Monitor thread

I'm thinking about getting pic related.

but since i'm not an ant, i'm wonderif if 25" would be too small for 1440p ?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.it/dp/B01DMDKZTC/ref=twister_B01IBH5X78
dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-infinityedge-monitor-u2717d/apd/210-ahgv/parts-upgrades
pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=256001440&H=120,240&p=1
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Why would it be too small? I'm getting a 14" laptop with 1440p.

Won't be small. People will recommend a bigger size to enjoy the resolution, but you'll still notice how good it looks.

Hijacking this thread.

Currently have a 1440p 27" IPS screen, it's pretty gud. But I wanted to buy a 120+Hz screen, but it seems 99% are TN panels and the only IPS I could find was the Asus Gaymen trash that has awful ratings everywhere.

Really don't want to go back to TN

But you're using scaling.

1440p is too high a res for 25'' imo

27" 1440p feels just right in my opinion
but what's the best size for 4k?

TN generally has better response times/input lag. I don't see why you wouldn't want that, if you're going 120+Hz. You could try and search for an IPS one with comparable input, but I doubt it would be anything but extremely expensive.

The IPS picture quality just looks SOOOO much better than my old TN panel and it's not like I play anything competitively

Eh, I disagree. It's better, but not better enough for it to warrant compromising on the thing that 120+Hz monitors actually do better. Not like you can't have 2 monitors either.

I have the 2515h. It's too small for 1440p in my opinion. Used to do 125% but now do 150% scaling. I wish w10 had 133% .

I'm so damn tired of every monitor being a compromise. Does a monitor with:
>1440p
>120Hz
>10bit
>IPS
>not glacial response times

exist?

its the perfect size.

1440 on 25" with 100% scaling is perfect

Just bought a pair of P2415Q and I can't recommend them more. OS X scaling looks beautiful and it really helps with reading and programming (or anything with text, really). It doesn't look so hot on Windows 8.1 and my GTX 670 kinda struggles to output dual 4K sometimes. Gotta update that card soon. Highly recommend the monitors since they're only $350 a piece and arguably the most important aspect of a computer.

This, no scaling needed for 1440p 25" assuming you sit at a normal distance.

At which size is 4k relevant for a monitor? 32"?

35-43" really is my preferred range.

I use 24inch 4k monitors only for programming, fonts look real crisp even on loonix.

I use this monitor and it's pretty perfect. Can split the screen 50/50 to multitask and it does work quite well for gaming. Although, I know a friend who has it and he has to use scaling to be able to see text properly

My 5" smartphone is 1440p

have it its great
27 is too big anyway in my opinion.
You have to sit more back to see whole screen

Why do you need 120 hz then?

which is absolutely normal since it's often only inches from your face, unlike a computer monitor

Without scaling?

Yes, 40" 4k is equivalent to 4x1080p at 20" in a 2x2 grid without bezels.

I'm just about to get the bigger full HD version (S2715H)

So 40" is the minimum for me. I don't want scaling.

lol 27" 1080p looks like garbage if you've ever used a decent 1440p screen, the pixel density is just disgusting.

You can go without scaling on smaller, but you'll need to sit pretty fucking close.

Whereas 40"+ is fine without scaling at a normal seated distance.

The dell 43" is probably the easiest available monitor in that resolution/size range.

Consider that I'm coming from a 15" 1366x768 laptop screen

it's the same dpi actually, looks like 2004

Consider you're used to being much closer to the screen with a laptop.


768p at 15" is 104 PPI

1080p at 27" is 81 PPI

The 27" pixel density will be TRASH compared to what you're used to.

>Inches away
I think you're doing it wrong user

whats the go to monitor for 27'' 1440p?

i want to get one, but idk whats the best one with those specs..

My build plans on getting a gtx 1080 gpu, should I stick with what i originally planned and want. That being two 1080p 144hz monitors, or should I go with one 1440p monitor with above 60hz, friend suggested it. 1440p monitors seem more expensive just for one than the two I'll be getting in total amount.

So, what would you suggest? Getting the 24" version?

>cathode ray tube
130ppi bitches
bite me

why do you come in here and automatically assume he wants a monitor or gayming.

Maybe he would rather better colour reproduction, better viewing angles then much input lag/response times because I'm a leet no scope gaayming god

Because he specifically wants a 120+Hz screen. What's the point of higher refresh rates if you don't necessarily want the image to be displayed on the screen quicker? Just to have a more smooth mouse cursor?

yes, 24" 1080p is fine.

27" really is 1440p territory.

Got it, thanks

How would you game on two monitors? It always baffled me -- at least on three monitors you focus on the center one and have the other two for peripheral vision. Where would be your focus on two monitors? Unless I'm an idiot and am misunderstanding the question, which is very possible indeed.

One monitor is set as the main so games launch onto that one while the other is meant for having multi tasking, programs browsers etc on the side. sorry i I forgot to clarify why i wanted a 2nd one.

so you only need one 144hz monitor actually, since the other one isn't important

Just that the bases would be mismatched, I'll look at maybe a arm mount so it looks nice, but yeah. Save me money having one 60 or slightly above 60hz monitor and then the 144hz.

1440p at 25" is 117.49 PPI
1080p at 15.6" is 141.21 PPI

This laptop display is just fine, and it's got more pixels per inch than a 25" 1440p.

>scaling
You're always using scaling regardless of resolution. It's not like anyone's used bitmap fonts in a decade.

I don't know why "gamers" buy those TN panels. I really don't get why anyone in their right mind would by a garbage TN panel now that IPS panels have become cheap and widely available. The colors just look so much better on IPS. Perhaps if you're a "professional gamer" and you have a dedicated computer just for that? But if you do anything other than FPS games on a computer then TN isn't even worth consideration.

>This laptop display is just fine, and it's got more pixels per inch than a 25" 1440p.
you sit much closer with a laptop than you do with a desktop monitor though.

>I don't know why "gamers" buy those TN panels. I really don't get why anyone in their right mind would by a garbage TN panel now that IPS panels have become cheap and widely available.
See >TN generally has better response times/input lag. I don't see why you wouldn't want that, if you're going 120+Hz.
And >What's the point of higher refresh rates if you don't necessarily want the image to be displayed on the screen quicker? Just to have a more smooth mouse cursor?

smth different
my 2nd monitor just died, a quite old 17" one
I moslty use it to look up stuff, stream etc while I do the most stuff on my first monitor
any monitor that costs about 100 bucks and simply does it's thing without burning down after the warranty ran out?

Just get a 23-24" 4k. You can get freesync ones for ~$350.

for productivity 40in so you dont have to scale at all, like having 4 20in in an array.

thats what I do. 40in 4k for productivity and video, and a 144hz 24in set as main for games. wall mounted so I can move what im using directly in front of me.

I've got pic related, it's an absolutely cracking all-rounder. As well as general internet browsing and Microsoft Office I've found it great for gaming and CAD/Revit/scale drawings. Go for it user.

>1440p is too high a res for 25'' imo

It's honestly fine. I've never found the need to use scaling by default with it, occasionally I will zoom up on a web page if the text is small but I have to do that on the shitty 1600x900 21 inch monitors at my work now and then too.

Is NEC still in the high end game? Doesn't seem they're in the market anymore in terms of price competition. Still see some of their panels in enterprise

the color critial market is still split evenly in between eizo colorgraphics and nec spectraviews

Does their panel tech compete well with other industry players at this point in your opinion?

I have the U2515H, overall I like it a lot, everything looks really sharp/crisp which makes browsing and reading stuff pleasant. True 1440p content looks great. The smaller screen size may reduce the experience somewhat in gaming and/or watching movies, but since I've never owned a larger monitor I cannot compare. The only downside is the 60Hz refresh rate, but you can't expect more at this price range. This is probably one of the best monitors you can get in this range.

well I wouldn't buy neither eizo nor nec since hardware calibratable monitors with excellent panels from other brands (dell, benq) are getting cheaper and cheaper but when ever you visit a lab with something like a durst lambda printer you'll see an eizo or nec next to it

Interesting. Thanks. I don't want to keep asking for spoonfeeding but what's the best price:performance model in that industry?

well if you're serious about proper and exact proofing for printing something like a dell up2516d (the cheapest one that can write directly to internal lut using the x-rite i1) is a good starting point
it's what I use at home and even though it's not perfect (had to rma one because of a visible red/green gradient across the panel) it's pretty versatile, has incredibly huge gamut for the price and calibrates damn well

What's the problem with having one TN for gaming and one IPS for media
Cheapest way out

Thanks for the suggestion. Will look into. Hopefully won't have to go through RMAs

Are there any double monitor programs that allow you to have one taskbar across both?

windows 10

I don't see any options to do that in the taskbar section.

scroll down

25" 1440p feels the greatest 2k experience due to DPI fqm.

How is this?
amazon.it/dp/B01DMDKZTC/ref=twister_B01IBH5X78

I have the 27". I like it.

theres already in the market 120hz IPS monitors, wtf you talking about? IPS is the future, no one besides some autistic "muh competitive gaming" care about TN 240hz 1ms with crappy quality

Why do you neanderthals keep wanting more screen real estate ?

If you insist on stretching out something like 4K to 40 inches you're just making the pixels visible huge again.

I barely notice the pixels on a 27" 1440p monitor

40" 3840x2160 is 110 PPI
27" 2560x1440 is 108 PPI

So the 40" would be even sharper than 27" 1440p.

you should get your vision checked out...

He's a pc gamer with over 5ms response time

LMFAO

Unless you sit WAYYYY to close, you shouldn't particularly notice it either.

Both panels are "retina" (as in you can't see the pixels) at over 30" viewing distance, which is proper for panels of this size.

Don't bitch about being able to see pixels if you're seated 15" away from a 27" panel.

>theres already in the market 120hz IPS monitors
What the fuck is this sentence even man? Do you mean that 120Hz IPS monitors exist? Because my posts imply that I know that, I'm just saying that they're worse for the advantages that 120+Hz offer.

>I really don't get why anyone in their right mind would by a garbage TN panel now that IPS panels have become cheap and widely available.
what is IPS glow

I have an ips with 4ms of input lag. The myth that non TN panels have shitty input lags needs to cease.

Something most people needn't concern themselves with.

It's honestly only really noticeable in a dark room with a dark image.

If you have desk lamps and shit, or decent ambient lighting, you will hardly see any BLB unless you get a VERY bad example of it.


I've owned 5 IPS panels in the past decade and my most recent ones have been amazing for the past year.

>27inch
>IPS/VA/PLS
>Great panel
>great colors
>no edge/light bleed
>1440p
>120hz
>Low input lag

Does it exist?

And my TN monitor has less, how is it a myth?

pixio 277

>2ms of input lag vs 4ms

Indiscernible.ONce you hit less than 10ms it becomes a diminishing return

Same could be argued for refresh rates, and resolution. That's a shitty argument. Either you want good input lag, or you don't care.

I just got dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-infinityedge-monitor-u2717d/apd/210-ahgv/parts-upgrades

If you think you as a normal person can discern between 4ms and 2ms with ANY sort of reliability, you're retarded.

Can a professional FPS player notice a slight difference? Sure. Will the kid who's got 5000 hours in OSU notice? Maybe. Will the average person? Not a fucking chance in hell.

Something that IS easily noticeable by pretty much everyone however is viewing angles, and to a certain extent color quality and accuracy. As well as color and brightness uniformity.

I'll take a higher quality panel over a slightly faster input lag any fucking day.

>Can a professional FPS player notice a slight difference? Sure.
No he will not. it is impossible for a human being to tell the difference between 2ms and 4ms of input lag. Now 2 and 40ms, yes you can tell.

See You didn't change your argument at all.

I sit in front of my 144Hz monitor anyway, so I don't particularly care about viewing angles for that.

yes but they are not cheap

pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=256001440&H=120,240&p=1

This is what happens when people don't know the difference between pixel response time and processing input lag. Further misunderstanding comes from manufacturers pushing G2G transitions at highest overdrive settings as the supposed de-facto of total input lag.

That said, modern IPS panels are really not that bad in terms of response time. TN panels are noticably less blurry in motion though. However, most of the blur from both comes from sample-and-hold blurring rather than slow response times.

I thought input lag is a combination of response time of the actual pixels changing colours, and the lag of the signal going from the GPU to the monitor, and any processing the monitor might do.

>27"
>165hz
>1440p
>IPS
Other monitors, are you even trying?

I've got a question.
Is there a point in getting a 60hz Freesync monitor if I'm getting, say, 80 FPS regularly. Or does it only make sense if I'm getting below 60 FPS.

You are correct. Kind of.

First off, it's not quite "fair" to count the full pixel transition into the total input lag equation. The perception (or rather, the feeling) of lag stops once it's about halfway finished. But technically, sure, it's still lag since the pixel is lagging behind what it's supposed to be displaying. But all that aside, since we're talking about fairly fast transitions here, the relevance of pixel response time is more in that blurriness rather than the feeling of lag. This is why VA monitors can feel just almost as snappy as IPS monitors, but still look a lot blurrier due to more visible trailing.

Second, when people refer to "input lag", they often refer to processing alone, not pixel response. I agree that this is kind of dumb. "Input lag" should refer to a sum total of everything that goes into it. But it's good to keep this in mind so as to avoid confusion. If people want to refer to processing, they should say "processing input lag". It is what it is though.

Considering the quality issues, I'd say acer is the better option. Same screen anyway.

the stand on the acer is the most vomit-inducing gaymer shit imaginable though, so you'd need a 3rd party stand.

You're not gonna find a 1440p high refresh rate IPS without gaymare assthetics.

4K 120 - 144hz HDR 2

I have a budget of around 500~600 shekels to get a new monitor. What would you recommend that is
>1440p
>IPS
>bezel-less
>VESA mount compatible

Preferably something that has some kind of motion blur reduction and supports sRGB. I don't give a shit about freesync/g-sync.