Hey is this worth the money that you pay for it or should I stick with my 1920x1080 screen? And is there much difference between 1600p compared to 1080?
@Josh1901 yeeeeeee but that resolution 2500 1400 is very hard for the graphics cards i have ati radeon 5750 and there maybe problems with frames per second in many games when i run them max settings so i actually dont need that big monitor besides after calibration u2140 has the sam colors as 2710 so only the res olution which is not so important and the 27 monitor looks ugly it has not 1600 resolution as normal big 30 inches but 1440 it is annoying and the price is 250 dollars i choose 2410 :)
2560x1600 monitors a complete waste of money. yea they are high resolutions, but at what cost. you pay WAY to much, extremely low contrast ratios, extremely low brightness, not very good black levels etc. in terms of picture quality my P2770 destroys any 2560x1600 monitor.
@Zanee17 yea thats fine. i use a 30" apple monitor for programming, but that is because i got it for free. $3000 for a monitor is really not worth it, it doesnt matter what you are doing on it.
Well, these monitors are only about $1400 nowadays, and if you're gonna spend a shit load on your gaming / work station, why not go overboard on the thing you're gonna be looking at 100% at the time, as apposed to spending $1000 on a video card you'll hardly use, the way I see it ^^
Each to their own I suppose, I'm very much use to my 3008WFP that I have trouble using even a 24" which by todays standards are still larger than average
@GT5Enthusiast These monitors are IPS panels, yours is TN, and IPS "destroys" TN in everything but response time and current response times are low enough to be fine with gaming.
Using a 300 dollar TN panel on a 2-3 thousand dollar PC is the real waste of money.
@StealthGhost my TN panel also has a WAY better contrast ratio. the only thing this IPS panel has over mine is resolution. so i do not see how that "destroys" my TN panel.
@GT5Enthusiast Compare yours, or any other to lets say the U2711 from Dell. You said you have the P2770 right? thats 50000:1 dynamic and the U2711 has a 80,000: 1 dynamic.
Besides that, IPS has far superior: color gamut, color accuracy, viewing angle, etc etc. TN panels are ONLY good because of how cheap they are, you can't compare the two besides price and input lag.
Go to an Apple store and look at the Cinema Display or iMacs, they use IPS panels, or find any other IPS, you have to see it.
@StealthGhost P2770H has a 70,000:1 cr for one. secondly the U2711 has a 2560x1440 resolution. i am comparing full 2560x1600 displays. also i have a 30" IPS panel and i only use it for looking at high resolution pictures that dont fit on my screen. other than that its terrible for about everything else.
@GT5Enthusiast Ok, well the U3011 is a 30 inch with that resolution and 100,000:1 Dynamic contrast ratio. It, and the 27, are also H-IPS which is newer and better than SuperIPS
Yours is either broken, you have eye problems, or you're lying because the entire world knows IPS is superior to TN but comes at 2-4x the price and thats all it comes down to.
@GT5Enthusiast Oh and DYNAMIC contrast ratio doesn't mean a damn thing really. Sure higher is better, but i'd say I wouldn't pay 10 dollars for higher DYNAMIC contrast ratio. Now STATIC contrast ratio, (like your monitors 1000:1) I would. Plasma TVs have 5000:1 and higher STATIC ratio, and that is insanely good, but we don't have much higher than 1000:1 yet on monitors.
i got a bigger one :P i run 2560x1980 on an alienware with 4 graphics cards. its very fast and awseome for games but when i play crysis warhead on maximum settings my framerate gets slow.
Not to sound harsh or anything you have a nice monitor for sure, but I rather stay with CRT. It still has the best image quality over all other monitors. True its screen might not be big, but its image quality is outstanding :P
@3Z3K13L08 actually it worked and i can play my games just fine :) i was going to but i didnt, and i dont need to buy 4 cards like those guys on youtube hahaha!!! what a waste of money
how 1920x1200 looks? is it a bit blured? is somehow picture quality degraded? i dont mean just games, im mean picture in general. and how about 1080p?
migeru29 // you just proved my point yourself. people who aren't getting windows 7 are not getting it for technical reasons like your uncle. they aren't getting it because they are poor like yourself; a young teenage boy to be exact.
migeru29 // I'll give you an example. A new Porsche Carrera is released. Everyone wants it. But only people with money can buy it legitimately in brand new condition. Several after the release, people like your uncle can barely afford to buy it in used condition. People like your uncle wait until price drops (which is the main reason why they wait)
Now, your uncle still using windows xp is like you saying "My uncle is a car mechanic and he still drives a Honda Civic and your Porsche sucks!"
no offense but you mean "smart" AND "poor" people. because whether you are smart or not, if you have the money, you would always get stuff immediately after release. windows 7 for example, if it was only like $5 USD, would you wait or try it?
Than i think, you should upgrade your gfx first. ATi Radeon HD5000 would be great but they are quite expensive at the moment. With a HD4870 you don't get DX11 but a lot of performance for about £100.
thanks for advice but if i brought phenom 2 945 and 5850 would i be able to play most games with eyefinity on max setings and aa and stuff .. i am planning to buy another 2 1280 x 1024 monitors after christmas? i want to be future proof, would £350 buy me 945 and 5850? and other than that any sugestions for a cheap decent keybord, the one i have is a crappy dell thing, i hav a lazer mouse though and a usb 360 game pad for some racing games.
and would my current cpu be good enough for play at 1280 x 1024 and later on 3 x 1280 x 1024? of would i need to upgrade to 945 , i shall try to get an extra .2ghz overclock on 945, im not a great overclocker though :P
not a bad system, and i do recommend Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz which is about £200. is there anything else your looking for to improve your pc
cheers .. core 2 quad for £200 .. bloody hell, haha ... id need a whole new mobo .. so i think ill just get a phenom 945 @3ghz, i can get one on those for little over £100 and i need a new psu .. around £50-£60 would be good if possable ? and i was looking at a thermal power modular 600w psu .. that any good?
a good mobo will be asus m4n78 pro, it supports phenom x4 and ddr2 dual-channel ram with 4 slots up to 16gb, try checking it out and let me know if you think its too expensive or any other reason
I know that, if you look at the recent reply i posted saying that i reccommend a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 for gaming. At the moment I'm using an AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60 @ 2.00GHz
Thanks MasterTubester. Yes, links can't be posted in youtube comments, but to anyone else their phone number is 800-394-8404. Place is Rochester computer. Dell 3008WFP for $1,409.00. Amazing deal.
nice rig. but i suggest sacrificing something else for performance instead of shaders. you miss out, and theres no noticable difference between high and very high in textures and volumetric effects, yet they drain performance.
if you use aa at that resolution the diffenerence is almost non existant and the tree leaves can actually look blurred and worse than normally. aa is bs in crysis and the biggest performance killer of all
ATI/AMD are the cheap mans Nvidia/Intel and you get what you pay for.
Benchmarks don't lie and 9 times out of 10 Nvidia cards of the same tier quality are better. There are exceptions where ATI cards outperform but nowadays its rare. Intel beats AMD up with an ugly stick. Hands. Down.
Do some research and see just how bad the Intel Core i7 destroys any AMD processor on the market.
When you're looking to get maximum value, sure. ATI holds the market for that no doubt. But when it comes to raw performance, regardless of price, Nvidias GPU's only lose to ATI's in a few select games. Namely Stalker: Clear Sky (DX10.1) and Source engine titles, which ATI worked with Valve on during development.
As I said though if price is not a factor Nvidia takes the lead as fastest GPU's. Look at GTX 295 Quad SLI. Nothing Touches it except GTX 285 Tri SLI. I know, I own that setup.
In games you'll barely notice a difference compared to vista 32 bit,at least that is my experience.Tested a few games on both,the 64 and 32 bit version and they run the same,although only a few "less demanding" ;) games DO have troubles on the 64 bit version,but that is rather a rare case.Games already can and do run better if you use a 64 bit OS because the system swaps less often data between ram and your HDD,that's also just my experience,dunno how it is for others :P.
Xp ONLY uses direct x 9,which is less hardware demanding in crysis than direct x 10.If you run crysis on vista it automatically chooses direct x 10 as the default renderer... IF you have a direct x 10 graphics card in your pc.If crysis runs shitty on vista,then it possibly is,because your pc is too weak for direct x 10 rendering.Would explain why it runs better for you on xp than vista.Basicly,forget about gaming on vista with a weak pc :P.
I got the BFG Geforce 7900 GTX, at the time I spent $800 on,lol what a fucking waste of money, and the latest one, the GTX 295, is gonna be so crappy, in a year, it will be hard to give away for free, haha being a little sarcastic, but I swear they engineer them, so it works that way.
That's why I only buy mainstream cards around the 200 euro mark.The high end cards are basicly ONLY for enthusiasts that really wish to enjoy that bit of more performance for their money.Most games run perfectly on mainstream cards,because that's where the most money comes from,which is why it's basicly useless to spend money on those expensive cards if you're only a normal pc gamer and no gief-max-fps-whore :P.
True true :).Crysis is exemplary when it comes to eating hardware.But the common types of games don't kill your sh*t like crysis does :P *g*,for why I don't buy the newest hardware available.If I would want to do that,i'd go nuts spending thousands of euro each one to two months,hehehe,which I can't anyway :D.I've played crysis on high settings smoothly in most levels..."High" is absolutely enough for me :)
It's true, you need pretty good hardware, but that's the only game. In fact, GTA IV and Crysis are the only two games I can't run at 1680x1050 maxed out with an 8800GT and an AMD Phenom II 940 X4 3.0GHz. And my quad-core only improved performance really in GTA IV by increasing the framerate from 25FPS with all low settings, to 55FPS with medium-high settings, (haven't tested Crysis again yet) and all of my other games played max on my 2.6GHz dual-core.
So, unless you MUST have all max settings on Crysis on a huge resolution (1920x1080 and up) you should be fine with an 8800GT, or if you must step up to an HD4870 or GTX 275 which are about $190-$250. And then when and if you decide you need another card just SLi or CrossFire another one of the aforementioned cards which you'll probably be able to find cheap $100-$200 on eBay by the time you'll need it. And then get a third one when you need even more. Will save you a bit of money.
It's not really their fault. It's just that technology is advancing daily, so they release new cards whenever they can. As they progress, newer cards will come out and older cards will be shit. It's true, the GTX 295 will eventually be shit, but that's just what you have to deal with. Right now I'm using an 8800GT and I'm planning on upgrading to a HD4870 or GTX 275 depending on what class I go with. GTX 275 is a class above the HD4870. But I don't think I'd pay $600 for a GTX 295.
Yeah, that does suck...the only thing I could recommend would be to try and find a sale on eBay that ships international and possibly get the card you want a bit cheaper. Or make friends with someone in another country and PayPal them some money to buy and ship you a card...you'd have to be good enough friends to trust them though.
not realy because the i and p is just the way that the screen is refreshed, so if a monitor was refreshed in the was that a 1080i was done then it could have the tag of 1080i
awesome SPEC and the PC itself , but how about trying a 42" LCD (Regza Toshiba) which I myself run Windows XP and Vista @ 1080p but yet I been testing on 64bit alots more often , so don't worry guys I post it up, I just never did it cuz it amaze me when I got it so ya , see me around I will see the Next Competitor, later :D
lol, a pic of this desktop was posted on /g/ last night (probly not you), and i was asking about the monitor. i do some searching around today and i come upon this.. hahah.
Yea, my 23" 1980x1080 feels so shitty compared to this
lLlLogANOlLl 3 weeks ago
I have to stop watching this kind of video. After I Watch this my 22" 1920x1080 looks like my grandma's computer
juanypinkshitx 2 months ago
I have the Samsung 305T and it is awesome. There is enough real estate to do whatever you want to do.
aruba50 4 months ago
But, will it blend?
Nelethor 7 months ago
Hey is this worth the money that you pay for it or should I stick with my 1920x1080 screen? And is there much difference between 1600p compared to 1080?
cmiab4 7 months ago
my 17 inches monitor has the same picture but this one is 10 times more expensive
x33mmm 9 months ago
@x33mmm This screen has awesome quality and a several times larger resolution
Josh1901 8 months ago
@Josh1901 yeah yea ye that large display only break your eyes noone need more than 24 inches maximum that is very expensive and not necessary ; )
x33mmm 8 months ago
@x33mmm I have a 27' Dell U2711, it has 2560x1440 and I find it easier to look at than my 22" screen, and my brothers 24"
Plus it has WAY better colours & contrast :P
Josh1901 8 months ago
@Josh1901 yeeeeeee but that resolution 2500 1400 is very hard for the graphics cards i have ati radeon 5750 and there maybe problems with frames per second in many games when i run them max settings so i actually dont need that big monitor besides after calibration u2140 has the sam colors as 2710 so only the res olution which is not so important and the 27 monitor looks ugly it has not 1600 resolution as normal big 30 inches but 1440 it is annoying and the price is 250 dollars i choose 2410 :)
x33mmm 8 months ago
30" PC monitor for home....... Overcompensating.
mitchellbobwah 11 months ago
must be hard 2 miss enemy's on that screen lol
maartieboy 1 year ago 2
2560x1600 monitors a complete waste of money. yea they are high resolutions, but at what cost. you pay WAY to much, extremely low contrast ratios, extremely low brightness, not very good black levels etc. in terms of picture quality my P2770 destroys any 2560x1600 monitor.
GT5Enthusiast 1 year ago
@GT5Enthusiast
Did you ever think that people may need them for the space and background real estate? not everyone buys a 30" monitor to play video games.
Zanee17 1 year ago
@Zanee17 yea thats fine. i use a 30" apple monitor for programming, but that is because i got it for free. $3000 for a monitor is really not worth it, it doesnt matter what you are doing on it.
GT5Enthusiast 1 year ago
@GT5Enthusiast
Well, these monitors are only about $1400 nowadays, and if you're gonna spend a shit load on your gaming / work station, why not go overboard on the thing you're gonna be looking at 100% at the time, as apposed to spending $1000 on a video card you'll hardly use, the way I see it ^^
Zanee17 1 year ago
@Zanee17 what i look at about 100% of the time is my P2770 and even that is a bit over board.
GT5Enthusiast 1 year ago
@GT5Enthusiast
Each to their own I suppose, I'm very much use to my 3008WFP that I have trouble using even a 24" which by todays standards are still larger than average
Zanee17 1 year ago
@GT5Enthusiast These monitors are IPS panels, yours is TN, and IPS "destroys" TN in everything but response time and current response times are low enough to be fine with gaming.
Using a 300 dollar TN panel on a 2-3 thousand dollar PC is the real waste of money.
StealthGhost 1 year ago
@StealthGhost my TN panel also has a WAY better contrast ratio. the only thing this IPS panel has over mine is resolution. so i do not see how that "destroys" my TN panel.
GT5Enthusiast 1 year ago
@GT5Enthusiast Compare yours, or any other to lets say the U2711 from Dell. You said you have the P2770 right? thats 50000:1 dynamic and the U2711 has a 80,000: 1 dynamic.
Besides that, IPS has far superior: color gamut, color accuracy, viewing angle, etc etc. TN panels are ONLY good because of how cheap they are, you can't compare the two besides price and input lag.
Go to an Apple store and look at the Cinema Display or iMacs, they use IPS panels, or find any other IPS, you have to see it.
StealthGhost 1 year ago
@StealthGhost P2770H has a 70,000:1 cr for one. secondly the U2711 has a 2560x1440 resolution. i am comparing full 2560x1600 displays. also i have a 30" IPS panel and i only use it for looking at high resolution pictures that dont fit on my screen. other than that its terrible for about everything else.
GT5Enthusiast 1 year ago
@GT5Enthusiast Ok, well the U3011 is a 30 inch with that resolution and 100,000:1 Dynamic contrast ratio. It, and the 27, are also H-IPS which is newer and better than SuperIPS
Yours is either broken, you have eye problems, or you're lying because the entire world knows IPS is superior to TN but comes at 2-4x the price and thats all it comes down to.
StealthGhost 1 year ago
@GT5Enthusiast Oh and DYNAMIC contrast ratio doesn't mean a damn thing really. Sure higher is better, but i'd say I wouldn't pay 10 dollars for higher DYNAMIC contrast ratio. Now STATIC contrast ratio, (like your monitors 1000:1) I would. Plasma TVs have 5000:1 and higher STATIC ratio, and that is insanely good, but we don't have much higher than 1000:1 yet on monitors.
StealthGhost 1 year ago
i got a bigger one :P i run 2560x1980 on an alienware with 4 graphics cards. its very fast and awseome for games but when i play crysis warhead on maximum settings my framerate gets slow.
fpsHacker5950 1 year ago
@fpsHacker5950
Sure buddy
Zanee17 1 year ago
@Zanee17 it does get slow! i dont know why but if i set it to that resolution it gets slow. i have an old version though. from 2007.
fpsHacker5950 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zanee17 Yeah, I don't believe him either. LOL.
CaptianObviousIII 1 year ago
Not to sound harsh or anything you have a nice monitor for sure, but I rather stay with CRT. It still has the best image quality over all other monitors. True its screen might not be big, but its image quality is outstanding :P
SuperSecundos 1 year ago
i have a ge force 9800 gt, will this monitor work fine with the video card?
badguy66626 1 year ago
@badguy66626 You'll use a dirt cheap GPU on a $1000+ monitor? Just buy a new GPU already :)
3Z3K13L08 1 year ago
@3Z3K13L08 actually it worked and i can play my games just fine :) i was going to but i didnt, and i dont need to buy 4 cards like those guys on youtube hahaha!!! what a waste of money
badguy66626 1 year ago
@badguy66626 One GTX 480 is the best way to go I think as not all games even support multi GPU.
3Z3K13L08 1 year ago
pr0n must look amazing on this screen, ey?
z00h 1 year ago
@z00h Why?
3Z3K13L08 1 year ago
@3Z3K13L08 not often do you see a 2560x1600 pussy do you
z00h 1 year ago
@z00h Well I get the real think so it's a moot point...
3Z3K13L08 1 year ago
@3Z3K13L08 you're our hero
z00h 1 year ago
@z00h Oh hell yeah
3Z3K13L08 1 year ago
@3Z3K13L08 you bombaclat
z00h 1 year ago
is this TFT or IPS? trying to decide between this or the u2711
jlefebre6001 1 year ago
What keyboard and mouse are these? liked it!
joejoehausen 1 year ago
LONG LIVE 8800GTX
MultiIPwnage 1 year ago
@grumm70 sorry
Josh1901 1 year ago
@grumm70 yes it is LMAO
Josh1901 1 year ago
how 1920x1200 looks? is it a bit blured? is somehow picture quality degraded? i dont mean just games, im mean picture in general. and how about 1080p?
CutingTheEdge 1 year ago
wow 1920x1200 looks awesome THEN 2560x160 MUST BE AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!
absf1r3 2 years ago
wow do people have big heads, and are very spoiled. never spoil children people, does anyone learn anything?
Leignheart 2 years ago
i was using xp because its better thin vista but now i use window 7 i did not use rubbish vista
and not becouse i am poor i drive audi r8
and come to my blog and see my pc rig and my brother pc
cooleye99 2 years ago
windows xp is ftw
Josh1901 2 years ago 9
@Josh1901
ZePwner350 1 year ago
@Josh1901 Tests show even Vista with SP1 beats XP hands down, at least after Aero is temporarily disabled.
FeeLtheHertZ 8 months ago
@FeeLtheHertZ
Yeah I know, Windows XP was just my preferred choice 1 year ago (When I made that post)
:)
Josh1901 8 months ago
migeru29 // you proved my point yourself once again. according to your first reply, "only nOObz buy the newest edition of everything"
that's right. just like you and your uncle are NOT poor, people who buy windows 7 are NOT noobs.
luv2sd 2 years ago
migeru29 // you just proved my point yourself. people who aren't getting windows 7 are not getting it for technical reasons like your uncle. they aren't getting it because they are poor like yourself; a young teenage boy to be exact.
luv2sd 2 years ago 12
migeru29 // I'll give you an example. A new Porsche Carrera is released. Everyone wants it. But only people with money can buy it legitimately in brand new condition. Several after the release, people like your uncle can barely afford to buy it in used condition. People like your uncle wait until price drops (which is the main reason why they wait)
Now, your uncle still using windows xp is like you saying "My uncle is a car mechanic and he still drives a Honda Civic and your Porsche sucks!"
luv2sd 2 years ago
no offense but you mean "smart" AND "poor" people. because whether you are smart or not, if you have the money, you would always get stuff immediately after release. windows 7 for example, if it was only like $5 USD, would you wait or try it?
luv2sd 2 years ago
Comment removed
BlueBellyfluff 2 years ago
thats not true... 64-bit is faster and 64-bit is compatible with over 4GB of RAM
gongy1returns 2 years ago
yeh, this monitor has a res or 2560x1600, almost twice 1080p.
bumsoil 2 years ago
...nope...
OnionMad 2 years ago
why r u so rich
coolgames14 2 years ago
why not upgrade to windows 7 ultimate
gongy1returns 2 years ago
i need help, need to turn my pc into a gaming pc , have £350 and my current pc is
phenom 9650 quad core @ 2.4ghz
4gb ddr2 ram
450w psu
i have a pci-e 2.0 slot in my mobo free
i want to play most games at high with aa
at 1280 X 1024
was thinking ... maby hd 5850 and phenom 2 945 @ 3.2ghz? will that cpu bottleneck and will my psu supply enough power, thanks in advance :D
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
what's you current GPU an Mainboard?
olfrygt2007 2 years ago
my mobo is biostar 780g and my gpu is a hd 4350.
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
Than i think, you should upgrade your gfx first. ATi Radeon HD5000 would be great but they are quite expensive at the moment. With a HD4870 you don't get DX11 but a lot of performance for about £100.
olfrygt2007 2 years ago
thanks for advice but if i brought phenom 2 945 and 5850 would i be able to play most games with eyefinity on max setings and aa and stuff .. i am planning to buy another 2 1280 x 1024 monitors after christmas? i want to be future proof, would £350 buy me 945 and 5850? and other than that any sugestions for a cheap decent keybord, the one i have is a crappy dell thing, i hav a lazer mouse though and a usb 360 game pad for some racing games.
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
and would my current cpu be good enough for play at 1280 x 1024 and later on 3 x 1280 x 1024? of would i need to upgrade to 945 , i shall try to get an extra .2ghz overclock on 945, im not a great overclocker though :P
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
get ati radeon hd 4870 x2
GreenOldGuitar 2 years ago
@aaronplayesdrums your cpu is good enough scince most games dont support 4 cores. however yes a hd 5850 would be good
thetechall 2 years ago
not a bad system, and i do recommend Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz which is about £200. is there anything else your looking for to improve your pc
gongy1returns 2 years ago
cheers .. core 2 quad for £200 .. bloody hell, haha ... id need a whole new mobo .. so i think ill just get a phenom 945 @3ghz, i can get one on those for little over £100 and i need a new psu .. around £50-£60 would be good if possable ? and i was looking at a thermal power modular 600w psu .. that any good?
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
a good mobo will be asus m4n78 pro, it supports phenom x4 and ddr2 dual-channel ram with 4 slots up to 16gb, try checking it out and let me know if you think its too expensive or any other reason
gongy1returns 2 years ago
You wouldn't want to be playing Crysis on an AMD processor. Intel is the way to go for gaming, unless you're on a strict budget.
Nvidia1280 2 years ago
I know that, if you look at the recent reply i posted saying that i reccommend a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 for gaming. At the moment I'm using an AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60 @ 2.00GHz
gongy1returns 2 years ago
Yeah. Depends on what you're using your computer for.
Nvidia1280 2 years ago
ive actually got a biostar 780g, its fine for me, it will support the p2 945, its a 95w so my mobo can take it so realy i just need a psu
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
logitech dinovo
cssful 2 years ago
where is the maximum resolution of crysis?
srquiros 2 years ago
arctosa is wired and that keyboard is wireless
also, there is no razer logo on the keyboard
conk100 2 years ago
What hapened on yours lights Simbe90?
Have you ambilight?
srquiros 2 years ago
i feel on that monitor that crysis is MOVIE not game.
Zico10101010 2 years ago
FullHD is just a buzzword.
HDTV is 720p, 768p, 1080i and 1080p, etc.
Basically anything higher than 480i/p.
Touhou1990 2 years ago
Full HD is 1080p and nothing else.
trudashka 2 years ago
Full HD is a marketing term and not a standard.
720p and 1080i/p are standards.
Touhou1990 2 years ago
hes using 8800GTX in this video and hes also using 1920x1200 in crysis.
cssful 2 years ago
I'll never understand why people maximize their browser at high resolutions.
Touhou1990 2 years ago
that looks Sexy
67CopperHead 2 years ago
Comment removed
MattB167 2 years ago
uhm.... why? it's cheap.
Zakta2100 2 years ago
ive got a lg flatron it sucks and mines 24 inch
1988scottcarey 2 years ago
LG Flatron W3000H 30" 2560 x 1600 resolution :)
Best
geevoguuvo 2 years ago
Thanks MasterTubester. Yes, links can't be posted in youtube comments, but to anyone else their phone number is 800-394-8404. Place is Rochester computer. Dell 3008WFP for $1,409.00. Amazing deal.
Rooster1Cogburn 2 years ago
need up upgrade my computer to hdmi or display port to fully get the 1920x1080 experience but that's nothing compaired to this just wow...
1988scottcarey 2 years ago
nice rig. but i suggest sacrificing something else for performance instead of shaders. you miss out, and theres no noticable difference between high and very high in textures and volumetric effects, yet they drain performance.
NiNm62 2 years ago
or AA, if you use it, not in the info.
if you use aa at that resolution the diffenerence is almost non existant and the tree leaves can actually look blurred and worse than normally. aa is bs in crysis and the biggest performance killer of all
NiNm62 2 years ago
no way the gtx 275 cant even beat a 4870. the 4890 is comparable to a gtx 280 or even 285, seriously
NiNm62 2 years ago
Yes ATi and AMD makes the best GPUs and CPUs.
sangolt88 2 years ago 4
ATI/AMD are the cheap mans Nvidia/Intel and you get what you pay for.
Benchmarks don't lie and 9 times out of 10 Nvidia cards of the same tier quality are better. There are exceptions where ATI cards outperform but nowadays its rare. Intel beats AMD up with an ugly stick. Hands. Down.
Do some research and see just how bad the Intel Core i7 destroys any AMD processor on the market.
darkl3ad3r 2 years ago
No, ATi always gives you much more power for the money.
sangolt88 2 years ago 2
When you're looking to get maximum value, sure. ATI holds the market for that no doubt. But when it comes to raw performance, regardless of price, Nvidias GPU's only lose to ATI's in a few select games. Namely Stalker: Clear Sky (DX10.1) and Source engine titles, which ATI worked with Valve on during development.
As I said though if price is not a factor Nvidia takes the lead as fastest GPU's. Look at GTX 295 Quad SLI. Nothing Touches it except GTX 285 Tri SLI. I know, I own that setup.
darkl3ad3r 2 years ago
don't get angry, just a type mistake.
lordmagnum92i 2 years ago 7
ATI FTW
67CopperHead 2 years ago 2
i wantd GTX 295 but i want the 4870x2 know i didnt knwo this guy was a Nvida guy know he is ATI and runing Xtremly asome
xstreamkills 2 years ago 4
awesome pc
djarti24 2 years ago 3
my bad ^^
lordmagnum92i 2 years ago
1920*1200 upscaled to 2560*2600 must not be nice to see.
lordmagnum92i 2 years ago 4
it's only 1600:/
not 2600
rifle2744 2 years ago
i had the same background pic :P :D
hAApymonkey 2 years ago
is Windows Vista 64 Bit any good? cuz I think remember trying tons of programs on it that didn't work, did it improve?
and I played Crysis on it, and got 2 FPS max, and then installed Windows XP, and got like 30 FPS
1981z28camaro 3 years ago
In games you'll barely notice a difference compared to vista 32 bit,at least that is my experience.Tested a few games on both,the 64 and 32 bit version and they run the same,although only a few "less demanding" ;) games DO have troubles on the 64 bit version,but that is rather a rare case.Games already can and do run better if you use a 64 bit OS because the system swaps less often data between ram and your HDD,that's also just my experience,dunno how it is for others :P.
Assasinchen2006 3 years ago
About crysis on vista vs. win xp.
Xp ONLY uses direct x 9,which is less hardware demanding in crysis than direct x 10.If you run crysis on vista it automatically chooses direct x 10 as the default renderer... IF you have a direct x 10 graphics card in your pc.If crysis runs shitty on vista,then it possibly is,because your pc is too weak for direct x 10 rendering.Would explain why it runs better for you on xp than vista.Basicly,forget about gaming on vista with a weak pc :P.
Assasinchen2006 3 years ago
see this is why I hate computers, lol
I got the BFG Geforce 7900 GTX, at the time I spent $800 on,lol what a fucking waste of money, and the latest one, the GTX 295, is gonna be so crappy, in a year, it will be hard to give away for free, haha being a little sarcastic, but I swear they engineer them, so it works that way.
more money in the bank for them...
1981z28camaro 3 years ago
That's why I only buy mainstream cards around the 200 euro mark.The high end cards are basicly ONLY for enthusiasts that really wish to enjoy that bit of more performance for their money.Most games run perfectly on mainstream cards,because that's where the most money comes from,which is why it's basicly useless to spend money on those expensive cards if you're only a normal pc gamer and no gief-max-fps-whore :P.
Assasinchen2006 3 years ago
you need pretty good hardware tho, if you wanna run Crysis with everything Maxed out, and the Highest resolution..
1981z28camaro 3 years ago
Comment removed
Assasinchen2006 3 years ago
True true :).Crysis is exemplary when it comes to eating hardware.But the common types of games don't kill your sh*t like crysis does :P *g*,for why I don't buy the newest hardware available.If I would want to do that,i'd go nuts spending thousands of euro each one to two months,hehehe,which I can't anyway :D.I've played crysis on high settings smoothly in most levels..."High" is absolutely enough for me :)
Assasinchen2006 3 years ago
It's true, you need pretty good hardware, but that's the only game. In fact, GTA IV and Crysis are the only two games I can't run at 1680x1050 maxed out with an 8800GT and an AMD Phenom II 940 X4 3.0GHz. And my quad-core only improved performance really in GTA IV by increasing the framerate from 25FPS with all low settings, to 55FPS with medium-high settings, (haven't tested Crysis again yet) and all of my other games played max on my 2.6GHz dual-core.
081superdude180 2 years ago 2
So, unless you MUST have all max settings on Crysis on a huge resolution (1920x1080 and up) you should be fine with an 8800GT, or if you must step up to an HD4870 or GTX 275 which are about $190-$250. And then when and if you decide you need another card just SLi or CrossFire another one of the aforementioned cards which you'll probably be able to find cheap $100-$200 on eBay by the time you'll need it. And then get a third one when you need even more. Will save you a bit of money.
081superdude180 2 years ago
Exactly
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
It's not really their fault. It's just that technology is advancing daily, so they release new cards whenever they can. As they progress, newer cards will come out and older cards will be shit. It's true, the GTX 295 will eventually be shit, but that's just what you have to deal with. Right now I'm using an 8800GT and I'm planning on upgrading to a HD4870 or GTX 275 depending on what class I go with. GTX 275 is a class above the HD4870. But I don't think I'd pay $600 for a GTX 295.
081superdude180 2 years ago
not fair that all the cards are so overpriced in my country:/ i can't get a gtx295 for under 800$
rifle2744 2 years ago 4
Yeah, that does suck...the only thing I could recommend would be to try and find a sale on eBay that ships international and possibly get the card you want a bit cheaper. Or make friends with someone in another country and PayPal them some money to buy and ship you a card...you'd have to be good enough friends to trust them though.
081superdude180 2 years ago
i dont wanna ship outside of my own country, if there's something wrong with it it'll take a very long time to ship it over there and get it back.
and if someone else buys it and something's wrong then i wont be able to get a new one:(
rifle2744 2 years ago
I'm gonna try it anyway...
redhammer999 3 years ago
can you not run it at 2560 * 1600? Just curious...
wondering how my HD 4870 - 512MB will handle it :)
redhammer999 3 years ago
That's one sweet screen!
jayboy81101 3 years ago
this game is superb
asalistics 3 years ago
very nice LCD
minitoys40 3 years ago
What speaker setup do you have ?
Comptekhs 3 years ago
oh its higher than 1080p that moniter is 1600p
which is far higher than HD.
thedarkcow64 3 years ago
It's incorrect to say 1600p.
The *p/i format should really only be limited to TV standards.
Touhou1990 2 years ago
not realy because the i and p is just the way that the screen is refreshed, so if a monitor was refreshed in the was that a 1080i was done then it could have the tag of 1080i
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
The problem is that there is nothing from stopping companies from making a "Full HD" tv that can't even do 720p.
A lot of plasmas for example really only have 1024x768 nonsquare pixels.
Touhou1990 2 years ago
yea, i brought a hdt a year ago, it says full hd ... but when i plug my pc into it i get a higher resalution on my 19" minitor @ 1280 x 1024
aaronplayesdrums 2 years ago
My point is that Full HD isn't really a standard, if anything it's defacto.
I just hope people will realize that and not get ripped of from greedy TV manufacturers.
Touhou1990 2 years ago
the wallpaper is included with vista
jackalarrr 3 years ago
thanks friend, and tell me... this ":10" is poor to ":9"??? or, how is the change respect to other ratio???
kiss friend...
Pulparx 3 years ago
16:10 has advantages, such as the start bar won't shrink your 16:9 movies when you are playing them back.
christheferal 3 years ago
hi friend, one questions!!! is 16:9 or 16:10???
Kiss and answerme!!!
Pulparx 3 years ago
It's 16:10. Just like the 3007WFP-HC
BlackMage908 3 years ago
You probably had to update nVidia DRIVERS
And on Very High... your card cannot handle it...
And you should get the Crysis update
So yeah, YOU FAIL
beatsiz 3 years ago
double post...
CreamPictures 3 years ago
doesnt look so big on your table :\
errrick 3 years ago
this monitor hasn't got 30" it's a small keyboard
DerWambomann 3 years ago
there are so many ads at the beggning of crysis ( Like nvidia, intel core etc) I just want to get ot the game!!
CreamPictures 3 years ago
Press ESC a couple times...
lol
beatsiz 3 years ago
lol i know
CreamPictures 3 years ago
When did you figure that one out? haha
beatsiz 3 years ago
my ESC button aint working... I broke it lol
CreamPictures 3 years ago
bad thing about these monitors is the pc's it takes to run games at 2560x1600 and running at res like 1920x1200 doesnt look very good on the 30"
i might stop using my 30" for gaming and switch back to my 24" for much improved framerates
eclipsez0r 3 years ago
awesome SPEC and the PC itself , but how about trying a 42" LCD (Regza Toshiba) which I myself run Windows XP and Vista @ 1080p but yet I been testing on 64bit alots more often , so don't worry guys I post it up, I just never did it cuz it amaze me when I got it so ya , see me around I will see the Next Competitor, later :D
BlueToothX3 3 years ago
That. Monitor. Is. HUGE! I just switched from a puny 17" to a 22inch, and here I was, spazzing about it, when i saw this. Instant boner killer.
NoobsAreUsh 3 years ago
i have the 20wfp
darrenc12pdg123 3 years ago
What is his pic on the dessktop ( link) please please
freeway94 3 years ago
you should run it at full 2560x1600 you would only get about 15fps with your specs but it would be good though lol
pkerry12 3 years ago
Hey mate, what speaker have you got?
wxqn2008 3 years ago 3
he got logitech Z2300 2.1 THX speakers
Lee18902000 3 years ago
why is people turning to windows vista it jst sucks 256 or 512 of ram wich can be usefull for other tasks
driojas 3 years ago
is the first boot of display
DarkZomby 3 years ago
lol ur an idiot u dont have to reformat your drive to install a new moniter, n00b
xkyrulzx 3 years ago
Monitor is nice but crysis performance are worst.....
lainonet 3 years ago
so its crysis fault or is the monitor doing it worse?
StoffeBuZ 3 years ago
its not that bad for very high
DC180 3 years ago
what keyboard is that you have there
goshwil1 3 years ago
logitech dinovo
electriktricks 3 years ago
Thanks
goshwil1 3 years ago
lol, a pic of this desktop was posted on /g/ last night (probly not you), and i was asking about the monitor. i do some searching around today and i come upon this.. hahah.
gorgeus setup you got broseph.
emubomber 3 years ago
Very nice monitor
YaBigShowdra 3 years ago
Haha
I just got an upgrade of my monitors
1 22" and 1 26"
looks tiny compared to yours =(
"oh and thats what she said to me ^_^"
tinymouse2 3 years ago
how can an 26/22 inch monitor look tinier than an 30 inch?
MiddleChief 3 years ago
There next to each other
And a 30 inch will look HUGE compared to a 28"
Massive jump
And i only use the 26" for gaming so its a difference of 4 inches which is quite a big difference when you compare them side by side
tinymouse2 3 years ago