Monoprice 30″ 16:10 aspect IPS, 2560×1600…… 120Hz!

Monoprice 30" 16:10 aspect IPS, 120Hz!

AnandTech visited Monoprice at CES, and they were demoing a 30″ IPS with 120Hz overclockability.

Many users have been using 1920×1200 monitors as the 16:10 aspect ratio has been excellent for computer applications, and have balked at 16:9 monitors even at 2560×1440. This monitor may make such users happy.

We’re looking forward to seeing such new options hit the market.

About Chief Blur Buster

Head of Blur Busters.

9 comments on “Monoprice 30″ 16:10 aspect IPS, 2560×1600…… 120Hz!

  1. redmist77 says:

    The non-standard 16:10 ratio needs to die. It only exists because of OCD sufferers had a panic attack when 1920×1200 monitors started disappearing in favour of the more standard 16:9 and the thought of losing 120 lines of vertical resolution terrified them. Thankfully, with 1440p and 4K, these annoying, anal people have largely been silenced. Unfortunately, there’s still a band of people that argued so fervently for 1920×1200 that they convinced themselves that anything other than 16:10 is unacceptable, hence there is a market for 1600p monitors.

    • Jeff says:

      I respectfully disagree. For people who work primarily with text, especially programming, extra vertical space is extremely valuable. 120/160 pixels mean 13-18 more lines of code, or 15% to 20% more code visible after you take window headers etc. into account.

      I’d get a 16:9 4k UHD monitor, but it’d have to be at least 33″ diagonal to not be a step down from a 30″ 16:10. Unfortunately, there aren’t too many options at present in the US at least for extra-large 4k displays.

      • redmist77 says:

        By that logic, a 4:3 monitor is superior to a 16:10 monitor. Also, a 16:9 monitor turned on its side is even better.

        Bottom line – if you’re worried about “lines of code”, resolution trumps aspect ratio.

        • Jeff says:

          You’re actually slightly accidentally right. When working with text, your priorities should be having a usable minimum width first, then getting as much vertical space as you can physically comfortably use, and only finally adding as much horizontal space as you can comfortably manage.

          Most monitors under say 24″ really are more useful to text work in portrait mode, especially since you can add additional monitors on the side to fill your field of vision more cheaply than buying a single massive display, and trying to fill your vertical FoV by stacking landscape mode screens requires expensive, painful-to-adjust mounting hardware.

          I would have gladly purchased a ~32″, 2560×1920 4:3 (25.6″x19.2″) monitor if they existed, but manufacturers like wider ratios because they can sell increasingly smaller display areas for any given listed diagonal size and claim it’s “wider” not “shorter”. My limits of comfort are ~20″ vertical and ~40″ horizontal, so I could see using a ~7:3 screen in the future, but only one in the 40+” range.

    • MrBonk says:

      Normally I’d have to agree. But 16:10 deserves every right to exist for those that want it.

      There are areas for certain applications that it is objectively better for.

      Mostly IMO for non-gaming use.

      I personally don’t like 16:10 much at all, but it’s nice for the applications that are better for it for me. Such as working with a DAW.

    • CleverClogs says:

      That extra vertical height makes a big difference for programming and for working in Photoshop, but I guess that stuff is only for us OCD types. I guess we should shut up and just watch some movies like normal people…

      Anyway, if they can achieve with IPS at 30″ what Acer did with the XB270HU at 27″ I’d be all over a monitor like this. Doubt it will happen though.

    • DAOWAce says:

      16:10 was the standard PC aspect ratio, you imbecile.

      16:9 was for TV’s. It became the PC standard because of the illiterate mass market and ‘HD’ push.

      Enthusiasts have been pushing for 16:10 monitors for years; there’s still no 120Hz+ that officially exist for consumers over 1680×1050. A 1920×[email protected] monitor does exist for enterprises, but it’s roughly the price of a car.

  2. Alamar says:

    Very good aspect ratio 16:10. But I still don’t believe good gaming ips is possible with good blacks/grays (only semi-pro eizo cx240 is said to have them decent) and reaction times, strobe, freesync/gsync etc. I would more believe if it was upgraded VA.
    redmist77: this standard is for movies and you call it standard only because it was good for mass production everything in one line for xx:9 thats all. But because of this all not “filmers” lost, as Chief said. It is not about resolution (which is btw the most expensive upgrade and should be avoided) but proportions/aspect ratio.

Add Comment