Price of 120hz 3D 27" Monitors

Associate
Joined
30 Aug 2011
Posts
27
How do companies justify the price tag for these monitors for example the samsung s27a750d and 950d range. I mean you can buy a big screen LED 3D TV for that price!

Unless I am missing something here surely a smaller screen is cheaper to build? Are these screens better in quality? I know that they are true 120Hz but even still its still a huge amount of money to spend on one.

Its annoying because I want one but am waiting for a priced drop :)
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
Actually, not always at all but getting a sharp high def screen in a smaller area is generally harder than doing so in a higher size.

There is also the volume situation, quality, internal circuitry, inputs. Prices are silly, though you are essentially talking about designer ranges, kind of like buying something Apple.

I bought the S23a700D, its £300 vs £400 for the 750D, the differences are, the stand, normal vs the non standard type on the 750D, and I think this one has HDMI/DVI while the 750 has HDMI/Display port. Both come with 3d glasses.

A lot of 3d screens are pretty meh quality, a lot are good quality.

I just had a quick look on a fairly big retail chain in the UK, under 3d tv's the cheapest one was a 23" £270 screen, it's also NOT a 120hz screen, so I assume its one of the passive/polarisation type ones, IE, meh.

The second cheapest one is a Plasma, its £50 cheaper than the S23A750D, its also only got a resolution of 1024x768.......... honestly I swear I looked it up years ago but can't remember why plasma's are essentially low def and people still like them.

IIRC there is also a fairly hefty import duty in the UK for pc monitors, so tv's get into the uk much cheaper than pc monitors, so a monitor with a dvi/vga on it will generally cost a decent wedge more than something with just hdmi and other tv only connections like scart.

There are cheap 3d screens out there, LG did a £150 23" model, but was discontinued :(

You've also got to factor in though, that LG screen needed I think, the full Nvidia glasses and receiver kit which is £100-110, the £300 samsung comes with 3d glasses and has the transmitter built in.

The 750D/950D versions you're mostly just paying for the "designer" status of the screens. You can pay absurdly more for 3d TV's if you go for ones aimed at being top end designer ones, with almost identical functionality to smaller ones.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
30 Aug 2011
Posts
27
Thanks for your reply. It seems that the S23a700d is pretty good value, but I am after a 27" monitor as I am upgrading from a samsung 226cw 22" monitor.

I was not aware that there is a high import duty tax for pc monitors, seems pretty stupid seeing that most modern LCD/Plasma TVs come with a pc display port built in.

I really want to buy a decent 27" screen that I don't regret buying later, thats why I was looking at the samsung range. I have a ATI 6950 gfx so cannot use the 3d Vision screens for 3D. I want to buy right now but prices do seem to be coming down quite quickly, so not sure whether to hold out until the price falls below the £500 mark.

Frustrating!
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
6,242
Location
Portsmouth
The trouble is the 120Hz screen are always 3D and usually bundled with glasses which ups the price.
It's too bad the manufacturers don't realise there is also a market for those who simply want a 120Hz screen and couldn't give a monkeys about 3D, like me! :)
 
Associate
Joined
12 Aug 2010
Posts
934
Location
San Francisco
The trouble is the 120Hz screen are always 3D and usually bundled with glasses which ups the price.
It's too bad the manufacturers don't realise there is also a market for those who simply want a 120Hz screen and couldn't give a monkeys about 3D, like me! :)

same here bud,
I like the samsung on pcmonitors.org, but its a gloss screen.. i need matte!
 
Associate
Joined
24 Jun 2009
Posts
1,545
Location
London
I paid £527 for my Asus VG278H and I think it's worth every penny. It's an amazing monitor. Beautiful colours, and a pleasure to work on as well as game on.

Something must be said for NVIDIA's 3D. Fiddling with depth while trying to get workable depth-of-field that your eyes have adjusted to is the first step. But then when you start messing with convergence the real fun starts. A game like WoW which is rated "Excellent" for 3D just comes alive in ways you can;t imagine. I thought I was done with WoW ages ago. But with this 3D and convergence upped (to the level most users who havent yet adapted will see double) is just amazing. It's no longer merely looking through a window at this whole world outside. It's more liek the screen is a barrier to a world outside, but is also the boundary to a world that appears on your side of the monitor. It's incredible how characters can appear like they're pwalking around in front of you. Sometimes you reach out and touch them and see your fingers go right through them. I was looking at a castle from above and about half of it was sticking outside the monitor. The effect is incredible as you get used to it and get bolder with the degree of projection.

I keep wishing for a strategy game with an aerial view (like Warcraft 1) and WoW's level of 3D compliance. Then monitor's screen will be like a board and the map and units will look like chess pieces sitting on top of the screen.

And as for things like headaches, nausea and the annoyance of wearing glasses -- i think i'm particularly susceptible to those issues. To this day I can't play most FPS without simulator sickness. And while I need to wear glasses I seldom wear them cos I hate the feel of wearing them. But when I get immersed in 3D I completely forget I got the 3D ones on. The colour/brightness etc are no issue at all.

I think with the right games and the right settings the money is justified. But I can only speak for NVIDIA's 3D. Afaik the other 3D techs (including samsungs active shutter) dont have effects quite so extreme. But for me, the experience totally justifies the £527 price tag on that Asus VG278H with 3D V 2.0 glasses.
 
Back
Top Bottom