Better alternative for the Dell UltraSharp U2711 ?

Q. I'm a bit confused here. The Dell UltraSharp U2711 seems to score very well on tests, but it is getting a bit old. Now I find some test results that say it's no longer the hot shot it used to be. Is that true?
Can anyone recommend a BETTER screen of these specifications:

- 27"
- 2560 x 1440
- price under � 600 (or $ 800)

Thanks a lot in advance!

A. You could look into the Samsung LS27A850DS... it is new LCD "PLS" technology. I'm not seeing too many reviews out there, but the few that I have seen seem to love it.

Here is a link to the specs/price (Canada):
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=64747&vpn=LS27A850DS%2FZA&manufacture=Samsung

Here is a link to a glowing review, and a hands on experience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4JlB01bkEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezKQjtM8FdE

All I can say is I own a Dell 27" Ultrasharp and 3 Samsung Monitors... and the Dell is starting to have issues 3 years later... so I can only recommend Samsung based on my experience. I also like a 27" with 1920x1200... and don't want such hi-res as 2560x...

Original Question

What is a good sized tv for my room?

Q. I will be laying on my bed while using it and I will only be using it for gaming. My wall is about ten feet away from where I lay. What would be a good size to mount on my wall and could you please link to it. Thank you

A. Plasma is the only way to go for gaming. Get a 42" 1080p Plasma by Panasonic, its the smallest they make, with a 15.8 GBps or greater transfer rate HDMI cable. Panasonic bought Pioneer's panel technology when they went out of business. Plasmas don't have that screen burn issue any more either. Plasmas have 0.00001ms or something like that pixel response, and true 600hz refresh rate. (600 pictures per second). Remember, your taking 1,920 pixels by 1,080 pixels and putting them on a screen, the bigger the screen, the bigger the pixels are getting. Stretching the picture, thus giving you a fuzzier image. The rumors that its all about viewing distance, response 5ms response time tv's being adequate, that the human eye cannot detect anything past 60 HZ are reviews from retards. I have tested many tv's, and the differences are HUGE, there is a very noticeable difference between 2ms and 1ms response time monitors. The problem with 240hz and 120hz tv's is its all picture processing and creates a fair amount of input lag and unnatural movement. LCD's are terrible for gaming, no matter what the refresh rate or pixel response time and will ALWAYS suffer from motion blur, very noticeable in first person shooter games, the background will get very distorted whenever you move. If you want a small screen, benefit would be a very sharp picture and less money, get a Samsung 2770FH monitor, its a 27", with a 10.2 GBps transfer rate HDMI cable, and be sure to set the response time setting to fastest. They are a 1ms pixel response time monitor, 60hz which is ps3's native output refresh rate, and the reason pixel response is important is because the lower the response time, the sharper the picture stays. Get internet that is at least 1 mega byte download speed, and always set whatever screen you get to game mode.

Original Question

Powered by Yahoo! Answers