rant "Gaming" monitors

[LionWaffles]

WARNING: This is not a full-fledged rant, just a thread to help inform the people that fall for the "gaming" gimmick of monitors.

 

Before you comment "Well, LionWaffles you seem to be an idiot because you don't know the difference between 1ms response time and 50ms response time!" please read this whole thread.

 

Gaming monitors are kind of a gimmick these days, as they are price way higher than they should be. Sure, maybe they have better color production, from a creator's standpoint, but we are looking at this from a gamer's perspective. This would be mostly response time (for games like CS:GO, other shooters, etc.) and in my opinion, it is a gimmick. When I Googled "monitor" the first one that popped up (not an ad) was the HP 23-inch IPS monitor. 7ms response time. $129.99. Then I Googled "gaming monitor 23-inch" and the ASUS VS248H-P came up for $159.99 on Newegg (granted, it was on sale) the original price would be $249.99 (yes, I know, huge sale) Anyway, this monitor had a 2ms reposnse time and that was the only difference. 

 

Really at this point of precision it really comes down to how fast your brain can process and reflect on maybe a guy on cat and you're watching long, and maybe also to skill. For the professional Esports players, no shit it helps them, but I highly doubt you are an Esports player, and if you are, rock on and buy a gaming monitor - it will make you better, but for those who are on a tight budget and not a Global Elite, you do not need to waste an extra $90 on this monitor. 

 

Thanks for reading!

[Goodman2265]

I stick with my 5ms LG 29inch Ultra-Wide. It does the job while looking amazing. 

[handymanshandle]

I guess I agree to a degree. In certain cases a cheaper 1440p IPS Monitor Non "Gaming" might lack a feature a 1440p IPS "Gaming" monitor has. Which the biggest difference might be Freesync of Gsync, which are both pretty cool features and generally do have a tangible benefit.

Though in a lot of cases, yes a gaming monitor is a marketing term and generally won't give you a more color accurate panel or one thing or another.

 

Gaming monitors tend to be TN panels which aren't as accurate as IPS. Not sure if VA panels are still a thing or if they're pretty much dead nowadays.

[Moonzy]

i disagree on the colour reproduction part

ive seen some bad panels and they make my eyes bleed

and im a casual gamer that wants to enjoy my games with beautiful colours with high settings and good fps

thats why i bought IPS panel monitors, even though they're costly AF `-`

 

but yea, 1ms response time vs 5ms, doesnt really matter to the average consumer imo

[Yoinkerman]

people always say the response time as a metric, but realistically there's only a difference in a few outlying panels.  A few of the 4k panels when they first came out, for instance.  I think a few of the TV/Monitor korean panels did as well.

 

People who say different are either uninformed or trying to sell you something.

 

I'll take IPS and 5ms all day every day.

[Enderman]

response time is a marketing thing

you literally cannot notice the difference between 1 and 5ms

also unless youre playing competitive fps like CSGO at 300fps and minimum details, there is no difference between a 16ms monitor and a 1ms monitor

 

and companies use different ways to measure the response time, there isnt an actual measurement standard, so most of the ratings probably arent even close to correct

 

 

[Krzych]

Very most of "gaming" things is gimmick and gamers are considered idiots that are going to believe in everything and buy everything, and this is not without reason. If manufacturers read people saying something like "this monitor has 5 ms response time, which is bad" then what can they think? They are taking employee and say "Listen men, take this monitor, paint it red-black, give it some fancy gaming name and add as much gimmick features as you can invent to its specification, and we can sell it for 2 times more than now. Ah and don't forget about some fancy box with guns, soliders and etc, you know what I mean"

 

[Supercian411]

I have a 12ms monitor and that's fine

[sobe]

14 hours ago, LionWaffles said:

WARNING: This is not a full-fledged rant, just a thread to help inform the people that fall for the "gaming" gimmick of monitors.

 

Before you comment "Well, LionWaffles you seem to be an idiot because you don't know the difference between 1ms response time and 50ms response time!" please read this whole thread.

 

Gaming monitors are kind of a gimmick these days, as they are price way higher than they should be. Sure, maybe they have better color production, from a creator's standpoint, but we are looking at this from a gamer's perspective. This would be mostly response time (for games like CS:GO, other shooters, etc.) and in my opinion, it is a gimmick. When I Googled "monitor" the first one that popped up (not an ad) was the HP 23-inch IPS monitor. 7ms response time. $129.99. Then I Googled "gaming monitor 23-inch" and the ASUS VS248H-P came up for $159.99 on Newegg (granted, it was on sale) the original price would be $249.99 (yes, I know, huge sale) Anyway, this monitor had a 2ms reposnse time and that was the only difference. 

 

Really at this point of precision it really comes down to how fast your brain can process and reflect on maybe a guy on cat and you're watching long, and maybe also to skill. For the professional Esports players, no shit it helps them, but I highly doubt you are an Esports player, and if you are, rock on and buy a gaming monitor - it will make you better, but for those who are on a tight budget and not a Global Elite, you do not need to waste an extra $90 on this monitor. 

 

Thanks for reading!

 

Keep in mind going solely by "1ms" is very misleading... It was already a bit of marketing, but they shifted from BtB to GtG and suddenly we saw a plethora of lower numbers presented for panels. It's advised to do research on the specific panel you want if you want actual numbers.

 

Now, as far as "gaming" monitors and such, I don't really classify 144Hz/165Hz or G-Sync/Freesync monitors as 'gaming", but what they offer is what is in demand for a certain portion of the market, so they will supply it. Say what you want and will, but G-Sync is fantastic as is IPS and 144Hz. Sure, I paid $700 for my primary panel, but for ME it was worth it. On that same hand, what is worth a certain price may not be worth that same value for YOU, for you it may be a $200 IPS panel or maybe for you the best value in your eyes is spending $1,200+ for a super awesome ultrawide monitor.

 

For me, the biggest thing is primarily both IPS and 144Hz, the difference from both TN and 60Hz is 100% worth the premium for me.

[LionWaffles]

On 3/28/2016 at 7:58 AM, sobe said:

 

Keep in mind going solely by "1ms" is very misleading... It was already a bit of marketing, but they shifted from BtB to GtG and suddenly we saw a plethora of lower numbers presented for panels. It's advised to do research on the specific panel you want if you want actual numbers.

 

Now, as far as "gaming" monitors and such, I don't really classify 144Hz/165Hz or G-Sync/Freesync monitors as 'gaming", but what they offer is what is in demand for a certain portion of the market, so they will supply it. Say what you want and will, but G-Sync is fantastic as is IPS and 144Hz. Sure, I paid $700 for my primary panel, but for ME it was worth it. On that same hand, what is worth a certain price may not be worth that same value for YOU, for you it may be a $200 IPS panel or maybe for you the best value in your eyes is spending $1,200+ for a super awesome ultrawide monitor.

 

For me, the biggest thing is primarily both IPS and 144Hz, the difference from both TN and 60Hz is 100% worth the premium for me.

This is a good point. I was trying to point out that there are certain people who do not need gaming monitors (for gaming) but they get them anyway.