Looking at new monitor, so what features are important to you folks?

Tiller

So I'm looking at upgrading beyond my old 60Hz Samsung I have been holding on to for years. I figured since I'm no visual junkie and I'm frugal I would wait till It died; it hasn't yet but I want an upgrade.  Not looking to spend $700+, but if you all had to choose what feature could most of you do without? G-sync? IPS? WQHD? Looking at Acer and ASUS at this point.

G-Sync vs Freesync

My card supports G-sync, but is it worth the extra $100-$200 for that feature? Would just a average monitor be good enough? I know most average gaming monitors have freesync/activesync built in as a standard feature and are a lot cheaper. (activesync feature which is only supported by Radeon cards) I thought G-sync was kind of gimmicky, and I am somewhat disgusted by the fact that NVIDIA could support other sync technologies, but they choose not to.Some folks swear by it, others are saying IPS over gsync.

IPS vs TN

Been reading a lot of folks going back and forth on this. I fully understand the differences and the pluses and minuses of both. I don't play competitive FPS games so is IPS the standard for most of you guys playing MMOs ect?

WQHD vs FHD vs 4K

Not as interested in 4k as I am WQHD. What would some of you recommend?

Vrika

Most important is picture quality: Decide what size monitor you want, and then look for one that has good reviews on picture quality at a price that you're comfortable paying.

Monitor's quality is more than just technical details. Google for monitor reviews and you'll end up with a better monitor.


About those technical specs, assuming you're going to be mostly gaming with that monitor:


Resolution: This depends a lot on your GPU. Higher resolution is better, but also requires more GPU power. If you're comfortable buying a $500 GPU then go for 4K resolution, if you want to have cheap graphic card then go for 1080p resolution because cheap graphic cards don't have the extra power for better resolutions.

EDIT: You can always get a monitor with high resolution and run it on lower resolution so a high resolution monitor with cheap graphic card wouldn't hurt anything - but you'd be paying extra for capability to resolutions that you're not going to use due to lacking GPU power /EDIT


Refresh rate: This is about personal preference. Some FPS players want really high refresh rates like 144 frames per second, but most people are ok with 60 frames per second. Maintaining a high refresh rate also requires a lot of GPU power - a monitor that has high refresh rate never hurts anything but you'll get most benefit from monitors with high refresh rates if they're paired with good GPU.


Freesync and G-Sync: G-sync is usually considered a bad buy, it's too expensive.

Freesync monitors are good purchase if you have AMD card that supports them. If you don't have AMD GPU then it still might be ok purchase because FreeSync doesn't add much anything to the monitor price.

If you've got AMD GPU then look for Freesync. If you've got NVidia GPU then just ignore these technologies


IPS vs. TN: IPS panels usually have best picture quality but they cost more. TN panels usually have worse picture quality but are cheaper. But this is just generalization, you'll have to look for review of that monitor to find out its picture quality.

Phry

If you have the money for it, personally i would buy a 2560x1440 144hz monitor as a minimum, or 2560x1440 165hz. Not cheap, but you get what you pay for. Of course you would also need a decent GPU to give you that kind of performance, or else you are doing the equivalent of putting formula 1 tyres on a volkswagon beetle

Ridelynn

Well monitors are highly subjective, and there is no perfect monitor out there that just universally works for everyone.

For me, my priorities went as follows:
-- Two monitors side by side (that's just how my workflow exists - I don't think I would care for the ultrawides)

-- Physically fit on my desk (for me, that was up to two 28" screens in landscape, or a 32" landscape with a 24" portrait)

-- Sharp colors (means IPS or VA over TN, OLED would have been ideal but... alas)

-- High Resolution (I went with 4K - not so much for gaming, but text/images look much better)

-- High Framerate support (I couldn't find what I wanted that had this, so it got skipped)

-- VRR Support (without high framerate this isn't as useful, so it also got skipped)

I ended up compromising with a pair of Dell P2715Q's. I couldn't get everything that I wanted in a single package, so I went with good enough and inexpensive to make due until I can.

Most gamers would probably bump the framerate or VRR up over high resolution support. I will fully admit that 4K does next to nothing for gaming. I run a GTX980 - it can play most MMOs in 4K (provided you tweak settings), but older ones in particular have a large issue with interface scaling and it's not perfect.  I'm also not as sensitive to framerates as some gamers, for me, 30FPS is fine, so long as I don't get a lot of dips under that. I don't think VRR could help a good deal with that even if I couldn't hit anything greater than 60FPS.

I will say that 4K does help a lot with text. Text and web pages are sharp and clear. I run with 150% scaling on Win10 - not everything supports it well, some apps (Origin is a horrible offender) either refuse to scale or scale and are very fuzzy (some default Windows dialog boxes) -- but most apps are good, and the ones I use most work ok.

I've become accustomed to IPS color and viewing angles, TN just can't do it for me anymore. VA would probably be an acceptable substitute though. If I'm being honest about it, I got an OLED TV last year, and after that thing, even IPS looks pretty bland anymore, and TN just looks like utter garbage... but OLED has been "around the corner" for computer displays for years now, and the 55" TV I got is just too large to stick on my desk (or I would try it...)

Given the price delta between GSync and FreeSync.... This one I have a hard time with. Monitors tend to last me a lot longer than video cards. I just retired a Dell 24" that was 12 years old. FreeSync comes "for free", whereas I would have to pay a good deal to get Gsync. Now, Freesync is based on an open standard, and in theory, could work on any video card... and that may not ever be the case, but at least you aren't paying extra for the privilege.. But if I paid extra for GSync, I would feel like I had just locked myself into nVidia for a long time forward. 

I currently happen to own an nVidia, but I always take a look at what's available when I upgrade and get what's best for my budget. Last time it happened to be nVIdia, I ran an AMD 6970 for a long time before that and was extremely happy with it. Before that it was an nVidia, and before that another AMD... so my GPU just depends on what's out there whenever I happen to feel the urge to upgrade or build a new rig. Given the recent history with nVidia driver development and business practices, I would feel pretty conflicted if I had just locked myself into that choice, even if it was purely psychological.

So my recommendation:

Set a budget. Even if that is just admitting you don't have a budget.

Make a list of priorities for you. This is different for everyone.

Start doing some research and see how many boxes you can tick off on your priority list for your budget.

Ridelynn

DMKano said:

The first OLED gaming monitor was just showcased  3 days ago here:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13751/joled-demos-oled-monitor-for-gamers

Yeah. 21.6" is a bit small though. But at least it's progressing - printed OLED should bring costs down significantly, eventually. For the folks that twitch game, this should be pretty nice (<1ms response time, 144Hz) even if it is on the smaller side. They mention a 28" 4K panel is in development - that has me interested.

AriesTiger

The next generation is known for having a copy and paste lifestyle, what with Github and Stackoverflow being used by supposed "professionals" and it taking 10 people in IT to do the job of 1 normal person...that's what I thought about coming into this thread.

Clearly you're here to actually make a few decisions for yourself so that <i>may</i> not be the case...we'll have to see lol.

FlyByKnight

AriesTiger said:

The next generation is known for having a copy and paste lifestyle, what with Github and Stackoverflow being used by supposed "professionals" and it taking 10 people in IT to do the job of 1 normal person...that's what I thought about coming into this thread.

Clearly you're here to actually make a few decisions for yourself so that <i>may</i> not be the case...we'll have to see lol.

Somebody got sh!# canned for the holidays? 

So you're saying coders should reinvent the wheel every time they write code?

Side project for you, research how long copy and paste has been around and stop blaming the yutes for stubbing your toe this morning.  

Cleffy

IPS, 1440p, 100+ Hz. I would go 1080 if you are 24" or lower. Should be in the $200 - $400 range depending on the size of your monitor.

Tiller

Well I think I'm gonna look for an inexpensive IPS monitor with higher refresh rated. If OLED for gaming is around the corner maybe in a few years prices will come down and I'll make the next jump. For now some good arguments have been made over G-sync. Not really any point in going for that option if it makes little difference.

AriesTiger said:

The next generation is known for having a copy and paste lifestyle, what with Github and Stackoverflow being used by supposed "professionals" and it taking 10 people in IT to do the job of 1 normal person...that's what I thought about coming into this thread.

Clearly you're here to actually make a few decisions for yourself so that <i>may</i> not be the case...we'll have to see lol.

Actually I made the inquiry because I wanted to hear some more recent opinions so I could come to a more informed conclusion of my own. I don't have time to go store hoping, and most reviewers on YT tend to highlight the positives more than the negatives of say G-sync. Consider it crowd sourced empirical data mining.

Tiller

Cleffy said:

IPS, 1440p, 100+ Hz. I would go 1080 if you are 24" or lower. Should be in the $200 - $400 range depending on the size of your monitor.

27" monitor with an adjustable stand is what I'm thinking. Currently on a 23"

Cleffy

I'm not sure about using OLED for a desktop PC. For mobile with AMOLED, the screens aren't on long enough to cause burn in. With TVs, the picture changes enough to help prevent burn in. With a computer monitor, it will be displaying the same colors on a pixel 90+% of the time.

Ridelynn

DMKano said:

Ridelynn said:

DMKano said:

The first OLED gaming monitor was just showcased  3 days ago here:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13751/joled-demos-oled-monitor-for-gamers

Yeah. 21.6" is a bit small though. But at least it's progressing - printed OLED should bring costs down significantly, eventually. For the folks that twitch game, this should be pretty nice (<1ms response time, 144Hz) even if it is on the smaller side. They mention a 28" 4K panel is in development - that has me interested.

The main issue is the cost - that 28" would be well above $3000.

Probably first gen with no competition, your right. The markup will be large.

That being said, 55" OLED prices have come down significantly, so there's hope.

Ridelynn

Cleffy said:

I'm not sure about using OLED for a desktop PC. For mobile with AMOLED, the screens aren't on long enough to cause burn in. With TVs, the picture changes enough to help prevent burn in. With a computer monitor, it will be displaying the same colors on a pixel 90+% of the time.

Everyone always mentions burn in. I'm not worried about it. Plasma had it, CRT had it. Even LCD has it to some extent. There have been ways to mitigate it for as long as consumer PCs have been around. This is probably why OLED hasn't made it to PCs as of yet. 

Renoaku

Refresh Rate 144 HZ + Only
Say no to TN Panels
HDR If you can afford
G-Sync over Free Sync

Just a few of the basics I look at.

I've also had LCD Displays last as  much as 10+ years.

Quizzical

G-sync/FreeSync is not compatible with multi-monitor.  As I spread a game window across three monitors, that means I can't use FreeSync, even though the monitors support it.  If you only have one monitor, then how do you ever get anything done on only one?

The higher the frame rate and refresh rate you have, the less important adaptive sync is.  In the asymptotic case of an infinite refresh rate and infinite frame rate, adaptive sync wouldn't actually do anything.  Getting your frame rates up like that is more important than adaptive sync.

For me, pivot and IPS were essential, because I run the monitors in portrait mode.  If you're not using portrait mode, you may reasonably not care at all about pivot.  Whether you care about image quality is a matter of personal preferences, at least so long as you're not using the computer to produce images or artwork that other people will see.

It's critical to remember that inches and pixels are related.  A 4K monitor that is only 24" would have tiny pixels.  For the many programs that don't scale well, that would make everything tiny and really awkward to use.  The more pixels you get, the more inches you want in order to keep things reasonably sized.  If you get a 4K monitor, then unless you put your face closer to it than most people, you're going to want it to be well over 30".

What I personally use is three 2560x1440 monitors in portrait mode.  Each monitor is 27", but the combined diagonal of the three is 47", so I get plenty of space to go along with my combined resolution of 4320x2560.  They're also 144 Hz, IPS monitors.  When I bought them about 3 1/2 years ago, it was literally the only monitor on the market that fit all of my requirements.

Some people wouldn't like my setup because of the bezels.  That's fine, and a reasonable opinion.  The bezels don't bother me.  But it's important to remember that the critical thing about monitors is the opinion of the person who uses them, not that of random other people on the Internet.

Quizzical

DMKano said:

My musts:

2K at least, 144Hz, must have Gsync (since I have Nvidia cards - obviously Freesync for AMD)

I prefer 3 monitors (the sides in portrait orientation, the middle in standard mode) - emails/webpages display better in portrait mode for reading (IMO)

Like this:

 

That's my ideal monitor setup.

Now if the middle could be a sweet OLED panel even better



Things that I can't stand:

Curved monitors (ugh)
Ultrawides (bleh)
Curved Ultrawides (the worst)

Is that what you actually have?  My experience is that you have to be careful about what you put too far off to the side, as constantly looking way off to the side hurts my neck.  In some games, I have to rearrange the UI to put anything that I look at a lot toward the middle.  Six inches away from the horizontal center is fine, but 20 is not.

Quizzical

OLED is the future and always will be.  Way back in 2009, when I got a second monitor for the first time, it looked like OLED was just around the corner.  Now about 9 1/2 years later, it still isn't here for PC monitors.

bonzoso21

Dropped a good deal of cash on an Asus 27" 1440p 144hz Gsync a couple years back, and was instantly impressed by how much of a difference adaptive refresh makes in the experience. I found that Gsync made enough of a difference that I wouldn't want to go back. I sit directly in front of my monitor so I opted to save a bit on the TN display, but if you ever drift off center by even 6 inches or so, an IPS display is obviously the better option as it won't wash out the color accuracy when viewing from off angles. 

The boxes I will check off from here on out with monitor purchases are:

27" or greater
1440p or greater
120hz or greater
Adaptive refresh (Gsync or Freesync)
Response time 4ms or below

Keep in mind that if you've been gaming at 1080p, you're going to take a significant hit to your frame rate with a resolution increase, so be prepared to either lower those settings or upgrade your video card to keep things in the range you consider playable. 

Tiller

bonzoso21 said:

Dropped a good deal of cash on an Asus 27" 1440p 144hz Gsync a couple years back, and was instantly impressed by how much of a difference adaptive refresh makes in the experience. I found that Gsync made enough of a difference that I wouldn't want to go back. I sit directly in front of my monitor so I opted to save a bit on the TN display, but if you ever drift off center by even 6 inches or so, an IPS display is obviously the better option as it won't wash out the color accuracy when viewing from off angles. 

The boxes I will check off from here on out with monitor purchases are:

27" or greater
1440p or greater
120hz or greater
Adaptive refresh (Gsync or Freesync)
Response time 4ms or below

Keep in mind that if you've been gaming at 1080p, you're going to take a significant hit to your frame rate with a resolution increase, so be prepared to either lower those settings or upgrade your video card to keep things in the range you consider playable. 

atm I have an EVGA 1060 SSC 6gig, most likely on graphically intense games I won't  push it past 1080.

Cleffy

I also wouldn't bother with GSync. At 27" you are already looking at close to $700 for very little value.

Ridelynn

Oh HDR, that was a box I forgot on my list. After seeing it on my TV w/ PS4, it is impressive (when done correctly). I don't think it's quite there yet on the PC though.

Tiller

So I ended up just getting this https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG279QZ/

Since it was new and only $599 on Amazon (for now). It is actually a refresh/update of this https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG279Q/ and was $100 less because it's new.

They have the exact same specs, but with some issues corrected like hibernation issues and they changed their panel distributor due to so many returns over bad panels. All I can say is this has no issues at all so far.

Ridelynn

Let us know what you thing once you get it set up and a few games under your belt.

goboygo

Gsync is a must for me.  I also dont play in resolutions over 1920 x 1080 so the monitor needs to be able to run non native rez's well, since the native rez's on most monitors these days is well beyond that.  Makes all the in game font too small.  UI scaling doesn't exist for 95% of the games out there, and the ones that support it don't do it very well.

Also I picked a monitor with built in blue light filtering.

Ozmodan

goboygo said:

Gsync is a must for me.  I also dont play in resolutions over 1920 x 1080 so the monitor needs to be able to run non native rez's well, since the native rez's on most monitors these days is well beyond that.  Makes all the in game font too small.  UI scaling doesn't exist for 95% of the games out there, and the ones that support it don't do it very well.

Also I picked a monitor with built in blue light filtering.

I find that Gsync is a complete waste of money.  Just not worth it and you are tied to Nvidia with their high prices.  

Scot

Tiller said:

So I ended up just getting this https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG279QZ/

Since it was new and only $599 on Amazon (for now). It is actually a refresh/update of this https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG279Q/ and was $100 less because it's new.

They have the exact same specs, but with some issues corrected like hibernation issues and they changed their panel distributor due to so many returns over bad panels. All I can say is this has no issues at all so far.

The one you got is a great monitor, but built as much for fast moving FPS as for picture quality. Have fun!