High pixel density displays

mihapiha

mihapiha

New member
Hey guys.

Right now I don't have a monitor, apart from the one I use for the folding farm. I intend on purchasing one though. Especially if I can find the right one for the right price. If I cannot I will wait. The new monitor ought to be a secondary monitor for my MacBook Pro until I get my gaming rig ready. The gaming rig will be a build I will finish sometime this year (I hope), so the purchase of the monitor is not really that big of a priority.

I have my problems though, as I don't know anything about monitor specs. I don't know whether a number is good or bad in their specs, the only thing I look at is the amount of pixels a monitor has. The more the merrier to me, especially since I fell in love with the display on the MacBook pro. It's a "retina" display. So I have a whopping 2880x1800 resolution on a small 15" screen. That makes the picture quality just phenomenal. Far better than on my old Dell 27" with 2560x1440. I sold that monitor a couple months back. So the high pixel density is something I really would love to maintain with a bigger monitor

Right now I'm not really a fan of the idea of getting another 1440p screen. I would definitely prefer getting a higher resolution than that on the same size screen. Maybe even on a smaller screen. I just would like the pixel density to big as big as possible Right now I'm looking into the Sharp PN-K321H which in my eyes is just unreal. Especially in terms of the price. It has a whopping 3140x2160 resolution as it is quad-Full-HD. Yes, quad-Full-HD on a single 32" screen. I think this would be just perfect if it wasn't that expensive. I seriously doubt I could possibly afford that, and even if I could, I don't really know what GPU could power that. I don't mean in performance, but what GPU (especially desktop GPU) has that monster resolution in the driver?

http://youtu.be/GaY39sLAdkQ


Also the specs as I said are a mystery to me. So if someone could enlighten me in terms of specs so in future I'd be able to look for monitors I'd be thankful. Here are the specs of that specific monitor:



http://www.sharp.co....K321H&cat=11500

Any opinions on that or any other monitor are more than welcome. This certainly won't be a rash decision and I want as many opinions as possible before purchasing anything...
 
Highest most sensible resolution for monitors would be 1600p or 1440p. Any higher and prices go through the roof.

Also pixel density is a loose term. The higher the res the more pixels will be able to fit in the screen. A 20" 1440p monitor will have a much higher pixel density than a 32" 1440p monitor. This is just an example.

You have probably fallen into the marketing crap. With new phones and laptops boasting higher pixel densitys thus "making" them seem better than everything else.
 
After reading your specs on this monitor , I figured it would be expensive. And then watching that youtube video that confirmed it, wow over $5000.00 usd?
I don't know if there is a video card out that could power that thing, maybe a Titan x2 in sli or a 7990 x2 in crossfire.
I don't know alot about monitors but I am learning some about them. I have 2 Samsung 24" 1080p right now and plan on upgrading sometime soon.
The 2 I've seen mentioned here on the forums are http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236294
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260028
But I'll have to wait to afford either one for now.
I know others will be able to give you more info and explain tech specs and also give their opinion .
 
NeverBackDown said:
Highest most sensible resolution for monitors would be 1600p or 1440p. Any higher and prices go through the roof.

Also pixel density is a loose term. The higher the res the more pixels will be able to fit in the screen. A 20" 1440p monitor will have a much higher pixel density than a 32" 1440p monitor. This is just an example.

You have probably fallen into the marketing crap. With new phones and laptops boasting higher pixel densitys thus "making" them seem better than everything else.
Click to expand...

I've had 3D, Eyefinity and Surround for display setups. A single 27" 2560x1440 resolution was the last thing I used. But the MacBook's 2880x1800 resolution just beats everything I've seen so far. Especially since it's on a 15" Monitor. If you see a 20" 1440p monitor link me to it. I'd definitely prefer that over the 32".

Honestly the pixel density isn't just a "marketing" trick. It really does improve the picture quality beyond believe. The only thing is that the GT 650M card in the MBP isn't powerful enough to power the 1800p resolution in most games. But it just looks phenomenal in games that it does.

@ Mark3Max:

I definitely think that the high res is the future, and if I could afford it, it would be a no brainer for me to get that Sharp. But you misunderstood my question. What graphic card supports that resolution anyhow. I think desktop graphic cards (even the Titan) only support up to 1600p resolutions... But correct me if I'm wrong
 
mihapiha said:
I've had 3D, Eyefinity and Surround for display setups. A single 27" 2560x1440 resolution was the last thing I used. But the MacBook's 2880x1800 resolution just beats everything I've seen so far. Especially since it's on a 15" Monitor. If you see a 20" 1440p monitor link me to it. I'd definitely prefer that over the 32".

Honestly the pixel density isn't just a "marketing" trick. It really does improve the picture quality beyond believe. The only thing is that the GT 650M card in the MBP isn't powerful enough to power the 1800p resolution in most games. But it just looks phenomenal in games that it does.
Click to expand...

It was an example not literal.
Yes i know pixel density makes it look better. The pixel density is sort of useless in your case. You almost have 4k res on a 15" screen so obviously it will look far better than anything out there. Everything in comparison will look like shit. You have to deal with 1600p until 4k becomes available at smaller screen sizes. Which will be a few years unless you will buy at "monitor" of 60"+
 
I know it wasn't literal, I just wanted to point out that higher pixel density is what I'm looking for. I suppose the Sharp then is the only real monitor out there which would fulfill my desire.

But I still don't know if there is any desktop graphic card out there which would support 4k resolutions and I still don't understand spec numbers.

It says: Image Brightness: 350 cd/m²
Is that good?

It says: Contrast Ratio: 800:1
What does that mean? What is good what bad, and for what reason?

I hear 8ms response time is ok for gaming, but I'm not sure about that either.

I just think it would so sick to play Anno 1404 on that resolution... :)
 
Image brightness: Higher the number the brighter it is. If you play in a room that has a lot of ambient light then get a brighter display, if you do not then 250cd/m^2 is ideal(and the lowest i would go).

Static contrast ratio: The 800:1 ratio refers to "static" Which is far more important than "dynamic" contrast.

Static= A static contrast ratio is the contrast ratio at a given point in time. A static contrast ratio offers superior performance when there are sudden transitions from a well lit atmosphere to a darker one, and vise versa.

Dynamic= dynamic contrast ratio is the overall contrast ratio the television can produce over time. A high dynamic contrast ratio is preferable for prolonged scenes that take place in dark settings or black and white movies in general.

anything above 8ms i would consider "slow" for gaming. anything above 5ms and you will most likely not notice a difference at only 60hz.

You are going to need at least 2 Titans/690s/7990s to play 4k res. Yes it is supported but will require a HDMI cable(max it will transfer is 24hz) or a DisplayPort that will go 60hz.

This should be informative for 4k:)
http://www.monstercable.com/hdmi/HDMI14.asp

http://www.amd.com/la/Documents/50279_AMD_FirePro_DisplayPort_1-2_WP.pdf
 
Last edited:
So image brightness is ok I suppose as the room the screen will be in is quite dark most of the day.

The contrast ratio is ok too? I don't fully get what number is bad and what is good.

The hardware to power this thing isn't really my concern. I probably will spend quite a lot of time to build the rig, and in time I think the performance of them GPUs will continue to improve. The real worrying thing is the price of the monitor. I'm not sure how I could possibly afford that...

Guess DisplayPort is a must in that area now anyhow..
 
Oh right. As if i didn't bother reading the whole post.

There's that Sekei (or whatever it's called) 4K TV, but thats limited to 30Htz
 
:wub:

I will defiantly be investing once they come in a range of sizes and price points. I don't even game much, i just hate pixelated edges after using my iPhone.
 
NeverBackDown said:
Image brightness: Higher the number the brighter it is. If you play in a room that has a lot of ambient light then get a brighter display, if you do not then 250cd/m^2 is ideal(and the lowest i would go).

Static contrast ratio: The 800:1 ratio refers to "static" Which is far more important than "dynamic" contrast.

Static= A static contrast ratio is the contrast ratio at a given point in time. A static contrast ratio offers superior performance when there are sudden transitions from a well lit atmosphere to a darker one, and vise versa.

Dynamic= dynamic contrast ratio is the overall contrast ratio the television can produce over time. A high dynamic contrast ratio is preferable for prolonged scenes that take place in dark settings or black and white movies in general.

anything above 8ms i would consider "slow" for gaming. anything above 5ms and you will most likely not notice a difference at only 60hz.

You are going to need at least 2 Titans/690s/7990s to play 4k res. Yes it is supported but will require a HDMI cable(max it will transfer is 24hz) or a DisplayPort that will go 60hz.

This should be informative for 4k:)
http://www.monstercable.com/hdmi/HDMI14.asp

http://www.amd.com/la/Documents/50279_AMD_FirePro_DisplayPort_1-2_WP.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks NBD , that explains thing alot better . Great links btw, I have both saved.
 
I think the 32" 4k monitor is ideal for todays hardware. I just would love to see that first hand in action. I wonder how great the picture quality is.

I just think that two high end cards could possibly be enough for that resolution. In two years time one could be enough... If the price drops I'll definitely aim in that direction.

Hopefully I'll be able to afford it soon. I'll have to start saving money right now :)
 
Ya i saved the links to, took like 15mins to find both lol.

Most people in the world will need to save up for 4k.
I just wonder if 4k will use OLED displays and not LCD with a LED backlight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Need to pick your brains
Replies
1
Views
74
Excalabur50
Excalabur50
Dawelio
Monitors these days?...
Replies
1
Views
3K
Warchild
W
C
Advise on my proposed build please
Replies
4
Views
581
AlienALX
AlienALX
AlienALX
For Robbie.
Replies
4
Views
118
AlienALX
AlienALX
Kaapstad
Should Nvidia and AMD be broken up?
Replies
4
Views
299
KingNosser
K
Back
Top