Monitor Recommendations

[YellowKing]

Hi all - my monitor of roughly 12-13 years is starting to act up so I'm in the market for something new. It was cutting off and back on randomly and I did isolate it to the monitor and not any kind of video card problem.

I don't want to go any smaller (it was a 27 inch), but I'm also on a budget and would like to stay in the $500 or under range if possible. And it goes without saying I want something good for gaming.

Because I haven't looked at monitors in over a decade, I'm not really up to speed on refresh rates, 4K, etc. Which is why I'm reaching out to the OO hivemind.

[Carpet_pissr]

Dell 34 inch curved gaming monitor - S3422DWG
$400 on Amazon currently

But if you can wait it’s gone down to $309 just last month, will probably dip again (at least to $350, which it does regularly).

[Smoove_B]

I'm no expert, but your new monitor should probably match your video card's ability. If there is a disconnect between your video card and the monitor's native resolution (the monitor is too much for your card to handle), I don't think it's a good mix.

Someone smarter can probably advise better.

[YellowKing]

I'm currently running an Nvidia GeForce RTX 4070, so should be good from that standpoint.

[Octavious]

This is what I got a few months ago. It works really well and I don't really understand the price. Maybe it will give me cancer? I see no ghosting, no smearing. Colors are good and the HDR actually can get so bright that it hurts. . This only thing I regret is that there are a ton of oleds monitors coming out this year, but still crazy expensive. Nothing beats OLED for me.

279.99 1440P (Which I prefer over 4k).

AOC Q27G3XMN
https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/aoc-q27g3xmn
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/aoc/q27g3xmn

[Blackhawk]

This isn't a recommendation for a specific monitor. The last monitor I bought was four years ago, so I don't know what the sweet spot for cost/performance is today. This is, however, a quick overview of the major factors that come into play. What can tell you is that an under-$500 budget is more than enough unless you're going for ultrawide-curved-4k-etc. It's enough for two of the monitors I'm using when they were new.

Anyway, I did some research a couple of years ago. My focus was mostly directed at gaming performance rather than general use, so my priorities may not be the same. Rather than type it all up again, I'm going to quote my posts from the last thread, with apologies to those who get tagged for the quotes. If you want to see the thread from when I did the research, giving context for how the monitor interacts with other hardware, look here.

So back in the day, for the most part a monitor was a monitor, but time has passed me by. Now you have all sorts of resolutions, different frequencies, HDR, various types of “syncs”, etc. I’d like to get a new monitor to take advantage of my new RTX 4080 graphics card. I’ve read that 1440p is good because you can get high refresh rates that you can’t get with 4K monitors. I’m looking for either a 27 or 32 inch, not sure whether it should be flat or curved (not sure what the latter brings to the table). Any recommendations from the hive kind? Thanks.

You didn't specify, so I'm assuming that gaming is the goal.

1080 is good, but with larger monitors you can see the pixels. 4k works better on TVs than monitors, although there is some benefit above 27". 1440 is a good sweet spot. I do recommend that you get at least a 144Hz refresh rate, but look here before you decide exactly how high you need.

'Sync' is complicated. What it essentially does is synchronizes the monitor's refresh rate with the GPU's FPS output. It reduces ghosting (afterimage), tearing, and just generally makes things smoother.

Short version, grossly oversimplified: Imagine you have a 10Hz monitor. It shows 10 pictures per second. Imagine you have a video card that puts out 10 FPS. They line up perfectly. Imagine your GPU is putting out 5 FPS. Now you're getting the same frame twice in a row (it stutters), but it still lines up (every two monitor refreshes (10/sec) gets a new frame (5/sec.) Now imagine that you're getting 7 FPS. It doesn't match up. What happens is that the GPU draws one frame, then the monitor shows it, then the monitor shows part of it again, then the GPU draws another frame, and the monitor... shows you half of the first frame and half of the second. That's called frame tearing, and it looks like this:



The classic Vsync setting addresses this by forcing the GPU's output to match the monitor's output (or numbers that divide into it, so no half frames are created.) In our example of 7FPS on a 10Hz monitor, it would lower your FPS to 5 (in real-world gameplay this isn't nearly as severe a reduction.) What Gsync does is the opposite - it adjust your monitor refresh on the fly to a multiple of the framerate. In our 7/10 example, it would lower the monitor's refresh rate to 7 to match the GPU output. If you had 7FPS on a 20Hz monitor, it would lower the refresh to 14Hz.

Ghosting is when one image isn't properly removed from the display before the next one is drawn. It looks like this:



Gsync helps reduce this, although it can only do so much to compensate for a low-quality monitor.

For Gsync: You've got an Nvidia card. You want either a GSync monitor, or you want a GSync compatible (but there is caveat - see below.) Gsync conmpatible is actually a FreeSync monitor (AMD's equivalent) that works correctly with Gsync. That gets a little complicated, though: Nvidia only certifies a few monitors, while most gaming monitors that are actually compatible are not certified, and therefore are not listed as such. That means a bit of research is in order. Pick a few monitors that suit you, then search for them and 'gsync compatible' and do some reading. Someone will have tested the monitor you're looking at.

Here's the caveat: Some Gsync and Gsync compatible monitors - especially those that use the older tech - cannot handle both Gsync and HDR simultaneously. Some can. If that matters to you, it's something you should check into.

Next up: Response time. Response time is how long it takes a pixel to change color. It's something that doesn't matter much for office use (you don't notice how long it takes for the pixels to change from white to black when you type the letter 'M.' For gaming, though, it adds to input lag. What you want depends on what kind of games you play. If all you play are turn based games, you'll be OK with anything under 4-5ms. If you play anything at all that involves timing, reflexes, or quick responses, you want to look for 1-2ms.

As for curved vs flat... that's more subjective.

Flat:
~Take up more horizontal space
~Tend to give have better response times (see above), which is important for games like shooters
~Smaller monitors aren't wide enough to really benefit from the curve. 27" is usually considered to be right at the point that it could go either way.

Curved
~Take up more front-to-back space
~Can give you a better sense of being 'in the game' as they give you more peripheral vision
~This one might be a deciding factor: If you're using it for PC gaming at a desk, a 32 inch is going to be really, really big. The problem with gaming on huge monitors up close is that the interface (or other visuals) on the edges and the corners can be hard to see. Your health and your status effects might be close to three feet away from each other, far enough that you may need to move your whole head instead of just using your peripheral vision. A curved monitor brings them a little closer, as measured by the distance your eye needs to move.

One factor you didn't bring up: normal aspect ratios (2560x1440) vs ultrawide (3440 x 1440.) Ultrawides do have some advantages - they give you better immersion, and they give you more screen real estate. They do come with some trade-offs, though. They take up more space. They come with a performance impact, although much less than a 4k (1440p = 3.6m pixels to render, 1440 Ultrawide = 4.9m, 4k = 8.3m). They also have compatibility issues with some games (most modern games support ultrawide, but many older games - including most 'vintage' games from before the switch away from CRTs - do not. If you do go ultrawide, the PC Gaming Wiki has compatibility info, including workarounds and solutions for incompatible games, for almost every title in the last gazillion years.

And...

So back in the day, for the most part a monitor was a monitor, but time has passed me by. Now you have all sorts of resolutions, different frequencies, HDR, various types of “syncs”, etc. I’d like to get a new monitor to take advantage of my new RTX 4080 graphics card. I’ve read that 1440p is good because you can get high refresh rates that you can’t get with 4K monitors. I’m looking for either a 27 or 32 inch, not sure whether it should be flat or curved (not sure what the latter brings to the table). Any recommendations from the hive kind? Thanks.

My contribution:
I'll pay you $100 if you can tell the difference between gaming at 144Hz vs 120Hz in a blind test. I'll pay you $20 if you can tell the difference between 100Hz and 144Hz.

I'll take that bet if you're comparing 60Hz vs 144Hz. Your point is valid - but question is really high refresh rate vs low. And most high quality monitors fit into one of a few industry standards - 60Hz, 144Hz, 240Hz. There are certainly exceptions (like 120Hz), and 360Hz apparently exist.

Do you expect to be playing games hitting 144 FPS (or higher?)

G-Sync/FreeSync make this question irrelevant. You can absolutely see the difference between 60FPS at 60Hz and 60FPS at 144Hz, distinctly so. Unlike the CRT days where refresh rate was more about avoiding flicker, refresh rate now is about how fluid and smooth the image appears, and about how much input lag there is.*

This is just meant as an example, and it is slowed down considerably, but this is why the refresh rate of the monitor matters. This is why a high refresh rate feels smoother. And again, modern tech makes framerate matching the refresh far less important. You still get most of the 'smoothness', even with a reduced refresh rate (up to a certain point - nothing is going to make 17FPS not choppy.) It won't add frames of animation, but when you move the camera or look around, it's still smoother.






*There are diminishing returns. The difference in input lag past 144Hz is minor enough that only the fastest players playing the fastest, most competitive games need to worry about it, and even then it's not enough to make a difference on its own - they choose and configure every component based on input lag, and it's the cumulative effect that matters. For the curious, most pro gamers try to keep it under 30ms, and try to push for 15ms. 60Hz to 144Hz saves ~10ms, while 144Hz to 240Hz only saves about 3. Again, past 144Hz the difference doesn't matter to anyone who isn't playing competitively. For the average gamer, it's the smoothness of the image that matters.

[YellowKing]

Thanks for the recommendations all. I won't go into all the gory details of how I kept bouncing around brands, but I wound up with a Cooler Master 34". I've read about some quality control issues with their earlier models, but I think those are largely ironed out with the latest iteration. I haven't had any issues with this one and it looks amazing. Plus the LED lights on the base match my computer case lighting. Yeah I'm a sucker for gimmicky lighting.

I'm also using the built-in speakers so I was able to get those off my desk. Here's a shot of it before I neatened up the cabling:



Only negative I have is that there's no real height adjustment, a fact I overlooked before I bought it. However, it does have a tilt so tilting it down a bit has put it in a sweet spot. I'd have loved for it to sit about 1 inch lower but not the end of the world. So far it's been fantastic with every game I've thrown at it.

[Blackhawk]

Very few monitors have height adjustments built in. If you really want control, get yourself a basic monitor arm mount. They're cheap (under $50 for one that supports a 34"), fully adjustable, easy to use, universal, and completely remove any desk space usage from the monitor. Of course, you'd lose the RGB stand, but with the space you're saving, you could get yourself some light strips for that.

I held off for years, but every monitor I have is on an arm now, and it was one of the best upgrades I've made.

[YellowKing]

Just a note, I found out today my monitor *does* have a height adjustment. I found this out when I raised my standing desk, my webcam cable got caught on the monitor, and the desk dragged my monitor down the stand.

[Daehawk]

Look at this thing..52" curved 240htz.

[Grifman]

OMIGOSH, I got a new 34 inch monitor (a Dell S3422DWG) and Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077 are entirely new games. I can't believe the detail and lighting differences that I can see now that I could not see on my old Samsung 8 year old 27 inch monitor. The differences are amazing, I never imagined a monitor would really make that much of a difference, but it does.

One thing I really do like about this monitor is that it has both a very easy to use height and tilt adjustments. Very easy and convenient.

[Blackhawk]

OMIGOSH, I got a new 34 inch monitor (a Dell S3422DWG) and Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077 are entirely new games. I can't believe the detail and lighting differences that I can see now that I could not see on my old Samsung 8 year old 27 inch monitor. The differences are amazing, I never imagined a monitor would really make that much of a difference, but it does.

One thing I really do like about this monitor is that it has both a very easy to use height and tilt adjustments. Very easy and convenient.

I have always wondered something about big monitors. I have a 25". How in the world can you see the entire screen in order to play games on a 34" (or comparable) monitor? I'd think that half of the vital info (health, map, etc) would be off in distant corners and out of your immediate field of view. Normally one focuses on the center, tracks the outlying HUD elements with their peripheral vision, and flicks their eyes over them periodically when they need to actually check the info (much like one would a rear-view mirror in a car.) I'm adding another 9" to my monitor (visualizing it), and it seems like you'd have to turn your entire head back and forth to see anything.

[Grifman]

OMIGOSH, I got a new 34 inch monitor (a Dell S3422DWG) and Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077 are entirely new games. I can't believe the detail and lighting differences that I can see now that I could not see on my old Samsung 8 year old 27 inch monitor. The differences are amazing, I never imagined a monitor would really make that much of a difference, but it does.

One thing I really do like about this monitor is that it has both a very easy to use height and tilt adjustments. Very easy and convenient.

I have always wondered something about big monitors. I have a 25". How in the world can you see the entire screen in order to play games on a 34" (or comparable) monitor? I'd think that half of the vital info (health, map, etc) would be off in distant corners and out of your immediate field of view. Normally one focuses on the center, tracks the outlying HUD elements with their peripheral vision, and flicks their eyes over them periodically when they need to actually check the info (much like one would a rear-view mirror in a car.) I'm adding another 9" to my monitor (visualizing it), and it seems like you'd have to turn your entire head back and forth to see anything.

Nope, not at all. I played around with Starfield for about an hour and didn't even notice it, really. A 32/24 inch monitor is still in your normal range of peripheral vision (but it is about the max), and with my eyes about 2 feet from the monitor (I measured it) at most I just have to turn my head ever so slightly, if at all to see the HUD elements. It's really not a problem. I've read that this size is about the max before you have to really get into head turning, and that seems true for me. I could never go back now, the world just seems so much more expansive with the wide screen. I would highly recommend a screen this size to anyone without hesitation.

[Blackhawk]

I keep my monitor at arm's reach - literally. If I sit in the 'proper' position and stretch my hands out in fists, my knuckles just touch the edges of the monitor. That's a little closer than the ideal, but it's the focal length of my glasses - another few inches away and it gets blurry.

[Daehawk]

I keep my monitor at arm's reach - literally. If I sit in the 'proper' position and stretch my hands out in fists, my knuckles just touch the edges of the monitor. That's a little closer than the ideal, but it's the focal length of my glasses - another few inches away and it gets blurry.

If I did that in my game playing position my fists would be 3" from the screen.

[gbasden]

I have always wondered something about big monitors. I have a 25". How in the world can you see the entire screen in order to play games on a 34" (or comparable) monitor? I'd think that half of the vital info (health, map, etc) would be off in distant corners and out of your immediate field of view. Normally one focuses on the center, tracks the outlying HUD elements with their peripheral vision, and flicks their eyes over them periodically when they need to actually check the info (much like one would a rear-view mirror in a car.) I'm adding another 9" to my monitor (visualizing it), and it seems like you'd have to turn your entire head back and forth to see anything.

I am currently using a 46" monitor as my main screen on my gaming machine with another 28" adjacent. There are some games with HUDs that are at the far corners that take it out of my peripheral view, but the immersion of most of my field of view being monitor is amazing. The driver for getting it was work needs, but it is pretty amazing to me for gaming.