Bump for the Dell UltraSharp U2711 bieng on sale today for $719.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...t0f0fp43274c0s

Promo Code: 4R5G$KHRVQRB1R

Couple things about this monitor, as I own one.

First, I'd see if you can find the Hanns-G equivalent. I don't know for sure, but I believe the I-Inc versions are refurbed and sold as new. Mine showed some evidence of use and had a dead pixel also.

Second, it included a DVI to HDMI cable, so no one should have any issue hooking up. I can't recall if an HDMI-HDMI was included, but those are $3 on Amazon anyway.

It was otherwise fine for the money.

Thanks for posting. I was upset I missed the Black Friday $799 sale so I couldn't resist this and snapped it up. It replaces one of the classic poker player monitors: a 1600x1200 Samsung 204b that died recently.

RETRACTION/UPDATE:

On the bright side, the dead pixel is gone

I'm going to respectfully disagree on this. I currently play full ring and have a 1920x1200 monitor. The most tables I can do with HEM displaying properly without blocking buttons or information on the table is 6 tables. Below I have attached a 1920x1200 image with tables at that size shown.


After doing some simple math I discovered that 1920/3=640 so each table at that size is 640 px wide. Conveniently 640x4=2560 meaning that I can comfortably go 4 tables wide on all the high res 27" and 30" monitors.

Now the question is 2560x1600 or 2560x1440? I decided to screenshot a single table at 640~px wide and paste it 12 times into a 2560x1440 blank image in paint and then into 2560x1600. I think the results below speak for themselves. For 12 tabling the 2560x1440 is clearly the better choice for more efficient use of screen real estate.



For kicks I did the math and to add a 4th row to the 2560x1600 I would have to drop my table size from 467~x640 to 400x548~ assuming I hide the taskbar. That is the same size as 9 tables on my current setup which doesn't work with my HUD setup.




To summarize:

-If you want 16 tables and are ok with 400x548 resolution/table get the 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors.

-If you need larger resolution tables for HUD purposes go with the cheaper 27 inch 2560x1440 monitors and 12 table with table resolutions of 467x640

As far the physical size I guess its a difference of opinion. I care way more about pixels than physical size. Here is a breakdown of the physical size difference. The screen is 1.9 inches narrower or .475 inches per table if 12 tabling.

Just for kicks I threw a 30" 2560x1920 4:3 monitor and a 38" 3413x1920 16:9 monitor into the mix. Those two would be pure secks for 16 tabling and 20 tabling respectively. I can't wait til they start making super high res computer monitors in the 40" range like that, sadly I can only dream for now.

I just got a 2560x1440 after having a 1600x1200. I like everything about the new monitor except that everything is significantly smaller. Whether that affects my long-term satisfaction it's too soon to tell.

I think we are reaching the end of the line as far as the average consumer monitor size.
My dad's 19inch monitor finally died and just ordered him a 25 inch from newegg..I'm not sure 30 inch would even fit inside his desk. There also isn't going to be a ton of 40 inch monitors driving the price down.

8-month-later bump...and doesn't look like the price on the 30" has budged a penny. Still about $1,150 across the board.

Not as pretty, obv, but you can still get dual 24"'s + a vertical mount, which will give you approx 3,800 x 2,400 of resolution (rather than the 2,560 x 1,600 on the 30") for ~$450.

So the 30" monitor is literally 45% of the resolution for 2.5x the price :/

Yea...but no frame or gap between the 2 screens.... priceless!

You might want to take another look at those numbers. 2 screens each with a resolution of 1920x1200 will give you a combined resolution of 3840x1200, meaning that the dual 24" setup represents 1.125x the pixel count of the single 30". It's certainly nowhere near the >2x you were suggesting.

To get the resolution you quoted would require 4 displays running at 1920x1200

Also not all the monitors are the same. ****ty 24" have nowhere near the picture quality of even the cheapest 30" monitor.

I distinctly remember 19" (non-wide) LCDs ran about $700 in 2004. 30" displays will fall in price over time, but what's slowing it down is basically what darthtrader was saying. There's usually some bigger, better, newer thing out there pushing prices down on tech stuff, but we don't have one for these. Plus I don't think the typical consumer is going to want one, they'll just buy a cheaper 24" setup.

Once and if more brands start producing 30" displays they'll start coming down though, that's probably the biggest problem at the moment. I've seen somewhere that there is only one factory actually producing 30" panels where Dell, Apple, HP get them from. There's also the fact that the 16:9 aspect ratio is the hot thing in monitors and TVs right now, while 30" 2560x1600 displays are 16:10, so it's tough for anyone to invest in new factories.

A better bet would be the 27" 2560 x 1440's coming down. They're 16:9, and all-around probably a more attractive investment for manufacturers today. I could see Ultrasharp 27" IPS screens at $400 or $500 before too long. Probably not the greatest thing to poker players and a few other specialist users, but for Joe Average Consumer they'd make more sense.

I think the main reason for the price differences is the type of panels used in the respective displays - the reason you can get such cheap 24" displays now is because of the inferior TN panels used to make them.

I haven't looked too deeply into it, but as far as I'm aware, all the 30" displays use some derivation of IPS panels which, while superior, are more costly to produce, and hence the reason why the price of 30" displays has remained relatively constant.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Still it does seem strange that they have increased in price.

My model is still much more expensive than it was 4 years ago!

For those of you in the US, you can often pick up re-con LG brands on ebay such as

http://cgi.ebay.com/LG-30-WIDESCREEN...item2a11dc03a1

New egg also does the recon 28 inch models (1920 x1200) for silly money

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824254059

two of those seems like a good option for multitabling for under 500 US dollars including shipping.

Online poker rooms need to update their table dimensions to match popular monitor resolutions, not the other way around. Poker is a pretty niche thing and how poker tables fit is the last thing that factors into design.

It's probably time to rethink 800 x 600 tables for those who haven't already anyway. 640 x 540 would fit 6 on an HD screen for example. Maybe give players a few options to automatically config table sizes in a few choice ratios for the most common resolutions. 30-inch displays are still rare and 1600 x 1200 is all but dead, the old table sizes should be as well.

Giving this thread another bump as it seems to be the most relevant thread on the topic.

Anyone bought one of the Dell Ultrasharps in Canada? I just moved here, and usual suspects (amazon) don't seem to have them. The idea of paying a full $1500 CAD + 15% tax is a bit daunting.

I'll be honest, I really want to justify getting one of these bad boys. I just need a bit more nudge.

Try dell.ca
Recently I bought a U3011 for $1300 plus tax, shipping was free.

Tbh 30" monitors have serious anti-glare coating problems (HP and Dell), you really should look into that first. I have one (3011) and I wouldn't have bought this if I knew about it and instead gone for 2*24" or 3*24". For example this forum sparkles a lot due to the white backgrounds and it is highly annoying to read.

http://peterhallam.com.au/dell-u2711-anti-glare-review/

Doesn't Samsung make all the screens for 30" monitors? I remember hearing that once. If so that could be why the price won't drop. We need another screen manufacturer to come along.

Good topic.

Arent 12 tables on a 27" and 30" the same size? So for 9 tables 30" is the best.

Saw this and was wondering, can anyone recommend a good 24" monitor (X x 1080+ plz) for ~$200 assuming the above is true. Seems like that would be a massive steal.

Edit: and right as I post this I see this on newegg (23" tho): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-Homepage2011

You ought to be aware that the pixel count for the 24" displays in the post you quoted is off by a factor of 2.

Also, it assumes a 16:10 aspect ratio. A 16:9 display will have fewer pixels (1920*1080 vs 1920*1200).

Anything that would be full HD would be fine by me. In the US so I can't really play poker, just kinda wondering about monitors as I might get a new one soon.

My current monitors have a 1440X900 max res.