How to choose a monitor: What information to know, and where to find it.

[A_J_Victor]

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

“Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time”

 

The search for a monitor for many people ends in 2 ways:

 

They purchase a monitor seen on a retailer site based purely on specs and advertisements, and are done.

or

They come to a technology forum and ask for advice.

 

The latter usually results in them asking if monitor A or B is best, or what specs they should look for, and then people reply with suggestion usually based on the same advertised specs seen at retailers and/or 1st or 2nd hand subjective opinion.

 

The problem with this is that the display industry has a hidden world of details that are very important for those who want to make an informed purchasing decision, but seldom few ever get to know these details, details that directly relate to the quality of the display and its true capabilities beyond the usual fluff marketing material. These hidden details are known to enthusiasts who know of the few competent, thorough reviewers out there that can provide those details. But being in the minority this results in advice from such individuals possibly being missed by those who need that advice.

 

This is a guide on what information to look for, and where to find it, beyond the basic and often misleading ‘specs’ advertised by the manufacturers, retailers, and many of the self-proclaimed ‘reviewers’ seen online, so that you may make an informed purchasing decision on your own, for the most part.

 

Let’s start off with an important notice:

Any suggestions given to you for any monitor should be accompanied by a thorough tested review source, if it isn’t then such suggestions will be based purely on subjective opinion, often based on specs alone, which, as stated, can and usually are very misleading and missing lots of important information.

 

Now let’s move onto the ‘guide’.

 

Do not rely on advertised specs, and do not compare advertised specs. If its not a reviewed monitor, you're taking a gamble.

As will become evident as you go through this guide and follow the links to reviewers, the advertised specs can be and usually are very misleading. You can use them to glean basic information like resolution, size, frequency, number of ports etc, but things like 'response time' should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

 

Price:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The 1st stumbling point anyone looking for a product hits, if you can’t afford it, you can’t get it. So any information after that fact is rather pointless at the time.

 

General rule of thumb price tier (IMO): Values will differ slightly based on currency used.

 

~ £/$100: Any monitor is better than no monitor. They all suck, just get the cheapest.

 

Sub £/$300: Usually not worth the extra price. Very few reviews, limited spec options, and usually significant issues present.

 

£/$300 - £/$400: Dependent on specific requirements some good options start to appear.

 

£/$400 - £/$600: A good budget, A sizable number of reviewed Displays to choose from.

 

£/$600-£/$1000: You will have access to the majority of reviewed monitors by this point. Top end displays for a variety of use cases.

 

£/$1000+: A few extra options appear, high end ultra, and super-ultra-wide predominantly, however quality doesn’t increase.

 

£/$2k+ professional displays. If you’re looking here, you don’t need this guide.

 

A good budget rule of thumb is to hold on to 2x the price of your GPU, to spend on a display. Buying a mid to high end GPU then spending less than £/$300 on a monitor will effectively 'gimp' your experience. Why buy that GPU to crank up details when you can’t appreciate those details due to a crappy monitor?

 

 

Quality:

  Reveal hidden contents

The LCD Monitor industry is one of compromise.

For the most part quality doesn’t increase with price beyond a certain point, usually around the £/$500 mark.

 

Additionally, there are no ‘all round’ choices; you can’t get a monitor that is both good for productive colour work and competitive gaming at the same time for example.

 

When asking “what is the best monitor for XYZ”, make sure you understand that you can only ask for the best in ONE aspect, not multiple.

 

 

Panel Types:

  Reveal hidden contents

Associated with the above, panel types dictate the primary aspects you’re going to be looking at.

 

TN:

This is where the competitive gamers should be looking. TN panels have the fastest pixel response times and thus the clearest moving image necessary for fast paced competitive gaming.

 

However, TN panels have the worst image quality, with poor viewing angles, poor black levels, poor contrast, poor uniformity, and in most cases poor colour gamut, coverage, and factory calibration. Don’t expect to be able to enjoy movies or the scenery in games.

 

IPS:

Often touted as the best, IPS has its own issues, however it is most certainly the best choice for colour accurate content creators and professionals. These displays can have very good colour gamut and coverage, they do have the best viewing angles, and they have better contrast levels than TN.

 

However, IPS panels do not do well in dimly lit rooms, their contrast while better than TN usually tops out at around 1100:1 which isn’t great, they also suffer from IPS glow, 2 types arguably:

• The 1^st being a glow from the corners of the screen, an amount that varies from panel to panel, this glow will change as you change your viewing angle and distance, this is how you discern it from traditional LCD back light bleed (BLB).
• The 2^nd being the overall hue and glow from the entire screen when trying to produce black, this is often blueish, this is present on all IPS display regardless.

The other ‘issue’ IPS has is pixel response speed, it is slower than TN, but thankfully nowadays some top end IPS displays have gotten much faster to the point where they are actually usable on 240Hz displays.

 

VA

Arguably the middle ground of LCD display technology. VA has the best contrast and black levels by far, one of the primary reason they are predominantly used in TVs. They can nowadays also come close to your ‘average’ IPS displays level of colour gamut and accuracy.

However, VA displays have significant problems with dark transition pixel response times, all VA panels will have some amount of ‘blur’ / ‘ghosting’ present in dark scenes, and the ‘average’ VA panel monitor will also have some amount of that present in ‘normal’ scenes as well. But there are a few that have managed to get pixel response speed up to a point where you can easily use them for gaming with minimal blur added from the pixel response.

 

 

Uniformity:

  Reveal hidden contents

A ‘spec’ that is never advertised or seemingly even tested by manufacturers.

 

Uniformity is very important for the quality of the display but is way more often than not, terrible in monitors.

Uniformity is a measurement of the difference in the light passing through the panel from the backlight from one area of the screen to the next when trying to produce a solid even color across the entire screen.

 

A poor uniformity means that when trying to display a flat solid colour, it will in fact look different from one part of the screen to another. This is especially important when looking at whites and blacks.

Blacks are heavily impacted by BLB, and in the case of IPS panels IPS glow, a poor black uniformity will make dark scenes of any content look terrible.

 

Conversely a poor white uniformity while not as noticeable can make bright scenes look oddly coloured in areas where the uniformity is bad. The most noticeable effect of poor white uniformity is vignetting around the edges of the screen. (edges seem darker)

 

Displays with FALD (full array local dimming) will have better black uniformity when this feature is enabled as the backlight will not show up any uniformity issues in the areas the backlight is off.

 

The gold standard today for black uniformity are OLED TV’s , black areas are black because there is no backlight.

 

 

Pixel response speed (Response time):

  Reveal hidden contents

Sometimes mistaken for input latency (input lag), this is a measure of how fast a pixel can transition from one shade/brightness to another.

The faster it is the less added blur you will see from one frame to another.

 

I say ‘added’ blur because there is an innate presence of blur called ‘persistence blur’ that comes from the ‘sample and hold’ technique used by modern displays. Each frame is produced then held for the entire duration of the frequency the display is refreshing at, when tracking a moving object, the human eye/brain will fill in the gap between each frame (blur). As such, the higher the frequency the more information your eyes have and the less persistence blur you will see.

 

The way to reduce or even remove this blur further is to flicker the screen, add a black frame between each frame, this has the effect of adding extra information or rather separating each frame from each other, reducing the blur between each frame. This is why even an OLED TV with near instant pixel response speed, will still display some amount of blur, though far far less than the vast majority of LCDs.

 

However, pixel response speeds are usually the dominant factor in the amount of blur present in LCD displays.

 

Pixel response specs advertised by manufacturer have to be taken with a big grain of salt. They are a cheery picked figure from a single transition often among as many as 30, all of which are important.

 

The measurement of pixel response time is usually done in 2 different ways:

 

• A full transition measurement 0% to 100%. In effect like timing a runner doing the 100-meter sprint, you time from start to the finish line.
• A 10% to 90% measurement. In effect like timing that same runner but only include the 10-meter mark to the 90-meter mark.

 

The reason the 2^nd measurement is done is because the 10% to 90% period is where most of the transition is taking place and thus by the time 90% of the transition is done, your eyes will be seeing the majority of what that pixel is intending you to see. But not all mind you.

 

The 10%-90% measurement is industry standard, however reviewers can also include the full transition measurement as well in their reviews as it can be used to include overshoot,

Overshoot is usually caused by too high a 'Overdrive' setting, and overdrive is always used at its maximum level when manufacturers cherry pick their response time figure.

 

‘Overdrive’ much like it sounds, increases the speed of the transition BUT by doing so makes it harder for the pixels to hit their intended mark.

It’s like adding NOS to a car, or a turbo kit and not upgrading the breaks.

 

When overdrive is enabled at its highest setting, this often results in ‘overshoot’ where the pixel goes past its intended target and has to come back down in brightness, this when viewed results in an inverse ghosting effect where the ‘blur’ is a lighter colour rather than a darker colour.

 

It is arguably more distracting than normal blur. This added time to compensate for overshoot is of course not included in the 10% to 90% test as the test stops at 90% of the way to the target and doesn’t measure the point where it hits the 100% point, goes past it by any amount, be it 10% or 250%, and back down to the original target, thus making the advertised response time spec even more unreliable.

 

As of this time, using 'usable' overdrive settings where possible, TN panels can get closest to 1ms, but their ‘average’ across all transitions, will not be 1ms, it will be closer to 2ms to 4ms depending on the exact measurement being used by the reviewer (often both).

IPS will be around the 4ms to 8ms mark

VA will be around the 5ms to 12ms mark.

 

To finalize this point, you could purchase 10 different models all advertising 1ms response times, and when viewed, each will not only behave differently in regards to amount of blur you see, but when tested will also all have different response time averages slower than 1ms.

 

 

Input lag:

  Reveal hidden contents

Often confused with response time. Input lag is the time it takes for a given input to be displayed on screen.

 

For the most part, monitors, especially gaming monitors, will all have input latency figures plenty fast enough for even the most dedicated competitive gamer.

 

Input lag is measured by measuring the time between an input like a mouse click, and the time it takes for that input to display in the centre of the screen. As each frame on screen is drawn from top to bottom, the fastest possible input latency figure is HALF the frame time frequency of the display. So the fastest a 144Hz display can be in terms of input latency is 3.47ms.

 

However, if you see an input lag figure that is below half the frame time of the display, you can safely assume ether a mistake was made or they are only counting the additional processing time and not the half frame time.

 

As such, an input lag figure of 2ms on a 144Hz screen can be assumed to be 2ms of added processing time on top of the 3.47ms minimum time needed for the frame to display an input in the centre of the screen. While an input lag of 2.6ms on a 240Hz display can be assumed to include both half frame time and added processing time.

 

The reviewer doing the testing will use a standardised way, so you won’t have to ‘guess’’ which way it is being done.

Generally speaking with monitors anything below 10ms is good, and most monitors achieve this.

 

 

Colour gamut and coverage:

This is a section I will not be getting into.

The simple reason being that if it’s an important aspect to you, you should already know everything that needs to be known for your given hobby or profession.

 

For the vast majority of people you won't need to know what things like the Adobe-RGB coverage or DCI-P3 coverage mean and are used for.

It is however tested for by most competent reviewers and so you can look there if interested.

 

Colour Accuracy:

As with above this is most important for professionals and certain hobbyists, however this is still somewhat relevant for everyone in my opinion.

  Reveal hidden contents

It is rather simple, factory calibration for most monitors is poor. This means most people right now are not seeing the games they play and the movies they watch, as intended by the creator.

 

How far off the image is depends on the individual display as every single monitor will have a slightly different factory calibration. This is why you shouldn’t just download a ICC calibration profile from another person or review site.

 

The best way to calibrate your monitor is to buy a cheap calibration tool like a X-rite i1 Display Pro or Spyder5 pro. They cost around £/$180 which is very cheap in terms of calibrators and can be used to create a windows ICC colour profile that will ensure your monitors are calibrated to whatever accuracy you desire. You can also use this device to manually adjust other displays like TVs.

 

Should you buy one of these calibrators it is suggested that you don’t use the included software, DisplayCAL is an open source free software that is generally considered to be superior to the included software.

 

In a review a higher 'Delta-E' figure means a worse calibration. below 3 is good. below 2 is ideal. A custom calibration using a device like above can get below 1.

In regards to gamma measurements, the target is usually 2.2, this its not a delta/error figure.

 

 

HDR and SDR:

  Reveal hidden contents

HDR is a relatively new spec, it describes a displays ability to produce the extended color gamut and volume, and brightness required to make images really pop and look closer to real life than is/was traditionally possible with SDR.

 

The number one problem with HDR however is that it is really not truly available in mainstream consumer monitors.

Very very few monitors can produce the brightness required for even basic HDR, fewer still for the full HDR experience.

You also see very few monitors with the extended color gamut requirements needed for HDR, namely DCI-P3 at 90% , no monitors bar very very expensive professional studio monitors, can actually hit the needed full HDR spec targets,

 

An effective 'HDR ready' is the closest you can expect, they 'can' most certainly look better than your average monitor but they will not come close to true HDR as seen in TVs, and the level of HDR available will vary from model to model, some will barely be any different form SDR, others will be noticeably better, but none will be the true experience.

 

 

 

Where to look:

 

Now that we have gone through some of the most important 'hidden' aspects of Monitors, where do you find this information ?

 

As mentioned, reviewers. However, you will need to find those who test objectively, display the results, and ideally also inform you of their testing methodology so you can compare displays across different reviewers.

 

Here are a few places you can check.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Rtings.com

 

These guys have the best site I have come across so far for display reviews. They have a search and filter tool, and you can even create your own rating system so that new reviews are automatically added to your table and arranged in accordance with what specific test results and specs are important to you. Their website is easy to navigate and has all the information you want to know on each of the tests they do, include how they test.

 

They have about 100 monitors and 80 TVs in their catalogue so far, not much when compared to the number available to consumers to buy, but they can only do so much as they buy every display from retailers so that they dont get cherry picked preview samples.

 

The following link is to my custom rating profile.

https://www.rtings.com/user/ratings/ABkArd5QEMduIA

 

Tftcentral.co.uk

 

Equal in testing accuracy to Rtings, however their sites search function is broken so it’s harder to navigate. They are also slower to review displays.

 

Pcmonitors.info

 

Like tftcentral, they to have a solid testing method and reviews. However once again their site doesn’t have as robust a search feature and they can confuse some viewers with their ‘articles’ which talk about new and upcoming monitors but are not actual reviews.

 

Hardware Unboxed youtube channel

 

This channel does sufficiently well in reviews when compared to most other youtube channels, however they only include a limited number of tests, thankfully the important ones, for example pixel response time, are included. Being a youtube channel there is only a basic search function, they have no website so written reviews are not available. Overall however they do a great job in some of the most important aspects of monitor testing.

Update: 2021 Test methodology change.

 

 

Why isn’t LTT included?

I like LTT as much as the next person, however, when it comes to display reviews they lack details, and are for the most part halfway between a ‘overviewer’ and a proper ‘reviewer’.

Some of their videos will include information like colour accuracy and gamuts, they may even attempt a basic ‘blur’ amount test, but they are not currently at the level of Rtings or Hardware Unboxed. If you see a monitor on a LTT video and you think it looks good, I would still suggest you check the above sources first before purchasing.

 

 

TVs as a monitor?

This ‘guide’ isn’t for TVs however a quick word on them

  Reveal hidden contents

Yes, you can use a TV.

No, there is no big difference in technology.

No, they won’t damage your eyes.

Yes, TVs tend to have a higher input lag even in ‘game mode’. But for the most part it isn’t a big enough figure to cause issue.

Yes, most LCD TVs use VA panels and as such pixel response is slower, thus they do have an amount of blur. This along with the input latency, means they are not recommended for competitive gaming.

Yes, OLED is an exception.

 

OLED TV’s overcome almost every issue that LCDs have, they are potentially great even for competitive gaming. Though 120Hz is the current cap, they do not suffer added blur from slow pixel response. They even have BFI to reduce persistence blur, so a 120hz OLED can have clearer motion than potentially even a 240Hz LCD Monitor. Do you want a blurrier 240Hz monitor or a clearer 120Hz OLED?

 

BUT they are huge, 55” is until very very soon, the smallest option, LG is making a 48” available this year. And of course there is the so called ‘burn-in’ issue to deal with.

Yes, it can happen, yes, you will have to work around it.

 

The final issue with OLED is price. £/$1000 minimum for an older model, £/$1500 for a new model.

But they are currently the best displays available in the display industry, beating out even £/$1000+ monitors in every aspect but max frequency and their size issue.

 

 

 

Why should you trust the above information to be true?

 

Display manufacturers are tight lipped when it comes to specific information about their displays that are not included in their advertisement material. And for good reason, no one wants potential customers to know the faults of their products.

 

However, statements like "the response time spec is massively misleading" can be tested, and has been. Every reviewer who tests pixel response speed comes out with an average pixel response speed that is different from the advertised specs, some even go so far as to try and replicate the advertised spec, and that is where we find out how the manufacturers get away with advertising these figures. They are 'technically' not a lie, just hugely misleading.

 

This is the same for all the above information, reviewers that have shown their testing method can confirm all the tested information they have gathered and it can be replicated, within panel variance, and thus confirmed to be true.

 

With the above information in hand, and links to a few reviewers where further more detailed information can be found, you should have all you need to make an informed purchasing decision when looking for a monitor.

 

 

 

If anyone thinks I should add any information to this post, do feel free to speak up.

 

Thanks to @Glenwing for help with format and error checking.

Hey, I'm a new here I need quick help before the sale runs out.

 

There are two monitors both are 1140p at 165Hz but,

Lenovo G27Q-20 (2021) is a IPS panel with 99%sRGB coverage, 8 bits+frc to simulat 10 bits plus 400 cd/m² Brightness.

 

MSI Optix G27Q4 (2019)VA 115%sRGB and 92% DCI P3 with only 8 bits, 250 cd/m² and Peak Brightnes at 300 cd/m².

 

Can I know which is better I'll leave a link below https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/comparison/13ee1afb82

[SolarNova]

15 hours ago, A_J_Victor said:

Hey, I'm a new here I need quick help before the sale runs out.

 

There are two monitors both are 1140p at 165Hz but,

Lenovo G27Q-20 (2021) is a IPS panel with 99%sRGB coverage, 8 bits+frc to simulat 10 bits plus 400 cd/m² Brightness.

 

MSI Optix G27Q4 (2019)VA 115%sRGB and 92% DCI P3 with only 8 bits, 250 cd/m² and Peak Brightnes at 300 cd/m².

 

Can I know which is better I'll leave a link below https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/comparison/13ee1afb82

 

As i mention in the guide, specs should be taken with a pinch of salt, and without a actual review your guess will be as good as mine.

 

However, since ur comparing 2 completely different panel types with suitably different 'specs' here are few things u should consider.

 

If ur going to be doing any amount of fast paced gaming, the VA panel is likely going to have to slow a pixel response time to have a good level of moving image resolution (ull have smearing). Additionally the VA panel is obviously SDR only whilst the Lenovo display may possible have some amount of HDR capability , though it should be noted that an advertised 400 cd/m² likely means it barely manages that and so any HDR will be mediocre at best.

 

Since these 2 displays are so different, one can make an educated guess as to which would be better for gaming. In this instance it would be the Lenovo.

However i cant stress enough that this is a guess as you havnt provided links to any reviews and on cursory glance i cant see any for these specific models.

[ChrisShafik]

so I am really having trouble deciding which monitor I should choose. A 1440p 240hz or a 4k 144hz monitor? I was gonna buy an rtx 3080 and I dont have a budget. I want a dual setup but I dont even know if that graphics card is good enough for those monitors. 

So I want to know if you can see a difference between 1440p and 4k (27 inch). Can you see a difference between 240hz and 144hz and does it effect gameplay like shooting games. And is my graphics card good enough (I can always upgrade).

[SolarNova]

Just now, ChrisShafik said:

so I am really having trouble deciding which monitor I should choose. A 1440p 240hz or a 4k 144hz monitor? I was gonna buy an rtx 3080 and I dont have a budget. I want a dual setup but I dont even know if that graphics card is good enough for those monitors. 

So I want to know if you can see a difference between 1440p and 4k (27 inch). Can you see a difference between 240hz and 144hz and does it effect gameplay like shooting games. And is my graphics card good enough (I can always upgrade).

In the latest titles trying to hit 144fps at 4k with highest non 'ultra' settings is next to impossible even with the 3090. Ofc there will be exceptions.

 

1440p 240hz however would be far more achievable. I personally think that even with a 3080, 1440p 240hz would be a better choice than expecting everything to run at 4k 144hz.

 

That said. You then need to look at the quality performance of the individual displays ur deciding between. if the 240hz 1440p display ur looking at is actually terrible image quality wise then the 4k 144hz option may be the better choice.

 

Can u feel the difference between 240hz and 144hz ? ..yes.. but its diminishing returns once u hit 144hz.

 

Best bet would be to startup ur own thread, and ether ask for suggestions on specific models or better yet provide review links to displays ur interested in and we can give feedback based on those reviews as to which may be a better suit for your needs.

[neveyeh]

I'm glad to see this thread is still active. This guide is very informative, Thank you for putting it together. One thing I'd like to see in guide is explanation of gsync, vsync, freesync (only if it make sense to add them). 

I'm planning on buying a monitor just for playing competitive gaming (warzone, rainbow 6, csgo).  Currently I'm using a 32" TV as my display. 

My takeaway from the guide are as follows 
-  2x the price of your GPU. (I've GTX 1650, But I think can't consider the current prices)
- TN panel for competitive gaming.
- TN panels can get closest to 1ms.
- 240Hz display for lowest input-lag
- TVs are not recommended for competitive gaming.

Based on this I've decided to go with Benq Zowie XL2546.
Please let me know if there are any other better options out there that I should consider. 
 

[SolarNova]

7 hours ago, neveyeh said:

I'm glad to see this thread is still active. This guide is very informative, Thank you for putting it together. One thing I'd like to see in guide is explanation of gsync, vsync, freesync (only if it make sense to add them). 

I'm planning on buying a monitor just for playing competitive gaming (warzone, rainbow 6, csgo).  Currently I'm using a 32" TV as my display. 

My takeaway from the guide are as follows 
-  2x the price of your GPU. (I've GTX 1650, But I think can't consider the current prices)
- TN panel for competitive gaming.
- TN panels can get closest to 1ms.
- 240Hz display for lowest input-lag
- TVs are not recommended for competitive gaming.

Based on this I've decided to go with Benq Zowie XL2546.
Please let me know if there are any other better options out there that I should consider. 
 

If u want the absolute fastest pixel response possible , and in many cases achieve it on a budget, then yea TN panels can get you there...

However IPS has by this point pritty much become the go to panel type for gaming, even at competitive levels. The benefit of the better colors and viewing angles combined with the newer faster IPS panels makes for a better experience for competitive gamers overall.

 

In addition most new gaming monitors releasing nowadays are IPS it seems.

Still take a look at the following table, dispite being released in 2019, the Hp Omen X27 still has the fastest pixel response outside of OLEDs, and its TN.

The rest ,within the restrictions set, however are all IPS and are no slouches by any means.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/77136

 

Ill update the guide to reflect this and added a bit about OLED since we are very close to seeing the 1st OLED gaming monitors release.

I may add a bit about VRR in the future.

 

[ewitte]

On 5/12/2020 at 12:19 PM, SolarNova said:

A good budget rule of thumb is to hold on to 2x the price of your GPU ***, to spend on a display. Buying a mid to high end GPU then spending less than £/$300 on a monitor will effectively 'gimp' your experience. Why buy that GPU to crank up details when you can’t appreciate those details due to a crappy monitor?

Up until recently the best monitor I ever had was a 34" ultrawide between 300-400.   Just got a 48in OLED had no idea how much PQ I was missing!

 

[ewitte]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:13 PM, SolarNova said:

If u want the absolute fastest pixel response possible , and in many cases achieve it on a budget, then yea TN panels can get you there...

However IPS has by this point pritty much become the go to panel type for gaming, even at competitive levels. The benefit of the better colors and viewing angles combined with the newer faster IPS panels makes for a better experience for competitive gamers overall.

Every time I give TN a chance, they completely disappoint me.  The last time I saw it in store it looked good and I figured they had advanced enough.  When I plugged it in at home it was horrible.  Something about not being in its usage environment makes it hard to determine if its good or not.  Even recently I tested on the 49inch TV in the bedroom half a dozen times with a laptop and gamestream and it ALWAYS seemed too big.  When I broke down and got the 48in C1 and put it on the desk I loved it.

[LDGrinn]

Hello,

Can somebody elaborate on Curved vs Flat Wide monitors?
I am not sure if Curved will be good, does it distort the movies and games when you watch them?
Or are they actually great and my fears and not grounded?

Any experience and reviews on that topic?

P.S. Is 32 inch too big and close for a desk? Is 27 better in that case?

[SolarNova]

On 9/15/2022 at 8:49 AM, LDGrinn said:

Can somebody elaborate on Curved vs Flat Wide monitors?
I am not sure if Curved will be good, does it distort the movies and games when you watch them?

They are good for immersion, not so great for production. Working with excel spreadsheets for example will look weird due to the lines looking distorted, same goes for image work.

 

The only curved display i've had experience with is the Dell S3220DGF, which is 32" 1440p and has a mild 1800r curve, which i honestly didnt notice.

 

On 9/15/2022 at 8:49 AM, LDGrinn said:

P.S. Is 32 inch too big and close for a desk? Is 27 better in that case?

As for monitor size, dont get bogged down on what the most common sizes vs resolution are. Its all down to viewing distance.

If u sit further away u can be perfectly fine with a lower *PPI, however if u sit very close then ull want something with a higher PPI.

 

*PPi= pixels per inch

 

32" 1440p is ok imo, so long as ur not sitting very close, most people will recommend 4k at that size, but its honestly not a necessity.

 

Here are some PPI examples.

 

24" 1080 = 92 ppi

27" 1080 = 82 ppi

27" 1440 = 109 ppi

32" 1440 = 92 ppi

27" 2160 = 163 ppi

32" 2160 = 138 ppi

42" 2160 = 105 ppi

48" 2160 = 92 ppi

 

And just for sh*ts and giggles here is what my current display (42" Plasma) is

42" 1080 = 52 ppi

The reason my display doesnt look complete ass is because i sit far enough away for the low PPi not to matter as much as it would if i were 30cm away form the screen.

[IPD]

Curved panels aren't designed to wrap around your head like some kind of VR helmet.  They're simply designed to make it so that the edges of the display are equidistant to your eye to the center of the display.  That means that when you are looking at it, an object in the middle will appear the exact same size as if it were placed in one of the corners.  Users with multiple displays already do this automatically, as you will never find a (single user) multiple-monitor setup where the panels are perfectly parallel to each other.  We will always cant them towards each other slightly--and with the same reason as a curved display.

 

I have a 40" with a mild curve, and not only do you not even notice the curve while sitting in front of it....you also wonder if the rest of your life has been a lie because 40" is most definitely not "too big".

[e22big]

Hey @SolarNova 

 

I think it's time to update the HDR section on this guide, this was up for sometime and honestly much of it is no longer relevant in the today market condition. 

 

WCG, for example had changed significantly over the years. Most of the new midrange to high end monitor can easily get close to or even cover the entire spectrum of DCIP-3 colour gamut (only rec2020 remains challenging) and there are monitors with HDR hardwares that beat most of the budget and midrange TV (or older model TV), all the way to even the top of the line OLED. 

 

Much of what written there are no longer accurate under the current condition, and I think you should either update it or remove it as it's feeding incorrect info to the public.

[SolarNova]

On 11/29/2022 at 10:08 AM, e22big said:

Hey @SolarNova 

 

I think it's time to update the HDR section on this guide, this was up for sometime and honestly much of it is no longer relevant in the today market condition. 

 

WCG, for example had changed significantly over the years. Most of the new midrange to high end monitor can easily get close to or even cover the entire spectrum of DCIP-3 colour gamut (only rec2020 remains challenging) and there are monitors with HDR hardwares that beat most of the budget and midrange TV (or older model TV), all the way to even the top of the line OLED. 

 

Much of what written there are no longer accurate under the current condition, and I think you should either update it or remove it as it's feeding incorrect info to the public.

I can certainly expand and update the HDR section.I'll go over it this weekend.

 

edit: HDR section updated 2/12/22 : While 'proper' (HDR500+) HDR monitors are becoming more common, they are still mostly limited to high end models.

 

[Stahlmann]

On 11/29/2022 at 7:40 PM, SolarNova said:

I can certainly expand and update the HDR section.I'll go over it this weekend.

 

edit: HDR section updated 2/12/22 : While 'proper' (HDR500+) HDR monitors are becoming more common, they are still mostly limited to high end models.

 

Another thing i'd add to that:

 

It's important to look up a detailed review as this is really the only way to see if a monitor is a good HDR choice. There are officially certified HDR 1000 monitors that offer a terrible HDR experience, even though they're certified for a high-end HDR experience. Other than reviewers testing out real-world peak brightness and dimming performance, there is currently no way for a consumer to find out about stuff that pre-purchase.

 

So far the only HDR tiers that guarantee a good HDR monitor are the Vesa DisplayHDR1400 and all of the Vesa DisplayHDR True Black tiers. The requirements are so tight, that there is no way to cheat your way through. The certification tests for Vesa DisplayHDR1000 and lower are made in a way that a monitor can cheat it's way through without real HDR capabilities.

Source:

 

Some manufacturers also started to invent standards like Samsung's Quantum HDR2000 spec that is widely misleading. These monitors can only hit 2000 nits in edge cases that never really appear in real world content. In reality these monitors perform more like HDR1000 or slightly lower tiers.

Source:

 

[Therabozo]

plz help i have 3 monitors with identical specs and same price help me chose as i do not know alot about this topic i inted to use it on a next gen xbox and pc and looking for 144hz 1440p hdr being a nice addon 

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07YGZL8XF/ref=ewc_pr_img_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FXZVJH6/ref=ewc_pr_img_2?smid=A1ZAP482IIETZ&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WPFP6S4/ref=ewc_pr_img_3?smid=A284PRV19Y1MTF&psc=1

[SolarNova]

20 hours ago, Therabozo said:

plz help i have 3 monitors with identical specs and same price help me chose as i do not know alot about this topic i inted to use it on a next gen xbox and pc and looking for 144hz 1440p hdr being a nice addon 

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07YGZL8XF/ref=ewc_pr_img_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FXZVJH6/ref=ewc_pr_img_2?smid=A1ZAP482IIETZ&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WPFP6S4/ref=ewc_pr_img_3?smid=A284PRV19Y1MTF&psc=1

The Pixio has no overdrive support to deal with the relatively slow IPS panel. So for gaming i'd rule that out.

 

The LG has the usual problem with their IPS displays of having poor contrast, this may or may not be a problem for you depending on the brightness of the environment your using it in.

 

The Asus im having a hard time finding a good review on.

For gaming its likely the better choice, HOWEVER, it is a TN panel ..despite the marketing material saying it supports DSR10 ..that is a lesser standard, and a TN panel with 350nit marketed brightness and likely less than 1000:1 contrast is never going to produce HDR in any meaningful sense.

it does have ELMB sync however so it will run variable refresh with backlight strobbing for much sharper moving image clarity. the strobbing could potentially cause strobe crosstalk (image duplication) depending on the tuning. Regardless this is great for gaming.

Being a TN panel its viewing angles are likely to be terrible, so keep than i mind.

 

You have mentioned a desire for HDR, as i mention in my pinned thread, HDR for monitors is still limited to the high end, anything below that is VERY hit and miss,

These 3 displays are not going to give you any meaningful HDR experience as they are all on the low end regarding brightness, ranging from 300nits with the Pixio, to at most 400nits on the LG. And dont have the contrast and backlgiht control to give the necessary dynamic range between bright highlight and dark spots on any given scene.

 

The best of the 3 imo is the LG. A review of which u can find below.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27gl83a-b

[Therabozo]

hey the Gigabyte M27Q is better contrast and decent hdr and sdr preformince https://www.microcenter.com/product/639853/gigabyte-m27q-27-2k-wqhd-(2560-x-1440)-170hz-gaming-monitor?storeid=061 is it good??

[SolarNova]

1 hour ago, Therabozo said:

hey the Gigabyte M27Q is better contrast and decent hdr and sdr preformince https://www.microcenter.com/product/639853/gigabyte-m27q-27-2k-wqhd-(2560-x-1440)-170hz-gaming-monitor?storeid=061 is it good??

Yes the M27Q is a better option if its within ur budget.

[e22big]

On 1/26/2022 at 11:57 PM, SolarNova said:

In the latest titles trying to hit 144fps at 4k with highest non 'ultra' settings is next to impossible even with the 3090. Ofc there will be exceptions.

 

1440p 240hz however would be far more achievable. I personally think that even with a 3080, 1440p 240hz would be a better choice than expecting everything to run at 4k 144hz.

 

That said. You then need to look at the quality performance of the individual displays ur deciding between. if the 240hz 1440p display ur looking at is actually terrible image quality wise then the 4k 144hz option may be the better choice.

 

Can u feel the difference between 240hz and 144hz ? ..yes.. but its diminishing returns once u hit 144hz.

 

Best bet would be to startup ur own thread, and ether ask for suggestions on specific models or better yet provide review links to displays ur interested in and we can give feedback based on those reviews as to which may be a better suit for your needs.

1440p 240hz totally isn't achievable with a 3080.You are limited to either 4k 70-80 fps or 1440p 144+ fps (and that's for the current games, future titles aren't going to be easier to run.

 

 

[law247]

Hi,

 

I'm looking for a good gaming monitor but don't know which one will be best... Different sites give Different reviews from good to trash. Hoping you can help. Looking for something 4K HDR with high FPS but mainly need it to be awesome if possible. I have put my specs below.

 

i7 8700k

32gb

RTX 3070

 

Thanks!

[SolarNova]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:21 PM, law247 said:

Different sites give Different reviews from good to trash

You will find many sites that give 'overviews' ...talking about 'specs' and including subjective views.

However most sites that do objective testing will have the same results within panel variation.

 

As i mention in the guide, rtings.com is a good site to use as they have a robust search and comparison feature.

Here is the direct link.

Table tool:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table

Comparison:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/compare/samsung-c49rg9-crg9-vs-samsung-odyssey-g9/899/14363?usage=3623&threshold=0.10

[law247]

On 7/1/2023 at 5:36 PM, SolarNova said:

You will find many sites that give 'overviews' ...talking about 'specs' and including subjective views.

However most sites that do objective testing will have the same results within panel variation.

 

As i mention in the guide, rtings.com is a good site to use as they have a robust search and comparison feature.

Here is the direct link.

Table tool:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table

Comparison:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/lg-c2-oled-vs-lg-c3-oled/31229/37848?usage=1&threshold=0.10

Thanks for the reply

 

Do you know of any good ones off hand. Preferably 27 to 32inch maximum for my desk. Really just needing something that's worth the money and not just a gimmick. Wanting something I genuinely will see a difference.

[SolarNova]

18 hours ago, law247 said:

Thanks for the reply

 

Do you know of any good ones off hand. Preferably 27 to 32inch maximum for my desk. Really just needing something that's worth the money and not just a gimmick. Wanting something I genuinely will see a difference.

Depends on the budget.

 

But if HDR is important then ull have a tough time finding many monitors that can hit high brightness like TVs.

 

Perhaps the Gigabyte M32UC variant. Has what you want and includes the rare capability to run both VRR and BFI at the same time. Gtes to about 500nits in your average scene.

Or

The CoolerMaster Tempest GP27U, As an IPS it will have worse contrast but better viewing angles, this also comes with FALD which allows it to achieve HDR1000, but no BFI, however its pixel response is fine.

 

The Tempest is more expensive but the better of the 2 overall.

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/compare/gigabyte-m32uc-vs-cooler-master-tempest-gp27u/32723/34214?usage=4203&threshold=0.10

 

I know you said you wanted 4k HDR and high Refresh but your 3070 is going to struggle with that in modern titles. but still, those are 2 options i see at a quick glance. You should spend some time yourself on the site and look through your options.

 

Also start a new thread/topic to get more suggestions.

[Stahlmann]

Imo the price brackets could use an update:

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

~ £/$100: Any monitor is better than no monitor. They all suck, just get the cheapest.

Still true. Most of these monitors have similar performance and since they're pretty much all just regular sRGB 1080p IPS monitors nowadays, there isn't much the brand can really do wrong. Response times and color accuracity don't really matter in that price range.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

Sub £/$250: Usually not worth the extra price. Very few reviews, limited spec options, and usually significant issues present.

Around $180-250 good budget monitors become available. People have a good selection of decent 24" 1080p 144Hz IPS monitors.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

£/$250 - £/$400: Dependent on specific requirements some good options start to appear.

$300-400 is currently the value sweetspot whith lots of great general purpose monitors that don't have any significant downsides.

For example 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS monitors.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

£/$400 - £/$600: A good budget, A sizable number of reviewed Displays to choose from.

This section is for people that look for a more specialized display. For example users who look for 4K, 240Hz or a specific wide color gamut.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

£/$600-£/$1000: You will have access to the majority of reviewed monitors by this point. Top end displays for a variety of use cases.

This is basically the entry-point for real HDR displays to pop up. You don't need to shop this high up if you're not specifically looking for HDR. Around the top-end of this section is also where OLED displays first appear.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

£/$1000+: A few extra options appear, high end ultra, and super-ultra-wide predominantly, however quality doesn’t increase.

That still mostly holds true. This seciton is basically for exotic displays like super-ultrawides or other big-screen displays that perform similar to the previous section.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

£/$2k+ professional displays. If you’re looking here, you don’t need this guide.

Over the last few years some "gaming" branded monitors popped up in this price range, but they generally haven't been worth it. Even customers that just want the best, most monitors around $1000 still make more sense.

 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:19 PM, SolarNova said:

A good budget rule of thumb is to hold on to 2x the price of your GPU ***, to spend on a display. Buying a mid to high end GPU then spending less than £/$300 on a monitor will effectively 'gimp' your experience. Why buy that GPU to crank up details when you can’t appreciate those details due to a crappy monitor?

 

***(EDIT: Feb 2022 - Understand this figure is based on the 'normal' pre 2019 GPU MSRP pricing / Should GPU pricing never return to normal this section will be updated to reflect that)

I'd say nowadays the GPU and monitor should be around the same. For example a $300 (likely 1440p 144Hz) monitor is a good fit for a $300 GPU like a 4060. A $1000 display (likely 4K 144Hz) is a good fit for a $1000 GPU like a 4070Ti/4080.

 

[SolarNova]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Imo the price brackets could use an update:

 

~~SNIP~~

 

Indeed, i shall go over it now and make some changes.