LG IPS277L-BN monitor

[LadyCrimson]

Quickie input grab:

 

I was looking at this LG 27" 1920x1080 monitor. Thoughts/opinions? 5ms ok these days for gaming? Does IPS really make much difference? Is 1080 ok for 27" as long as the monitor isn't a foot from your face? I wouldn't mind a monitor bigger than my 23" but I don't really want bigger resolution at this time.

 

One claim is the IPS has a better viewing angle, but when you look at specifications, the degree of angle they list doesn't seem all that much better than average LCD's. A bit, but not tons. Then again, this is a lower tier IPS ($350-$400), not an expensive version.

[Humanoid]

For me, the main attraction of IPS is the colour accuracy moreso than the viewing angle aspect (which tends to be more noticeable on notebooks than desktops). I see it like going to an SSD: once you go IPS, it's very hard to go back. No experience with that specific screen of course, or indeed any 1080p 27" panel. While it's significantly fewer pixels than the more conventional 2560x1440 panels normally seen at this size, I'd say it's hard to go wrong at that price (it's about half the going rate of the Dell/HP 27" models).

[Bokishi]

You can get 2560x1440 monitors for cheap on eBay here's one of them

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/130724901986

[LadyCrimson]

Yeah, I have a feeling I might like IPS better for things like photography. Not sure about gaming.

Hm. Maybe I'll go to Fry's and take a peek at that LG, if they still have one in the store.

[Janmanden]

The 16:9 or HD1080 is better suited for movies (and reading if you can rotate it 90 degrees) than for work. Going from a 23" 1080 to a 27" 1080 is .. if nothing else, better for your eyes and .. you should definitely be good to your eyes. I really like my 26" 1920x1200 and I know that that I would love 2560x1440, but I am already on glasses.

[Pidesco]

1080p for a 27" screen is too low. If that's your price range, I'd recommend Dell's U2412M, a 24" 16:10 IPS with 1920x1200 resolution. Or a Korean 27" or 30" from ebay, if you don't mind the risk.

[Bartimaeus]

The 16:9 or HD1080 is better suited for movies (and reading if you can rotate it 90 degrees) than for work. Going from a 23" 1080 to a 27" 1080 is .. if nothing else, better for your eyes and .. you should definitely be good to your eyes. I really like my 26" 1920x1200 and I know that that I would love 2560x1440, but I am already on glasses.

 

It's better for your eyes? Why would it be better? I mean, I see better in that sense that, if you have bad eyes, it should be easy to make out the individual pixels, as they're upscaled to a much larger degree than on a smaller screen, but not in the sense that it'll damage them less over time. Mind explaining that for me?

 

Sorry for off-topicness.

[Janmanden]

Isn't that obvious? Having a bigger screen with the same resolution will make everything bigger and thus it requires less strain on the eyes.

[Bartimaeus]

Isn't that obvious? Having a bigger screen with the same resolution will make everything bigger and thus it requires less strain on the eyes.

 

I would think the opposite...one pixel is being stretched to beyond its proportions, which probably makes it a bit more blurry, which would increase eye strain, not to mention the increased amount of light hitting your eyes...

[LadyCrimson]

1080p for a 27" screen is too low. If that's your price range, I'd recommend Dell's U2412M, a 24" 16:10 IPS with 1920x1200 resolution. Or a Korean 27" or 30" from ebay, if you don't mind the risk.

I have gotten used to the way 1080 looks on my 23" monitor. eg, playing games on this 1600x1200 monitor that's about the same physical size as mine, has been less than exciting. It's not that it looks terrible/very blurry - it looks fine really -  it just doesn't look ... as good. Less HD, less refined, if you will. Seems weird it would make any difference to my eyes, but it does. And I don't tend to like the 16:10 ratio, I've discovered.

 

I didn't want to up the resolution yet because I'm not sure I want to deal with the extra computing/GPU power that might pull while gaming. I don't think I'd have an issue with it, but I'd rather not feel a need to upgrade stuff just to support the bigger resolution. Price...budget isn't a biggie, I'm just cheap.

[Gorth]

I didn't want to up the resolution yet because I'm not sure I want to deal with the extra computing/GPU power that might pull while gaming. I don't think I'd have an issue with it, but I'd rather not feel a need to upgrade stuff just to support the bigger resolution. Price...budget isn't a biggie, I'm just cheap.

Didn't you have a 590 card? I've yet to find anything that could bring it to its knees. Most games run in 2560x1600 resolution and maxed out in most settings without issues

[Bokishi]

With 1080p you are under-utilizing your card.

[Gorgon]

No harm in keeping your old monitor hooked up. Actually very handy for window intensive apps like 3dsmax, photoshop, whatever. You have to allow for the screens to determine how you arrange your desk, but it gets hard to go back to just one screen after a while. That would give you a choice of native res as well when gaming.

[LadyCrimson]

Yup, a 590. It's not the GPU I was thinking about, it's the CPU. Still the 1st-gen i7-920. That enough? I have no clue how that relates to the new CPU's these days. I don't care too much about AA or having 100+ fps in games (60ish is fine), but I like everything else as high as possible.

 

If I bought one, the smaller 1080 monitor would be hooked up to the 2nd XP computer, so I wouldn't have to deal with a switchbox as much and view from both PC's at once.

[Gorth]

Speaking of monitors... it looks like I owe my gfx card an apology (sorry gfx card). Hooking up a second monitor on my card and swapping the cables around a bit, seems to indicate that the "flickering" is following the monitor. Sort of sucks since it costs twice as much as the gfx card. I guess I'm in the market for a new monitor too. Looks like Dell and HP are the two contenders so far (currently wouldn't touch a Samsung monitor with a fire poker, great image quality, crappy production values).

[LadyCrimson]

(currently wouldn't touch a Samsung monitor with a fire poker, great image quality, crappy production values).

Cheapie me was just looking at the Asus PB278Q, which as I understand is their version of IPS (they call it PLS?). Mostly because it's $700 instead of $1000+ and Fry's carries it (I still don't like online ordering...). 

 

Sigh. I have such a hard time making decisions sometimes.

[Gorth]

 

 

(currently wouldn't touch a Samsung monitor with a fire poker, great image quality, crappy production values).

Cheapie me was just looking at the Asus PB278Q, which as I understand is their version of IPS (they call it PLS?). Mostly because it's $700 instead of $1000+ and Fry's carries it (I still don't like online ordering...). 

 

Sigh. I have such a hard time making decisions sometimes.

 

 

Similarly priced in OZ

 

Thing is, once you've had 30" for a few years, you just can't live without it...

 

Candidate 1 (Dell)

 

Candidate 2 (HP)

 

Sadly, neither comes cheap, but my current Samsung was 1600$ plus shipping, which is why I was dreading the outcome of my little test.

[Spider]

Yup, a 590. It's not the GPU I was thinking about, it's the CPU. Still the 1st-gen i7-920. That enough? I have no clue how that relates to the new CPU's these days. I don't care too much about AA or having 100+ fps in games (60ish is fine), but I like everything else as high as possible.

 

If I bought one, the smaller 1080 monitor would be hooked up to the 2nd XP computer, so I wouldn't have to deal with a switchbox as much and view from both PC's at once.

 

It's very rare that the CPU bottlenecks anything graphics related these days, so I wouldn't worry about that.

[LadyCrimson]

@Gorth - They look really nice - can imagine how awesome it'd be to play a game on those. And I know what you mean ... the bigger you go, the more you 'can't live without it' after a while. It's the same with TV's (50" TV seems tiny, I'd really like a 60" plasma now...).

 

@Spider - good to know, thanks. Think I'll go back to Fry's and see about that Asus monitor then.

[Humanoid]

There's been bugger-all improvement in CPUs since the first generation i# series, which is what you have. There's not really any incentive to Intel to push along development really, what with AMD being utterly uncompetitive in that area for years now. Especially since those first gen ones overclocked really easily, should be able to hit 4GHz easier than the following model did actually.

 

Gorth - the new model Dell U3013 comes out in a month, after just now refreshing the 27" equivalent. Dell are a bit weird in that while they charge a significant "Australia Tax" on most of their stuff, they don't really on monitors, which if anything go on sale more frequently here than over in the US. Feels like they tell me about a 30% off sale every second week.

 

For what it's worth, I picked up my pair of U2711s more than a couple years ago now for ~$650 each back when they were $1100+ RRP. They've changed the system now so that you can no longer stack discount codes with sales, but reduced the RRP accordingly such that the final price comes out to pretty much the same. They've just superceded my model with the new U2713H (no 'M' at the end, which signifies the cheaper, but still (e)IPS models), I gather the main improvement is a better, less aggressive, anti-glare coating. Do I regret not going for the 30" in the first place? Sort of - I only ever game on one panel, especially since for the bulk of the screen ownership I only had a 1GB 5850. But both then and now I wouldn't have been able to justify two of them at about $1050-1100 each. I would consider replacing one in the future to get an asymmetrical setup going I guess.

 

 

 

Fake edit: Yeah, PLS is basically Samsung's version/competitor of IPS, so Asus would be sourcing their panel in that display from Samsung.

[Gorth]

3013 you say? Hmm... I might just hold off a bit then. I've been living with the constant flickering for more than a month now, while it's driving my crazy(more crazy?), I might survive 1 or 2 more. Thanks for the heads up. Not that I have any idea what the 13 implies compared to the 11

 

Edit:

@Gorth - They look really nice - can imagine how awesome it'd be to play a game on those. And I know what you mean ... the bigger you go, the more you 'can't live without it' after a while. It's the same with TV's (50" TV seems tiny, I'd really like a 60" plasma now...).

 

Yeah, I'm still stuck with my old 42" plasma. I just can't justify investing more on TV, since I rarely watch it. Maybe once or twice a week, catching some news or foreign language movie.

[Humanoid]

2013 release as opposed to 2011 release (though it might have been late-2010). No specific details about the changes, but one that can be assumed is, like the 2713, more conservative use of the anti-glare coating: the previous model's coating was so thick that some people just couldn't unsee the texture of it. I assume it will also gain USB3.0 ports, and miniDisplayPort input.

 

 

And continuing the tangent, yeah, I have a 46" TV, and while I'd love to go larger, and with plasma instead of LCD, it's basically just a display for my HTPC and not a TV as such. My TV reception is all screwy, and has been for months, but I haven't bothered fixing it.

[Bokishi]

 

Yup, a 590. It's not the GPU I was thinking about, it's the CPU. Still the 1st-gen i7-920. That enough? I have no clue how that relates to the new CPU's these days. I don't care too much about AA or having 100+ fps in games (60ish is fine), but I like everything else as high as possible.

 

If I bought one, the smaller 1080 monitor would be hooked up to the 2nd XP computer, so I wouldn't have to deal with a switchbox as much and view from both PC's at once.

 

It's very rare that the CPU bottlenecks anything graphics related these days, so I wouldn't worry about that.

 

You are actually CPU limited with the lower resolution because your vidcard is under-working. Going to a higher res will reduce your cpu bottleneck and make your videocard bottleneck you instead (how it should be)

Edited February 24, 2013 by Bokishi

[LadyCrimson]

So, went to Best Buy looking for a new sound card (got one of those). In the process, noticed they had some LG IPS 27" monitors for sale. Not quite the same model as the one I linked to in the OP post,  probably just a slightly cheaper version. Model #27EA63V-P. Only 1920x1080 but eh, local BestBuy is excellent about returns so I said screw it and brought it home to check it out.
 
I can't decide. Color/basic setting options and response time are all fine for gaming and general photography out of the box (I rarely officially "calibrate" monitors, just do the typical contrast/hue/brightness settings). Doesn't seem like 1080 on 27" is much of a problem for those things. But it does tend to be little more pixelated with text, both on websites and in program menus. Nothing terrible and probably get used to it, but hmm. It's not blurry, just bigger pixels. It's most negative feature so far, however, is the power cord itself - it's really really short, not leaving much wiggle room to get to the power outlets.  Oh and the touch "buttons" for the settings menus are super duper hyper-sensitive so it's annoying trying to adjust hue and stuff. Why can't they just use frakking real buttons like they used to.
 
I definitely like the viewing angle (and size) better with even cheap IPS. Don't see any bleed through, dead pixels, contrast seems better, and so on. If I keep it, the biggest problem is that both it and the old 23" monitor (for 2nd PC) side by side starts to take up my whole desk. And my desk isn't small.

[Sensuki]

imo wait for 120Hz IPS ... whenever that happens