video editing. You can see the video full screen with the extra space top and bottom filled with a ribbon type menu.[/citation]

First, that's a little RUDE.

Second, I agree also on a 16x9 standard.

Third, 16x10 isn't absolutely necessary for "more" workspace. Take for example a 32", 3840x2160 screen. You'd have more workspace than a 27", 2560x1600 screen. Not only that, if you do VIDEO EDITING as you say then you can view the final product that would be shown on an HDTV as it's intended (no black bars).

And it's not like you can't move the various taskbars around, especially with more screen and pixels. So I really don't think 16:10 is critical.

Not only that, many of the professionals I know use three screens such as 3x 2560x1440 and split all their workspace between them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom