Dell UltraSharp U2913WM 29", 2560x1080 Full HD, 21:9 Monitor - $549.99 ($649.99 on Amazon) Shipped Dell.com

terrible price.

Quote from petard : You've really never used monitors with different resolutions? It's hard to believe someone who's been here so long and with 2,746 rep points doesn't know the difference between resolutions. Feel free to look at these excellent screenshots of two different resolutions at the same scaling percentage. All computer screens have similar PPIs, with 27" 2560x1440 having the highest, but still very close to this 29" 2560x1080 screen. "Optimal viewing distance" should only be a few inches apart, and won't be a problem for the majority of people. 1024x768 [imgur.com] 1600x900 [imgur.com] Can you honestly not see the extra workspace available? Here's another example Maximum height of an Excel window on a 1080 vertical pixel screen. [imgur.com] Line 45 is the last one visible. Maximum height of an Excel window on a 1600 vertical pixel screen [imgur.com] Line 76 is the last one visible. Looks like my MOAR PIXELS!!!! lets me have MOAR WORKSPACE!!! My 30" screen and 27" screens are at the same distance my 23" and 20" screens they replaced.

stop spamming and start reading. go back and read the post.

He understands your point about higher resolution. You're disregarding the concept of visibility related to viewing distance. You may be a young man or woman with 20/20 vision, but the world is made up of many people who have differing capabilities. More resolution doesn't directly equate into more visibility, only more fidelity when comparing screens of the same physical dimensions. Visibility takes into account the resolution in addition to the viewing distance and the viewing capabilities of the observer, as the quoted post refers to.

Quote from petard : You've really never used monitors with different resolutions? It's hard to believe someone who's been here so long and with 2,746 rep points doesn't know the difference between resolutions. Feel free to look at these excellent screenshots of two different resolutions at the same scaling percentage. All computer screens have similar PPIs, with 27" 2560x1440 having the highest, but still very close to this 29" 2560x1080 screen. "Optimal viewing distance" should only be a few inches apart, and won't be a problem for the majority of people. 1024x768 [imgur.com] 1600x900 [imgur.com] Can you honestly not see the extra workspace available? Here's another example Maximum height of an Excel window on a 1080 vertical pixel screen. [imgur.com] Line 45 is the last one visible. Maximum height of an Excel window on a 1600 vertical pixel screen [imgur.com] Line 76 is the last one visible. Looks like my MOAR PIXELS!!!! lets me have MOAR WORKSPACE!!! My 30" screen and 27" screens are at the same distance my 23" and 20" screens they replaced.

I am a mild gamer. By no means hardcore. I bought a Dell 2713HM 27inch 2560x1440.

I am debating if I should get this one or keep the 2713HM.

I use the PC for gaming. Should I save the money from the 27 and buy this?

Looking to upgrade my current 8800T OC to 550ti.

Thanks guys!

Quote from Pinchy : I am a mild gamer. By no means hardcore. I bought a Dell 2713HM 27inch 2560x1440. I am debating if I should get this one or keep the 2713HM. I use the PC for gaming. Should I save the money from the 27 and buy this? Looking to upgrade my current 8800T OC to 550ti. Thanks guys!

No, the 27" 2560x1440 monitor is better than this one (2560x1080) in every way.

Quote from fyu : stop spamming and start reading. go back and read the post.

I'm not spamming. Anyone who has used one of these monitors with a higher resolution will agree that there is more workspace. You may not be able to differentiate individual pixels if you sit far, but what does that matter? You don't need to be able to individually differentiate pixels to get use out of them.

As I said, my 30" 2560x1600 monitor is at the same place I put my old 23" 1920x1080 monitor and my 27" 2560x1440 monitor is at the same place my old 20" 1680x1050 monitor sat. I sit far enough from them (32", just measured with a measuring tape) that I really can't see the individual pixels. That's not the point. I can have a ton of information on my screen, and I can read it just fine, even if I can't see the individual pixels.

There is just no way to argue that this 29" will let you see more information at once than the 27" 2560x1440 or the 30" 2560x1600 monitors.

Go use the "retina calculator" linked to in that post. The 27" and this 29" have a 4" difference in when they become "retina". That is basically negligible. Just put the 27" 4" closer to you than the 29" would be and you'd have the same "visibility" but much more workspace (33% more vertically!).

This aspect ratio would have been fine if they had kept the monitor 1440 or 1600 pixels high and increased the horizontal resolution, instead of keeping it at 2560 horizontal and decreasing the vertical resolution.

Quote from muz0169 : thanks for your opinion, unfortunately you're assessment is completely incorrect. I adhere to an 80 character rule because my peers and i often use non-gui editors and we try to have respect for each other in that regard. The horizontal space is usually used for additional windows (output, profiling, logs, tools, etc). As i said before, this is really a matter of personal preference and i don't suggest that a physically wider monitor is the best choice. I'm only suggesting that there are programmers, like myself, who regularly utilize screen real estate in this way.

IT.
Was.
A.
Joke.

why only 1080? even my 2407 has 1200 vertical pixels. would love the extra width, but not at the expense of the shorter vertical workspace. or am i missing something?

Quote from broadwayblue : why only 1080? even my 2407 has 1200 vertical pixels. would love the extra width, but not at the expense of the shorter vertical workspace. or am i missing something?

Not missing anything, this is one of the new dumb super wide monitors where they cut vertical pixels off the 2560 wide monitors instead of adding horizontal pixels. Same thing that happened with the switch from 16:10 to 16:9.

Quote from petard : Not missing anything, this is one of the new dumb super wide monitors where they cut vertical pixels off the 2560 wide monitors instead of adding horizontal pixels. Same thing that happened with the switch from 16:10 to 16:9.

Thanks. Thought something was strange. Guess I'll keep looking.

Quote from Arcanlaw : Personally I'm waiting for 2560x768. I do a lot of graphics work for BIC pens.

I'm going for 2560x480. Light saber artwork is high in demand!

Quote from petard : All computer screens have similar PPIs,

I've attached a screenshot (wikipedia) showing that, well, gosh, the PPI's of computer screens vary quite a bit.

Now, in real life, I'm the person that actually has to purchase monitors for a few hundred people. Some are artists, some are lawyers, some are accountants, some are doctors and therapists, but most are just regular office worker types.

And here's a funny thing about "most" people.... around 23-24" at 1920x1080 resoltion, so a PPI between 92-96, at normal office worker sized desks, sitting upright in their normal office worker chairs.... at around this point is when people stop zooming in the web browser to make things bigger so they can easily read them. Go figure, right? People zooming in, cause ya know, higher PPI makes all the letters smaller and harder to read?

Quote from petard : You've really never used monitors with different resolutions? It's hard to believe someone who's been here so long and with 2,746 rep points doesn't know the difference between resolutions.

Thing about being on SlickDeals is that the person your insulting might be the person that stumbles across this GREAT deal that you really would love to jump on....and doesn't post it because they got ripped into by someone.... or even saw someone ELSE get ripped into.

Even if you think someone else is an idiot, don't let on...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to post a slick deal.

Quote from petard : "Optimal viewing distance" should only be a few inches apart, and won't be a problem for the majority of people.

Well, according to http://isthisretina.com/, 96PPI is "retina" at 36 inches. Now, "retina" is the point at which you can't see an individual pixel. As I type this, with the nice thin font that's being used, the lines making up the letters are....1 pixel thick. (With an extra pixel of "blur" around them). So, at a "retina" distance I wouldn't be able to see the letters. Assuming I was blessed with 20/20 vision.

As it happens, the PPI of this dell monitor, 2560x1080 is ALSO about 96, so it ALSO becomes "retina" at about 36". In other words, this screen has the same "readability" as a 23" 1080p screen. Which is pretty much optimal for most folks.

Now, your 27" 2560x1440 screen has a much higher PPI of almost 109, making it "retina" at 32". That happens to be the distance "most folks" sit from their screens. Which means that "most folks" would find the font I'm seeing as I type this really difficult to read. Right on the edge of what they could and couldn't see.

Since most folks seem to prefer the readability of things with a PPI of 92-94, at a resolution of 2560x1440 most people would want a 32" monitor.

In other words, all that extra work space doesn't do squat if you can't see it.

Quote from petard : My 30" screen and 27" screens are at the same distance my 23" and 20" screens they replaced.

You are blessed my friend with EXCELLENT eyes. I envy you, I truly do.

Sitting at my customary 45" or so from the screen, 1920x1080 is RIGHT at the limit of what my poor vision (20/40 with glasses) can comfortably read.

My dream screen is, of course, a 72" 1920x1080p. Since that'd let me since in a nice comfy recliner instead of an office chair and work

Distance, visual acuity, video card, intended use, they all matter. A LOT. For the average person with an average desk, this extra wide Dell? It's basically a 24" screen that got stretched wider, and that makes it a pretty good fit for normal folks. The same normal folks that like the average 24" 1920x1080 screen best.

Quote from Zanthexter : I've attached a screenshot (wikipedia) showing that, well, gosh, the PPI's of computer screens vary quite a bit. Now, in real life, I'm the person that actually has to purchase monitors for a few hundred people. Some are artists, some are lawyers, some are accountants, some are doctors and therapists, but most are just regular office worker types. And here's a funny thing about "most" people.... around 23-24" at 1920x1080 resoltion, so a PPI between 92-96, at normal office worker sized desks, sitting upright in their normal office worker chairs.... at around this point is when people stop zooming in the web browser to make things bigger so they can easily read them. Go figure, right? People zooming in, cause ya know, higher PPI makes all the letters smaller and harder to read? Thing about being on SlickDeals is that the person your insulting might be the person that stumbles across this GREAT deal that you really would love to jump on....and doesn't post it because they got ripped into by someone.... or even saw someone ELSE get ripped into. Even if you think someone else is an idiot, don't let on...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to post a slick deal. Well, according to http://isthisretina.com/, 96PPI is "retina" at 36 inches. Now, "retina" is the point at which you can't see an individual pixel. As I type this, with the nice thin font that's being used, the lines making up the letters are....1 pixel thick. (With an extra pixel of "blur" around them). So, at a "retina" distance I wouldn't be able to see the letters. Assuming I was blessed with 20/20 vision. As it happens, the PPI of this dell monitor, 2560x1080 is ALSO about 96, so it ALSO becomes "retina" at about 36". In other words, this screen has the same "readability" as a 23" 1080p screen. Which is pretty much optimal for most folks. Now, your 27" 2560x1440 screen has a much higher PPI of almost 109, making it "retina" at 32". That happens to be the distance "most folks" sit from their screens. Which means that "most folks" would find the font I'm seeing as I type this really difficult to read. Right on the edge of what they could and couldn't see. Since most folks seem to prefer the readability of things with a PPI of 92-94, at a resolution of 2560x1440 most people would want a 32" monitor. In other words, all that extra work space doesn't do squat if you can't see it. You are blessed my friend with EXCELLENT eyes. I envy you, I truly do. Sitting at my customary 45" or so from the screen, 1920x1080 is RIGHT at the limit of what my poor vision (20/40 with glasses) can comfortably read. My dream screen is, of course, a 72" 1920x1080p. Since that'd let me since in a nice comfy recliner instead of an office chair and work Distance, visual acuity, video card, intended use, they all matter. A LOT. For the average person with an average desk, this extra wide Dell? It's basically a 24" screen that got stretched wider, and that makes it a pretty good fit for normal folks. The same normal folks that like the average 24" 1920x1080 screen best.

I do not have excellent eyes. I have horrible eyes, I can't see 6 inches in front of me without glasses or contacts. That 4" difference is not a lot, even to me. Why must you keep the monitor in the same position? Why not just move the monitor 4" closer if you really want or need to, and get a huge boost in usable room which increases productivity, while keeping the perceived size of the on screen elements the same? You keep arguing that you can't use the extra workspace, but your argument depends on people not being able to move the monitor closer to them. I work in an office, and people keep the monitors far away. With a higher PPI monitor that sits just 4" closer, it isn't an issue. The largest PPI difference is the 96 to 109 PPI, and that really isn't a huge difference. Things are just 12% smaller on the 27" screen.

Quote from petard : That 4" difference is not a lot, even to me. Why must you keep the monitor in the same position? Why not just move the monitor 4" closer if you really want or need to, and get a huge boost in usable room which increases productivity, while keeping the perceived size of the on screen elements the same?

Because that wouldn't leave room for a keyboard and mouse on most people's desks.

Forcing their focus several inches closer would also increase eye strain for most people

Quote from petard : IYou keep arguing that you can't use the extra workspace, but your argument depends on people not being able to move the monitor closer to them.

You're screen size and position must make for a lot of tiny hard to read text, since you apparently weren't able to read what I wrote. Seems you did the same with several other folks as well.

I haven't addressed the "more workspace" point beyond pointing out that this 29" Dell is nice because the PPI is close to the sweet spot PPI of the typical 23-24" screen that most people prefer. So, this screen actually would have more USABLE workspace for most folks. Shame it's not curved though, the distance to the far right and left might make things a bit hard to read at the extremes. Curved screen prototypes were shown at CES2013, so maybe we'll start seeing them soon.

Anyway, where you go off the deep end is assuming that higher and higher PPI and smaller and smaller text are always better because it always makes for a bigger workspace. A bigger workspace isn't always desirable and isn't always usable, so it isn't always better, so a higher and higher pixel count isn't always best.

That everyone is different, with different goals, needs, jobs, environments, and so on seems obvious, but maybe it's not since you don't seem to take it into acount.

"Just move it 4" closer" is laughable. People don't WANT to because it's uncomfortable and feels cramped. You improve productivity by helping people feel comfortable, not by forcing them to work in miserable conditions. (Something more managers ought to pay attention to.)

People are disagreeing with you because you don't take into account any other factors, whether they are someone's available workspace, someone's visual acuity, or even what they want to use the screen FOR. You actually told one person to go with a higher rez screen for gaming!

Different people have different needs and that a one size fits all answer based on one spec is going to be the wrong answer for a lot of people. Resolution, by itself, is a useless.

In other words, all the people in your office and all the people here telling you are wrong are trying to tell you something.... you're wrong! Learn, grow, become correct, move on!

Quote from petard : I work in an office, and people keep the monitors far away. With a higher PPI monitor that sits just 4" closer, it isn't an issue.

Thank you for providing more evidence to support my point.

1) 4" is a lot of space on the typical office desk.
2) People need room for their keyboards, coffee mugs, and notepads
3) People care about how their workspaces look
4) Most people care about how they look to others (at least if they want bigger paychecks)
5) Moving the screen closer will lead to increased eyestrain

Quote from petard : he largest PPI difference is the 96 to 109 PPI, and that really isn't a huge difference.

That IS a big difference for a lot of people, as evinced by the point at which they stop zooming in or start zooming out in programs that allow them to do so.

What you're basically saying is that in spite of all the evidence around you in this office that you yourself work in, everyone but you is wrong wrong wrong, and if ONLY they'd listen to you, their lives would be so much better and they could get so much more work done.

Thing is, they have other priorities than you do. Welcome to the real world.