Search in
VALENTINE'S DAY Video Games TV Computers Finance Home Apparel Tech Cameras Autos Health & Beauty Children Entertainment Travel Pets
Frontpage Deal
Monoprice Discounts, Deals and Coupon Codes

30" Monoprice IPS CrystalPro 2560x1600 LED Monitor EXPIRED

TigerFiesta2122 137 March 22, 2013 at 03:35 PM in Computers (3) More Monoprice Deals
Sorry, this deal has expired. Get notified of deals like this in the future. Add Deal Alert for this Item
Deal
Score
+64
93,063 Views
See Deal
$597

Deal Details

Promoted 05-02-2013 at 03:56 PM View Original Post
Update: Back in stock for $597.10 after coupon code slickdeals10. Shipping starts at $17 and varies depending on zip code. Thanks yuugotserved [discuss]

Monoprice has 30" Monoprice IPS CrystalPro 2560x1600 LED Monitor with Dual-Link DVI-D port only for $648.25 - 10% off with coupon code slickdeals10 = $583.42. Shipping starts at $17 and varies depending on zip code.

Specs:
  • Resolution: 2560x1600
  • Contrast Ratio: 1,000:1 (DCR 1,000,000:1)
  • Response Time: 6ms
  • Inputs
    • Dual Link DVI-D

Original Post

Edited May 2, 2013 at 05:34 PM by widgit
30" IPS CrystalPro Monitor WQHD 2560x1600 Display Port|HDMI|DVI|Component w/Adjustable stand [monoprice.com]

30" IPS Pro Monitor WQHD 2560x1600 DVI w/Adjustable stand [monoprice.com]

27" IPS LED CrystalPro Monitor WQHD 2560x1440 [monoprice.com]

3 models above, one has all inputs and the other is just a barebones DVI. 27inch is also in stock now!(Edit: OOS again =(

Insane price for a 30inch IPS, and the panel inside is from a "LOWER GRADE" Apple Cinema/HP/Dell. These are grade A-/A panels while Apple/Dell/HP All have A/A+ panels. Get them while they're hot as the 27 inch is already sold out.

Use coupon catalog12 to lower the price noted on the top.

302 Comments

15 16 17 18 19

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#241
Tempting, but ill stick with my Samsung 27" PLS, $749 on newegg.. Great monitor.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#242
Quote from werewasslw View Post :
The thing about these large monitors for gaming is that if you get something with a really high resolution like 2560 and you play your games up close to enjoy the fine details of the increased resolution, the monitor was still be limited to 60 Hz refresh rate which means you will suffer eyestrain when you're up close with such a low refresh rate. This is why really want to see 120 Hz monitors in the size of 30 inches or above come down in price and be more common. People don't realize the difference that 120 Hz and 60 Hz makes not only on the aesthetics of the game graphics, but also the comfortability of the eyes.

So that you will be forced to sit or stand farther away from your monitor, but that eliminates the advantage of getting a high-resolution monitor. In this case you would be fine with a 1366 720 P monitor because you won't be able to tell the differences in pixel density when you are that far away. I'm talking like 5 feet away or father.

So one day I will buy one of these monitors when they are cheaper in price but also when one of these feature a 120 Hz native refresh rate that you can game on without input lag. I'm not talking about the cheap interpellation that's found on TV sets which will give you 120 Hz at the expense of unplayable input lag for gamers.

Oh and not to mention if you're sitting up close then motion blur/ghosting is an issue so if you get an IPS screen the lowest is 5 ms which for me still is not enough compared to the smoothness of plasma, CRT, or 2 ms TN panels.
Are you the same guy that posted this rhetoric before? You always come in and start theorizing about how horrible 30" 2560x1600 monitors are for gaming.

Well, coming from an ACTUAL 30" 2560x1600 monitor owner (Dell u3011), I can tell you that you're wrong.

My main 2 staples are BF3 and SC2, and being a pretty experienced gamer ( I know a lot of people say that, but very few can say they owned and operated a LAN center and built all 50 machines and 2 servers), playing at normal distances in front of my u3011 at a *paltry* 60hz is pretty astounding. There is no input lag, there is no ghosting, and my fairly high player rating and always-place-in-top-4-in-each-game would correlate with that.

You're a spec whore. You regurgitate stuff you read on the internet without ever being in the same room with the hardware you pretend to know about.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#243
Quote from wuss View Post :
Are you the same guy that posted this rhetoric before? You always come in and start theorizing about how horrible 30" 2560x1600 monitors are for gaming.

Well, coming from an ACTUAL 30" 2560x1600 monitor owner (Dell u3011), I can tell you that you're wrong.

My main 2 staples are BF3 and SC2, and being a pretty experienced gamer ( I know a lot of people say that, but very few can say they owned and operated a LAN center and built all 50 machines and 2 servers), playing at normal distances in front of my u3011 at a *paltry* 60hz is pretty astounding. There is no input lag, there is no ghosting, and my fairly high player rating and always-place-in-top-4-in-each-game would correlate with that.

You're a spec whore. You regurgitate stuff you read on the internet without ever being in the same room with the hardware you pretend to know about.
I don't know either of you but RAWRRRR. Vicious much? Jeez.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#244
Quote from werewasslw View Post :
Yes you can tell the difference between 2 ms and 5 ms on a moving image because of the longer trails "ghosting" on the monitor with higher latency. See the thing is not to be able to see the difference of 3 ms, but rather be able to see the trail left behind in those milliseconds. When you're moving your mouse really fast in 3 ms you actually move quite a bit distance say like 20 pixels. That means after 3 ms, you'll notice a faint ghosting of 20 pixels.

So the key in this argument is not that you can differentiate between 5 ms and 2 ms based on simply the time difference, because I agree that the milliseconds is not possible to humanly distinguish. However a visual trail of 20 pixels for example is able to be detected by the human eye. And that is the key thing and that's why a difference of only 3 ms can be detectable on a TV screen with moving images.


This is also why response time differences is more noticeable on moving images of fighter colors on dark backgrounds. It's because the trails are more noticeable.

And also when were talking about response time we're not talking about input lag. Many people get confused because of the names. Input lag is when you move your mouse and the movement on the screen matches your hand movement. But response time refers to the changing colors of the individual pixels on screen, irregardless of whether there is any user input.
No you can't see the difference. And do you want to know why you can't? Because companies advertising 2 or 1ms response time on their panels as a marketing gimmick are specifically referring to grey-to-grey response, not the overall response time for the panel. Your magical 2ms g to g panel is no faster than your typical 8ms Dell Ultrasharp monitor. In fact it is likely considerably slower at the 60Hz refresh range, this is all a marketing gimmick.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#245
Quote from Anticrawl View Post :
No you can't see the difference. And do you want to know why you can't? Because companies advertising 2 or 1ms response time on their panels as a marketing gimmick are specifically referring to grey-to-grey response, not the overall response time for the panel. Your magical 2ms g to g panel is no faster than your typical 8ms Dell Ultrasharp monitor. In fact it is likely considerably slower at the 60Hz refresh range, this is all a marketing gimmick.

But his spec sheet said 1 is less than 2.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#246
I think its a great deal , For the money you are getting alot of screen. But IMO the Fact that Both 30" panels they offer are CCFL, and not TRUE LED back-lit is a bummer for me. I will wait it out for the the 30" LED backlit Panels hit mainstream other then the new Dell one(U3014). The difference is highly noticeable or at least to me it is. But for this deal right now I think its Very temping if you don't care about the back lighting and on a tighter budget. But For the amount of time you may be keeping the monitor for, I feel LED backlit is the way to go. Great deal I think it matches or exceeds the flebay offerings as well, not sure though. Just my two cents.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#247
Quote from werewasslw View Post :
The thing about these large monitors for gaming is that if you get something with a really high resolution like 2560 and you play your games up close to enjoy the fine details of the increased resolution, the monitor was still be limited to 60 Hz refresh rate which means you will suffer eyestrain when you're up close with such a low refresh rate. This is why really want to see 120 Hz monitors in the size of 30 inches or above come down in price and be more common. People don't realize the difference that 120 Hz and 60 Hz makes not only on the aesthetics of the game graphics, but also the comfortability of the eyes.

So that you will be forced to sit or stand farther away from your monitor, but that eliminates the advantage of getting a high-resolution monitor. In this case you would be fine with a 1366 720 P monitor because you won't be able to tell the differences in pixel density when you are that far away. I'm talking like 5 feet away or father.

So one day I will buy one of these monitors when they are cheaper in price but also when one of these feature a 120 Hz native refresh rate that you can game on without input lag. I'm not talking about the cheap interpellation that's found on TV sets which will give you 120 Hz at the expense of unplayable input lag for gamers.

Oh and not to mention if you're sitting up close then motion blur/ghosting is an issue so if you get an IPS screen the lowest is 5 ms which for me still is not enough compared to the smoothness of plasma, CRT, or 2 ms TN panels.
I agree with the refresh rates it really makes a difference.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#248
Quote from Ducman69 View Post :
I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

I laughed my butt off at my jerk friend that insisted his super expensive 120hz monitor looked so much better for gaming.

I came over to his house w/ my USB key and with his permission installed FRAPS. He was averaging 42FPS, with peaks in the high 50s and lows in the low 30s.

Guess what, a 120hz monitor running a game at 42FPS is indistinguishable from a 42hz monitor. Why? Because you can't draw frames that don't exist, this is common sense.

Now ask the average person if they prefer a higher resolution with graphical settings turned up for a average 50FPS experience, or if they prefer to lower their resolution and/or turn down the graphics options for a average 110FPS and there is not even a shred of doubt that the prettier settings at higher resolution looks much better.

And for reference, you know when you go to the movie theater on that really big screen and enjoy all the fast paced action? That's at 24FPS. Yup, not even 30FPS.

I have a 2560x1600 Dell U3011 and a pretty powerful computer, but I can assure you that on modern games at native resolution, it is VERY rare that I can exceed 60FPS making anything higher than 60HZ completely placebo.
Well put. Too many people think they see a difference, but they are just plainly deluded.

I have read boatloads of dribble from people about nonsensical situations where it looked so much better despite being no different.

If anyone reading this thinks they see a difference, please be sure to actually know what you are talking about. If any one of the monitor, the GPU/device, the source being played or anything between them is locked at 60 Hz, then you are getting no more than 60 Hz. Period.

You just bought a 120 Hz monitor? Good for you. What is it hooked up to? Does the device in question support 120 hz? How about the media? Think you can plug a blu-ray in and it will automagically make itself 120 Hz? Not going to happen.

I do not mind people being mistaken, but when they insist forever that they are right while being ignorant of the facts it irritates me.

That said, I appreciate the OP updating the post. This is still a good deal. Repped!
Last edited by OmniNegro April 30, 2013 at 07:25 PM
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#249
Quote from thehash View Post :
700 daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn but i bet it would go great with my gtx660
Not for gaming. That resolution would probably push your card to the very limit.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#250
31lbs? Too heavy for my Ergotron LX.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#251
Quote from OmniNegro View Post :
Quote from Ducman69 View Post :
I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

I laughed my butt off at my jerk friend that insisted his super expensive 120hz monitor looked so much better for gaming.

I came over to his house w/ my USB key and with his permission installed FRAPS. He was averaging 42FPS, with peaks in the high 50s and lows in the low 30s.

Guess what, a 120hz monitor running a game at 42FPS is indistinguishable from a 42hz monitor. Why? Because you can't draw frames that don't exist, this is common sense.

Now ask the average person if they prefer a higher resolution with graphical settings turned up for a average 50FPS experience, or if they prefer to lower their resolution and/or turn down the graphics options for a average 110FPS and there is not even a shred of doubt that the prettier settings at higher resolution looks much better.

And for reference, you know when you go to the movie theater on that really big screen and enjoy all the fast paced action? That's at 24FPS. Yup, not even 30FPS.

I have a 2560x1600 Dell U3011 and a pretty powerful computer, but I can assure you that on modern games at native resolution, it is VERY rare that I can exceed 60FPS making anything higher than 60HZ completely placebo.
Well put. Too many people think they see a difference, but they are just plainly deluded.

I have read boatloads of dribble from people about nonsensical situations where it looked so much better despite being no different.

If anyone reading this thinks they see a difference, please be sure to actually know what you are talking about. If any one of the monitor, the GPU/device, the source being played or anything between them is locked at 60 Hz, then you are getting no more than 60 Hz. Period.

You just bought a 120 Hz monitor? Good for you. What is it hooked up to? Does the device in question support 120 hz? How about the media? Think you can plug a blu-ray in and it will automagically make itself 120 Hz? Not going to happen.

I do not mind people being mistaken, but when they insist forever that they are right while being ignorant of the facts it irritates me.

That said, I appreciate the OP updating the post. This is still a good deal. Repped!
Let's be clear that you are agreeing, that beyond hardware limitations, one will notice a difference if the frame rates are not locked down and exceed 60fps you will see a difference. To me the game I experienced it on was Half life 2 it was too fast in my opinion and made me nautious.
If we can mention the modern tv screen that redraws frames to achieve 120hz you will notice a difference. It's similar to the controversy over using 48fps while filming the Hobbit, the actors weren't moving any differently but people notice. Compare a 30fps game on a 30hz screen to a 30fps game on a 120hz screen and I believe you'll notice a difference. My
.02
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#252
Quote from nicotinic View Post :
Quote from OmniNegro View Post :
Quote from Ducman69 View Post :
I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

I laughed my butt off at my jerk friend that insisted his super expensive 120hz monitor looked so much better for gaming.

I came over to his house w/ my USB key and with his permission installed FRAPS. He was averaging 42FPS, with peaks in the high 50s and lows in the low 30s.

Guess what, a 120hz monitor running a game at 42FPS is indistinguishable from a 42hz monitor. Why? Because you can't draw frames that don't exist, this is common sense.

Now ask the average person if they prefer a higher resolution with graphical settings turned up for a average 50FPS experience, or if they prefer to lower their resolution and/or turn down the graphics options for a average 110FPS and there is not even a shred of doubt that the prettier settings at higher resolution looks much better.

And for reference, you know when you go to the movie theater on that really big screen and enjoy all the fast paced action? That's at 24FPS. Yup, not even 30FPS.

I have a 2560x1600 Dell U3011 and a pretty powerful computer, but I can assure you that on modern games at native resolution, it is VERY rare that I can exceed 60FPS making anything higher than 60HZ completely placebo.
Well put. Too many people think they see a difference, but they are just plainly deluded.

I have read boatloads of dribble from people about nonsensical situations where it looked so much better despite being no different.

If anyone reading this thinks they see a difference, please be sure to actually know what you are talking about. If any one of the monitor, the GPU/device, the source being played or anything between them is locked at 60 Hz, then you are getting no more than 60 Hz. Period.

You just bought a 120 Hz monitor? Good for you. What is it hooked up to? Does the device in question support 120 hz? How about the media? Think you can plug a blu-ray in and it will automagically make itself 120 Hz? Not going to happen.

I do not mind people being mistaken, but when they insist forever that they are right while being ignorant of the facts it irritates me.

That said, I appreciate the OP updating the post. This is still a good deal. Repped!
Let's be clear that you are agreeing, that beyond hardware limitations, one will notice a difference if the frame rates are not locked down and exceed 60fps you will see a difference. To me the game I experienced it on was Half life 2 it was too fast in my opinion and made me nautious.
If we can mention the modern tv screen that redraws frames to achieve 120hz you will notice a difference. It's similar to the controversy over using 48fps while filming the Hobbit, the actors weren't moving any differently but people notice. Compare a 30fps game on a 30hz screen to a 30fps game on a 120hz screen and I believe you'll notice a difference. My
.02
...nauseous.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#253
Any suggestions for a small 16x10 or 4x3 IPS display? I'm looking for something smaller than 24-inch.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#254
man i wish i had the money for this!
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#255
From reading through this thread, it seems that refresh rate and response time isn't as big of a deal as it's made out to be. So what is it that you wanna look for in a display to have little/no ghosting? Panel type? Or is it GPU dependent?

I'm asking because I'm gaming in a 27" Hannspree TV and I get pretty bad ghosting. I'd like to know what to look for if/when I get around to upgrading my display.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 17 of 21
15 16 17 18 19
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2016. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)