Why are all Monitors gaming monitors?!?

[Sin Stalker]

I am trying to find a good second monitor for my setup, as my previous just died on me. It is primarily for movies, YouTube, web searching when my main monitor has a game running, and discord.

 

I like the idea of a curved ultrawide monitor, since this is in the corner of my L shaped desk. Plus most of them have PBP, so I can easily use it for work when I bring my laptop home on the rare occasion.

 

But every single curved ultrawide I find has gaming in the title, has at least 100hz, freesync and VA panel. I don't need to spend extra on high refresh, latency or freesync. Ideally I want a nice high res IPS or something similar, but it doesn't seem to exist in my price range (~$250 give or take). Why the heck are all the monitors in this price range vn high refresh rate "gaming" monitors?

 

 

[mMontana]

Try to leave "curved" out of the equation. If you are not using it for immersion, curved is not that meaningful.

[MedievalMatt]

4 minutes ago, Sin Stalker said:

I am trying to find a good second monitor for my setup, as my previous just died on me. It is primarily for movies, YouTube, web searching when my main monitor has a game running, and discord.

 

I like the idea of a curved ultrawide monitor, since this is in the corner of my L shaped desk. Plus most of them have PBP, so I can easily use it for work when I bring my laptop home on the rare occasion.

 

But every single curved ultrawide I find has gaming in the title, has at least 100hz, freesync and VA panel. I don't need to spend extra on high refresh, latency or freesync. Ideally I want a nice high res IPS or something similar, but it doesn't seem to exist in my price range (~$250 give or take). Why the heck are all the monitors in this price range vn high refresh rate "gaming" monitors?

 

 

Ultrawide monitors are still technically a "niche" display formfactor.  As an owner of a predator X35 I can tell you that even after 10 years of them being a thing I still see compatibility issues on a daily basis.  Any content from a streaming service that isnt Netflix i will see Pillar AND Letterboxing because the apps only fullscreen 16:9 even if the content is 21:9.  There are also a slew of games that just straight up wont do 21:9 resolution, or support is so poorly is unusable.

Most people get Ultrawide displays because, when they are well supported and used to their fullest, they provide an immersive experience like no other.  So, given that their main seller is immersion and content consumption, it makes sense that manufacturers will cater to this audience.

Personally i dont know that i would want a second monitor to my left/right which is a Monitor and a half wide.  and then have a normal 16:9 panel as my "main" monitor.  Would feel like driving a car sideways.  That ultrawide wants to be, and should be, the star of the show in your setup IMO.

[Brooksie359]

At a certain point they don't save money by not having a higher refreshrate. I mean look at a 1080p 60hz monitor vs a 1080p 144hz monitor and you can see the increase in price isn't that big especially if the quality of panel are similar in terms of color performance and other metrics. Also keep in mind that VA panel ultrawide monitors are basically always going to be curved due to viewing angle restrictions of VA panels that ips panels don't have so you are way more likely to see curved VA panels than a curved ips panel. Also ips panels generally cost more than VA panels. That being said there are 60hz ultrawide monitors but those are generally high end ones that are used for color work and cost the same if not more than the high hz counter parts. 

[MedievalMatt]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

At a certain point they don't save money by not having a higher refreshrate. I mean look at a 1080p 60hz monitor vs a 1080p 144hz monitor and you can see the increase in price isn't that big especially if the quality of panel are similar in terms of color performance and other metrics. Also keep in mind that VA panel ultrawide monitors are basically always going to be curved due to viewing angle restrictions of VA panels that ips panels don't have so you are way more likely to see curved VA panels than a curved ips panel. Also ips panels generally cost more than VA panels. That being said there are 60hz ultrawide monitors but those are generally high end ones that are used for color work and cost the same if not more than the high hz counter parts. 

If you are buying for content consumption of YT and movies like OP wants, the added refresh rate and color accuracy of IPS is surely a selling point.  Even if its branded as "gaming"

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, MedievalMatt said:

If you are buying for content consumption of YT and movies like OP wants, the added refresh rate and color accuracy of IPS is surely a selling point.  Even if its branded as "gaming"

Honestly if you are going for a content consumption monitor I would opt for a 4k monitor as most things are either 4k and 1080p which will look great on a 4k monitor. Also 4k monitors are generally designed with picture quality in mind compared to 1440p and 1080p. Not sure why op would want an ultrawide monitor for content consumption. 

[Senzelian]

I'm sorry, but what? Did you even look?

Also you'll find that none of thse monitors are marketed as gaming monitors, yet some of them feature FreeSync, VA or 100+ Hz. That's just how things go.

 

LG UltraWide 34WR50QC-B

LG UltraWide 34WP65CP-B

LG UltraWide 34WQ60C-B

LG UltraWide 35WN75CP-B

LG 35BN77CP-B

LG UltraWide 34BQ77QB-B

LG UltraWide 35WN75CP-W

LG UltraWide 34BQ77QC-B

LG UltraWide 34WP85CP-B

LG UltraWide 34WP88CP-B

 

AOC CU34P3CV

 

MSI PRO MP341CQDE

MSI PRO MP341CQ

MSI PRO MP341CQWDE

MSI PRO MP341CQW

 

iiyama ProLite XCB3494WQSN-B5

 

Acer CB2 CB342CUsemiphuzx

 

Samsung CJ791 (2023)

Samsung SA650

 

Lenovo ThinkVision T34w-30

 

Dell P3421W

Dell UltraSharp U3423WE

 

btw. Those are just the ones that came out this year, at 27+ inches and are curved. If I included every single one that came out in the past 5 years this list would go on forever....

[Sin Stalker]

Full screen compatibility isn't an issue, since this isn't the main monitor. I wouldn't be full screening any content or rarely. I'd have whatever video playing and to one side I'd have discord or chrome open. So black bars are not an issue. 

[Sin Stalker]

4 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

I'm sorry, but what? Did you even look?

Also you'll find that none of thse monitors are marketed as gaming monitors, yet some of them feature FreeSync, VA or 100+ Hz. That's just how things go.

 

LG UltraWide 34WR50QC-B

LG UltraWide 34WP65CP-B

LG UltraWide 34WQ60C-B

LG UltraWide 35WN75CP-B

LG 35BN77CP-B

LG UltraWide 34BQ77QB-B

LG UltraWide 35WN75CP-W

LG UltraWide 34BQ77QC-B

LG UltraWide 34WP85CP-B

LG UltraWide 34WP88CP-B

 

AOC CU34P3CV

 

MSI PRO MP341CQDE

MSI PRO MP341CQ

MSI PRO MP341CQWDE

MSI PRO MP341CQW

 

iiyama ProLite XCB3494WQSN-B5

 

Acer CB2 CB342CUsemiphuzx

 

Samsung CJ791 (2023)

Samsung SA650

 

Lenovo ThinkVision T34w-30

 

Dell P3421W

Dell UltraSharp U3423WE

 

btw. Those are just the ones that came out this year, at 27+ inches and are curved. If I included every single one that came out in the past 5 years this list would go on forever....

I have been looking and I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they don't in my price range unless they are labeled as "gaming". Idk how posting a bunch of monitors that are well out of that price range, even on ebay, somehow says I am not looking?

[MedievalMatt]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly if you are going for a content consumption monitor I would opt for a 4k monitor as most things are either 4k and 1080p which will look great on a 4k monitor. Also 4k monitors are generally designed with picture quality in mind compared to 1440p and 1080p. Not sure why op would want an ultrawide monitor for content consumption. 

A lot of films are shot in non 16:9, also known as anamorphic, aspect ratios.  32:9, 21:9, 2.38:9, among others, are all fairly common.  So you will see letterboxing (the black bars top and bottom) on countless films produced, dating back at least 20 years or more.  The Netflix app properly fills the display with whatever content. 

 

So for 16:9 content i have pillar boxes, but watching something shot in 21:9 fills the entire display with no pillar or letter boxing.  If i want to watch "The Expanse" for example on prime video, which is shot in 21:9, I have the letter boxing from the app outputting 16:9 only, and then pillar boxing on top of that. 

 

Imagine watching a video which can, and should, fill your entire display, but instead takes up 50% of the display in the middle and the rest is just black.  That is the experience.

My Predator X35 has 1100 Nits of HDR with over 500 dimming zones along with excellent color accuracy, when you watch the right content is a damn good time.  All Quiet on the Western Front is an amazing HDR showcase TBH.  So i wouldnt say that non 4K or 1080P monitors are bad for picture quality.  It very much depends.  For every good 16:9 monitor you can find and equal in non 16:9 just as well.

You are correct in that most apps will only output to 16:9 formats, but thats different than the format of the actual content itself.

 

Edit - The Expanse is a bad example it looks like I mis-remembered the aspect ratio,  Interstellar is a better example.

[MedievalMatt]

4 minutes ago, Sin Stalker said:

I have been looking and I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they don't in my price range unless they are labeled as "gaming". Idk how posting a bunch of monitors that are well out of that price range, even on ebay, somehow says I am not looking?

isnt every monitor a gaming monitor?  In the same way that every monitor is a movie monitor.  In the same way that every monitor is a reading monitor.

Just because its marketed a certain way doesn't mean its utterly useless for every and anything else.

[Sin Stalker]

14 minutes ago, MedievalMatt said:

isnt every monitor a gaming monitor?  In the same way that every monitor is a movie monitor.  In the same way that every monitor is a reading monitor.

Just because its marketed a certain way doesn't mean its utterly useless for every and anything else.

 

I mean based on that, then every knife is a surgical tool.

 

My point is that all these "gaming" monitors list gaming related features for the panel, which I don't need or care for in this case. And anything that doesn't have those features seems to cost more, like with your provided list. I don't understand this. How can removing features increase the price? I expected to find monitors without the "gaming" features for less. Like the same monitor, but at 60hz rather than 144hz, and save $50+ but apparently it's the opposite.

[MedievalMatt]

Just now, Sin Stalker said:

 

I mean based on that, then every knife is a surgical tool.

 

My point is that all these "gaming" monitors list gaming related features for the panel, which I don't need or care for in this case. And anything that doesn't have those features seems to cost more, like with your provided list. I don't understand this. How can removing features increase the price? I expected to find monitors without the "gaming" features for less. Like the same monitor, but at 60hz rather than 144hz, and save $50+ but apparently it's the opposite.

Removing the roof off a car increases the price.  In your case the price increase would be for a similar reason to my example, it costs more when you dont sell as many.  "Gaming" branding sells in the same way that having a roof on your car sells.  Better.  So the "gaming" features are made in higher quantities and thus benefit from the economies of scale more.

Again tho "gaming monitor" is literally just branding.  The specs of the display is what is important and there are no such thing as "gaming" features.  Sure, some benefit the gaming use-case more than others.  But its not like you buy a "gaming" monitor and then it only runs at 120Hz in games.  No, it runs at that all the time (unless you change the settings).

In the context of monitors specfically i wouldnt say that there are any features which are "gaming".  You have higher refresh rates which will benefit you (to varrying degrees) in almost anything.

I also dont know why you would actively seek out a 60Hz monitor if there is a perfectly good 120Hz model available.  Even if you arent using it, if it costs more to have 60Hz it would seem like the smart buy is the 120Hz option.  After all you are getting more for less.

 

I think you are focusing a bit hard on the "gaming" branding, instead of the actual specs/features and whether the display itself does what you need it to.  If i made a perfect display for you but then branded it "for creators".  would it suddenly not appeal to you assuming you dont "create"?  Or would you look at the specs and go "yup this checks all the boxes".  Just buy whatever monitor has the features you want at a price that makes you happy and ignore the BS branding.

[Brooksie359]

40 minutes ago, Sin Stalker said:

 

I mean based on that, then every knife is a surgical tool.

 

My point is that all these "gaming" monitors list gaming related features for the panel, which I don't need or care for in this case. And anything that doesn't have those features seems to cost more, like with your provided list. I don't understand this. How can removing features increase the price? I expected to find monitors without the "gaming" features for less. Like the same monitor, but at 60hz rather than 144hz, and save $50+ but apparently it's the opposite.

No it would be like saying you cant drive to work in a pickup truck because its marketed as really good at towing things so clearly that is all it can be used for. Also like I said most monitors that are 60hz ultrawide are going to be high end business or color work oriented and tend to be expensive. I am. Not sure why you are so hung up on the gaming marketing when they are just monitors at the end of the day. 

[Brooksie359]

41 minutes ago, Sin Stalker said:

 

I mean based on that, then every knife is a surgical tool.

 

My point is that all these "gaming" monitors list gaming related features for the panel, which I don't need or care for in this case. And anything that doesn't have those features seems to cost more, like with your provided list. I don't understand this. How can removing features increase the price? I expected to find monitors without the "gaming" features for less. Like the same monitor, but at 60hz rather than 144hz, and save $50+ but apparently it's the opposite.

Also you are saying all knifes would be surgical tools is not even comparable because you are taking a generic thing and saying it can do something specialized which is the opposite of this situation. In this situation you would take something specialized in gaming and use it for other things. A proper comparison would be you can use a surgical knife to cut things outside of a surgical scenario which you could but again that's still a not so great comparison because gaming monitors aren't nearly as specialized as surgical equipment is. 

[MedievalMatt]

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also you are saying all knifes would be surgical tools is not even comparable because you are taking a generic thing and saying it can do something specialized which is the opposite of this situation. In this situation you would take something specialized in gaming and use it for other things. A proper comparison would be you can use a surgical knife to cut things outside of a surgical scenario which you could but again that's still a not so great comparison because gaming monitors aren't nearly as specialized as surgical equipment is. 

you mean you dont butter your toast with a scalpel?  Man you are missing out on something incredible.

[Andrewtst]

4 hours ago, Sin Stalker said:

 

I mean based on that, then every knife is a surgical tool.

 

My point is that all these "gaming" monitors list gaming related features for the panel, which I don't need or care for in this case. And anything that doesn't have those features seems to cost more, like with your provided list. I don't understand this. How can removing features increase the price? I expected to find monitors without the "gaming" features for less. Like the same monitor, but at 60hz rather than 144hz, and save $50+ but apparently it's the opposite.

Your point is you want value monitor. But too value normally will not have good quality output and not nice for watching video. 

 

Those none gaming one, I normally won't get as I don't find the extra cost is value to it. I will rather get gaming series. 

 

Off course some very professional series is very accuracy color out from the box or higher percentage of color range coverage. But the thing is high end series gaming monitor also can have those features with higher refresh rate, this is the reason I don't buy those build for productivity professional series monitor. 

 

Depends on user, I am particular on higher quality monitor for watching movie, even Youtube. So I will go for very high end model with True HDR capability, specifically now only OLED display. Resolution from 1440p to 4K is fine. 

[Senzelian]

9 hours ago, Sin Stalker said:

I have been looking and I didn't say they didn't exist. I said they don't in my price range unless they are labeled as "gaming". Idk how posting a bunch of monitors that are well out of that price range, even on ebay, somehow says I am not looking?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I saw this and immediately went berzerk:

 

11 hours ago, Sin Stalker said:

But every single curved ultrawide I find has gaming in the title

[xg32]

18 hours ago, Sin Stalker said:

.

even the cheaper panels can do high refresh now, might as well call them gaming monitors.

 

In ur price range there's the pixio 277 IPS or VA, which just happens to be capable of 165hz and therefore a "gaming" monitor.