Screen guide
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Greetings, /g/.
I am updating the screen guide, and it is a bit large, so I have divided it into three sections.
The 1080p section
-Two screens survive the purge
-A lot less 1080p screens than before: 12 screens to 8
-No more TN options
-No more 1200p options, either
-Prices went down tremendously: From $100-$400, to $100-$200
1/3
1440p section
-A-panel section deleted, since only 1 unit is still logically priced
-Overall choice pool slightly smaller: 11 units total to 9 units total. Normal quality screen choices better though: 6 units to 8.
-Included a 32" model. Y/N?
-Prices for 1440p have fallen dramatically: $500-$2500 range, to $250-$500 range.
4K section
-huge number of new options: Formerly only 4 units, now 11
-Added two TN options as the cheapest 4K alternatives. Y/N?
-Added a 40" unit. Y/N?
-Do I have too many options for 4K?
>>51658284
>>51658386
>>51658427
So that is the standard screens update. I am filling up the remaining missing data now.
Are there any screens that should be removed? Any screens that should be added?
Your feedback is appreciated.
Bargain bin IPS screens are sometimes even worse than TN, having less contrast, color gamut but no color accuracy due to lack of factory calibration, backlight bleed, and awful IPS.
I don't feel it's important to consider IPS until you're spending at least $200.
>>51658695
I tried to select the better IPS units.
>>51658695
awful IPS glow*.
Additionally, some of them might have a pixel response rate of 10ms or more, which can be pretty shitty.
I agree that 1920x1200 needs to be phased out. 2560x1440 panels are already in some cases cheaper than that.
You should also seriously consider putting in an ultrawide category.
Oh and replace that shitty 4k Acer TN with K242HQK and/or CB240HYK. The latter has 10-bit color and a pivot stand.
I really feel lower-price small 4K monitors are some of the best buys you can make right now. Not too expensive at under $400. You can get a good quality IPS screen. Pixel pitch is so tiny at 24" 4K that I don't need AA in games. Even if the game runs poorly, I can play fullscreen at 1080p for the same experience as a 24" 1080p screen.
Likewise, it's also very good for consoles as well, as 4k is a perfect 2x multiple of 1080p, and a 3x multiple of 720p. You can get really good scaling this way for older content.
Also, just FYI
16.8 million colors = 8-bit. (it can be true 8-bit or rarely 6-bit + 2-bit FRC)
1.07 billion colors = 10-bit (it can be true 10-bit, or more likely 8-bit + 2-bit FRC)
That's how it is for all monitors.
Need some advice, is the 20 dollar difference between the asus h22 and the asus h23 worth it?
>>51658945
Assuming the 22 and 23 refer to monitor size.
No, it doesn't matter. And in fact, I prefer smaller pixel pitch, and would therefore personally prefer the smaller monitor. However, many people like having a bigger monitor.
>>51658935
Thanks. I try to add bit depth whenever I can find it.
>>51658837
I am not sure about 4K at 24". Scaling is still an issue, at least on Windows.
Also, FYI PG279Q is 8-bit/16.7m colors.
Source: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg279q.htm
And there's no such thing as a WQHD-IPS panel type.
WQHD refers to the 2560x1440 resolution. It has nothing to do with a panel technology.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution#WQHD_.282560x1440.29
>>51658966
Ya that makes sense, thanks m8
>>51659005
Thanks for the IPS type. Fixing!
I do not have the PG279Q in the list. That is a gaming screen.
>>51658386
The PB278Q has two versions, the ROG Swift (the g-sync version) being more around $800, (549.99 on sale)
>>51658284
Hey Falcon.
Any other guides you've been thinking about doing? Would love to hear some of your ideas.
I'm noticing that on Freesync/G-sync, while you put out those terms for gaming monitors, you don't really explain it anywhere in your extended explanation sections.
Are you assuming a base knowledge of what those terms and technologies are to the people who would look up monitors? I am assuming that should not be the case, so maybe you should spend some time and website space on explaining what they are.
>>51659103
The PG278Q, yes? I put the gaming screens in a separate table.
>>51659127
Am trying to update the current screen guide first, and then keyboards, and then flesh out laptops. If I can do all that before 2016, that would be good.
>>51659174
Can I see it?
>>51659166
Good point. Once the list of screen choices is finalized and live, I will fix the infoboxes below. Some info there is no longer valid, such as there being no IPS+1440p+144Hz screens.
>>51659189
It is already live. I would appreciate feedback on this as well, if anyone has any, but the gaming screens are already in a good shape, whereas the standard screens need more TLC.
>>51658427
The Philips 40" is great for gaming. Just saying. Gta V looks amazing on it
>>51659238
There is a typo in the "Description" section of the first monitor.
It reads:
>...otherwise this is an gaming excellent screen...
It should read:
>...otherwise this is an excellent gaming screen...
Just flip the words "gaming" and "excellent" around.
>>51659298
Thanks! Fixed.
Where can I get a 27" screen for under $200? Preferably IPS. Don't care if 1080p or 1440p.
Will I be fine with IPS for games or should i go with TN instead?
Are there any good freesync monitors yet?
>>51659368
You care more about the size than the resolution?
>>51659370
IPS is better, but the cheapest 144Hz screens are still TN.
>>51659390
> IPS is better, but the cheapest 144Hz screens are still TN.
I'm fine with 60Hz. I'm concerned with responce time/lag. Heard moving text and such is blurry and har to read on IPS.
>>51659390
>you care more about the size than the resolution
I have really bad eyesight and I've been using a 19" 1080p screen for years. I want something that I won't have to zoom in for.
>>51659463
It is not as bad as that. If you are not going 120Hz+, you should get an IPS screen if possible. Decent IPS screens would be better than most TN screens in terms of viewing angles and colour.
>>51659482
Try something like this, perhaps:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4P03HJ4287
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236392
But you should get 1440p if possible.
>>51658284
What are some good affordable monitor colorimeters? Why not add a small section for those?
Why no love for ultrawide? The LG 29UM57 is a much better choice than the acer G257HU at the 250$ price range for almost everything. It can also be overclocked to 75hz with 100% success rate and no drawbacks which makes especially better in gaymes.
Same thing with the acer x34. Imo it's a much better choice than the Asus rog swift at the "money is no issue" price bracket.
AOC I2757FH
I have it.
Is it trash?
>>51658386
>>51658427
I feel that adding 40" & 32" would be bad as per pixel density would suffer too much.
>>51659605
>Why not add a small section for those?
Good suggestion. Will investigate and add if possible. Thanks!
>>51659625
I am sticking to traditional ratios for now. But I could add a section for ultrawides in the infoboxes. Thanks!
>>51659646
Yeah, I am on the fence about those also, which is why I highlighted them and pointed them out. Some people like the extra screen size (see >>51659482), and some people want higher pixel density (see >>51658837). I prefer to be more inclusive and have more option, but the guide is a bit too long and I want to trim the fat.
>>51659653
Ultrawide fag here, I could help you with some suggestions if the thread is still alive when I wake up in a couple of hours.
>>51659770
Sure, I am going to keep checking this thread until it gets archived. I cannot promise that I will put ultrawides in the main table, but I will put them in the infoboxes.
>>51659540
But there isn't a 27" 1440p monitor under v$200 unless I buy a QNIX.
>>51658386
Qnix QX2710 Evolution II (the one currently being sold) has a 4ms response time, not 8ms
>>51659803
You are correct, there is not. Prices have gone down, but not low enough to get a standard panel 1440p 27" screen below $200. If you cannot save, then you can go for 1080p, although it is not ideal.
>>51659832
It's not that I cannot save, it's just that I don't want to spend more than $200 on a monitor.
>>51659779
Another ultrawide fag here,
some ones to consider if you do a ultrawide info
Samsung S34E790C
Dell Ultrasharp U3415W
LG 34UC97
Acer Predator X34
AOC U3477PQU
HP Envy 34C (ugly as fuck monitor, but decent panel)
LG 29UM65
Dell Ultrasharp U2913WM
Asus MX299Q
Asus PB298Q
AOC Q2963PM
>>51659877
Noted. Thank you!
>>51659935
Something you might want to touch on, is that most of these ultrawides do have their own tiling like software, so people can forgo using something like grindmove / divvy / win split
>>51658284
>only 1 sub 5ms GTG response time monitor
>ASUS
>>51659238
>BenQ XL2411Z
hey thats what i have b
>>51659965
Did not know that. Thanks!
>>51659987
Gaming screen in another section.
>>51658284
This is inaccurate
>>51659825
True
>>51659877
Thanks this helped
>>51660291
If your budget minded, and don't need display port the LG UM25's are sub 200 bucks right now on amazon and pretty much are always around sub 180ish
>>51659646
40" 4K is a great desktop density
Hey Falcon, I know this doesn't have to do with monitors but I was wondering why it seems like you're pointing to a lot of the same non-reference part manufacturers in the build list?
I see a lot of Gigabyte and MSI GPUs, along with Gigabyte and Asus mobos. Is this intentional with research and everything put into all the parts or something else?
>>51658427
In my mind, having the ColorEdge display is stupid. It is only a good choice if you know you need one, and you aren't gonna be using LI if you know what you're doing to the point where you are prepared to buy them.
If you're using LI, you're more likely building yourself a workstation or gaming PC, which would benefit from different setups. Anyone in actual need of such a panel would already know of/have access to the monitors they need.
>>51660358
If you are talking graphics cards: A few (very few) reference cards are good, such as the Titan/Titan X. Most of the reference cards are not as good, with non-reference designs being cooler/quieter.
>>51660252
I am here for feedback.
>>51660364
The same somewhat goes for the UP3216Q
Can you run a 23.8" 4k monitor at 1440p if your GPU can't handle 4k@60Hz?
>>51659825
>>51660274
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH2CA3490
>Response time: 8ms
What I hate about these A- panels is that you have a seriously hard time getting specs. I am going by what is officially listed on Newegg.
>>51660383
Oh I didn't mean reference card, more like specific brands. Gigabyte vs. MSI Sapphire and all that.
>>51658386
Why that 32" and not the benq BL3200PT?
>>51660443
It is usually seasonal: One company decides to lower prices, so their products become more attractive, then another company does the same, etc etc. I tend to cycle between all of them, depending on prices and features.
What are the plans for getting 144hz monitors in there? Don't forget the Monoprice one if you do them. Honestly, don't forget Monoprice overall.
>>51658284
The MX239H is excellent, my upvote goes to you anon!
>>51660471
Oh ok, thanks.
>>51660470
BL3200PT is 1440p. BL3201PT is 4K.
Sorry if this isn't about the screen guide, but I'm the anon who pointed out a while back that the image for the stock cooler on the Athlon 860k is wrong. I finally managed to find a decent pic of the Athlon's stock HSF (it's technically the A10 HSF, but it's the same type). Hope this is of some help.
>>51660477
See >>51659238
>>51660364
>>51660395
Maybe the Eizo. I put it there because it is one of the best screens. When I have a guide that goes from "cheapest" to "craziest", it fits perfectly, no?
>>51660495
You have the HP envy 32. It's 1440p. I'm asking why that over the benq.
>>51660496
Thank you. Let me get that up.
>>51660527
Ah. After a quick googling, the BenQ seems better. I will replace the HP with it, after reading more reviews.
Thanks!
![QNIX_series[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wLFovpE.jpg "QNIX_series[1].jpg")
>>51659825
>>51660410
>>51660496
>>51660557
SHIT, didn't see the watermark in the lower-right. Hope this pic's big enough...
I hate this LCD design trend of having a thick bezel on the bottom. Looks fucking retarded. Why would you not want a uniform border?
>>51660601
Yes, I have read that too.
>>51660634
I'd argue that they do it for use in multimonitoring but with room for branding
>>51658973
>he still uses windows 7
>>51660615
Check it out.
More comments, suggestions, and criticisms please!
>>51661010
>criticisms
get rekt kid
>>51660408
Depends on your gpu.
My 2GB 770 runs games great at 1440p despite not running games well at all when I would try to downsample to 4k on my old monitor.
>No 120Hz screens
What is this, a joke?
How is the Dell E2414Hr 24" monitor? I got one impulsively off an amazon-prime Cyber Moday deal for $99, to replace my broken Westinghouse monitor from 2007. Anyone here have one?
>>51660408
Yes, but it'll be a bit fuzzy due to non integer scaling.
>>51661010
What exactly is your reasoning for recommending FX 6350 > i3 4170 > FX 6300? Are you assuming overclocking on the 6350 but not on the 6300?
>>51661114
I mention that you can freely swap if you prefer.
>>51661143
So it's just a case of they're close enough, so give one to red team one to blue team? Sounds good to me.
>>51661199
Indeed.
Any more feedback, or am I good to go?
>>51661486
Thanks.
So... no more feedback? Or is everyone asleep and it is too late to ask for feedback?
>>51658386
Just bought the U2515H for 250$. Hopefully it's good.
>>51661828
I'd suggest adding the p2415q to the list of 4k monitors or at least as footnote to the p2715q considering it's basically the same except smaller. $420 Americlap dollars for a 4k IPS panel is kind of hard to ignore. I feel like if you add a disclaimer that windows 7/8 and some programs don't scale well it would be fine.
>>51661882
I have two of them.
>>51661890
Not sure about that. For the price, you can get a ~28" 4K screen.
>>51658284
Not meaning to be such a newfag, but what's the url for this site?
:)
>>51663847
It is in the sticky.
Still accepting comments, suggestions, and criticisms.
>>51659238
>best gaming screen is the one that is most expensive by 300 dollars just because it has got G-Sync.
hue.
I
HATE
CHANGE
>>51658284
Falcon, check out the wasabi mango 420UHD
42" 4k 10bit IPS 60hz w/freesync
For maybe around $650 US
They also do a 55" model with the same features for a few hundred more
Based Korea
>>51664374
Interesting. This is the first 4K A-minus panel screen that I have seen.
>>51664488
And apparently, there are _several_ a-minus 4K screens. It seems that the era of a-minus 1440p screens is over, and the era of a-minus 4K is upon us.
That said, 4K prices are dropping like mad. Not sure if there is a point.
>>51664545
If you're putting a 40" 4k monitor on the list, then a 42" 10bit IPS panel with freesync is pretty damn fitting, especially for the price
Your call senpai
I don't know if it's just me, but the font rendering/shadow looks a lot worse than before.
>>51664652
New site, trying a different font style. But yeah, may remove the shadows if it is not nice.
>>51664646
Not confirmed yet: I am asking for feedback on these options. If you check the site, you will find that this is not live.
>>51660601
Those second two qnix monitors do definitely not OC
What kind of monitor would you recommend for someone who wants to play all types of games and stream movies?
Mainly graphically intensive things like ultra modded skyrim etc. But also some fps.
I was thinking of getting 4690k, Z97 and R9 390.
Just unsure about the monitor.
>>51665051
mg279q is great monitor for your use. granted, it isnt cheap.
>>51659238
No Asus MG278Q?
>>51665066
Looks good but yeah, I need something about half of that price.;_;
My build is about £750-800, wanted to include monitor to bring it to around £1000.
>>51665086
The price may have been higher when I was updating. It is a good alternative to the TN BenQ.
>>51665130
the benq TN monitors in the 'gaming screen' pic ITT are good enough for your budget >>51659238
>>51665235
They are. Learn to read.
>>51665235
>Deleting your posts
>>51665051
First decide on if you want 1080 or 1440
The R9 390 is probably slightly overkill for 1080.
>>51658284
You still lurking Falcon? Since you're splitting it into sections, why not a 120/144hz section?
In those screenshots, none of them have a 120+Hz option.
I'd say you should split them into a different section though, since people buying 120hz+ monitors do so for specific needs, mainly for fast paced FPS games where they need the extra smoothness, while most buyers will settle for 60Hz. I was recently researching for 120hz+ monitors, and decided to look up logicalincrements, and was sort of let down because there wasn't much on the topic, except for the A- section, which is more geared towards cheap 1440p screens, not frequency.
Hope you at least consider it, cheers
>>51665299
Shit, disregard this, I suck cocks
I didn't read the whole thread before posting
>>51665299
I already have, see: >>51659238
We had a thread about gaming screen a while back, and this thread is about normal screens.
>>51665066
>>51665086
damn good monitor
I really wish it wasnt £320 more for gsync and ULMB
ULMB seems really good and screen tearing has never been a big issue unlike recent marketing would suggest, its just such a shame you have to pay such a large amount more for these options.
MG279q is the best option for now though imo. Waiting for 1ms 144hz IPS with ULMB, perhaps ultrawide, before I consider selling this.
Great monitor - would recommend
>>51660408
my god id love a 23.8" 120-144hz IPS/VA Monitor with no input lag
pls santa claus
>>51665330
The fuck is ULMB
and MG279Q was too much for his budget anyways.
I got MG279Q despite not having AMD card, fuck paying 350 euros extra for fucking G-syn on otherwise same screen and 166hz which my 980Ti cant even achieve (fps wise I mean)
Is 4K IPS good for muh gaymen yet?
>>51665390
Depending on size of the display you probably don't need to use any AA, but it's still hard for even the flagship GPUs.
>>51665213
I read that IPS is better for better quality of contrast and colour which would make graphically intensive games look better and unless I game competitively (I don't) then I don't need TN?
>>51665282
Are there really any disadvantages for 1440? I was going to go 1440.
Also, I've read that people exceed 4gb VRAM all of the time for modded games(skyrim) and Win10 has more support for the 390.
As I've already said I want a very good monitor more towards image quality and not for diehard competitive gaming.
>>51665420
Yeah ok thanks
I saw some 27" 4K monitors in a store and the pixels were all small and good looking
But back then "they" said IPS was horrid for any and all gaming purposes
>>51665434
>>51665453
IPS is perfectly fine for gaming. The best gaming screens are 144Hz and IPS, not 144Hz and TN.
>>51665480
I'm just having trouble justifying paying more. I think my build is pretty expensive already but I just want to make sure what I'm buying will last for a while and won't get immediately outdated.
>i5 4690k, Z97, R9 390
Good enough to last a while?
>>51665480
Is the difference from IPS to TN that noticeable?
>>51665355
ultra low motion blur
the backlight turns on and off to simulate how crts used to work
pretty much eliminates motion blur. http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg279q.htm
The ULMB part on this review shows and explains it quite well
but shit - i dont mind too much. got nvidia + mg279q and I don't play too much CS these days anyway
>>51665554
aint flicker free anymore if you want ulmb tho
>>51665576
Indeed - but it can be turned on when you're playing fast paced games, and off when you're working or shitposting
Ive seen it in person its very nice.. but its limited to 100hz at the moment. monitor technology is moving so fast now I absolutely love it. its been stagnant for so long (at least in the gaming sector)
>>51658284
What's the reason for removing 16:10? I find it pretty good on smaller monitors.
>>51665529
If you don't know what you're missing, no
But once you go IPS, it's painful to go back to TN. IPS is far superior
>>51665667
Here's one reason
1920x1200 was full memed on /g/
But now if you want extra vertical pixels, you can just go 2560x1440
Another reason, 16:10 monitors are even less common than they were 3 years ago.
>>51665529
Not THAT noticeable, but >>51665667
>>51665636
1440p is better than 1200p.
>>51665667
>>51665704
>had a TN panel for like 5 or 6 years now
>was like 300€ with a huge discount back then, amazing purchase for the time
>we're talking LED TN 24 inches 1080p, in 2010
>still believe it has really good color
IPS can't be THAT good, r-right?
Either way, I'm glad I'm not used to IPS then, I'll probably get a 144hz TN panel when they drop to 200€ish, they're still going for close to 300 where I live.
>>51666067
It is your call.
It is something like the SSD vs HDD debate: You do not NEED an SSD, but if you are used to it, you cannot go back.
>>51666096
Well, the view angle argument is kinda moot for me, I don't look at my screen from the side, I'm always facing it.
I guess that as long as I don't get an IPS in between this one and the 144hz I want to get some day, I won't be in a bad place.
>>51666175
Stay strong, brother.
>>51666235
Thanks for the tips once again, friend
