Why does everyone pretend like a monitor has to be totally specialized?

[dantesan]

We have monitors with 240hz and are curved with HDR 5000 (joking) and VRR and LFC and a million other buzzwords...

 

But I can't ever seem to find one that is just "good enough" in all categories.

 

I just want a monitor that supports all the color spaces decently with good accuracy (DCIP, RGB, AdobeRGB)

Has decent but not ridiculous refresh rate. (120 hz is fine)

Is FLAT. (Curved monitors are of Satan) Fight me.

Decent contrast. (Doesn't have to be OLED)

Good Size. 32 inches would be perfect. I would be happy with QHD at 32 inches if I could have the rest of this.

HDR 600

HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 (2.0 or 2.1 would be great but not absolutely necessary)

VESA mountable.

 

It seems like all the monitor companies are all focused on making the ULTIMATE GAME MONITOR or the ULTIMATE CREATOR MONITOR but there are very few attempts to just be "decent" at everything. 

 

If anyone can find me a monitor that fits all of those requirements I will give you a cookie. 

 

But seriously... I think monitor reviewers should start asking for this. Stop giving monitors a pass on SOME things just because "Oooh it does 9000 hertz!" (While failing miserably at other things like... text rendering properly because of stupid things like BGR pixel arrangements.)

 

[dizmo]

Why do you want HDMI 2.1 if you're not going to really make use of it? IIRC the only real advantage it has is for higher refresh rates/higher resolutions.

Monitor reviewers get the best of the best because it gets views, even if those people aren't really in the market for that particular monitor. If you have reviews of mid range monitors, a lot fewer are going to look. Personally I wouldn't bother with HDR600 either, as it's not going to really add a TON to your image. Wait for HDR to gain more popularity and for the technology behind it to drop in price as it becomes more mainstream.

 

However, here are your options:

• Corsair XENEON
  https://pcpartpicker.com/product/76wypg/corsair-xeneon-32qhd240-320-2560x1440-240-hz-monitor-cm-9020002-na

• ViewSonic ELITE XG320Q
  https://pcpartpicker.com/product/L9zhP6/viewsonic-elite-xg320q-320-2560x1440-175-hz-monitor-xg320q

[dantesan]

Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 Review - RTINGS.com

 

ViewSonic Elite XG270QG Review - RTINGS.com

 

These aren't exact model/part matches but the closest I could find on short notice. Both are flawed in just "the basics" such as color accuracy and/or contrast. 

 

If it isn't going to be OLED then it would need to have array local dimming or something. Enough dimming zones so that mouse cursors don't look like amateur fireworks displays.

 

To answer your question about HDR... I could live without HDR if I could get everything ELSE on that list probably. (I currently HAVE a DisplayHDR 600 monitor so I know what it "adds" to the image.) VRR is non-negotiable though. 

 

[matt0725]

im running the LG 25GN950-B which is 27in flat, 4k, 144hz, HDR  600, DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0 and VESA compatible. it does have local dimming, and i think its 98%sRGB

 

i think LG makes a 32in version of this monitor, but youll have to google around to find the model name lol

[Andrewtst]

1 hour ago, dantesan said:

Has decent but not ridiculous refresh rate. (120 hz is fine)

Is FLAT. (Curved monitors are of Satan)

Decent to you not means decent to everyone. That why they won't be decent category. 

 

For example you dislike curve screen but I prefer curve screen. Just only this example they can't have decent category already. 

[xg32]

2 hours ago, dantesan said:

.

 

pg32uq, if you want true hdr with no blooming then oled's the only option.

[varrys]

Probably because a "good in all" really means "all I want is everything," and that raises the price significantly. A gaming monitor is strong in some things, a creator monitor has a totally different focus (and generally more expensive to start with). Put them together, and you're demanding all the positives while also wanting to avoid the negatives. You say "doesn't have to be elite in this or that," but by adding all those qualifiers, you're already demanding a lot, and the panel will cost a lost as a result. Expensive panels have less of a market. You could probably buy a solid gaming monitor and then a solid creator monitor for less than the cost of a single "does both well" monitor.

 

Also, to be blunt, a lot of it is just BS marketing when it comes to "ultimate gaming" branding. 

[dantesan]

9 hours ago, varrys said:

Probably because a "good in all" really means "all I want is everything," and that raises the price significantly. A gaming monitor is strong in some things, a creator monitor has a totally different focus (and generally more expensive to start with). Put them together, and you're demanding all the positives while also wanting to avoid the negatives. You say "doesn't have to be elite in this or that," but by adding all those qualifiers, you're already demanding a lot, and the panel will cost a lost as a result. Expensive panels have less of a market. You could probably buy a solid gaming monitor and then a solid creator monitor for less than the cost of a single "does both well" monitor.

 

Also, to be blunt, a lot of it is just BS marketing when it comes to "ultimate gaming" branding. 

I am asking for upper-midrange-mediocrity from all categories. Almost every other market for every other kind of electronic device has a "prosumer" range that is "good enough" across all categories of potential usage. I used to be a pro audio engineer. I am a semi-pro photographer. I know these products could exist if it weren't for the laser focus the manufacturers have on "differentiating" themselves with gimmicks. I am willing to pay a grand or a little more for such a beast if one exists.

 

If you ask manufacturers "Why can't gaming monitors be color accurate?" they tell you "Well because our focus is making them fast." Well, then make them a little less fast. You know like... Why are you making 240-500hz monitors then? It's a cop out. Basically the real answer is: "It's less work to make them faster and we can sell more than our competitors since our customers largely appear not to care." (And reviewers)

 

I think ultimately its consumers and reviewers fault more than the manufacturers. They don't care as long as we keep buying what they foist on us. Honestly, I can't even blame them.

 

The Eve Spectrum monitors are the closest thing I think I've seen at an attempt to do what Im asking for. It's too bad they don't have a 32 inch model. (yet) Although the Eve (now calling themselves Dough) still isn't perfect by any means.

 

I do however find it interesting that a company that is just cobbling together parts from "wherever" for a kickstarter as opposed to a huge established corporation could manage to fit so much into a monitor and still be profitable whereas we can't even seem to get the big companies even interested in making something similar.

[xg32]

1 hour ago, dantesan said:

.

what you are looking for would cost at least 2.5k, and the demand for it would be abysmal, it's simply not worth the risk.

 

closest thing we don't have yet is probably a 32inch 4k 120hz qd-oled (basically a non-curved 16:9 version of the dell), but it's probably more profitable to sell big tvs

 

the GP27U is really close on all the boxes, it's 27inch and it'll bloom, but for 800dollars, it's already better than a 2000dollar model from 2018

[varrys]

1 hour ago, dantesan said:

I think ultimately its consumers and reviewers fault more than the manufacturers. They don't care as long as we keep buying what they foist on us. Honestly, I can't even blame them.

This all the way. These categories sell, and sell well, so why bother making your expensive $1K monitor that won't sell as well? It's the same reason there are so few 38" ultrawide, with no real change over last few years. Some love them, but cost is higher to make, and most people will happily buy the cheaper 34" ones.

 

For the record, I am for your proposal. I would also buy a monitor like that. But it's just not worth it for most companies to bother. It's also why I keep delaying my next monitor purchase. I can't get quite everything I want in one package, or at least not without spending over $1200. So I keep weighing my options and looking at various options, hoping eventually one will be worth pulling the trigger for.

[dantesan]

33 minutes ago, varrys said:

This all the way. These categories sell, and sell well, so why bother making your expensive $1K monitor that won't sell as well? It's the same reason there are so few 38" ultrawide, with no real change over last few years. Some love them, but cost is higher to make, and most people will happily buy the cheaper 34" ones.

 

For the record, I am for your proposal. I would also buy a monitor like that. But it's just not worth it for most companies to bother. It's also why I keep delaying my next monitor purchase. I can't get quite everything I want in one package, or at least not without spending over $1200. So I keep weighing my options and looking at various options, hoping eventually one will be worth pulling the trigger for.

Is there one you know of that ticks all your boxes for $1500 or less? If you do I may buy one. (Probably on sale but still) I can't manage to even find one with decent AdobeRGB coverage (and accuracy) that is over 75hz.

[varrys]

9 hours ago, dantesan said:

Is there one you know of that ticks all your boxes for $1500 or less? If you do I may buy one. (Probably on sale but still) I can't manage to even find one with decent AdobeRGB coverage (and accuracy) that is over 75hz.

Sorry, I suppose I should clarify when I say I have a hard time finding one for my needs, they aren't your same needs. I don't need the color accuracy for my job. My stuff is text based, and a matter of debating ultrawide vs. just 4K, plus balancing gaming desires. I've been eyeing 38" ultrawides (all $1K plus) but don't trust LG, yet they have the best one for work and USB-C. Going to Dell 38" means Alienware (no office utility) or business model (awful for gaming). So looking at standard 4K, but just another IPS doesn't seem worth a big cost when my 1440 monitor is only a year old. Would love OLED but cannot have any issues with text clarity. 

 

I'm now currently leaning toward the Cooler Master Tempest GP27U, a mini LED 4K that is 27" with KVM for $800. But firmware issues need to be worked out. And they will later release a 32" version, so I may wait till then. 

[Radium_Angel]

On 11/10/2022 at 10:54 PM, dantesan said:

FLAT. (Curved monitors are of Satan) Fight me.

We have a curved monitor attached to a lab instrument at work. It's some stupid-wide (like 42") monitor and while I can kind of see the appeal, I'm by and large with you, monitors should be flat.

It's a solution in search of a problem IMO.

[dantesan]

The 7 Best Monitors - Black Friday 2022: Reviews - RTINGS.com

 

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Why can't they just make a flat version of the samsung ls32bg852nnxgo?

 

(Try saying THAT 10 times fast)

 

I don't want curved. I don't want ultrawide. I just want a 16:9 4k monitor with "some" HDR of some sort that can do 120 and decent color accuracy and contrast. Why is this so impossible?

[dantesan]

Just to let everyone know its possible I may not have to wait too much longer for what I want.