What monitor is /g/ using and whats a nice 1080p monitor for gaming that isn't too expensive?
HP LP2475w
Color accurate
XL24iiZ
144hz 1ms gtg at 1080p.
I have two of them and they're great, make sure you have multi sli to reach over 144fps in most modern games though or go with something at 60hz.
:)
I have 4 GTX 980's that barley let me hit 200fps in most games.
>>45636699
looking into the ASUS VG248QE.
144ghz
80,000,000:1
1/ms
and built in stereo
Using LG 24GM-77B
Perfect for gaming, colors are better than on other 144 Hz competitors but it's still a TN. So you know what that means.
I'd hope /g/ would advocate for the superior 16:10 1920x1200 monitors.
1080 is for normies and filthy casuals.
Protip: Don't get a gaming monitor.
The input latency of your PC is much higher than that of your monitor, so response time is irrelevant. And if it's really that important to you, get a CRT.
And going above 60Hz is a waste I money, the difference is too small for the price.
Get one of pic related: Dell U2415 (16:10) or U2414H (16:9).
>>45637127
>having different sized monitors 2k14
shiggy niggers
>>45637127
>going above 60Hz is a waste of money, the difference is too small for the price
shiggidy doo bop wibbly pop
>>45637110
what does the aspect ratio have to do with anything
>>45637127
dat autism
cause it's not like lag adds up right? no, if one link in the chain introduces lag you're free to choose any piece of shit you want because the battle is already lost. listen to him. pcs cause lag, windows causes lag, get a ps4 dude. and a crt. this board man i swear.
i had the one on the right (u2414h), would've kept it as it's suited for gaming (quick) and has nice colors. but the display is very unevenly lit and it doesn't have dvi. dell quality isn't what it used to be.
>>45637178
More efficient split screen window snapping.
>>45637110
despite owning one I've always thought 1920x1200 was seriously overrated. not that it matters anymore. 1440p and 4k monitors are the only things you should consider, IMO.
>>45637206
have you even used a 4k monitor for more 5 minutes? i bet you haven't.
>>45637127
b-but my mouse has a 4khz report rate
>>45637127
>The input latency of your PC is much higher than that of your monitor, so response time is irrelevant.
That's bullshit. I immediately noticed the difference in lag when i got my 1440p IPS. Compared to my old TN it makes games unplayable. You can check it yourself
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1134&sid=5629080deb222a6da628ac431b5e35a7
>>45637127
I commend you for being skeptical on something /g/ is always hyping (refresh) rate.
How ever in this case it is not the usual case. Mechanical keyboard, expensive headphones, DACs and Amps. Shit like that /g/ is mostly wrong about, you don't need those and its generally a waste of money.
SSD's and >60hz monitors are where /g/ is right, they'll make the single biggest difference in quality.
>>45637225
yes, and I'll never go back. do you own a 4k monitor? I bet you don't.
love the immersion you get from a 21:9 monitor.
>>45637250
i don't. i'm not interested in owning one right now either. i have a 144hz 1080p as my daily. i'm sort of ALL the way on the other end of the spectrum. enjoy them pixels. that's a lot of pixels.
>>45637032
I have that, but I upgraded from an old ass 1680x1050 monitor 3 days ago, so I can't say if it's bad or not. I don't have any problems with it, haven't tested the built audio though because
>speakers
>>45636699
Eizo Foris FG2421
24" VA panel at 120Hz
fucking glorious
$600 tho
>>45637273
I got a U2913WM for $300 a few months ago. Its pretty good. Nice for gaming, nice for movies (21:9 and it overclocks to 72hz easy and has 24hz mode as well), and it's also nice for programming IDE's.
>>45637276
sure, if you only care about (certain) games and don't give a shit about visual quality then that's a good solution. I have a 1080p 120hz I used to use for gaming/3D, but I don't even game on it anymore. refresh rate and low lag can't make up for low resolution and poor visual quality. I would probably think differently if I played competitive FPS games or something, but I don't.
>>45637273
you mean a 7:3?
Copped the Acer 144hz for 190 cyber monday
Dell was 120
Benq Was 160
>>45637206
I commend your enthusiasm for higher desist monitors. However I find myself reluctant to invest in 4k sure to the dire state of support in GUI libraries.
Is the 24" Dell U2410 a good choice for around/under $200 each?
>>45637297
is it worth it
how good is it
Bought acer k272hul cause I wanted a 27" monitor for my new 970gtx rig and I didn't have the money for a better one. Would it have been better if I went for a 1080p? Did I fuck up?
>>45637236
>60hz monitors are where /g/ is right, they'll make the single biggest difference in quality.
>refresh speeds are more important than colour uniformity
You're right in that they make the biggest difference in quality, though.
IPS > TN
Always.
>>45639856
If you're a graphics designer working on static images then go with IPS. If you ever play games or watch videos, go with 144Hz TN.
>>45640050
If you want a monitor that shows you a colour gradient when it's supposed to show a solid colour, get a TN.
If you want a monitor that actually works as intended, get an IPS.
>>45639856
IPS a shit. IPS glow is terrible and it's too slow for vidya.
I still prefer TN, cause I don't do color sensitive work and I prefer a monitor with little to no ghosting.
l have a 2560x1440 the resolution its great but lately i have much eye strain playing in the monitor, its feel so big for the distance i use it.
lately playing in a 1080p tv plasma, great comfy and quality.
>>45640167
>regurgitating shit
No, IPS is not too slow for vidya, you retard.
IPS glow is only an issue when viewing black.
TN viewing angle is an issue for everything but black.
Which do you spend most of your time doing?
>>45640209
I had a dell U2312HM. It was unusable.
Granted, this particular model was fast enough for vidya, but it had enough other problems.
Also that AG coating, but that's not IPS's fault.
>>45640167
IPS isn't perfect, but it's way, way better than TN for everything except a few genres of video games where responsiveness is more important than quality. I have both a 120hz monitor and an IPS, and I use the IPS for everything except the rare cases when I want 3D.
>>45640234
>>45640209
IPS, VA and TN are all dogshit. LCD is an atrocious technology that can't die fast enough.
>>45640256
none of them are perfect, but since we have to buy one of them it makes sense to compare them. saying they're all shit doesn't add anything to the discussion.
What's a good monitor to use as double monitors for casual gaming
IPS is good for portable electronics, situations where you're going to need a variable viewing angle. I don't know about you, but I don't flop around my desk all that much, tend to just look at the monitor from a single,comfortable angle. TN being shit is overblown, the variance in quality is just much higher, since more can be made more cheaply and shilled out to idiots. Good quality TN monitors aren't really worse than IPS in much aside from viewing angle, at least not in my experience, and really the technology behind a monitor matters less than the end-user experience.
TL;DR, if you have somewhere you can go look, a computer shop or something, go look at some monitors of various kinds and pick what looks best to you. Or do what I did and waste money on a lot of them over time.
>>45640360
I agree that TN is nearly as shit as it used to be, and probably has an unfairly bad reputation at this point. It still cannot be denied that a good IPS panel has noticeably better image quality than a good TN, and once you've gotten used to an IPS panel it's really hard to go back to TN. People who've never used a high quality monitor don't know what they're missing, though. I recently threw away a 17" TN viewsonic from the first generation of LCDs. I tried turning it on and the colors on that thing were absolutely digusting, but back then I thought it was perfectly acceptable.
>>45640482
I've only owned... two IPS panels. Aside from phone, but maybe my eyes are just awful, I can't see the major difference from a modern TN head on, and nothing a bit of calibration couldn't solve. My older TN panels, yes, good god those things are awful... No wonder people stuck with CRTs for so long. I certainly think IPS is the future for LCD panels, however... I actually wonder how some of the more expensive ones stack up, probably better, aside from refresh rate that is.
>>45640209
>IPS is not too slow for vidya
So where can I buy a 144Hz IPS monitor?
>>45636796
Confirmed 13 year old.
