We Looked At 276 Gaming Monitors. Here’s What We Learned.

[Flying Sausages]

https://levvvel.com/gaming-monitor-study/

Quote

FreeSync > G-Sync

91.3% of gaming monitors these days come with some form of adaptive sync technology that prevents screen tearing and helps you have smooth gameplay.

Included in 64.9% of gaming monitors is AMD’s FreeSync, a royalty-free open standard that’s budget friendly. Making it by far the most popular adaptive sync tech included in gaming monitors.

 

AMD does not dominate NVIDIA in GPU market, but AMD surely does dominate NVIDIA in monitor/display market.

Quote

27" Above All

27 inch monitors are by far the most popular – accounting for 44.4% of all gaming monitors available. There are more than double the amount of 27 inch monitors available than there are 24 inch monitors.

Notably 31.5 inch monitors also make a significant mark. With the current road we’re heading maybe one day they’ll overtake 1st place and become the new standard. Fingers crossed.

Larger and more obscure screen sizes are there, but are more of a niche option for select gamers who want to relish in 4K and ultrawide monitors.

I like big screen. Who doesn't like big screen? Big is better.

 

Quote

A Lot of Bad Pixel Density Options

Many people overlook this when searching for a monitor. Put simply this is how many pixels a screen has relative to its inch size. This is measured in Pixels Per Inch (PPI). The higher pixel density, the more detail can be shown, the better the image quality is. All that said, the most popular PPI for gaming monitors is 109.

 

Quote

1920x1080 is the Resolution King

The lowest resolution that gaming monitors have is a 1920×1080 (1080p) resolution and the highest is 3840×2160 (4K).

To no one’s surprise 1280×720 (720p) monitors have completely been abandoned by now both by companies and by pro gamers alike. Now 1920×1080 has taken its place and is the standard in gaming monitors while in 2nd place are 2560×1440 (1440p) monitors. The two together compose 88% of gaming monitors. Most 27 inch and 31.5 inch monitors have a 2560×1440 resolution with a couple of 24 inch monitors here and there.

Cry in people below 1080p gaming

 

Quote

144Hz is Dominating

 

Yes. 144hz is good. I went from 60hz to 144hz and I feel like a big boy now.

 

Quote

TN and VA Overshadow IPS

Well IPS is expensive than TN and VA, therefore people will go with cheaper route.

Quote

Acer Has The Most Choices

With 55 gaming monitor models Acer currently offers more choices than any other manufacturer out there.

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by OlympicAssEater
More info

[Bombastinator]

I dunno.  I got a weird ass resolution that I wish I could reduce.  The AMD custom monitor resolution thing has a bunch of settings though and I don’t know what they need to be.  I lucked into a native resolution one that worked by trial and error, but it’s still just a hair too big for my card to swallow.  I’d like to set it at 1920x1200, but I can’t make it go and I’m not sure if I’m just screwing up or the AMD software will take only one custom resolution.

[The1Dickens]

18 minutes ago, OlympicAssEater said:

I like big screen. Who doesn't like big screen? Big is better.

 I have a 32-inch UHD monitor. Samsung. It's nice. only 60Hz, though.

 

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I’d like to set it at 1920x1200, but I can’t make it go and I’m not sure if I’m just screwing up or the AMD software will take only one custom resolution.

What is the resolution set to now? 1920x1200 is 16:10, which is an uncommon ratio for widescreen.

[LogicWeasel]

I find it funny that my gaming monitor happens to match exactly with 4 out of 6 of those top stats.  Clearly it checked the right number of boxes when I got it ( XF270HU )

-Acer  -27"  -FreeSync  -144Hz

-1440p (2nd most popular res)   and IPS (the complete trinity of panel goodness)

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

 I have a 32-inch UHD monitor. Samsung. It's nice. only 60Hz, though.

 

What is the resolution set to now? 1920x1200 is 16:10, which is an uncommon ratio for widescreen.

It’s this old 2012 era Korean grey market thing. A crossover 30q5 pro. Native is 2560x1600 I think.  I can’t find any data online about the thing, and what little there is is in Russian or korean.  They were only around for a minute.  It would cost more than a decent GPU to replace though because even though it has no synch it also does 144hz, which while no longer impressive was pretty cool in 2012.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

What is the resolution set to now? 1920x1200 is 16:10, which is an uncommon ratio for widescreen.

16:10 is kinda common on workstation/pro monitors, my Dell U3014 is 2560x1600 16:10. A lot of Dell's "For Work" range is 16:10 if they aren't 4K.

[The1Dickens]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s this old 2012 era Korean grey market thing. A crossover 30q5 pro. Native is 2560x1600 I think.

Same ratio, yet it won't let you choose the lower resolution? That's odd. Wonder if it's because it's not an exact multiple (i.e. its 1.333.. instead of 1.2 or 1.4), maybe?

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

16:10 is kinda common on workstation/pro monitors, my Dell U3014 is 2560x1600 16:10. A lot of Dell's "For Work" range is 16:10 if they aren't 4K.

Right, but common as a work monitor is still uncommon in the grand scope of things. And I was running on the assumption it was a consumer monitor. I guess I should have said as much, though.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, The1Dickens said:

Same ratio, yet it won't let you choose the lower resolution? That's odd. Wonder if it's because it's not an exact multiple (i.e. its 1.333.. instead of 1.2 or 1.4), maybe?

 

Right, but common as a work monitor is still uncommon in the grand scope of things. And I was running on the assumption it was a consumer monitor. I guess I should have said as much, though.

No, it’s because there are NO drivers.  It runs off the ge generic LG driver.  Crossover only even admits the thing exists when it’s writing in korean, and even with google translate navigating their in Korea app is bizarre and nearly unusable.  This is only one problem I’ve had with it.  It’s a PITA.  The reason it overclockable is the never put an “ac” in it apparently.  I can’t even figure out what that stands for.  It will only work at all IF it’s being driven by a card with native dual-link dviD.  DviI won’t work.  An rx580 will do it.  A Nvidia 900 series would too.  I used a 970 for years but I got talked into upgrading to 10 from 8.1 and that started an avalanche of shit for the 970.  I wound up buying the 580 just to get something that would make my computer work at all.  Reverting to 8.1 wouldn’t go.

[pas008]

This seems like quantity over quality thing

[Arika]

give me a reasonably priced 1080p 60hz OLED 24" monitor over literally everything else and ill be happy

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

give me a reasonably priced 1080p 60hz OLED 24" monitor over literally everything else and ill be happy

I don’t think we will see mainstream OLED monitors for a good price till 2021. 

[Arika]

Just now, floofer said:

I don’t think we will see mainstream OLED monitors for a good price till 2021. 

unfortunately

[TheNamelessOne]

2 minutes ago, floofer said:

I don’t think we will see mainstream OLED monitors for a good price till 2021. 

Will we ever actually see them?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, TheNamelessOne said:

Will we ever actually see them?

There is definitely an LG one floating about.

[Dabombinable]

"IPS is expensive"

 

Right...then how come I was able to find a 25" 2560x1080 75Hz freesync IPS display for $189 AUD/$179 discounted? My old 27" 1080p 60Hz TN screen (which is far flimsier than the ultrawide) cost $255 4 years ago...

  

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

No, it’s because there are NO drivers.  It runs off the ge generic LG driver.  Crossover only even admits the thing exists when it’s writing in korean, and even with google translate navigating their in Korea app is bizarre and nearly unusable.  This is only one problem I’ve had with it.  It’s a PITA.  The reason it overclockable is the never put an “ac” in it apparently.  I can’t even figure out what that stands for.  It will only work at all IF it’s being driven by a card with native dual-link dviD.  DviI won’t work.  An rx580 will do it.  A Nvidia 900 series would too.  I used a 970 for years but I got talked into upgrading to 10 from 8.1 and that started an avalanche of shit for the 970.  I wound up buying the 580 just to get something that would make my computer work at all.  Reverting to 8.1 wouldn’t go.

Wait, so displayport to DVI wouldn't work? Because that's what my 1080p screen needs to overclock to 75Hz @ CVT reduced blank (if HDMI is unavailable). Also, single-link DVI can't go above 1080p 60Hz. That's why you needed dual link (not that it made a difference with my own 970, my dual link cable made no difference).

[Arika]

1 minute ago, -Kriss- said:

Wouldnt that get burn in very fast?

 

 

no? it would be no different than any other OLED smart phone or TV

 

Burn in is not going to be an issue for most people. besides, every type of screen has similar types of issues.

 

CRT: Burn in

Plasma: Burn in / Bubbling

LCD: Backlight bleed / IPS Glow

OLED: Burn in

 

In extreme tests (20 hours a day every day) you're only going to start seeing burn in after around 3000-3500 hours (depending on the image) and that's with 0 change in the image. people don't have their monitors/TVs showing the exact same image with no variance for that massive amount of time.

[porina]

Quote

For our study we defined gaming monitors as monitors having refresh rates of 144Hz or higher. This is the standard widely used by pro gamers.

This is very important to get context on their conclusions.

 

nvidia vs AMD VRR - We can look at it another way, how many displays can be used with VRR with each side's GPUs? nvidia Turing could have VRR with 91.4% of article tested displays since it could work with everything there. Note if you add up their chart numbers, it comes to 100.1% so there's a bit of rounding error in there. nvidia before Turing cards however only get VRR on 20.7%. AMD GPUs work with 70.7%. I'm assuming here the FS2 displays will work on nvidia at a basic level, even if they don't enable the full features possible.

 

Resolution and pixel density - I really don't agree with their commentary in this area. They already defined gaming monitors as those capable of 144 Hz or more. If refresh rate is king, that would naturally push it towards lower resolutions and lower PPI. In effect their definition kills off non-high refresh rate 4k gaming displays, not that I think it would change much had they included them. They are also borderline misleading when they say there are double the number of 27" over 24" displays, since in their written detail they say there were also 24.5" displays. If grouped with the 24", it becomes 44.4% vs for 27" 32.4% for 24" class. Let's be realistic, anyone buying a display isn't going to consider 24" and 24.5" as distinct size classes.

 

I get the feeling they defined a gaming display as 144 Hz or higher simply to reduce the number of displays they have to look at.

[williamcll]

7 hours ago, LogicWeasel said:

I find it funny that my gaming monitor happens to match exactly with 4 out of 6 of those top stats.  Clearly it checked the right number of boxes when I got it ( XF270HU )

-Acer  -27"  -FreeSync  -144Hz

-1440p (2nd most popular res)   and IPS (the complete trinity of panel goodness)

Same, There isn't really a card alone that could  drive 4k 120FPS on max settings.

[NumLock21]

9 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I dunno.  I got a weird ass resolution that I wish I could reduce.  The AMD custom monitor resolution thing has a bunch of settings though and I don’t know what they need to be.  I lucked into a native resolution one that worked by trial and error, but it’s still just a hair too big for my card to swallow.  I’d like to set it at 1920x1200, but I can’t make it go and I’m not sure if I’m just screwing up or the AMD software will take only one custom resolution.

The resolutions your monitor has isn’t weird. It was very common back then, before this whole movie standard "HD” of 1920x1080. My Samsung is also 16:10, and has a resolution of 1920x1200. 16:10 > 16:9

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

"IPS is expensive"

 

Right...then how come I was able to find a 25" 2560x1080 75Hz freesync IPS display for $189 AUD/$179 discounted? My old 27" 1080p 60Hz TN screen (which is far flimsier than the ultrawide) cost $255 4 years ago...

  

Wait, so displayport to DVI wouldn't work? Because that's what my 1080p screen needs to overclock to 75Hz @ CVT reduced blank (if HDMI is unavailable). Also, single-link DVI can't go above 1080p 60Hz. That's why you needed dual link (not that it made a difference with my own 970, my dual link cable made no difference).

Not reliably.  Sometimes yes sometimes no.  Don’t know why.

[porina]

27 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

The resolutions your monitor has isn’t weird. It was very common back then, before this whole movie standard "HD” of 1920x1080. My Samsung is also 16:10, and has a resolution of 1920x1200. 16:10 > 16:9

16:9 isn't even movie wide, as most films are even wider than that. It somehow happened to end up the standard for "widescreen" TVs when they took over from 4:3 (12:9). Monitor wise, I've had 4:3 (ancient standard), 16:10 (to me, best productivity in multi-monitor setup), 5:4 (almost square...), 21:9 (better for actual widescreen movies).

[Doobeedoo]

9 hours ago, OlympicAssEater said:

I like big screen. Who doesn't like big screen? Big is better.

I don't really. I appreciate high PPI and also for onine fps games you can be more focused on display that's not big. 

4 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

"IPS is expensive"

 

Right...then how come I was able to find a 25" 2560x1080 75Hz freesync IPS display for $189 AUD/$179 discounted? My old 27" 1080p 60Hz TN screen (which is far flimsier than the ultrawide) cost $255 4 years ago...

It is vs others, especially a quality panel not some cheap entry one. Seem you overpaid for that old one years back though. Also people mean IPS for like 144Hz min. 

2 hours ago, porina said:

I get the feeling they defined a gaming display as 144 Hz or higher simply to reduce the number of displays they have to look at.

Really anything lower than it isn't gaming monitor though so makes sense. 

6 hours ago, Arika S said:

give me a reasonably priced 1080p 60hz OLED 24" monitor over literally everything else and ill be happy

It would stil cost a good amount, also 60Hz 1080p a huge pass. Would be fun to see 240Hz OLED but yeah I doubt we'll see it. 

3 hours ago, Arika S said:

no? it would be no different than any other OLED smart phone or TV

 

Burn in is not going to be an issue for most people. besides, every type of screen has similar types of issues.

 

CRT: Burn in

Plasma: Burn in / Bubbling

LCD: Backlight bleed / IPS Glow

OLED: Burn in

 

In extreme tests (20 hours a day every day) you're only going to start seeing burn in after around 3000-3500 hours (depending on the image) and that's with 0 change in the image. people don't have their monitors/TVs showing the exact same image with no variance for that massive amount of time.

It's not exactly so, OLED is much more prone to burn in that anything else, by a good amount. On PC many elements are static on desktop, programs, game UI as well. So that issue with high price for it  take it no manufacturer wants to see returns. 

1 hour ago, williamcll said:

Same, There isn't really a card alone that could  drive 4k 120FPS on max settings.

Point is versatility, for like important online games high refresh rate you can switch to lower res. 

[Bombastinator]

45 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

The resolutions your monitor has isn’t weird. It was very common back then, before this whole movie standard "HD” of 1920x1080. My Samsung is also 16:10, and has a resolution of 1920x1200. 16:10 > 16:9

Anachronistic then.  Riding a horse instead of driving or a penny farthing bicycle wasn’t weird once upon a time too.  It was a pretty standard resolution when I bought it.  It seems to have become weird though.  Much like penny farthing bicycles.

[porina]

6 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Really anything lower than it isn't gaming monitor though so makes sense. 

How do we define gaming monitor? Really.

 

IMO I'd call 144+ Hz displays as niche of "high refresh rate" gaming monitors but they certainly aren't the only gaming monitors. Not every game requires high refresh for a competitive advantage. There's plenty of 75 Hz models which are still a nice noticeable upgrade from 60 Hz.

 

I'd go for a different definition: a monitor is a gaming monitor if the manufacturer calls it one. Yes, that includes 60 Hz models.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, porina said:

How do we define gaming monitor? Really.

 

IMO I'd call 144+ Hz displays as niche of "high refresh rate" gaming monitors but they certainly aren't the only gaming monitors. Not every game requires high refresh for a competitive advantage. There's plenty of 75 Hz models which are still a nice noticeable upgrade from 60 Hz.

 

I'd go for a different definition: a monitor is a gaming monitor if the manufacturer calls it one. Yes, that includes 60 Hz models.

This is the definition used when people start to make things like gaming socks though.  I would say a gaming monitor is a monitor that supports gaming requirements above requirements for other devices of similar type.  So for monitors refresh rates higher than are useful for other things, lack of color correctness that might be needed for other things, aspect ratio less useful for other things.  It’s a distinction that is only even barely possible for monitors and a few other devices, and not at all for many others which are none the less labeled “gaming”