In the market for a new monitor - confused as... :(

[Zaxhill]

Hello everybody, 

 

So I'm in the market for a new monitor for my old PC. I started reading the Internets, only if I knew how deep the rabbit hole goes...

 

To give you little background: I am running 2009 (modified) i7-920 (base clock) on Asus P6T-WS PRO. Please don't laugh. 3 years ago I have upgraded to the SSD (Samsung 850 Pro), 24GB memory (max for the mobo) and GTX 1060 6GB Rog Strix Gaming. All this is hooked up to NEC SpectraView 2090 LCD (very old school - as I am - 1600x1200 - 4:3 ratio). At the time I was much into photography, hence the color accurate display. I wanted to upgrade the rest of the system (mobo, RAM & CPU) this year, but then I saw that my old mobo (still working perfectly fine, and rock-solid) is worth more than the one I wanted to upgrade to, plus all my games on a given display run steady 60fps on max settings (Metro, Witcher 3, WoW etc), so I have parked that for now.

 

Now, in the era of super-wide screens, 4k, large TV's, large phones, and all that, my good old 20" NEC got a bit... small. Also working with 36mpix photos from my Nikon D800 would benefit from bigger screen with higher resolution. I had a cheapo 27" 1440p display on a loan for few weeks and I loved it. The screen real estate was great, pixel density fantastic, the size was perfect. I wouldn't buy this particular model, as the colors (despite being IPS screen) were over-saturated and not accurate, and it was glossy, but I got a taste of what modern displays can offer... So i started looking.

 

I know at this stage it's a matter of compromises and trade-offs, but that's ok.

 

My criteria and suggestions:

The photography thing didn't really pick up, so it's more a hobby that anything else now. However, I absolutely love good (accurate) colors on a screen, and higher resolution screen would be great for PS. Good color is a must, so I'm considering only IPS monitors. It won't be color-accurate display, but good IPS panel with decent color gamut will be sufficient. for this criteria 27" 1440p or 4k would be preferable.

 

The gaming. My gaming roots go back to the "golden era of the 90' ", with all the Quakes, Diablos, Baldures, Starcrafts and so on. I spent countless hours back then gaming. Now I am occasional gamer, but I do like to enjoy my games to their full potential, when I have some free time to spend at the computer. By that I mean maxed out graphics (as much as possible of course) and a smooth framerate. And that's exactly what I have at the moment with my old 1600x1200 screen, hitting steady 60fps. I know my setup isn't really suited to push above FHD, so for the gaming criteria FHD resolution would be preferable. I don't play competitive online, however I heard only good things about higher-refresh rate monitors for gaming. And they make them with IPS panels now too  

 

Conclusions and compromises:

For the desktop and creative work I'd love to have nice 27"-28" IPS 1440p or 4k display.

For gaming it may be a bit too hard to push 1440p, not to mention 4k. HOWEVER, I have played Witcher 3 on that borrowed 27" screen, and it was running smooth (but I didn't measure the actual framerate). I could get a nice 24" screen here and run 2 monitors setup, but it would be a bit of downgrade in resolution (1200p to 1080p) on the new screen.

 

But coming from the era of CRT screens, when the resolution wasn't really an issue and could have been  adjusted as needed, I got that brilliant idea over the weekend: hey, 4k is exactly 4 times FHD, so in theory it should scale down nicely for 1080p gaming right? Or am I missing something?

 

And finally, the cost: I am looking for something mid-range, with good, accurate colors being a priority (but not to stretched too much in this direction). Options I consider at the moment are: 24" FHD, 27" or 28" 1440p or 4k. IPS with good colors is a must. And I think I am leaning towards the bigger screen slightly... It should be an upgrade after all. I am looking at LG and Asus monitors, they have a lot of positive reviews.

 

Monitor will be purchased for good few years coming, so my old PC eventually will be upgraded to higher specs. Just not anytime soon.

 

 

Questions, to wrap it all up:

1) Is higher-refresh rate worth pushing for (for occasional gaming, but with appreciation for smooth FPS experience), or should I just stay at 60fps (which is fine for me at the moment, but probably because I have never experienced anything better first-hand)?

2) Would 4k screen scale down nicely to 1080p for gaming?

3) Recommendations, recommendations...?

 

Apologies for a bit long post, and massive thank you for everybody who read it all  

 

Zaxhill

 

 

 

 

[narrdarr]

ASUS TUF VG27AQ

 

More budget friendly

 

ViewSonic VX2758-2KP-MHD

[Zaxhill]

19 minutes ago, narrdarr said:

ASUS TUF VG27AQ

 

More budget friendly

 

ViewSonic VX2758-2KP-MHD

Thank you!

 

Both options really nice and I have missed them in my search. Will definitely consider.

 

If someone could also give any advice on 4k (does it really make sense, or should I just pass on this one?) it would be great.

 

Thanks again!

[GoodBytes]

We have relatively the same computer (different mobo, and a hint different CPU (Core i7-930), and a GeForce 680, and 6GB of RAM).

I recall seeing that AMD's most budget CPU was faster than my PC CPU running the very same benchmarks. A clear sign that it is time to upgrade, hehe. I, personally, will, my system is worst then yours, and I really need more CPU power, RAM for what I do, and GPU power for gaming.

 

And, I thought I was the last person with a CRT on this forum when I switch to an LCD back in 2011, I guess I was beating to it .

In my case, I got, and still running today, the first "game-able" consumer IPS monitor. It wasn't marketed as such, but in-depth review indicated that the actual pixel response was excellent, same for input lag, despite being a color accurate focus (but not reaching pro level). It featured a true 8-bit IPS panel, 12-bit Look Up Table, could produce 1.07 billion colors (16.7 million natively, 1.07 billion via A-FRC.. today, still, 16.7 million colors natively are not something you see every day... They use AFRC to emulate the colors it can't actually produce). It is the Dell U2410. 16:10 aspect ratio (1920x1200) display. Anyway, that was ages ago, and technology has greatly improved since.

 

My suggestion, is, no matter the monitor of interest, check out in-depth monitor review sites, like: TFTCentral and Prad.de (although the site is in German. So, you may want to use a Translator. That is what I do).

Quote

Questions, to wrap it all up:

1) Is higher-refresh rate worth pushing for (for occasional gaming, but with appreciation for smooth FPS experience), or should I just stay at 60fps (which is fine for me at the moment, but probably because I have never experienced anything better first-hand)?

You'll need a faster system to enjoy higher refresh rate. Like 60fps over 30fps, it isn't a necessity. It is certainly a nice to have, but not a requirement. But I guess you can say that to almost anything we buy. 

 

But I think, anything you buy, assuming you are buying a higher-end consumer range LCD monitor (don't have to go with professional EIZO monitor or top of the line consumer end either), will better than your CRT monitor. Why?

• Your CRT is old. I am sure by now, perfect circles aren't circles anymore. Magnets are getting old, losing power. You may be able to adjust it, but probably reaching the end of what you can adjust.
• CRTs have a phosphor layer in them to retain light so that you have a visible image. Phosphor ages over time, and loses its ability to retain light and darkens, and colors aren't properly being represented anymore. So basically, you CRT is no longer accurate. Color professionals, back in CRT days, tended to color calibrate their monitor at the very least once a month to keep they work flow the most accurate as possible. This is still required today, as if you have the CFL back light LCD (actually you don't have those anymore), same problem, even if you have high grade ones that do output a nice white light. And non-budget monitors tend to use white-LEDs but with a layer of phosphor to adjust the white level (as white-LEDs in the consumer space, doesn't' actually exists, it is a light blue color, or "cold white" as they say).
  
  My info is a bit outdated, but you can find GB-LED backlit LCD monitors, which are green and blue LEDs put very close together with a layer of phosphor layer for the missing red LED, to output a white light. But instead of leaning on blue, they lean more on green, the white. Of course, the best is RGB-LED, where you have the 3 LED's to output a nice white light, but I don't think those ever hit the consumer market. the only consumer product with RGB-LED was my old phone, where the flash camera was RGB LEDs to output a nice white light. Shame the camera was too good (at the time, for a phone) for most shots to even need to use the flash. hehe.

All I would make sure is that the LCD monitor, the panel is a true 8-bit per channel panel. That means that it can, natively, without tricks, output 16.7 million colors. Typically, they are advertised as 1.07 billion color displays. More budget-oriented displays use 6-bit per channel panels, so they can only produce 262,144 colors natively, and uses A-FRC to emulate the other colors to reach 16.7 million colors. Essentially, FRC takes 2 colors that the monitor can produce from a table it has, and switch between them really quickly to trick your eyes in seeing a color. So, they apply the same technology on true 8-bit panels to pass form 16.7 million colors, to 1.07 billion colors.

 

The good news is that you don't care about 1.07 billion colors. In fact, you are forced to not care about it, as you can't and will not (unless that changes with AMD latest GPU) enjoy such colors, as while Windows supports it, our consumer graphics card doesn't. It is a locked-out feature for select workstations graphics card solutions, like select Nvidia Quadros.

 

And also, get a monitor is factory color calibrated. with the color space you work with.

It should include a report, with a Delta that is low. Lower the better, of course.

 

Quote

2) Would 4k screen scale down nicely to 1080p for gaming?

 

 

I don't know... but technically speaking, 2x2 pixel on a 4k display, is 1 pixel in 1080p. The problem is that the pixels aren't actually filled top to bottom in color, and you have the thickness of the grid. But theoretically speaking, it should be better than half pixels when you are playing at a non-native resolution. As games don't have text, it could be an acceptable compromised.

 

Would like to get someone with a 4k display to give their impression, as well.

 

 

Quote

3) Recommendations, recommendations...?

Personally, I started to look at ultra-wide monitor. But sadly, I want it all... colors, response time, G-Sync, refresh rate, and proper HDR support. The closest I have seen is the LG 34GN850-B (3440x1440), which is costly. I think I am going to hold on, and perhaps re-asses my want and need for this. I haven't done this. Again, just started to look, to see if such product exists and what it costs. Cost too much for me

 

 

AHA! You typed a wall of text, and now you get a wall of text

[Zaxhill]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

But I think, anything you buy, assuming you are buying a higher-end consumer range LCD monitor (don't have to go with professional EIZO monitor or top of the line consumer end either), will better than your CRT monitor. Why?

I don't have CRT anymore (I was running a second CRT screen up till 2017 - 21" DELL P1130 with nice Trinitron screen. My GTX 1060 does not support anything analog now), but that's not the topic here :)

I am currently running high-end (well, 12 years old high-end), color accurate NEC SpectraView LCD with 1600x1200 native resolution :) 

 

So it's about changing LCD with quite nice colors (even considering the age of the screen) to another LCD.

 

Thank you for your text, I'll keep reading now ;)

[Zaxhill]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

AHA! You typed a wall of text, and now you get a wall of text

Thank you for your time & effort :)

 

I have just found this: https://www.dell.com/en-ie/shop/dell-27-gaming-monitor-s2721dgf/apd/210-avwe/monitors-monitor-accessories

 

Apparently it hits the sweetspot. And the price is good too...

 

Will keep looking, I'm in no major rush.

 

 

BTW: I have just launched 2016 Doom for the first time on my rig, and despite very long loading times it runs at steady 60fps in ultra settings, 1600x1200... I'm a bit surprised, to be honest. Positively of course :)

[narrdarr]

12 minutes ago, Zaxhill said:

Thank you for your time & effort

 

I have just found this: https://www.dell.com/en-ie/shop/dell-27-gaming-monitor-s2721dgf/apd/210-avwe/monitors-monitor-accessories

 

Apparently it hits the sweetspot. And the price is good too...

 

Will keep looking, I'm in no major rush.

 

 

BTW: I have just launched 2016 Doom for the first time on my rig, and despite very long loading times it runs at steady 60fps in ultra settings, 1600x1200... I'm a bit surprised, to be honest. Positively of course

Thats a TN panel. the colors are not great, but ok and the blacks are really bad with terrible color banding. there a many threads discussing registry hacks to help with the banding.  

i have the 24" version and can confirm these issues. These issues are not minor and very frustrating. 

[Zaxhill]

54 minutes ago, narrdarr said:

Thats a TN panel. the colors are not great, but ok and the blacks are really bad with terrible color banding. there a many threads discussing registry hacks to help with the banding.  

I think it’s a different monitor, the one I’m looking at (S2721DGF) is an IPS panel. See below: 

 

[narrdarr]

1 hour ago, Zaxhill said:

I think it’s a different monitor, the one I’m looking at (S2721DGF) is an IPS panel. See below: 

 

 

Sorry i was thinking of the S2716DG. model number are close. lol