Is an 800nit difference noticeable?

[venomtail]

Scouting my next monior, I've gotten hooked on the 4k train for the last year or two, want it to be 32" making me come down to like 4 (3 right now) monitors. 

• Cheapest and specs wise worst BenQ.
• A 600nit Asus
• A 1400nit Asus
• And the already announced but yet to be released PG32UQXR

 

Taken aback by the price difference however, miniLED versions costs x3 as much as I guess "normal" monitors. Pretty much the difference I can see here is the HDR technology. Would this difference be noticable? Has someone compared the ASUS models directly? Is 600nit for HDR stuff more or less just a checkbox where as the 1400nit is what is actually needed to try HDR? £1000 was already asking a lot but £3000 is unjustifyabe for me. God forbit how much the latest model will cost if the old one is already £3k. And here I was thinking the 1400nit model will be £1000 tops...

 

Is 1400nit worth it? Or would if get buyers remorse if I went with 600nit? What if 600nit is already plenty as I'd come from a shitty, dark TN panel?

[Andrewtst]

If you want awesome HDR performance, HDR 1000 is far than enough. 

 

HDR 600 is minimum requirement. 

 

Don't get anything with HDR 400 as those is not good. 

 

The HDR true black 400 was different, this is not HDR 400 and only OLED well have this HDR 400 true black, basically OLED is great with or without certification of any. 

[JonS77]

These are just my opinions based on personal observations. HDR is a tricky thing and chasing it with monitors is a bottomless pit of spending. 400nits HDR is lie, 600nits is pretty bad and I still wouldn't use is. 800nits is acceptable, 1000nits pretty good. Anything above that is an improvement. But, what you might not be considering is the black levels. Black levels are the other, equally important ( more important IMO), part of the HDR experience. Basically any peak brightness level without good black levels is not that good. What I'm trying to say is that if you want HDR picture out of your gaming screen, it's OLED or bust. Either get whatever monitor that has good specs and don't chase HDR, or get an OLED and call it a day.

 

you have an X3D chip so I assume you only play games with your PC, just get an LG C2, 48/42 inches and get  a desk with more depth than usual. LG C1 is also good, other new OLEDs are also not bad but all costly. The C2 has a pretty good price on it right now that would cost less than a good monitor. You could also just get an OLED monitor for a little bit more than that. But in my opinion, nothing beats the 4k 120hz experience on an OLED. Just need to get a second cheap monitor for your other tasks and web browsing just so you wont risk the OLED with static images.

[jaslion]

Yes

 

Its EXTEMELY noticable when used properly.

 

Hdr 600 is borderline hdr. For most people its still almost not noticeable.

 

Hdr 400 is just not hdr only means it has the tec in it.

 

Hdr 1000 is where its quite noticeable for most people.

 

Basicallt if you want hdr you gotta spend the money as otherwise on tradition lcds with only little dimming zones and lower max brightness hdr kinda fades into the background mostly

 

There is one small hack tho.

 

Getting an oled. Since the contrast DRAMATICALLY increases between literallt off black pixels and on lit pixels 600 nits does waaay more there than on a lcd.

 

However burn in is a real thing as well as panel degradation.

 

 

 

Or the best advice of all ignore all this bs and just get a good 4k monitor. Can already get an lg for like 600 was it?

[venomtail]

10 minutes ago, Jon-Slow said:

These are just my opinions based on personal observations. HDR is a tricky thing and chasing it with monitors is a bottomless pit of spending. 400nits HDR is lie, 600nits is pretty bad and I still wouldn't use is. 800nits is acceptable, 1000nits pretty good. Anything above that is an improvement. But, what you might not be considering is the black levels. Black levels are the other, equally important ( more important IMO), part of the HDR experience. Basically any peak brightness level without good black levels is not that good. What I'm trying to say is that if you want HDR picture out of your gaming screen, it's OLED or bust. Either get whatever monitor that has good specs and don't chase HDR, or get an OLED and call it a day.

 

you have an X3D chip so I assume you only play games with your PC, just get an LG C2, 48/42 inches and get  a desk with more depth than usual. LG C1 is also good, other new OLEDs are also not bad but all costly. The C2 has a pretty good price on it right now that would cost less than a good monitor. You could also just get an OLED monitor for a little bit more than that. But in my opinion, nothing beats the 4k 120hz experience on an OLED. Just need to get a second cheap monitor for your other tasks and web browsing just so you wont risk the OLED with static images.

So if I'm spending a ton of money, 1000nit is basically the minimum for a modern experience. 

 

You're recommendations are good for most people except I want a 32" monitor, no more, no less. I feel like my 27" could be bigger but anything more than 32" will take up too much room, I've got to put my speakers somewhere.

And in terms of OLED, I think the burn in will be too much. I've got 3 phones that have OLED burn in, mainly navigation and status symbols. Knowing I do a lot of programming, video editing and play games with a lot of static elements, I'll get burn in in no time. If I was a reviewer or an influencer and I got my OLED for free, I might experiment to see if the burn in will be bad but not trying out an experiment with my own money.

[venomtail]

16 minutes ago, jaslion said:

Yes

 

Its EXTEMELY noticable when used properly.

 

Hdr 600 is borderline hdr. For most people its still almost not noticeable.

 

Hdr 400 is just not hdr only means it has the tec in it.

 

Hdr 1000 is where its quite noticeable for most people.

 

Basicallt if you want hdr you gotta spend the money as otherwise on tradition lcds with only little dimming zones and lower max brightness hdr kinda fades into the background mostly

 

There is one small hack tho.

 

Getting an oled. Since the contrast DRAMATICALLY increases between literallt off black pixels and on lit pixels 600 nits does waaay more there than on a lcd.

 

However burn in is a real thing as well as panel degradation.

 

 

 

Or the best advice of all ignore all this bs and just get a good 4k monitor. Can already get an lg for like 600 was it?

I'm worried about how long an OLED will last me. If I look at all the checkboxes for why an OLED isn't suited for you, I'm in every one of those boxes. And in terms of options, this is all I can choose from on PCPartPicker.

[Andrewtst]

14 minutes ago, venomtail said:

So if I'm spending a ton of money, 1000nit is basically the minimum for a modern experience. 

 

You're recommendations are good for most people except I want a 32" monitor, no more, no less. I feel like my 27" could be bigger but anything more than 32" will take up too much room, I've got to put my speakers somewhere.

And in terms of OLED, I think the burn in will be too much. I've got 3 phones that have OLED burn in, mainly navigation and status symbols. Knowing I do a lot of programming, video editing and play games with a lot of static elements, I'll get burn in in no time. If I was a reviewer or an influencer and I got my OLED for free, I might experiment to see if the burn in will be bad but not trying out an experiment with my own money.

If mobile AMOLED you also can get burn-in, you may not suitable to use OLED. 

 

Anyway they is no gaming series in 32" OLED now, this is the only size missing at the moment. 

 

Your only choice is mini-LED, get something with 1000+ local dimming zone and HDR 1000 is the best you can get after OLED in great HDR performance on gaming and watching movie. The cons of mini-LED is they is blooming issue and halo effect and local dimming should be turn off during productivity usage. 

[Stahlmann]

Brightness is an important part of HDR, but imo only the second most important. More important is a proper backlight with plenty of local dimming zones.

 

I wouldn't recommend any of these monitors. I'd recommend to go for the Samsung Odyssey Neo G7. It offers a great 32" 4K 165Hz HDR gaming experience and has a 1152 zone backlight that can go up to 1200 nits. The only con imo is the curve. But for around $1000 it's probably your best choice.

 

Either that or the OLED alternatives. These are only 27" though if you're not willing to go up to TV sizes like 42".

 

Even for high-end buyers there is no reason to really go much beyond the $1000 mark as it has the best options anyway. The $3000 Asus monitor was DOA at that price anyway.

[venomtail]

13 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Brightness is an important part of HDR, but imo only the second most important. More important is a proper backlight with plenty of local dimming zones.

 

I wouldn't recommend any of these monitors. I'd recommend to go for the Samsung Odyssey Neo G7. It offers a great 32" 4K 165Hz HDR gaming experience and has a 1152 zone backlight that can go up to 1200 nits. The only con imo is the curve. But for around $1000 it's probably your best choice.

 

Either that or the OLED alternatives. These are only 27" though if you're not willing to go up to TV sizes like 42".

 

Even for high-end buyers there is no reason to really go much beyond the $1000 mark as it has the best options anyway. The $3000 Asus monitor was DOA at that price anyway.

That's a great option and one that doesn't show up on PCPartPicker.

 

Though Samsung will have to wait a while. I've still yet to receive back my £100 cashback trade in offer from when I bought my phone and they're offering the exact same trade in offer here again. Until customer support decides to take their sweet time and process my issue (I'll resend them a reminder that I'm waiting for a reply as soon as I finish this text), give me back my £100 I'm expecting, I'll consider Samsung. Samsung is not an option right now as from my experience, in my book Samsung is listed as scammers, false advertising at best...

 

Kinda bad timing as well for them as well as I need a new fridge, cooker, washing machine and other appliance bits and bobs. I was considering all Samsung but after the stunt they just pulled off I might go AEG or something.

[saintlouisbagels]

4 hours ago, venomtail said:

Taken aback by the price difference however, miniLED versions costs x3 as much as I guess "normal" monitors. Pretty much the difference I can see here is the HDR technology.

Depending on the amount of dimming zones, miniLED is practically OLED without the downsides. true blacks (depending on the use case), brighter, and no burn-in

 

If you have an Apple Store around you, go check out the iPad Pro 12.9 or the MacBook Pro 14/16 for miniLED performance. The downside is that there may be blooming if you notice it. I don't notice it, so for all intents and purposes these are OLED screens to me.

[Andrewtst]

11 hours ago, saintlouisbagels said:

Depending on the amount of dimming zones, miniLED is practically OLED without the downsides. true blacks (depending on the use case), brighter, and no burn-in

 

If you have an Apple Store around you, go check out the iPad Pro 12.9 or the MacBook Pro 14/16 for miniLED performance. The downside is that there may be blooming if you notice it. I don't notice it, so for all intents and purposes these are OLED screens to me.

Apple mini-LED is another level, currently no monitor had such quality, not even the Samsung. Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 is only 1196 local dimming zones in 32". I not sure how many miniLEDs inside as cannot find the information about it, but I think probably only 2k as the 49" Neo G9 is only 4k miniLEDs. They are still halo effect and blooming issue and not suitable use in productivity as the halo effect is very obvious on Windows itself where you should turn off the local dimming when in Windows in SDR. The default setting by Samsung also set auto off when in SDR but only on when in HDR.

 

But what Apple do is shocking, the MacBook Pro 14" 2023 had 2,010 local dimming zones in a 14" screen with 8,040 miniLEDs. I just purchased it and I am extremely wow with it performance, it is totally like OLED and I cannot spot any halo effect or blooming issue at all even the macOS itself. Also it is not VA panel, it came with absolutely stunning viewing angle and it is 1000 nits in SDR and can reach up to 1600 nits in HDR.

[xg32]

10 hours ago, venomtail said:

.

usually hdr600 aren't mini-led nor oled, that's more of a problem than brightness.

 

As for brightness it depends on how bright the room ur in and personal perference, imho peak brightness comes after local dimming/oled and color coverage.

 

The cheapest option that checks all the boxes imho is the gp27u, and i'd get the acer x32 over the pg32uqx atm due to port issues (hdmi 2.0)

[JonS77]

19 hours ago, venomtail said:

So if I'm spending a ton of money, 1000nit is basically the minimum for a modern experience. 

 

You're recommendations are good for most people except I want a 32" monitor, no more, no less. I feel like my 27" could be bigger but anything more than 32" will take up too much room, I've got to put my speakers somewhere.

And in terms of OLED, I think the burn in will be too much. I've got 3 phones that have OLED burn in, mainly navigation and status symbols. Knowing I do a lot of programming, video editing and play games with a lot of static elements, I'll get burn in in no time. If I was a reviewer or an influencer and I got my OLED for free, I might experiment to see if the burn in will be bad but not trying out an experiment with my own money.

 

I didn't realize you do programming and editing since you have a 5800x3d and a 5600xt. But OLED burnin is not a problem it once was, specially with the OLED monitors or TVs with heatsinks. Even the C2 has a much better control over it. I have a C2 that I've been using for games and movies only and I'm very careful with it. But I really think a good HDR experience without OLED level blacks is not possible and isn't worth chasing. You'll just end up paying a lot for a monitor that at the end of the day has the same backlight as everything else. Not to mention the pixel response times on OLEDs are so much more supirior too.

 

Those mini-led monitors could be good tho.

[saintlouisbagels]

I think you need to ask yourself if you're going to be watching a lot of HDR content or playing a lot of video games in HDR mode.

 

You said that you're coming from an old TN panel monitor- that means any of these monitors is going to look leaps and bounds better. I think people who praise how amazing HDR looks are people who upgrade from budget televisions and they don't realize that SDR on an amazing television is not that far off from proper HDR.

 

I would personally go for the Asus ROG Strix XG32UQ and not think about the "what ifs" - it's better for a happier life.

 

- - - - - - - - -

edit:

I've had an LG C1 and an Apple TV 4K (gen 3) for the last 2 years - and I use it as my desktop 'monitor'.

I love movies and watch about 60 new films a year (released in the respective year). I've probably watched like 10 movies and half as many television shows in the past 2 years in Dolby Vision mode. All of my time is spent on YouTube, Reddit, or lurking these forums. I sure as hell don't need a fancy shmancy HDR-certified display. But the great picture quality of SDR is way worth it.

 

[e22big]

On 6/20/2023 at 6:26 PM, venomtail said:

That's a great option and one that doesn't show up on PCPartPicker.

 

Though Samsung will have to wait a while. I've still yet to receive back my £100 cashback trade in offer from when I bought my phone and they're offering the exact same trade in offer here again. Until customer support decides to take their sweet time and process my issue (I'll resend them a reminder that I'm waiting for a reply as soon as I finish this text), give me back my £100 I'm expecting, I'll consider Samsung. Samsung is not an option right now as from my experience, in my book Samsung is listed as scammers, false advertising at best...

 

Kinda bad timing as well for them as well as I need a new fridge, cooker, washing machine and other appliance bits and bobs. I was considering all Samsung but after the stunt they just pulled off I might go AEG or something.

It's pretty much the only option if you want a good HDR on a conventional 16:9 (that isn't at least 42 inches big) though

 

HDR spec depends on a lot of factors, 1000 nits minimum brightness is required because most LCD need the extra contrast to create the perception of deep black but it's actually worse if your display has a poor native contrast to begin with - and IPS do have poor native contrast.

 

Even with your Asus three grand 1000 nits you've mentioned would struggle to display a quality HDR image. Its poor contrast accentuated any blooming and other HDR artefacts and no amount of brightness will help with that. Neo G7 with its VA LCD, handle this part a lot better with less local dimming capability even.