Looking to buy a UHD Monitor, need help!

phongle123 · December 22, 2016

I have been doing research and the more I find the more I get confused. So the only things that are really displayed on product description are: resolution, refresh rate, delay(ms), color spectrum (16.7m/1.07b), and among other small things.

While that's all that the monitor says on description, it's hard to know exactly what I want because that's all that is displayed on basically every single monitor description. While some are saying that this monitor or that monitor is bad and that one is good, even though for example they have the same TN panel, 1ms response rate, 60htz, 1.07b colors, HDMI+DP outputs, and same screen size. 1 is considered bad and the other is considered good. How come? Where is this information coming from? This is what is confusing me.

If you guys could give me some suggestions based on what I am about to list our and as well as some monitors I am going to list out as well. I also want it to be in the modest 300$ Price range.

I want it for gaming. Panel=Don't Care, Response Rate= 1ms-5ms, Refresh Rate= 60FPS, Colors=1.07b, Screen= 27/28" Matte.

What I'm looking at:

Samsung U28E590D --- this has 370 brightness, my current only has 250, so this intrigues me. Is this a big difference or is it diminishing returns and you get used to the brightness and don't even notice the increase difference after a while?

Samsung U28E510D --- Is the 590D the better one?

Monoprice 28" 4k

Question:

1) Is ASUS's lower blue light a gimmick or does it really help? Does any other monitor company do this? Does this affect the display intensity/performance anyhow? Or is this basically that same thing as FLUX?

2) I looked up some monitor with the same specs for both on BenQ website but one was listed as Console Gaming and the other as PC Gaming, even though they had the same specs for everything. This confuses me.

Feel free to give additional information. Thank you.

ProLogic · December 22, 2016

the 27ud68 from LG is one of the greatest monitors i have ever owned.

phongle123 · December 22, 2016

1 hour ago, ProLogic said:

the 27ud68 from LG is one of the greatest monitors i have ever owned.

I looked at it and the pictures that it shows on the Amazon and Newegg website shows the pictures to include the bezel as part of the picture making it look like it only has a bottom bezel which is kind of deceptive since review videos shows that it does have bezels haha. Definetely looks nice and will look into it thanks.

So for the LG 27UD68, the response time is 5ms and input lag through review is 9.88ms that means theoretical lag is 14.88ms right? While the Samsung U28E590D's response time is 1ms and resrched input lag is 22ms-32ms from 2 different reviews means that the lag for the U28E590D is 23ms-33ms? Am I correct?

ProLogic · December 22, 2016

2 hours ago, phongle123 said:

I looked at it and the pictures that it shows on the Amazon and Newegg website shows the pictures to include the bezel as part of the picture making it look like it only has a bottom bezel which is kind of deceptive since review videos shows that it does have bezels haha. Definetely looks nice and will look into it thanks.

So for the LG 27UD68, the response time is 5ms and input lag through review is 9.88ms that means theoretical lag is 14.88ms right? While the Samsung U28E590D's response time is 1ms and resrched input lag is 22ms-32ms from 2 different reviews means that the lag for the U28E590D is 23ms-33ms? Am I correct?

Its bezel is less than a cm, i am not sure about the input lag, but it is intended for gaming hence the freesync inclution, but i love it, and i don't notice any lag nor does a friend that plays cs:go.

Glenwing · December 23, 2016

14 hours ago, phongle123 said:

So for the LG 27UD68, the response time is 5ms and input lag through review is 9.88ms that means theoretical lag is 14.88ms right? While the Samsung U28E590D's response time is 1ms and resrched input lag is 22ms-32ms from 2 different reviews means that the lag for the U28E590D is 23ms-33ms? Am I correct?

Not really, because color transitions don't have to be fully completed for the image to be visible on the screen and for your reaction time to start ticking. A better estimate would be to add one quarter or one half of the response time but honestly it's a waste of effort, if you know how short a millisecond is it doesn't matter whether it has a 1 ms response time or 5 ms or 10 ms, the response time is not going to add any tangible latency, there's not really any point in going through the effort to account for it in calculations.