That's a lot of knowledge here I wasn't otherwise considering, I think I'm going to go with some sort of 2k 144hz monitor because I'd rather have 100+ FPS on max at 2k, than 60 or lower in 4k. I hate feeling sluggish in games. Also low response time is important, because I'm pretty big into FPS games.
Honestly, my number 1 rule for monitors is to avoid TN panels at all costs.
The only reason I would even consider one is if I was a professional tournament gamer, perhaps.
It'd be hard to convince me to trade high quality picture and color accuracy for a couple MS of response time that most people probably won't even notice.
I mean, even IPS monitors have reasonable response times nowadays for any regular consumer.
If you think the difference of a few ms in monitor response time is important, then I hope you have a mouse and keyboard with a 1000 Hz polling rate or better rather than the Windows default of 125 Hz, as that's about the same magnitude of difference: pretty small, but present.
That's a lot of knowledge here I wasn't otherwise considering, I think I'm going to go with some sort of 2k 144hz monitor because I'd rather have 100+ FPS on max at 2k, than 60 or lower in 4k. I hate feeling sluggish in games. Also low response time is important, because I'm pretty big into FPS games.
Honestly, my number 1 rule for monitors is to avoid TN panels at all costs.
The only reason I would even consider one is if I was a professional tournament gamer, perhaps.
It'd be hard to convince me to trade high quality picture and color accuracy for a couple MS of response time that most people probably won't even notice.
I mean, even IPS monitors have reasonable response times nowadays for any regular consumer.
Plus you can mount your monitor in the corner of the ceiling and still see the screen from the your beanbag chair. Seriously though are IPS monitors still hit or miss with the light bleed, cause I see mixed thoughts on them?
That's a lot of knowledge here I wasn't otherwise considering, I think I'm going to go with some sort of 2k 144hz monitor because I'd rather have 100+ FPS on max at 2k, than 60 or lower in 4k. I hate feeling sluggish in games. Also low response time is important, because I'm pretty big into FPS games.
Honestly, my number 1 rule for monitors is to avoid TN panels at all costs.
The only reason I would even consider one is if I was a professional tournament gamer, perhaps.
It'd be hard to convince me to trade high quality picture and color accuracy for a couple MS of response time that most people probably won't even notice.
I mean, even IPS monitors have reasonable response times nowadays for any regular consumer.
Plus you can mount your monitor in the corner of the ceiling and still see the screen from the your beanbag chair. Seriously though are IPS monitors still hit or miss with the light bleed, cause I see mixed thoughts on them?
IPS is still hit or miss on BLB. VA is less so, but is more prone to ghosting. And TN is still TN.
Nothing out there is perfect, it's just a matter of what annoys you less.
Off topic, but i wonder when do they make 27" 1440p 240hz monitors. Think something like Lenovo had one coming but that seemed iffy at best if i remember correct.
Off topic, but i wonder when do they make 27" 1440p 240hz monitors. Think something like Lenovo had one coming but that seemed iffy at best if i remember correct.
That will happen sometime after they figure out how to push that many bits through a monitor cable that fast and have everything actually work reliably. It's not a coincidence that high refresh rate monitors generally go up to around 240 Hz at 1920x1080, 144 Hz at 2560x1440, or 60 Hz at 3840x2160, as those are all a similar bit rate through the monitor cable. On paper, it looks like DisplayPort 1.4 theoretically should be able to handle a lot more bandwidth than that; I'm not sure exactly what the hold-up is.
Off topic, but i wonder when do they make 27" 1440p 240hz monitors. Think something like Lenovo had one coming but that seemed iffy at best if i remember correct.
That will happen sometime after they figure out how to push that many bits through a monitor cable that fast and have everything actually work reliably. It's not a coincidence that high refresh rate monitors generally go up to around 240 Hz at 1920x1080, 144 Hz at 2560x1440, or 60 Hz at 3840x2160, as those are all a similar bit rate through the monitor cable. On paper, it looks like DisplayPort 1.4 theoretically should be able to handle a lot more bandwidth than that; I'm not sure exactly what the hold-up is.
Thanks for reply, i've been torn between 27" 1440p 144hz vs 1080p 240hz, and been wondering where is the monitor that combines both, but i guess its just more waiting, or then i guess one solution would be 2 monitors.
Unless you're really into e-sports or something like that, 144 Hz with some sort of adaptive sync is plenty.
Yes e-sports is the main thing for me, but i'd want that bigger screen and 1440p for RPG's and such more relaxing games, so that type of monitor would be really optimal.
By the way, the monitor i talked about was Lenovo Legion Y27gq and it seems it could be released this April. But if i do remember last Lenovo gaming monitor was an failure, so they got some redemption to do i suppose, but how else better to do it than release a monitor like that (assuming that actually is a good monitor)
Unless you're really into e-sports or something like that, 144 Hz with some sort of adaptive sync is plenty.
Yes e-sports is the main thing for me, but i'd want that bigger screen and 1440p for RPG's and such more relaxing games, so that type of monitor would be really optimal.
By the way, the monitor i talked about was Lenovo Legion Y27gq and it seems it could be released this April. But if i do remember last Lenovo gaming monitor was an failure, so they got some redemption to do i suppose, but how else better to do it than release a monitor like that (assuming that actually is a good monitor)
Guess its more waiting now sadly.
If e-sports is your thing, you want lower resolutions, not higher, as higher resolutions will lower your frame rate. Optimizing for low latency will inevitably mean a TN panel with poor image quality, too. The latter especially is not what you want for other gaming.
I hadn't heard of the monitor you mentioned, so I looked it up:
Based on the specs, though, I'd halfway expect that monitor to be canceled. Now that Nvidia finally decided to support adaptive sync, G-sync is pretty much dead. G-sync now means that a monitor will cost an extra $150 and perform poorly on non-Nvidia GPUs in exchange for absolutely no benefits whatsoever.
If Lenovo does release that monitor, they'll create an easy opportunity for someone else to make an equivalent FreeSync product that costs $150 less, offers better compatibility, and no drawbacks whatsoever as compared to the Lenovo monitor. It could have some brief period of time as the only 240 Hz, 2560x1440 monitor on the market, but as soon as another one launches, it will be dead weight that no one wants. Building a bunch of stock of such a product doesn't seem like a good way to make money.
FreeSync 2 is mostly about HDR. Right now HDR monitors aren't really there. I would like to see the brightness controlled per pixel which is only happening in expensive lcd tvs and oled screens.
Most of the information in this thread is still relevant, hence I am asking for monitor advice here.
Looking for a new monitor. Right now have 22 inch Dell from 2008 so anything is an upgrade at this point. Use is split between work (75%, Office Suite stuff and reviewing of figures/graphics as PDF), gaming (20%, but very important like for most of us), and web browsing (5%, checking scores or watching highlights mostly). My graphics card is an ASUS GTX780 CII if that helps with the discussion as it has Displayport 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 connections.
From my own research and reading this thread it still seems like a 2k IPS monitor around 27 inch is a good sweet spot. The issue is none of them get great reviews as something is always missing. Poor contrast, BLB, etc. Some options I am considering are:
1 and 2 are very similar with ASUS getting slightly better reviews, but Acer being $200 cheaper and available at Costco (which means no hassle return). 3 is just an option I have been thinking on given I have worked/played at 60hz for so long that it may not bother me if the view is now 4k and not 1680 by 1050. On a side note, I will miss 16:10 ratio. I can live with 16:9 since I need to, but I don't think I would enjoy 21:9 or whatever the super wides are.
Sorry for the long post. Just looking for opinions on my proposed choices, especially if someone owns them to give thoughts one way or another.
Monitors are like politics, everyone has an opinion. Personally I downgraded from a 4k monitor because it was only 60mhz and went to a 2k monitor at 144mhz. MUCH better.
Currently running two Acer XZ32IQU monitors side by side on the desktop and just love them. Unless you have a huge budget these are great gaming monitors. I love the desktop space 32" gives me, a big difference from the 27" 4k monitor I was running. These are $329 on Amazon right now and a good buy compared to the competition. I used to run Eve across two monitors, now I actually have more screen room on just one.
I was reading the reviews and I have had none of the issues some of the reviewers had.
Personally, I find that there is little difference between 4k and 2k resolution wise. I find games run much better at 2k than 4k and much better at 144mhz than 60mhz.
The reality is, anything above 60mhz/fps barely really visible to most people. 80mhz/fps is the sweet spot to aim for, but higher is always better of course. Most people won't notice anything higher looking directly at a monitor.
It only really becomes an issue with VR as your peripheral will pick up frame rates below 60 much better than your direct line of sight will, which is (why some get nausea and headaches when playing with an HMD).
I will also agree the ultrawide. It's the best gaming experience outside of a VR HMD.
Comments
Nothing out there is perfect, it's just a matter of what annoys you less.
Think something like Lenovo had one coming but that seemed iffy at best if i remember correct.
By the way, the monitor i talked about was Lenovo Legion Y27gq and it seems it could be released this April.
But if i do remember last Lenovo gaming monitor was an failure, so they got some redemption to do i suppose, but how else better to do it than release a monitor like that (assuming that actually is a good monitor)
Guess its more waiting now sadly.
I hadn't heard of the monitor you mentioned, so I looked it up:
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/accessories-and-monitors/monitors/gaming/Lenovo-Legion-Y27gq-Monitor/p/DD116LPY27G
Apparently Lenovo makes monitors now. Who knew?
Based on the specs, though, I'd halfway expect that monitor to be canceled. Now that Nvidia finally decided to support adaptive sync, G-sync is pretty much dead. G-sync now means that a monitor will cost an extra $150 and perform poorly on non-Nvidia GPUs in exchange for absolutely no benefits whatsoever.
If Lenovo does release that monitor, they'll create an easy opportunity for someone else to make an equivalent FreeSync product that costs $150 less, offers better compatibility, and no drawbacks whatsoever as compared to the Lenovo monitor. It could have some brief period of time as the only 240 Hz, 2560x1440 monitor on the market, but as soon as another one launches, it will be dead weight that no one wants. Building a bunch of stock of such a product doesn't seem like a good way to make money.
It does guarantee a lot with respect to quality and features that standard FreeSync does not (although FS2 closes the gap considerably).
Looking for a new monitor. Right now have 22 inch Dell from 2008 so anything is an upgrade at this point. Use is split between work (75%, Office Suite stuff and reviewing of figures/graphics as PDF), gaming (20%, but very important like for most of us), and web browsing (5%, checking scores or watching highlights mostly). My graphics card is an ASUS GTX780 CII if that helps with the discussion as it has Displayport 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 connections.
From my own research and reading this thread it still seems like a 2k IPS monitor around 27 inch is a good sweet spot. The issue is none of them get great reviews as something is always missing. Poor contrast, BLB, etc. Some options I am considering are:
1) ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q 27" 2k (GSync version of monitor that Quiz linked)
https://www.newegg.ca/black-asus-rog-swift-pg279q-27/p/N82E16824236660
2) Acer Predator XB1 XB27HV 27" 2k
https://www.newegg.ca/black-acer-predator-xb1-xb271hu-27/p/N82E16824106004
3) Dell Ultrasharp U2718Q 27" 4k (updated version of monitor Ridelynn mentioned)
https://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-4k-monitor-u2718q/apd/210-amlm/monitors-monitor-accessories
1 and 2 are very similar with ASUS getting slightly better reviews, but Acer being $200 cheaper and available at Costco (which means no hassle return). 3 is just an option I have been thinking on given I have worked/played at 60hz for so long that it may not bother me if the view is now 4k and not 1680 by 1050. On a side note, I will miss 16:10 ratio. I can live with 16:9 since I need to, but I don't think I would enjoy 21:9 or whatever the super wides are.
Sorry for the long post. Just looking for opinions on my proposed choices, especially if someone owns them to give thoughts one way or another.
Thank you
Currently running two Acer XZ32IQU monitors side by side on the desktop and just love them. Unless you have a huge budget these are great gaming monitors. I love the desktop space 32" gives me, a big difference from the 27" 4k monitor I was running. These are $329 on Amazon right now and a good buy compared to the competition. I used to run Eve across two monitors, now I actually have more screen room on just one.
I was reading the reviews and I have had none of the issues some of the reviewers had.
Personally, I find that there is little difference between 4k and 2k resolution wise. I find games run much better at 2k than 4k and much better at 144mhz than 60mhz.
Good luck with your monitor search.
It only really becomes an issue with VR as your peripheral will pick up frame rates below 60 much better than your direct line of sight will, which is (why some get nausea and headaches when playing with an HMD).
I will also agree the ultrawide. It's the best gaming experience outside of a VR HMD.