Higher than High Definition ... we need a better name for 2560 x 1440

Subject: Displays | August 22, 2013 - 02:40 PM |
Tagged: hd, 2560x1440, asus, dell, eizo, fujitsu, hp, LG, Iiyama, philips, Samsung

Hardware.info had a chance to review 14 different 2560x1440 displays of which all but three they could find for sale; prices ranged from $500 to $950.  That price range is interesting as all of the displays reviewed were 27" models, so the disparity is not caused by larger screens.  Gamers may want to head straight to their findings on Response Time and Input Lag but you should spend the time to read the whole round up if you are more interested in the colour accuracy.

View Full Size

"Most IT product categories tend to evolve rapidly, but developments in computer monitors have been decidedly slower. Although larger screens are slowly becoming more affordable, the most common resolution remains 1920x1080 pixels. Nonetheless, this year we're seeing more and more manufacturers release WQHD monitors. Hardware.Info collected 14 different models of these very impressive monitors and tested them to find out which is the best one to get."

Here are some more Display articles from around the web:


August 22, 2013 | 03:58 PM - Posted by YTech

Actual term is WQHD or QHD (Quad High-Definition) for 2560x1440 resolution. Sometimes referred to WQXGA+ in some situations.

But higher than high-definition would be Extended, than Ultra-High-Definition (4K).

After UHD would be Hyper Extended Graphics Array (HXGA) and so forth.

It is pretty interesting if you look into the graphic resolution technology from it's birth to now and projected evolution. Charts are great for those :)

August 22, 2013 | 04:43 PM - Posted by willmore (not verified)

Can we just call it a 2560x1440 3.69 Mp monitor?

The proper terms that YTech mentions have always made things more confusing to me as they all look so similar. So, instead of solving the problem of 'what to call it', it makes it much, much worse.

August 22, 2013 | 04:52 PM - Posted by Andrew (not verified)

Like Willmore says, why not just say what it is (2560x1440, 30-bit colour (e.g.)) instead of making up a name for it? Surely there are too many variations nowadays for it to make any sense at all for making up names for marketing purposes?

August 22, 2013 | 09:05 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I'm currently rocking a 19" 1280x1024 5:4 NEC display with a 72 Hz refresh, and a very good sRGB preset. For the longest time I've been wanting a monitor with exactly double the resolution of my current monitor at about 29 inches, in other words, a 2560x2048 display. I firmly believe 5:4 to be the ideal ratio (note 5:4 is NOT 4:3) because it actually gives you plenty of vertical legroom. 16:10 is popular for the same reason but even then it's not quite enough for me.

If 1280x1024 is easy-peezy, why is doubling it so hard? The only monitors I know of with the resolution I'm looking for are a few 21.3" grayscale medical monitors from NEC and IEI like the NEC MD215MG:

Way too small, no color, and way, waaaay too expensive.

Is 30" 2560x1600 the best they can do? I know there is 4K but that introduces another problem: tiny everything. Just increase DPI scale? Well, many programs aren't written with DPI scaling in mind or just look ugly or slightly misaligned at different DPI scales. Plus I don't want to deal with the hassles of multi-monitor setups which all current 4K displays are. (Internally they function as two monitors combined and thus show up as two monitors in all software.)

August 24, 2013 | 01:01 AM - Posted by Mark Harry (not verified)

WINTO, What I need three of.

November 24, 2013 | 09:52 PM - Posted by Kusanagi (not verified)

That LG 27EA83 looks really tempting. are there any other sources that have tested this monitor? i'm in the market for one.