Monitor Help Please! <3

OhhPaigey · May 2020

Hey all, so I'm looking for people a lot smarter than me with hardware to point me in the right direction here. A few years ago I built a new PC. It has a GTX 1080 TI SC which was the best out at the time.. not sure how good it is anymore. But anyways, I spent about $3000 and never upgraded my monitors (I know, don't roast me too hard please

)..

Anyways, I'm looking to upgrade my monitors, I have a BenQ one right now which I've had for years when I was playing CoD competitively, but the colors suck, it's like a 1ms response time one.. and I have a shitty Walmart Acer monitor which I've dropped and hit and damaged and still runs like a champ, but it's years old now lol... and isn't even 1080p.

So.. I'm assuming I can run 4k or maybe 2k anyways with my current build, I think I'd be getting a 4k monitor anyways just to kinda future proof.. response time doesn't matter too much as I've pretty much quit shooters. I'm looking for a nice picture and quality.. I'm also undecided on two monitors or just a big like 34-40ish+ inch monitor than I can section off into two maybe? And also, GSync or no GSync??

Ideas? Suggestions? I don't really have a price range, maybe something in the middle. Not top end but not terrible... I'm in Canada btw if you post links.. thanks so much as usual.

Iselin · May 2020

I'm not a HW guru but I do know that 4K monitors need to push many more pixels around than a 1080P or 1440P monitor.

Your current PC is good enough for those but if you move to 4K you will definitely notice the performance loss when 4K gaming so that will likely be just the start of upgrading everything

Quizzical · May 2020

A 1 ms response time on a monitor with poor color quality probably means that you got a TN monitor. If you want good image quality, you normally want to look at an IPS monitor.

I wouldn't recommend a 4K monitor unless it's huge. The problem is that if you get a lot of pixels but not a lot of inches, then the pixels are tiny. Some programs will handle that well, and some just make everything so small that the program is awkward to use. If you get a 4K monitor, I'd recommend getting one that is around 40". If you get something with a 2560x1440 resolution, you probably want at least 27" in size.

The choice of one large monitor or two (or three) smaller ones is a matter of personal preference. I personally prefer multiple monitors, but some people prefer just one bigger one. How you use it makes some difference, as the bezels between monitors are far less intrusive if you're running different programs on different monitors than if you always maximize everything and spread it across all of the monitors. If you do want to spread a game window across multiple monitors, you'd want three, not two, as you want the dividing bezels off to the side some, not right in the middle of the screen.

Make sure that you check on exactly what your video card supports. Check the monitor ports, as well as the resolutions and refresh rates on those monitor ports. I have a different card from you (Radeon RX Vega 64), but to give you an example, it supports 2560x1440 at up to 144 Hz over DisplayPort, and only up to 60 Hz over HDMI. You probably want to use DisplayPort for your new monitors if you can, but even then, a 4K resolution is likely to cap you at 60 Hz or so. There's no sense in spending extra for a monitor that has a higher resolution or refresh rate than your video card can handle. You also don't want to get two identical monitors and then realize that your card only has one of the type of monitor port that they need.

A GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is still a plenty fast card today. Getting that level of performance in a new card today would cost about $400.

Quizzical · May 2020

As for G-Sync, don't bother. It's obsolete. Nvidia finally caved and decided to support the industry standard adaptive sync. You may want to look for "G-Sync compatible", which technically isn't G-Sync, but does the same thing and doesn't carry the $150 price premium of G-sync. If you get a FreeSync monitor that is "G-Sync compatible", it will also work properly with the full functionality on AMD GPUs, which can matter if you want to upgrade your video card or sell the monitor later. If a monitor is FreeSync but doesn't say "G-Sync compatible", then it will probably still work just like G-Sync, but either Nvidia hasn't tested it or there's some (probably minor) gotcha where Nvidia says it's not quite good enough.

If you're looking to upgrade your video card, I generally recommend getting at least double the performance of the old one. You can't do that at the moment, but probably will be able to later this year when AMD launches Navi 2X. Nvidia will launch Ampere eventually (and possibly even before Navi 2X), but so far, all that they've been willing to talk about publicly is an A100 compute device that is half GPU and half machine learning ASIC. In contrast, AMD has publicly promised that Navi 2X will launch sometime this year. If you have a strong preference for Nvidia, then I'd wait to see if Ampere is any good before upgrading.

OhhPaigey · May 2020

Ahh that's pretty interesting Quizz. So maybe just a 1440p monitor then. I keep hearing 4k from everybody but if I won't notice the difference then why bother..

So I'll look for a 1440p, FreeSync monitor that's G-Sync compatible, that isn't a TN panel.

Also I just checked, my current "main" monitor is a BenQ XL2420T, so yeah. It's old & a TN panel apparently.

Are there any brands anybody would recommend over others? Or is it all preference really? I mean I'm really happy with how long this crappy Acer monitor has lasted even when I've dropped it and smashed it (on accident) more than a few times lol...

Also apparently "At the rear of the 1080 Ti there are three DisplayPort 1.4 ports alongside an HDMI 2.0 port."

So I should be able to support two displayport monitors without a problem.

Quizzical · May 2020

If a monitor has a good panel type, it will tell you, as that's a selling point. If it doesn't explicitly say that it's IPS, then it isn't. Yes, your monitor in particular is a TN monitor.

IPS isn't the only good type of panel, but it is the common one that doesn't cost that much. OLED looks better, but it also costs a fortune. If you're not sure what a panel type is, the viewing angles are usually a pretty good indicator. TN will typically be something like 160 or 170 degrees, while IPS is more like 178 degrees. The viewing angle isn't an important spec in itself, but it is a function of the panel type.

Unless the text you quoted comes from your particular SKU (e.g., if you still have the box it came in and are reading the box), then you need to make sure that you check the monitor ports on your particular video card. That is, look at the back of the card and physically inspect the ports there to see what they are. Different SKUs with the same GPU inside often attach different ports. For example, these are both a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti:

https://www.newegg.com/evga-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-11g-p4-6696-kr/p/N82E16814487338
https://www.newegg.com/asus-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-turbo-gtx1080ti-11g/p/N82E16814126188

But the first one has 3 DisplayPort, 1 HDMI, and 1 DVI, while the second has 2 DisplayPort, 2 HDMI, and no DVI. You don't want to buy two monitors and then discover that you can't plug them both in at once.

OhhPaigey · May 2020

Jeez apparently I know nothing lol. I checked my specific card it has 2 displayports and 2 HDMI and 1 DVI.

Thanks Quizz!

OhhPaigey · May 2020

All monitors I can find are VA panels? Is that ok? I'm looking at 2k curved monitors. 32-36 inch.

Cleffy · May 2020

VAs color accuracy and viewing angle isn't as good as IPS, but it has better black levels/contrast. The brand doesn't matter for a VA or IPS since nearly all panels are done by Samsung and LG. I would still recommend IPS for a larger monitor since you are more likely to see it at a wider viewing angle.
I personally don't see the point in GSync beyond a certain point, you will be spending more just to checkmark some nVidia extra. With a 144hz refresh rate, the fact your frame is held up that long doesn't make a difference when most gaming is done at 60 fps.
The quality of a monitor is always dictated by price. If you find something with a low MSRP, there is probably a reason for it.

Acornia · May 2020

You might also think about using a tv as an replacement monitor if the 60Hz refresh rate is fine for your gaming needs.

Check some place like Best Buy on their 60 inch offerings, many are now under $500.

One such is https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-60-class-led-um6900pua-series-2160p-smart-4k-uhd-tv-with-hdr/6362419.p?skuId=6362419 with 3 dvi ports that you can use.

Tiller · May 2020

So she went from monitor to tv. Honestly could have just watched Linus Tech tips for some ideas instead of asking here.

Vrika · May 2020

Quizzical said:
If you're looking to upgrade your video card, I generally recommend getting at least double the performance of the old one. You can't do that at the moment, but probably will be able to later this year when AMD launches Navi 2X. Nvidia will launch Ampere eventually (and possibly even before Navi 2X), but so far, all that they've been willing to talk about publicly is an A100 compute device that is half GPU and half machine learning ASIC. In contrast, AMD has publicly promised that Navi 2X will launch sometime this year. If you have a strong preference for Nvidia, then I'd wait to see if Ampere is any good before upgrading.

I don't think you'll be able to get twice GTX 1080 TI performance even after Navi 2X launches.

GTX 1080 TI is still a good graphic card. For example in this recent test it beat RX 5700 XT by 9%. Source: https://www.techspot.com/review/1907-geforce-1080-ti-vs-rtx-2070-super-vs-radeon-5700-xt/

Using that 9% as performance difference, Navi 2X would need to be 118% faster than RX 5700 XT.

We know that AMD has promised Navi 2X will give 50% more performance per watt used compared to their current cards. If they manage to fully keep that promise, the Navi 2X card offering twice the performance of GTX 1080 TI would have TPD of 327 Watts. And that's the best-case scenario where AMD's marketing department has been truthful. Even if AMD could fit enough transistors into a single GPU, I don't think they're going to go for that high TDP in a consumer GPU.

That's not to say it wouldn't be good idea to wait for new GPU launches before upgrading from 1080 Ti. 1080 Ti is still so good that right now it makes little sense to upgrade, but in the next generation either AMD or NVidia might have something good enough to make upgrade worthwhile.

Grymmoire · May 2020

I don't know if you have anything like a Micro Center store in Canada, but if so and they stock the AOC CU34G2X Curved Monitor there, I would recommend you have a view.

There was a review here and a few online about the value of this item and here they were selling for $449.99 US, a real steal, for what you get. It is a 34" qhd 3440x1440, va panel by Samsung; 144 hz refresh, with freesync and other nice specs (see reviews).

I am using one for gaming and just love it. I retired my 34" ips Lg 60hz with no qualms.

BrotherMaynard · May 2020

If you play competitively, then colour accuracy will probably matter less to you than response time. TN panels are the way to go in such case. They're generally much cheaper than IPS. However, viewing angles, image accuracy and quality and similar features will be much worse in comparison.

Also, 4k is not really for competitive play - with current HW you won't get sufficient FPS at that resolution. Maybe with the upcoming cards we'll be closer, but for now 1080 or 1440 will be much better for competitive play.

If you want to slow down and enjoy the graphics instead of competing, then a large 4k IPS screen from a specialist company would be optimal. I recommend Eizo - but then I might be biased after all these years...

Cleffy · May 2020

Nonsense2 said:

Can I somehow remove the blue screen of death? without reinstalling windows

Restart while hitting f8. Load into safe mode. See what's wrong with your system.

Vrika · May 2020

Nonsense2 said:

Can I somehow remove the blue screen of death? without reinstalling windows

You'd have to know what's causing that error and fix the cause.

There's a huge number of different errors that can cause blue screen of death, including but not limited to:
-hardware problems
-problems with drivers
-problems with operating system
-sometimes problems with other software

Ridelynn · May 2020

I can't speak much to competitive gaming. For that - previously given advice is better than I can do.

I do like DMKano's idea of having two (or more) monitors

And I can speak for 4K monitors. I've run 4K 27" for a while now. Some people say that's too small.

For gaming - yeah, 4K sucks.

But for everything else, it's awesome. I run at 150% scaling, so all the text/icons are the same size as they would be on a 1440p monitor, but text and still images are a good deal crisper, since you have a much higher PPI.

Not everything scales well, Windows scaling isn't the best, but it works with most modern things - it's mostly just the old Win32 stuff that still struggles a bit.

I won't trade my small 4K's for anything for day to day use. The clarity is really noticeable to me. But just for gaming - yeah, I concede they certainly aren't the thing, but that's why you have the separate second (or third) monitor for gaming...

Quizzical · May 2020

Nonsense2 said:

Can I somehow remove the blue screen of death? without reinstalling windows

Name checks out.

But I'm going to say that your blue screen is due to an unstable overclock. After all, without more information, all we can do is guess wildly.

Asm0deus · May 2020

I think most people don't really qualify as competitive gamers, that's usually peeps on teams trying to earn a living out of it etc.

Also I think competitive gamers are not going to need help to choose a monitor and already know that they will be gaming on a 1080p with high refresh rate and low in game settings to crank out the fps..

No I think most peeps here even if they play "competitive games" or shooters will not need a 240hz 1080p and can get away just fine playing on a 120 or 144 hz monitor or even a 60hz hdtv like I do on one PC for game like warframe, destiny 2, gw2 etc etc

Also it seems like the OP has implied they are looking at 2k/4k because they are not playing competitively like once upon a time they did.

Looks like they are looking for something that will LOOK great over something that will allow them to squeeze out every little advantage they can get over the next guy.

With that in mind OP should look at maybe 2k monitors with like 144/165hz or possibly a large 4k monitor or even hdtv if they are okay with 60hz.

See:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/1440p-gaming-monitors

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/gaming-monitors-4k

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/video-gaming

Asm0deus · May 2020

DMKano said:

Asm0deus said:

I think most people don't really qualify as competitive gamers, that's usually peeps on teams trying to earn a living out of it etc.

Also I think competitive gamers are not going to need help to choose a monitor and already know that they will be gaming on a 1080p with high refresh rate and low in game settings to crank out the fps..

No I think most peeps here even if they play "competitive games" or shooters will not need a 240hz 1080p and can get away just fine playing on a 120 or 144 hz monitor or even a 60hz hdtv like I do on one PC for game like warframe, destiny 2, gw2 etc etc

I disagree with your assessment 100% - because any gamer who does decide to play competitive shooters - needs ALL the help they can get to be more competitive.

So having a 240Hz monitors and a rig that can run shooters at 200+ FPS @1080p ;
is going to help even a newer gamer play a LOT better - because their aim will be hugely improved.

A new player playing on a crap rig @60hz is basically making a poor player even more handicapped - this is horrible advice.

The only players who might do ok with inferior gear are pro players - they might be able to compensate some and still do ok outside of an actual competition - in casual play.

Not sure if you've ever tried yourself to see what a huge difference it makes to have a "pro-gamer" setup for shooters - it's a night and day difference in how much easier it is to play skillfully (getting used to super low mouse DPI - set to 400 and a HUGE mouse pad that requires full arm motion takes time) but getting those seemingly impossible headshots suddenly seems quite doable.

Here is a list of pro player settings for cs-go:

https://prosettings.net/cs-go-pro-settings-gear-list/

The monitor is univeral here - 240Hz BenQ XL2546 - look at how many of them are running even below 1080p - at 1024x768 - see that mouse DPI at 400? yep

It's all about getting as high FPS as possible and using "super slow mouse" settings and then doing a full arm motion on a huge mousepad.

here's a video that goes over some of the basics as far as arm/wrist motion:

Keep in mind that many "casual" players play with pro settings - so when a regular joe loads up CS:GO - yep you are going to be playing vs folks running the game with all the pro settings - and that new player on a 60Hz monitor will feel like they are playing against aimbots that never miss - it is quite discouraging - might as well not play, because the disadvantage is enormous.

This is why I don't suggest anyone play competitive shooters without the right gear and right settings - I mean why handicap yourself to the point where you can't even enjoy a casual match?

Naw at this point you are far from a "casual gamer", maybe when I said most are on team trying to earn a living it made you think I meant something else.

Even the link you give as an example to your narrative says, "We chose the top 30 teams in competitive CS:GO and listed them in our internal ranking which is aggravated by recent and historical competitive performance."

You were suppose to take the fact I was speaking about peeps that are playing more than "just" csgo etc. It's a bit silly to build for one small subset of games if you are going to be playing a plethora of others along with the fact the OP seemed to be implying as much. Everything you posted is pretty much irrelevant for the OP.

OhhPaigey said:

...snip...
response time doesn't matter too much as I've pretty much quit shooters. I'm looking for a nice picture and quality..
...snip...

It's about context friend and you were suppose to read my post with the OP in mind not some hypothetical narrative you are on about.

Now if the OP had came in saying they play mainly csgo etc competitively you would have had a good point but OP didn't and so you don't.

The average gamer isn't going to want to play and nerf his overall gaming experience like you mention simply for "competitive" shooters if that's not their main types of games and they play a lot of other genres.

Asm0deus · May 2020

DMKano said:

...snip...

I read everything she wrote.

My advice still stands.

1. Nice monitor for non competitive play (can be 2k, 4k whatever your budget allows) - this is what you use to play RPGs and lots of games where FPS doesnt matter (some exceptions like BDO where FPS actually influences your DPS - example warriors- because the game is programmed so badly to where the server trusts clients FPS for damage calculation with animation cancelling frames matter)

2. One super high refresh low latency monitor - in case you play shooters and want to not handicap yourself (or want to wreck people as warrior in BDO - see above)

This choice doesnt nerf anything - you have both options there that cover ALL types of games.

Nerfing yourself is limiting your experience to only one type of monitor, which limits you to only having a best experience for a subset of games.

So my advice stands as it covers players with a best experience for all types of games.

How is this nerfing yourself???

It's nerfing yourself as the OP isn't asking for two monitors and clearly implied then stated they will not be playing competitive shooters so your advice is irrelevant in the context of the thread which you seem very keen on avoiding in your personal narrative.

Sure on the narrow narrative you are spinning your advice is quite sound I would agree with it alas for you... your narrative is very far off the mark and the context of this thread and what the OP posted and is looking for which is ONE monitor for eye candy.

Therefore my advice is spot on regardless of your "strong objections" which may apply in your narrow narrative but not for this thread like at all.

For what the OP wants my advice is far far better than yours!

The OP can always buy a competitive shooter oriented screen at some later point if such becomes relevant to her.

If you stand by your advice of getting TWO monitors then well your advice to be frank sucks nuggets and is wasteful money wise.

It's akin to coming into a "need help for desktop build" thread and advising the person to make a desktop build then spend 1K on a "gaming" laptop, you know, in case they decide to do some gaming on the go at some future point....

Much better for the OP to spend her budget on the one really good eye candy hdtv or monitor for now.

Asm0deus · May 2020

Your video is from 2018

In this newer Dec. 2019 video Linus says, "freakin awesome!"

hah just admit it DMKano you are wrong in this thread in the context of the thread.

I know context is hard for some people but I know you get it.

Cleffy · May 2020

I think that Linus OLED video is so annoying. OLED's refresh rate is purely dictated by the cable standard. My HTPC uses HDMI 1.0 so its limited to either 4k 30hz or 1080p 120hz. Even though the specs on the TV say it's 4k60hz, if I set it to 1080p 120hz it's more than happy to do so.
If a cable was capable of outputting 1000hz, the OLED is still capable of outputting it. It's also why GSync is completely pointless on OLED.

The problem with 4k gaming is simple. No single GPU is capable of a consistent 60 fps on demanding modern titles.

Quizzical · May 2020

DMKano said:

Also anyone who wants to argue about 4K gaming

Why choose between high refresh rates and high resolutions? I've been gaming at 4320x2560 (higher than 4K) and 144 Hz on IPS monitors since 2015.

Quizzical · May 2020

What to get for monitors depends tremendously on your priorities. It is not a case of one size fits all, even on a fixed budget.

If being the best possible in highly competitive, twitchy e-sports is the priority, then yeah, as DMKano said, you'd want very high refresh rate, very low latency, very low resolution, and ugly image quality. For anyone else, that's a dumb thing to get.

Asm0deus · May 2020

Quizzical said:

What to get for monitors depends tremendously on your priorities. It is not a case of one size fits all, even on a fixed budget.

If being the best possible in highly competitive, twitchy e-sports is the priority, then yeah, as DMKano said, you'd want very high refresh rate, very low latency, very low resolution, and ugly image quality. For anyone else, that's a dumb thing to get.

Exactly!

Howdy, Stranger!

Monitor Help Please! <3

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Monitor Help Please! <3

Comments