Monitors

Why do I feel like I'm being scammed if I want a decent monitor?
Anything that isn't 1080p 60Hz is way more expensive, especially higher resolutions.

I just want a 24-28" that is over 100Hz or over 1080p (ideally both) for a reasonable price.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.ebay.com/itm/QNIX-QX2710-LED-Evolution-II-Multi-TRUE10-27-034-2560x1440-QHD-DVI-HDMI-Monitor-/121362611435
youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014593
displayspecifications.com/en/model/d53f332
bestbuy.com/site/dell-27-led-gsync-monitor-black/5293502.p?skuId=5293502&productCategoryId=pcmcat200900050015
twitter.com/AnonBabble

why do you need a resolution over 1080p?

To have more windows open at once.

Dont fall for the 4k meme ya fuckwit.
and how scaling works... you wont have more windows open with a higher resolution...

It'll just be sharp.

because the future is above 1080p

You can go over FHD for reasonable prices so long as you can deal with 60Hz. Likewise you can get gaymen monitors with variable refresh for cheap so long as you're at FHD. Both together is expensive because you need a powerful computer to drive games at higher resolutions, and most people can't afford them.

>It'll just be sharp.

Yes. That's the point. It's pathetic that tiny screened phones have 300+ PPI while laptops and desktops haven't improved in 15 years.

I got a 24" 4K display instead of a 27-30" because I wanted the higher pixel density (185 PPI). Not everyone on Sup Forums is here for vidya. I wish you could get high pixel density 16:10 monitors. But they're all stuck around 90 PPI.

Most people are retarded and don't know much other than size. e.g. even IPS is rare to be known by consumers. I personally don't need too much, I find 144hz an overkill, I mainly need 1080p on higher than 75Hz and IPS but even that is almost hard to find sometimes.

I'd get a 27-28" display, so yeah I'd have more windows open (currently on a 24").
4k or 2560x1440, both would work for me and actually there isn't much price difference between these two. 1080p is way cheaper than both, but 1080p on a 27" screen is a joke.

>You can go over FHD for reasonable prices so long as you can deal with 60Hz.
Examples?

>Likewise you can get gaymen monitors with variable refresh for cheap so long as you're at FHD.
I can find cheap ones at 75Hz, but 120/144Hz are expensive.
75Hz are just overclocked 60Hz panels, so putting a price premium on those is a scam.

In the present though I watch stuff that 99% of the time I only source them at up to 1080p and I would distort them with upscaling so for the time being it would not only be a waste of money, it would be worse period for what I need it for.

Also I like seeing things on IPS and FPS that is always at least synced to 75Hz so I would need a fortune to even try, but I don't want to try anyway because of the initial reason.

I feel you bro, started looking for a new monitor too. I thought you can get a 144Hz 1440p IPS monitor for a cheap price.

Holy fuck how wrong I was.

Now I'm looking just for a cheap 144Hz only because 1440p alone is a meme. The IPS shit add like a million dollars to the price so TN will do.

Overlock your monitor. Most of the time you can go 76Hz easily (without artifacts). 76Hz looks amazing compared to 60Hz and for movie playback especially with something like SVP it's beautiful.

Since most original source of movies are only found on 1080p it's a low cost solution and you would make it even worst otherwise because of upscaling's distortion.

But, I would suggest IPS for watching movies. It's just 100 times better at coloring than regular and better than that Samsung cheap alternative tech.

>Overlock your monitor.

I do that already. But if I'm buying a new 60Hz screen I'd first like to know if it's overclockable or not. Is there a database somewhere? If not there really should be (although I know that results aren't guaranteed with different samples).

>implying the sweet spot isn't 1440p 120hz

lmaoing at ur life

Yeah, but that cost 400+ unless you're buying a tn display, and that's just a waste of money.

It costs 400+ even with a TN display.

1440p IPS monitors can be found for a similar price as "premium" 1080p
I've bought a 1440p IPS with speakers and USB 2.0 for around 250 euros, shame that DP doesn't carry USB though
For the same price you can get some meme 1080p that will be without bezels or a 1080@120 or 144 TN

>scammed
You don't know what that means, apparently. If you want a good modern monitor(or any piece of technology), it's going to cost you. It will always be like this. Yet another stupid thread where user's expectations don't match with the reality of product pricing. Lower your standards, get a job and come up with money to buy what you want.

Waiting for April till samsungs quantum dot monitors are out, 4k UH750, I don't care about the price I just love tech, time for GTX 1080 SLI too

m.ebay.com/itm/QNIX-QX2710-LED-Evolution-II-Multi-TRUE10-27-034-2560x1440-QHD-DVI-HDMI-Monitor-/121362611435

Yeah it's a Korean monitor, I don't care. I have one and while it's not 144hz it is 1440p. No ragrats.

>chinkshit QHD
well I guess it will be cheap then
>no, it's not

Should I wait for the Freesync 2 screens?

Low 200 isn't cheap for 1440p, 27 inch monitor? Okay bud.

Both IPS and TN are absolute garbage when it comes to black levels. And they look the same as long as you aren't off-axis. If you want a higher perceived imaged quality your only choice is to go VA or OLED. And since the 2nd option doesn't exist you basically need to go VA.

I'd say to just wait, it's not a good time to buy a monitor right now. UHD will become mainstream soon and then you'll have a huge array of options in different price categories.

but UHD is meme

The fuck do you need 144Hz for? It won't make you better at your manchild gaymes and will not be noticeable in any other activity.
Your life is a meme.

>60hz

>2560x1440
>$300-$400 new
>2560x1600
>$1300+ new
who came up with this shit

the jews
there's no reason for 16:10 to be so expensive, nor there is any reason to make 16:9 at all, fucking meme ratio

But it feels nice and is better than 60Hz.

Should I get 1440p then? that's a true meme

You mean why is a panel that they make 20 times as much cheaper than a panel with no widespread market?

Obviously you havent owned one as the difference is huge.
1440p is a big difference too. With my monitors together the 1080 60hz look awful in comparison

Ebay there is a $420 pixio 277 with an ugly fuck stand and an acer 1440 144 ips
you just suck at looking

i mean why the hell do an extra 160 vertical pixels costs 4x the first 1440 vertical pixels
the kikes that forced the 16:9 standard needs to get gassed

Is the XF270HU worth $50 more than the XG270HU? It's IPS, but the response time is slightly slower.

yeah, as response time listed is just gray to gray rather than actual input lag
only difference would be MAYBE slightly more ghosting that you won't even notice at that low of levels

>forced it
monitor manufacturers saw that they sold more of that standard, made more of that standard, its a feedback loop that started with consumers

1440p is the least memeish recent meme
>no scaling
>perfect for the perfect 24in size
>actually gives more space to work with, not like 4k downscaled to 1080p for triple the price

>market it as THE resolution to use
>normies start buying what's marketed at them
>tax the patricians

>perfect for the perfect 24in size
I thought it was supposedly better for 27in?

It looks great in 27"

Does it do audio over HDMI?
Also what's the highest refresh rate it works at (ideally also over HDMI)?

It would look fine on 27in, but 24in is the perfect size for a monitor

Steer clear of the qnix jap shit. Theres a reason theyre on ebay and so cheap. Theyre wank

>poor immigrant want's quality for dirt cheap

sorry sport

>Also what's the highest refresh rate it works at (ideally also over HDMI)?
I've heard of people making it to 120Hz on the DVI only version, but you're not likely to get it to go that high. The multi input version supposedly doesn't get anywhere near as high, something like 75Hz I think.

Yeah I just watched a review
youtube.com/watch?v=ZtR8UFU-b9k
>"fake" buttons, can't even adjust anything
>disgusting glossy bezel
>dead pixels

I think I'll pass. After taxes/duties it wouldn't be such a deal anyway.

What do you guys think about LG 24GM77-B?

Looks like a reasonably priced 144Hz monitor to me.

>i mean why the hell do an extra 160 vertical pixels costs 4x the first 1440 vertical pixels
Because people don't buy them.

They would if they would cost 10% more not 300% more

No speakers, no freesync, it's as basic as it gets. Spend 20 more and get that Iiyama which has all that.

And maybe they would cost only 10% more if the sales were just slightly lower than 16:9 panels. But no, fuck-all are buying those panels.

This one does have pivot though.

I dont know much about monitors, can you give me it's name?

GB2488HSU-B2
It's actually even cheaper than the LG, depending on where you live.
I don't own it, though, so I can't personally vouch for it, but some say it's good.

Alright thanks man, It's actually a bit more expensive than that LG one but I still have some time to think about it.

Because they cost fucking expensive, it's the more productive ratio, it's nicer to look at, it's more pixels, if they would market 16:10 as they crammed 16:9 down everyones throats, they would sell better

The panels are cut from the same sheets of glass. It shouldn't be as much of a difference as it is.

You're retarded.

I don't think you know how LCD panels are produced.

I don't think you understand how production of anything works.

Crossover 27 Fast. There you have it, 450 liberty dollars on eBay.

Brilliant argument. Fantastic.

So I have two monitors currently, one Dell and one Acer, and I kinda want to get a third, but I want an ips monitor, the others are TN.

Should it look like an abomination with three different brand 24 inch monitors so I can have an ips display, or should I just go with another one of those Acer or Dell monitors.

>qnix jap shit
Qnix is Korean, as is nearly all display manufacturers (like LG and Samsung, you may have heard of them), dumbass.

>buying shit because you have shit
You will never leave this circle, it's like upgrading a system that has DDR2 RAM instead of buying a new mobo cpu and ram
Buy a monitor you really want, if they will look terrible together, sell the other two

Doesn't mean they will have QC like LG and Samsung would, just because they're made in the same country
Just because Maison Celadon might be good, it doesn't make 20$ Rolex from china good too

>if I shout loud enough I'll win the argument

You couldn't win an argument even if I gave you a megaphone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

It's really not

Well yeah, he was wrong, it's actually 1440@144 for all those repeating 4's, but he wasn't that wrong

More screen real estate is always better.
Especially when you do any editing or programming work.

It's not as simple as supply and demand. The cost the produce an alternate size or aspect ratio screen isn't that great. It's more like the difference in trim level or options on a car. Pricing on these monitors is vastly out of sync with the production cost. So much so that they're severely limiting the number that are sold. It looks like price gauging, and they'd likely be better off taking a lower margin and expanding the market for alternate aspect ratios. Especially when the 2:3 ratio Microsoft has been using on their Surface line has been very well received.

>It's not as simple as supply and demand. The cost the produce an alternate size or aspect ratio screen isn't that great.
I don't think you understand the concept of supply and demand.

Try an actual rebuttal, user. Don't just link a wiki.

The real problem is that you're running on efficient market theory, and I'm nearly positive hat the market has been warped by manufacturers assuming that everyone wants 16:9. Then turning 16:10 into a premium low-volume option.

There is an untapped market for this. But we'd need something like Lenovo to go back to 16:10 ThinkPads for any screen manufacturers to realize this potential. They could probably generate more sales from people that don't need to upgrade their 16:9 displays with simple marketing. The market is ripe for disruption.

>Examples?

>24"
>1440p
>5ms response
>$229

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014593

Have this exact monitor, I'm happy with it, but I can't compare it to others as for the past 10+ years I've had only one monitor that was LCD 1680x1050

Is the BenQ BL3200PT 32-Inch VA Panel 2560x1440 the best monitor I can get for under $400? Will be using for school mainly so I don't have to stare and my tiny surface pro 4 screen all the time.

Find a monitor described
>27"
>VA
>2560*1440
>+120 hz gaymen

Protip: you cannot

You mean I can't find a monitor for which there isn't a market for? Shocking.

I bet you can't find a 17" IPS 1280x1024 144 Hz monitor.

you're being retarded.

there's certainly market existing, yet that configuration isn't beign sold.

I let you try again.

Why VA?

Does anyone have the Acer XB271HU? Is the quality control still bad or have they resolved that now that's been almost a year? Same with ASUS equivalent GSync/IPS/1440p monitor

>overclockable Qnix
Enjoy your chink shit though.

Whats objectively the best 1080 60hz monitor? I'm tired of these dinosaur sized 16:10 meme monitors i've been using for the past ~6 years

I found a $200 AOC monitor that's 1080p, 144hz, freesync. Is it a scam? It's on amazon but it seems too good to be true.

I'm trying to overclocking my 60 he monitors, and my Dell monitor won't let me go above 70 hertz because it "isn't supported"

Can I only go to 70 or is there a way around it? My Acer monitor allows me to go to 75 hertz at least.
I'm this user

I need a all-rounder monitor (graphic design, console gaming, browsing), is the Dell U2717D 27", 1440p, IPS, 60 Hz a decent option?
The biggest problems it has are 24ms input lag and 8ms response time, would this be enough for casual console gaming?
Or is there a better non gaming monitor that is 27", 1440p, IPS, 60 Hz monitor?

displayspecifications.com/en/model/d53f332

Is the U2715H worth the 150AUD over the U2515H?
Concerning the U2515H, I'm just worried that 1440p at 25" will look too small.

>2" for 150AUD
If you are willing to pay that extra, 1440p at 27" is perfect.

>go to ye olde computer shoppe
>find monitors
>babby sized 15 incher
>full hd 1920x1080
>100 bucks
>xbox sized tv screen tier 30 inch
>full hd 1920x1080
>over a grand
>not 1 4k monitor
guess ill stick with 1440x900 for a while

>there's certainly market existing
Prove it.

bump

I disagree having had both. I'd say it depends more on how far you sit away from your monitor, but it's not like you're gaines ng any crazy dpi going from 27" to 24" at 1440p

Not using superior CRT monitors. You faggots know nothing about quality.

>nonstandard mount
>DVI and no DP
>shit ass speakers
>no higher framerates
>no freesync or gsync

It's absolute trash.

Unless you're doing video editing or production work, it doesn't really matter.

Tell me why I shouldnt get this
bestbuy.com/site/dell-27-led-gsync-monitor-black/5293502.p?skuId=5293502&productCategoryId=pcmcat200900050015

Beautiful Blade

If you're going to spend just 200$, the G2460PF or XF240H are what you want. One of them usually goes for 200$. Probably not the best, but better than all the outdated shit you can buy

I know this is gay, but years of using my tv as a monitor have turned me into a size queen. Are there any tv's with an OK amount of input lag and and 144hz? of course only 1080p need apply

I overclocked my monitor for years from 60hz to 75hz but after about 5 years I was able to overclock it less and less until now where it wont go above 60hz anymore. Feels bad man, but it is almost ten years old by now.