VP2770-LED Vs. S27B970D: 27" Monitors At 2560x1440

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ceberle

Contributing Editor
Editor
Dec 20, 2012
290
0
18,780
0
Refresh rate is a subject we'll explore in future reviews. Some monitors will let you overdrive them but a screen rated for 120Hz is obviously preferable. We will also try to get more of the low-priced Korean brands into the lab. The challenge with these is they are not sold through normal channels in the US. They are gray-market products, usually without any warranty or factory support. We have an Auria EQ276W on the bench right now. That review will be forthcoming. Thanks for the heads-up on the other brands, we'll do our best to obtain them for testing.

Thanks!
Christian
 

EzioAs

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
2,306
0
20,160
135


I don't think it's a problem of we can't, I think it's more likely that manufacturers does not intend to so. At least not yet. Which sucks in my honest opinion...
 

theultimateeye

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2012
93
0
18,640
1
Meh. No reason to spend so much money on a 2560x1600 monitor. I just picked up an Auria eq276w 2560x1440 monitor from Micro Center (If you have one near you) for 399. I love it. The picture is superb. No bleeding, no stuck pixels, etc. The thing i like most is that if something goes wrong with it i don't have to ship it back to Korea and wait (i'm referring to those that are buying the Catleap/Achieva monitors) for it to come back.
 

Niva

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
382
0
18,780
0
Thanks for the review, I for one am especially thankful for the Samsung monitor review and seeing how accurate it was. For people asking about why anyone would pay for that, it isn't for gaming. It's either for professional or semi-pro folks who do any sort of image/video production. The extra real estate over the 1920x1200/1080 monitors is extremely useful and the color accuracy is a must.

On the flip side if someone is buying an IPS panel for gaming, that's lunacy. Indeed it appears the Samsung monitor in this review is fine for that but the extra price is not worth it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
These are the poor man's 30" 2560 x 1600 displays and still a disappointing 16:9 ratio on top of that!
 
G

Guest

Guest
2 low(er) priced, insured 27" 2560x1440 monitors are out there. One is sold by Monoprice (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?p_id=9579&seq=1&format=2) and one by Overlord Computers (http://www.overlordcomputer.com/Overlord_Tempest_1440_Displays_s/1817.htm). Both are under $400 and are insured (I believe for 1 year on each). They are the same panels as in the Korean US models (such as Catleap, etc.). Unfortunately both are also sold out.
 

kumouri

Honorable
Feb 14, 2013
4
0
10,510
0
There are 2 resellers in the US that sell 27" 2560x1440 panels. They are (as far as I know) the same panels used in the Achieva, Catleap, etc. monitors but come with a warranty. Both are under $400, one from Overlord Computer (http://www.overlordcomputer.com/Overlord_Tempest_1440_Displays_s/1817.htm) and one from Monoprice (http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?p_id=9579&seq=1&format=2). Unfortunately both are sold out, but you can sign up to get one.
 

grokem

Honorable
Aug 12, 2012
50
0
10,630
0
Thank you so much for reviewing non-1080p monitors. Despite what I say below I do like reading these reviews and I think it helps bring awareness both to the fact that better monitors are available but also how limited the choice is right now.

Reading the intro to this review is just depressing. I imagine the author writing it with a forced grimace while crying. I think it's widely agreed by the tech literate that the aligning of TV and computer displays was an upgrade for TV and a downgrade for computers. Was someone standing over his shoulder when he wrote with wide eye excitement that QHD is a huge jump from 88ppi to 109ppi? One has to wonder because with a wink and subtitle language he tries to warn us that almost everyone else out there that isn't a computer display has WAY better ppi.

Why can I get a 15" 2880x1800 display for $2200 with a high-end laptop attached to it but can't get the same resolution for any price in just a monitor? Instead I have to pay $1000 for 2560x1440. 50% is that windows can't handle this resolution and the other 50% is that we've had terrible display port standards in DVI and HDMI. Both have such limited bandwidth that anything above 2560x1440 is going to fall below 60hz refresh rates.

Finally, the fact that anything above 1080p is such a high cost is also of much concern. There are low resolution monitors with crappy color for cheap, there are "high" resolution monitors with good color for big bucks. Where are the "high" resolution monitors with crappy color for moderate prices?
 

kyuuketsuki

Distinguished
May 17, 2011
264
2
18,785
0
Ugh, FFS. I don't mean to be rude, and I'm not talking to anyone specifically, but I'm so tired of this "logic" of "we have 1080p on phones now, so what's with monitor resolutions?" getting bandied about every time I see an article about monitors anywhere.

Bigger panels are more expensive. No, it doesn't matter that we have "$200 phones" (actually $700+ without subsidies) with 1080p screens. That doesn't mean that we can magically have good quality $200 1440p/1600p monitors. There's no conspiracy or weirdness going on. Sure, it costs more to push more PPI. I'm sure those 1080p phone screens probably cost more per square inch to make than larger panels. But they're still very small compared to a 20"-30" computer monitor. Bigger panels are going to cost a lot more. You can get your 1440p/1600p monitors, but they're going to cost you.

And yes, if you insist on sticking with 16:10, you're going to have to pay more. I have nothing against 16:10 or people who prefer it, mind you. However, most consumers, including enthusiasts and myself, just don't give much of a crap about a little bit of vertical space. 16:9 panels are made in volume, are cheaper to produce, and therefore cheaper to buy. Sure, if I could get two monitors that were exactly the same in all other respects, including price, I'd probably opt for the 16:10. Why not? But I've never once, for a second, found myself wishing my 16:9 monitor had a few extra vertical pixels.
 

TheDane

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
77
7
18,645
2
HP ZR40W - best IPS 2560x1440 for gaming (due to very low input lag) and perfect color rendition after calibration. Build quality is also excellent. Recommended!
 

slomo4sho

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2008
3,199
0
21,160
171
And here I spent under $400 for a 5760x1080 setup using 3 Asus 23" displays... I can't see myself paying over double the price of these three displays for a single monitor with a marginally higher resolution.
 

grokem

Honorable
Aug 12, 2012
50
0
10,630
0
[citation][nom]kyuuketsuki[/nom]Ugh, FFS. I don't mean to be rude, and I'm not talking to anyone specifically, but I'm so tired of this "logic" of "we have 1080p on phones now, so what's with monitor resolutions?" getting bandied about every time I see an article about monitors anywhere.Bigger panels are more expensive. [/citation]

I have no problem paying more. I'm complaining about the lack of anythingin the market. I can buy an ok 88ppi 27", 76ppi 30" for ~$300. I can buy a 109ppi 27" or a 96ppi 30" for ~$1000. Like slomo4sho said, it just doesn't make sense to buy these monitors that are more than 3x more expensive when they provide such a small bump in ppi. Sure they have more resolution but I really don't want smaller interfaces so I won't see much after I scale my interface to be roughly the same size it is now.

Why can't I buy a 160ppi desktop monitor? Why can't I buy an ok 109ppi monitor for ~$600 or 2x the price of an ok 88ppi one?
 

agnickolov

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
520
0
18,980
0
Why is VGA not capable of displaying 2560x1440? I distinctly remember it was perfectly capable of displaying 2048x1536 @ 60Hz 10 years ago before the LCD era came and capped the resolutions...
 
DPI scaling
DPI scaling
DPI scaling

High pixel density is NOT an issue. You can easily raise the DPI scaling (i.e 40%) and set the default zoom of web pages (and manually use CTRL + Scroll).

Nor do you HAVE to game at this resolution. Even with a GTX680 I often use 1920x1080.

2560x1440 screens are truly awesome.
 

p05esto

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
876
1
18,980
0
[citation][nom]MauveCloud[/nom]Agreed. I bought a Dell U2711 a few months ago, but if something forced me to replace it, I'd probably go with one of those cheap Korean panels -- or a TN panel 2560x1440 monitor if somebody would actually make one - I doubt I'm the only one who likes the resolution but isn't so picky about color quality. I had no objection to the color quality on my Samsung P2770HD, and the color shifts of a TN panel are affected by the physical size of the monitor, not the resolution, right?[/citation]

Oh you will notice a HUGE difference from your Dell IPS compared to a cheap TN. You will have yourself if you ever go back. The latest Dells with the better anti-glare coating are amazing! They also do not use the PVM dimming which all the cheaper panels have (and is harder on your eyes due to the flickering). Good color should be important to anyone using a computer. I'd rather have a nicer monitor than a faster CPU or whatever, you stare at your monitor, the CPU is hidden away.
 

jurassic1024

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2008
122
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]kyuuketsuki[/nom]Ugh, FFS. I don't mean to be rude, and I'm not talking to anyone specifically, but I'm so tired of this "logic" of "we have 1080p on phones now, so what's with monitor resolutions?" getting bandied about every time I see an article about monitors anywhere.Bigger panels are more expensive. No, it doesn't matter that we have "$200 phones" (actually $700+ without subsidies) with 1080p screens. That doesn't mean that we can magically have good quality $200 1440p/1600p monitors. There's no conspiracy or weirdness going on. Sure, it costs more to push more PPI. I'm sure those 1080p phone screens probably cost more per square inch to make than larger panels. But they're still very small compared to a 20"-30" computer monitor. Bigger panels are going to cost a lot more. You can get your 1440p/1600p monitors, but they're going to cost you.And yes, if you insist on sticking with 16:10, you're going to have to pay more. I have nothing against 16:10 or people who prefer it, mind you. However, most consumers, including enthusiasts and myself, just don't give much of a crap about a little bit of vertical space. 16:9 panels are made in volume, are cheaper to produce, and therefore cheaper to buy. Sure, if I could get two monitors that were exactly the same in all other respects, including price, I'd probably opt for the 16:10. Why not? But I've never once, for a second, found myself wishing my 16:9 monitor had a few extra vertical pixels.[/citation]


^this guy is right.

Panels, just like CPU's, come from "wafers" (for lack of a better word), and the bigger the panel, the less panels you get from each "wafer". So of course bigger and odd shaped panels are going to be more expensive to manufacture. And if you think of tiny smartphone screens using the same "wafers", then it's obvious why it's easier and probably cheaper to push out panels with higher resolutions and more ppi than panels 6+ times bigger.
 
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Yeah this makes perfect sense of why 27" and 30" 1440/1600p panels cost as much as 60+" HDTV panels........ riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... I don't doubt there's some grain of truth to this, but I'm calling total BS on anyone trying to make it the reason why >1080p panels basically haven't changed in pricing for 5-7 years. It also fails completely to explain why 1440p/1600p have been reserved only for 27"+ screens.[/citation]

It costs a lot of money to research and setup production of a good screen. The higher the pixel density the more expensive it is to manufacture.

27" is the most logical size for a 2560x1440 desktop monitor.

There are smaller screens with high pixel density such as the Apple Retina Display on their new laptop (13.3" MacBook Pro I think). And you have to pay a lot of money for this technology.

There's no conspiracy. Logic dictates if it was inexpensive to make good high-res screens then many companies would do so. That's why you have cheap Korean high-res desktop monitors but the quality is not there.
 

coolronz

Distinguished
Apr 20, 2008
56
0
18,640
1
I only do eyefinity 3way, so I'm thinking my CF HD7970 2way doesn't have enough JAM.... and my 3x23.6" monitors put together were like half the price of the ViewSonic.... lol
 

MaxxOmega

Distinguished
May 24, 2011
51
0
18,630
0
When people say things like "I can't justify" I always suspect their wives are controlling the purse strings. I don't care about "justifying", I just buy what I want to buy... In this case a $300.00 price difference for the Samsung and you can't even remove the base? No thanks.
I have 2 Dell U3011's I bought for $999.00 on sale. They are always having sales on their stuff. Sometimes you just have to wait a little...
 
G

Guest

Guest
According to TFT Central's reviews, the panels in these two monitors do not seem so different:

"The ViewSonic VP2770-LED use a 27" Samsung LTM270DL02 Plane to Line Switching (PLS) panel." (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/viewsonic_vp2770-led.htm)

"The Samsung S27B970D utilises a Samsung LTM270DL02-201 Plane to Line Switching (PLS) panel"
(http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/samsung_s27b970d.htm)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY