PC + Monitor

[Osmo]

CPU: i5-2500k ✔
Motherboard: Asus - SABERTOOTH P67 ✔
RAM: Corsair CMZ8GX3M2A1600C8 8GB 1600MHz CL8 DDR3 Vengeance Memory Two Module Kit [£84.29] ✔
GPU: Asus 2GB ATi Radeon 6970 ✔
Memory: OCZ 120GB SSD Vertex 3✔ 1TB Spinpoint F3 ✔
PSU: OCZ Fata1ity 750w semi moduler✔
OS: Windows 7 64 bit OEM Professional ✔
CD Drive: Samsung ✔
CASE: CM Storm Scout ✔

This is the PC I built.





This is my new monitor

http://ue32b600-0.co.uk/UE32B6000-Specification.html

I had a question. A friend told me that my graphics card won't be able to keep up with the FPS of a 32 inch screen. It won't be good. Also bear in mind the monitor has 100hz motion and 4ms.

[vuzedome]

Ask your friend to go fuck himself.
No seriously, that resolution is just the same as 24 inch, and just the same as a 21 inch, all are 1080p.
100Hz again is on the part of the television, how capable of your graphics card to render frames of a game is unrelated to the kind of monitor or television it is connected to.

[Ramnator]

I myself picked a 27" screen when I last upgraded my stuff, and I am finding that I wish I hadn't picked over 25", it just gets too wide.

[kitamesume]

size doesn't matter, its the screen resolution that counts. the higher the screen resolution is in the screen, the more dots(pixels) can fit in it. and the more pixels that fits in it, the better picture quality you get. this is called pixel pitch, or pixel density, the denser it is the better it is. but the more pixels there is to be shown, the heavier it is for the GPU to render.

well back to the main topic, the bad part is, you my friend, just got screwed XD but not entirely, that 1920x1080 resolution can be had for 21.5inches monitor, try googling this model number AOC E2240Vw, plus this monitor can be had for less than £200. a good monitor 32inches of size mostly has 2560x1600 resolution and the one you brought isn't a monitor but a TV, which has lesser pixel density standards than monitors.
the good part is that, your graphics card can handle it, even if its only just one, =P no need to get another to crossfire later, a HD6970 is designed to crunch 1920x1080p and even higher resolutions.


now my question is, is that really a LED screen TV? or just some HOAX branding LED backlit LCD TV?

[Freedom Kira]

... Dude. Intel's onboard HD Graphics 2000 can handle 1080p easily. You don't even need a graphics card for 1080p. No need to bring up Crossfire.

And dude. True LED screens don't exist for TVs. When people say "LED TV" they mean "LED backlit TV." It's not a hoax, it is simply ambiguous shorthand whose alternative meaning is impossible (as of today).

[kitamesume]

partly true, the HD 2000 can handle 1080p movies but not games, intel just simply fails at it. the K versions of sandy bridge has HD3000, its better than the HD2000.

well yea sure, but i hated them for doing that, false advertisement is just bad.

@OP the monitor you should've tried getting is this [£674.48]Dell UltraSharp U2711 Black 27" 6ms HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor with PremierColor 350
or [£220.97]Dell U2311 23 inch Widescreen IPS Panel LCD Monitor
if its too expensive.

then again, a 32" @ 1920x1080 res isn't too bad, so long as you stay some distance when playing. but if you need glasses to read a newspaper, doubt you`d notice much difference.

[vuzedome]

That 32 inch Samsung is pretty nice, and the price is alright for a LED backlit LCD tv.
And you better have some distance between your eyes and the screen, 32 inch isn't really considered small.

[Osmo]

So just because this model isn't a monitor it has less pixel density? Not sure how that works.

[vuzedome]

The tv you pick has full 1080p resolution so you're ok.
What you picked is basically more suited to be used as a tv rather than close up as a monitor, because of the large size.
Here's a simple idea of what they meant by pixel density, imagine cramming 100 marbles in to a tightly fit jar, and then cram the same amount into a bigger jar, which one looks more densely packed?
32 inch is alright, you just need to sit back a foot or two more than usual.

[NaRu]

Your GPU can handle 6 screens of those screens with ease. The only issue I see is how close do you want to be to that screen. A 32" screen at 1920x1080 would have a best viewing around 3 feet away. If you want to be closer to the screen I recommend a 27" screen

[Freedom Kira]

So just because this model isn't a monitor it has less pixel density? Not sure how that works.

The difference between a TV and a monitor is basically the size to pixel density ratio (aside from the types of inputs they accept). It's uncommon to see a TV under 32" with full 1080p resolution, but monitors typically do have 1080p once you hit 22", and even higher resolutions as you go up in size. That's why monitors cost considerably more than TVs of the same size, or larger.

Makes sense too, as TVs are designed to be put a fair distance away, so you don't need the high precision that a monitor offers. That's the exchange for the significantly lower price. Throw in the fact that dead pixels are not as important in TVs, too, since a single pixel is less visible on a TV than it is on a monitor.

I should also mention that monitors tend to be 16:10 width to height, while TVs prefer 16:9. So you'd more commonly see 1200p (1920x1200) in a monitor than a TV.

[kureshii]

So just because this model isn't a monitor it has less pixel density? Not sure how that works.

Pixel density = number of pixels you can cram in a certain area. If we assume that square pixels are used (safe enough for consumer TVs and monitors being sold today), DPI (dots per inch) is a sufficient measure; it tells you how many pixels you'll cover if you draw a line one inch long on your monitor. You can easily calculate this yourself: on a 1080p monitor, divide 1920 by the length of the screen (without bezel) in inches, or divide 1080 by the breadth. This gives you the DPI for the monitor, which should be a number above 90, below 120, for a typical PC monitor.

If you still have your mathematical intuition about you, it should be immediately clear that a larger 1080p monitor/TV will have a lower DPI. What does this mean? If you can cram more (square) pixels into an inch, that means each pixel is smaller. Conversely, on a larger TV, the DPI is lower, which means each pixel is larger. This is common mathematical sense and needs no further elaboration or defense.

If you attempt to put that TV on a desk and use it as a monitor, the pixels will be quite noticeable to the naked eye and it is going to look pretty awful. Either sit further away from that 32", or be sensible and buy a proper PC monitor for desktop use.



You should also stop taking hardware advice from that friend. I say this for your own good.

[Temuthril]

I should also mention that monitors tend to be 16:10 width to height, while TVs prefer 16:9. So you'd more commonly see 1200p (1920x1200) in a monitor than a TV.

I'd say most monitors are 16:9 these days too, unfortunately.

[Freedom Kira]

I noticed that too, lately, though I don't follow LCD displays much, monitor or TV. My intended meaning was that 16:10 is more commonly found in monitors than TVs.

[kureshii]

16:10 is never found in TVs AFAIK, which is unsurprising considering how unnecessary it is for video entertainment.

[kitamesume]

one good sample of a lesser density pixel in comparison to a higher density pixel.

if you draw a line diagonally, on a lesser density pixel, you`ll see stairs, yep, not a line, but boxes arranged like a stair. but on a higher density pixel, you`d see an almost straight line, the denser it is, the more tiny boxes you could fit on that line.

think of the image as if each box is a monitor with the numbers on top is the pixel count, aka resolution.

[Osmo]

Thank you for the comments people.

I know it's lazy of me to ask but could you guys put up monitors that are better then the one I put up?
I want to spend £200 - £300

[kitamesume]

what screen size do you prefer? or rather, how would you use the monitor, as a movie monitor? or as a desktop gaming monitor?

movie monitor tends to be viewed from quite a distance, 2-4meters away mostly. while gaming monitor gets a little near, less than 2meters, 1meter at best, some even at half a meter.

[£674.48]Dell UltraSharp U2711 Black 27" 6ms HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor with PremierColor 350

[£220.97]Dell U2311 23 inch Widescreen IPS Panel LCD Monitor

[£320.94]ASUS VE278Q 27 inch LED Widescreen Full HD 1080p with HDMI Display Port 2ms Response Time Picture in Picture

this is what my preference is, 21.5"-23" is just right as a gaming monitor, while its a bit small as a movie monitor. 27"-32" is just right as a movie monitor, but a bit too big as a gaming monitor.

well, if you want a big screen that much, try and find a projector with 1920x1080p or 1280x720p at least as a resolution, you could get like 100" screen out of it.

PS: why the F*** are the good monitors priced too freaking high, can't even find a 27" 2560x1440 res under £500.

[zat0x91]

Don't bother using a TV as a monitor otherwise have fun with that 50ms+ input lag or reduced image quality to compensate (somewhat) for that.  Plus the lack of space compared to the pixels that you should have will probably be annoying.

You'd probably want to get a 24" IPS Dell Ultrasharp.

PS: why the F*** are the good monitors priced too freaking high, can't even find a 27" 2560x1440 res under £500.

First off 16:9 is retarded for a computer resolution - especially if you're going for that size.

Second they're expensive because they use IPS panels rather than cheap and shitty TN panels.  I'd personally take my friends Dell U2311 over my spare shitty Samsung 26" TN panel.