Topic: Hey guys, would you get a 25" monitor...
Falco !PZmcClOUDk started this discussion 14 years ago #20,626
Or, or a 27" monitor for $100 more?
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 inch monitor, save the money. | 2 | 17% | |
| 27 inch monitor! Go all the way! | 10 | 83% |
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 41 minutes later[^] [v] #333,074
Depends on the resolution, really. Can your GPU handle a higher res?
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #333,075
At that size what really counts is girth, I mean resolution.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,091
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,093
@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
I would suggest no less than quad SLI of 690 for anything above 800x600.
I would suggest no less than quad SLI of 690 for anything above 800x600.
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,094
Unless you're old with vision problems, anything bigger than 23" is a toy, not a practical monitor.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,096
@previous (Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU)
Anything bigger than 23" is not a toy, bud. Grow up and leave.
Anything bigger than 23" is not a toy, bud. Grow up and leave.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Lee O'Nidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 14 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,097
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Because I'm the only one with the honesty to admit huge monitors are toys, and usually for gaming?
Because I'm the only one with the honesty to admit huge monitors are toys, and usually for gaming?
dw !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,176
How far will you be sitting from it? If it is under a metre I would get the 25" one. Also check if they are LEDs
dw !jdTkvovFCQ double-posted this 14 years ago, 36 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,177
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,178
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,180
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,244
I would get dual monitor 20" instead, because it is better to play games on. Takes less resources to render the video, and you have another screen if you need to google for a walkthrough or something.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,310
@previous (G)
> Takes less resources to render the video,
no it wouldnt it would double the resolution
> Takes less resources to render the video,
no it wouldnt it would double the resolution
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,311
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 40 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,320
@previous (G)
unless you plan on turning off the other monitor you'd still have more to render. if you do turn it off it takes the exact same as resources as using one monitor
unless you plan on turning off the other monitor you'd still have more to render. if you do turn it off it takes the exact same as resources as using one monitor
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,335
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
why would it render for both monitors when you are only playing on one monitor and have firefox open in another one
eh
why would it render for both monitors when you are only playing on one monitor and have firefox open in another one
eh
Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,342
@333,320 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
A game would only play on one of the two monitors, taking as much resources as it would if the second weren't there.
The second would simply render things on the desktop like a browser, taking next to no resources.
Source: I use two monitors.
A game would only play on one of the two monitors, taking as much resources as it would if the second weren't there.
The second would simply render things on the desktop like a browser, taking next to no resources.
Source: I use two monitors.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #333,354
I looked at our 27" monitor at work today and it's wayyy too big... Looks like 24" is better for my purposes.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,444
@333,342 (Fox !FXYGNx1XR.)
Windows desktop would still need to be rendered which takes a bit of power. I don't know where he's getting that any setup with 2 screens would take less power. Also buying 2 screens and only usingone is a bit useless @333,335 (G)
Windows desktop would still need to be rendered which takes a bit of power. I don't know where he's getting that any setup with 2 screens would take less power. Also buying 2 screens and only usingone is a bit useless @333,335 (G)
Fox !FXYGNx1XR. replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,459
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
Yeah, but it takes so little resources that it's negligible. Playing an intensive game on my primary monitor, I won't lose a single frame to rendering a little bit of desktop next to it.
Yeah, but it takes so little resources that it's negligible. Playing an intensive game on my primary monitor, I won't lose a single frame to rendering a little bit of desktop next to it.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,474
@333,444 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
> Windows desktop would still need to be rendered which takes a bit of power.
it will literally double the render needed
and it takes less power because it is smaller
playing a video game on one 25 inch screen takes more than playing it on one 19 inch screen
> Also buying 2 screens and only usingone is a bit useless
doing other things while gaming, how doe they work
> playing video games on two monitors
enjoy your fucking gap i guess
> Windows desktop would still need to be rendered which takes a bit of power.
it will literally double the render needed
and it takes less power because it is smaller
playing a video game on one 25 inch screen takes more than playing it on one 19 inch screen
> Also buying 2 screens and only usingone is a bit useless
doing other things while gaming, how doe they work
> playing video games on two monitors
enjoy your fucking gap i guess
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,478
@previous (G)
> playing a video game on one 25 inch screen takes more than playing it on one 19 inch screen
no it doesn't if the resolution is the same lol
> doing other things while gaming, how doe they work
that's not really worth getting another monitor for, you might as well use your phone or just tab out
> playing a video game on one 25 inch screen takes more than playing it on one 19 inch screen
no it doesn't if the resolution is the same lol
> doing other things while gaming, how doe they work
that's not really worth getting another monitor for, you might as well use your phone or just tab out
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,479
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
if you have to play it on a bigger screen, it takes more computing to do it
> that's not really worth getting another monitor for, you might as well use your phone or just tab out
opinions how doe they work
if you have to play it on a bigger screen, it takes more computing to do it
> that's not really worth getting another monitor for, you might as well use your phone or just tab out
opinions how doe they work
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,482
@previous (G)
> if you have to play it on a bigger screen, it takes more computing to do it
lol no, if the resolution is higher it takes more calculating
> if you have to play it on a bigger screen, it takes more computing to do it
lol no, if the resolution is higher it takes more calculating
dw !jdTkvovFCQ double-posted this 14 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,483
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,484
@333,482 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
implying i said to get a smaller physical size with a higher resolution
you are just making shit up because you cannot ever say you are wrong
implying i said to get a smaller physical size with a higher resolution
you are just making shit up because you cannot ever say you are wrong
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,485
@previous (G)
> implying i said to get a smaller physical size with a higher resolution
how am i implying that
a 1920*1080 20" screen is as resource heavy as a 1920*1080 27" screen
> implying i said to get a smaller physical size with a higher resolution
how am i implying that
a 1920*1080 20" screen is as resource heavy as a 1920*1080 27" screen
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,486
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
> 1920*1080 20" screen
why.jpg
you are implying it by making the unreasonable assumption i was saying to get a 1920*1080 19" screen
> 1920*1080 20" screen
why.jpg
you are implying it by making the unreasonable assumption i was saying to get a 1920*1080 19" screen
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,487
@previous (G)
that is not unreasonable though. most screens are 1920*1080 and also anything less is ugly on that size
that is not unreasonable though. most screens are 1920*1080 and also anything less is ugly on that size
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,488
ITT: hurr and durr
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,498
@333,487 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)> that is not unreasonable though. most screens are 1920*1080 and also anything less is ugly on that size
> most screens are 1920*1080
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,507
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,510
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,512
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #333,516
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
i checked amazon
whilst doing so i also came to the startling conclusion that most televisions are flatscreens and also that most phones are smartphones
i checked amazon
whilst doing so i also came to the startling conclusion that most televisions are flatscreens and also that most phones are smartphones