Monitor recommendations. What's good?

I was playing Shadow of War this mornign, after enabling Fast Sync on my nvidia control panel and I was getting 100 FPS consistently! This is at 75 hz (overclocked from 60). I was amazed. I'm still looking forward to the 1440 on the new one. Is it tomorrow night yet?

*Legion* wrote:

And at least that panel has a 100hz refresh rate. I could never go back to a 60hz panel. My monitor now is 165hz, but the jump from 60hz up to 90-100hz is really the biggest jump. The upgrades are smaller after that.

HDR I'm still pretty skeptical about until I see implementations prove out that don't introduce latency. Doing that at 60hz is one thing, doing it at 165hz when the frame times are almost 1/3rd as long... we'll see.

Personally I'm all about Picture Quality.. so I going to wait until OLED or Micro LED Monitors with variable refresh rate exists.. oh also in 43" Size.

Waiting for OLED was my original plan, but not sure OLED will ever really arrive in monitors anymore :/
So think I'll settle for an OLED tv + a decent monitor instead.
Got the impression that TVs were starting to get reasonably low latency with HDR though?

Shadout wrote:

Got the impression that TVs were starting to get reasonably low latency with HDR though?

LG updated the firmware on their OLED sets and got all the input lag numbers, 4k/60 with HDR included, down to about ~28ms, which is actually really solid for a TV, but there are other 4k HDR sets out now that do notably better.

LG's own "nano-cell" LCD set is 4k HDR and in game mode testing has shown input lag around 15ms, which is maybe the best number I've seen on any TV since CRT's.

I can say now, that AOC monitor ROCKS. Damn it has an amazing picture and the curve is really nice.
Sorry for the messy desk. I'm hoping to get a new one that will be easier to work with and I'll do proper cable management.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/K16xoBv.jpg)

Enjoy! Make sure the monitor and your video output is set to 100hz.

*Legion* wrote:

Enjoy! Make sure the monitor and your video output is set to 100hz.

Thanks, I had the monitor set to 60 Hz and set it to 100 but the most I got out of it in Shadow of War is 70. I'll double check everything. Maybe the game is capping.

You'll definitely want to ease up on some settings to hit 100+ fps in games.

I ease up quite a bit on settings in many games, and I am on a 1080, and I don't have the extra pixel count that an ultrawide 1440p does, just a regular 16:9 1440p.

Just wanted to take a minute and thank all you techie guys for the helpful responses and info you post.

Hi all, I'm looking for some advice.

My parents are retired now and in the UK you can take tax exempt lump sums of your pension. They've done this and decided they'd like me to have some money. I'm someone who is somewhat frugal - I don't really like to splash out on things that are luxurious. I've been using an old Samsung TV as my monitor for the past 3/4 or so years, but I've always wanted a new monitor (a mechanical keyboard too, but I'm using a one I bought for £5!) Buying my first home recently as well, I've been especially tight with the money situation, although my work situation has improved considerably in the past few months, so I'm not constantly worrying about money anymore. I should mention I am also buying a Nintendo Switch soon, but I've been putting away £10 every week for a lot of this year to get up to that, and that also includes using a special discount at the store which will basically bring the cost down by £40 - in summary: I don't often just go out and spend hundreds on something that's not essential.

Rather than just give me the money, since I know I'll just put it away and end up keeping it in my bank, my parents said I should, for once, just get something nice that I've always wanted and I can use that money towards that, with them getting me it for Christmas. I agree this is probably best, as if I never have that money I won't have to think about it that much. Therefore, I've decided I really want a monitor to replace my Samsung TV, but I don't have the first clue about what is good and what isn't.

I've got a Gigabyte GeForce GTX 770 2GB (so Nvidia) card and run an AMD 3.50hz processor. I really want a 144hz monitor, as I know it'll make a massive difference, but the whole gysnc thing is also a factor. Some questions I have

- How much will gysnc improve things? Will it be like night and day?
- If I get a 144hz monitor with freesync I believe I won't be able to use it, but is this just the same as getting a normal 144hz monitor?
- In the future if I manage to get even more money, I would like to buy a second monitor, or even use my Samsung TV as a second monitor. Can a computer handle one monitor at 144hz and the other at 60? If I want to use gysnc on one then will they both need to have gysnc?
- Am I right in wanting a 144hz monitor or is there something better I should be considering? I'm not sure with my card that 4k gaming is worth it, and I'd like the extra fps from 144hz.

I don't want to spend too much (again, tight!) and I know the cost of these can get out of hand. I'd like to keep it to £400, if possible, and if gysnc isn't that essential, then I'm more than happy. Are there any good monitors that people can recommend?

Clusks wrote:

- How much will gysnc improve things? Will it be like night and day?

It eliminates tearing. How night-and-day that is depends on how much tearing you see.

- If I get a 144hz monitor with freesync I believe I won't be able to use it, but is this just the same as getting a normal 144hz monitor?

Correct.

- In the future if I manage to get even more money, I would like to buy a second monitor, or even use my Samsung TV as a second monitor. Can a computer handle one monitor at 144hz and the other at 60?

Yes.

If I want to use gysnc on one then will they both need to have gysnc?

No.

- Am I right in wanting a 144hz monitor or is there something better I should be considering? I'm not sure with my card that 4k gaming is worth it, and I'd like the extra fps from 144hz.

You're definitely not 4K gaming with a GTX 770. As for 144hz, well, in the games you play on your system, are you able to get 100+ famerates? If your card struggles to push that many frames, then having a monitor that can display that many wouldn't help any.

I don't want to spend too much (again, tight!)

G-Sync is a luxury, and a pricey one as far as computer hardware goes. I would say that only people building fairly high-end systems should worry about G-Sync.

A 770 2GB card isnt pushing anywhere near 144fps to take advantage of that high of a refresh rate.. unless its like Counter Strike GO level gaming. I would focus on a high quality 1080P 27" LCD so you get a nice gaming experience at 30 or 60fps (which is realistic for that GPU).

Better yet.. spend 200 pounds on a nice 1080P 27" LCD and 200 pounds on a GTX 1060 GPU.

I blame Certis for this..

As a user of nice-enough BenQ 1080p displays, I agree with the above from Legion and TGG.

I've been running a 27" 1080p display for over two years, and I highly recommend it. Yes, you don't get as many pixels as a 1440p display. But what you get in exchange is being able to run a $200 video card with everything maxed out at 60fps consistently, and do that for a number of years. When you're ready to upgrade, another $200 card should do just fine.

I'll bump up to a higher resolution monitor when the $200 video cards are able to handle those kinds of resolutions. Currently, even the mid range cards are having an inconsistent time with those resolutions.

TheGameguru wrote:

Better yet.. spend 200 pounds on a nice 1080P 27" LCD and 200 pounds on a GTX 1060 GPU.

I'm going to mostly agree with this, and I will add that you may very well be able to get 144hz in such a display in or around that price point. (Here's one on NewEgg UK for £213, just one that I found in a quick search).

And with a 1060 you would have better luck getting more games to run at 144hz (I had an RX 480 - roughtly on par with a GTX 1060 6GB - paired with a 1080p 144hz monitor and could run plenty of games in 100+ fps, particularly since I was willing to do medium detail settings in exchange for the better framerates.) And it looks like you can get a GTX 1060 6GB for £205 so Guru was right on the money with those prices.

*Legion* wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Better yet.. spend 200 pounds on a nice 1080P 27" LCD and 200 pounds on a GTX 1060 GPU.

I'm going to mostly agree with this, and I will add that you may very well be able to get 144hz in such a display in or around that price point. (Here's one on NewEgg UK for £213, just one that I found in a quick search).

And with a 1060 you would have better luck getting more games to run at 144hz (I had an RX 480 - roughtly on par with a GTX 1060 6GB - paired with a 1080p 144hz monitor and could run plenty of games in 100+ fps, particularly since I was willing to do medium detail settings in exchange for the better framerates.) And it looks like you can get a GTX 1060 6GB for £205 so Guru was right on the money with those prices.

It's a TN panel so for me that's a complete non-starter. Others might be ok with that but I can't stand TN panels at all.. they make my eyes bleed. I'd take a nice IPS or VA anyday of the week even if its locked at 60fps. I'm more of a PQ > * kinda guy. But yeah I agree its better to get a high refresh rate monitor rather than a non high refresh monitor all things being equal..but I would need it to be anything but TN.

I'm a bit lost when it comes to graphics cards too, but I should mention that I am looking to upgrade that, hopefully some time next year, which was one of the thinkings for getting a 144hz monitor, although the consensus seems to be 1ms refresh is more important?

TheGameguru wrote:

I'm more of a PQ > * kinda guy.

Yeah, I know. And that's reasonable and all. But I'm on the opposite side of that line from you. My new monitor is an IPS-style panel, and it's great, but for me the order of importance of the features in my panel are 144hz > G-Sync > 1440p > IPS.

Others might be ok with that but I can't stand TN panels at all.. they make my eyes bleed.

And this is absolutely the thing: every computer display has flaws whose impact are completely subjective. You're choosing which ones bother you the most and which ones you can live with. Some people absolutely hate IPS "glow".

The one thing I stand by the most when it comes to buying monitors (and TVs): buy from somewhere where you can return without too much hassle, and don't hesitate to use that ability if you're unsatisfied.

The last time I bought a TV, I ended up returning three sets before settling on the 4th one. This last monitor purchase, I returned one and ended up satisfied with #2.

I got a Dell 27" G-Sync on Black Friday sale for $349.

How is it?

Nvidia announced their "Big Format Gaming Display" intiative. Prepare to get super tired of the acronym BFGD if you read this press release.

To achieve this we’ve been working for over two years with leading panel producer AU Optronics to create and perfect 4K and 3440x1440 G-SYNC HDR displays with lightning-fast response times, PC-optimized HDR with 1000 nit peak brightness, full array backlights, Quantum Dot Enhancement Films, and DCI-P3 cinema-quality color gamuts. And now, for BFGDs, we’ve created a 65” 4K 120Hz G-SYNC HDR panel with all of those features, and a full array direct backlight for the absolute best big-screen PC gaming experience.

I see no mention of actual panel type in their spiel but maybe I missed it.

Also they build in a Shield TV so you get all those features too.

I bet these things are $2500. $3000 wouldn't shock me.

More marketing bullsh*t dressing up inferior LCD displays. MicroLED can’t get here soon enough if OLED isn’t going to be widely adopted.

TheGameguru wrote:

More marketing bullsh*t dressing up inferior LCD displays. MicroLED can’t get here soon enough if OLED isn’t going to be widely adopted.

I still constantly see people ruling out OLED as an option because they think they image burn in is a problem. Never mind that it takes like 9 hours straight. Even LCD's will eventually succumb and burn in under that kind of abuse.

It's just plain misinformation at this point but here we are.

IMO the biggest thing though is just the vast majority of TV purchases happen under $1000 and it doesn't seem like anybody's going to squeeze out an OLED set in that range any time soon.

Of course then you also have companies like Samsung just hocking middling LCD sets as high end year after year and making bank off them so I'm not sure what incentive they have to change tech.

Thin_J wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

More marketing bullsh*t dressing up inferior LCD displays. MicroLED can’t get here soon enough if OLED isn’t going to be widely adopted.

I still constantly see people ruling out OLED as an option because they think they image burn in is a problem. Never mind that it takes like 9 hours straight. Even LCD's will eventually succumb and burn in under that kind of abuse.

It's just plain misinformation at this point but here we are.

IMO the biggest thing though is just the vast majority of TV purchases happen under $1000 and it doesn't seem like anybody's going to squeeze out an OLED set in that range any time soon.

Of course then you also have companies like Samsung just hocking middling LCD sets as high end year after year and making bank off them so I'm not sure what incentive they have to change tech.

For sure its a combination of factors.. consumer apathy towards Picture Quality over Size and Price and Manufactures looking to continue to squeeze as much profits out of existing fabrication techniques. If consumers will readily drop $800-$1500 on middling LCD TV's that are basically using decade old technology then why would any manufacture look to change that?

I've seen 55" OLED get close to $1100 in price and still not really move units compared to the $750 55" LCD that offers similar buzz word marketing phrases but with grossly inferior picture quality and performance.

IMO no LCD should qualify for any sort of HDR certification since it cannot individually control light on a per pixel basis.

I have managed to get permanent burn-in on my plasma tv, so I am somewhat worried about burn-in in general.
Yet my next TV will surely be OLED.

As for monitors, it is annoying that most new high end monitors seem to be 4K.
Give me a quality 1440p, 120/144hz, GSYNC instead. Not like I can realistically feed that 4K anyway.

Shadout wrote:

I have managed to get permanent burn-in on my plasma tv, so I am somewhat worried about burn-in in general.
Yet my next TV will surely be OLED.

As for monitors, it is annoying that most new high end monitors seem to be 4K.
Give me a quality 1440p, 120/144hz, GSYNC instead. Not like I can realistically feed that 4K anyway.

Yep I got burn-in on my 2013 plasma (never used as a pc monitor either) as well, so I won't be jumping on oled monitor train any time soon even if it were affordable. Local dimming works very well on my tv, so I'll be interested in how well it does on monitors.

I used Plasma for all my TV's starting in 2002 up to 2016 and never once got burn in on any of them.. I'm still unsure exactly how anyone ever managed to get Burn in using them in a somewhat routine way. Note I was child free during those years and I imagine kids were probably the number 1 reason for Plasma burn in. Let me pause this video game and go over to a friends house for the day.

My burn in is a tv channel logo and a bar at the bottom of the screen from the same channel. It is a news channel I tend to have running in the background while doing other stuff - so I guess my problem is I didn't use the TV enough for actively watching anything
It is not a major problem though, unless there is a very white background, I can only see it if I get really close and look for it.
Not enough to make me scared of OLED tv, though I would be a bit wary of OLEDs for computer usage.
Really though, TV channels should get rid of very bright logos etc. if OLED or similar is the future.
Guess it could be worse, at least its not a Fox News logo.

I'm almost a year with an OLED as my PC monitor.. all good so far no burn in whatsoever.