Comments Locked

24 Comments

Back to Article

  • Elfear - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    38.5" and 1080p. My eyes!!
  • Operandi - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    Nice, how many inches per pixel is that?
  • ingwe - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    This made me laugh more than it should have. 1080p on that size really makes no sense though. And if you are seated far away enough to not care, why would you spend extra for a curved monitor?
  • Zhentar - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    "extra for a curved monitor"? You say that like you can buy a 1920x1080 38" monitor that's not curved! Or at all...

    I am honestly super interested in this for being a monitor that's more than 32" and not 4K. Not for me, mind you, I'm not an animal. But my husband is. And he's been wanting something bigger than his 32" TV (with 4:2:2 color, :barf: ). The Sims 4 patch this week allegedly added proper 4K support, so I might not *need* 1080p but it could still be a good risk mitigation.
  • DigitalFreak - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    57. It's in the chart.
  • chrnochime - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    That's 57 pixels/inch. He's asking inches/pixel, so 1/57th of an inch per pixel.
  • yetanotherhuman - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    My thoughts exactly. Those are some huge ass pixels.
  • JanW1 - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    If only this was 1440p I'd actually buy it. The pixel density of 27" 1080p is actually fine for me. Why oh why is there no 1440p panel with a ~80ppi pixel density?
  • crimsonson - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    The size is not a poor choice. Large 1080p TVs existed since the early 2000s. The curve portion is the dumb part. 1080 resolution at 38.5" is fine if you assume a certain viewing distance. But then you negate that viewing distance by adding a curve panel which only benefits the viewer at close proximity to the monitor, thus compromising the resolution to viewing distance ratio. If it was flat and cheap, it would have been fine. But 1080, large screen and curve panel is a combination that does not make any sense.
  • techguymaxc - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    1080p and 250 nits - what happened, did a bunch of 10 year-old backstock fall under a roller and come out curved so they decided to sell it as a "gaming monitor"?
  • mobutu - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    This must be a kjoke lol
    CAN'T STOP laughing :)
  • p1esk - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    Gaming monitor, “Minecraft Edition”
  • Amandtec - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    1) Anandtech is not a place 'budget people' come to read articles.
    2) Budget equipment articles without a price are near pointless.
    3) I once owned a Phillips screwdriver but had to return it because it was always cross.
  • Dragonstongue - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    1) who says this is factual statement, many (such as myself) still like to see what is out there, in case they find themselves in a place they maybe cannot / should not be going for the "best $$$ can buy"

    Not everyone of course, but a bunch of folks that is for sure..

    2) 1000000% agree, no list price, should not release other specs as it becomes pointless fill (much like me making such statement) LOL .. shame a WFCC place not follow this "golden rule" as well...

    3) ROFL, that was funny in a mundane way ha ha o7 Amandtec
  • stephenbrooks - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    Totally agree on #2. Massive 1080p monitors can be great for certain uses but it all comes down to the price.
  • AshlayW - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    I'm a 'Budget person' and I come here to read articles - In fact I'd argue it's more important than the Ultra High End that only 0.1% of people can afford.
  • sgunes - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    Why are people dumping on this cataract display?
  • iBaller - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    HEY! pretentious rich people, a year ago only 6% of gamers had monitors better than 1080p, what do you think it is now huh? 8? 10? 12? , yea i made my point
  • sweenish - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    LG Ultrafine 4K can be had for $350. 4K TV's are only getting cheaper. It's also 10.12% with resolutions above 1080p (according to Steam survey), but I don't think that takes into account refresh rate or multi-monitor. Since a high refresh rate monitor at 1080p can easily qualify as something that "pretentious rich people" take advantage of. Same as having two 1080p monitors (The most popular multi-monitor setup). That's twice as much money! Your metric is too broad and fails to make a point.
  • yetanotherhuman - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    Nothing is wrong with 1080p. Well, actually, yeah, I think it's too short, 1920×1200 is way nicer, but that aside, nobody is saying anything is wrong with Full HD. It's the fact it's so huge and the pixel density is so goddamn low that is awful.
  • AshlayW - Monday, November 18, 2019 - link

    Anything over 24"~ is too big for 1920x1080 for a PC monitor in my opinion. 38" at 1080p is really, really bad. This would be OK if you sat 5-6 feet from your desk and used a controller, but for M+KB gaming no thanks. 32"+ needs 4K.

    =< 24" = 1080p
    > 24" and =< 30" = 1440p
    > 30" = 4K

    That is my rule when I look for a monitor essentially.
  • yetanotherhuman - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    57 PPI on a desktop monitor is seriously bad.
    My 75" TV actually has slightly better pixel density than this.
    This is basically unusable, and I really don't mean that in a stuck-up manner.
  • Tams80 - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    If you think of it as a small gaming TV/living room monitor, then it makes sense as you won't be sat too close to it.
    As a normal monitor though...
  • Atari2600 - Tuesday, November 19, 2019 - link

    If they did this exact monitor in 4K (38" curved 16:9) I'd be ***extremely*** interested.

    Alas they aren't. :-(

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now