Looking for a new monitor

[Lexx]

What the title says, but it is actually a lie, because I am looking for *two* new monitors. Now that seems easier said than done, as I just figured... Heard them Asus monitors are pretty good, but apparently none of them can be wall-mounted (at least the ones I've found on Amazon).

 

So yeah, that's why this thread exists.

 

What I want:

- 2 Monitors of the same type

- 24"

- Need to be able to attach them to the wall

- I want one monitor to be upright (shouldn't be a big deal if I can mount it on the wall)

- More than 60hz would be nice, but as far as I've read, you need super high fps for anything above or it won't do any good

- Ofc the colours need to be good. Occasionally I do graphics related work and then it would be bad if the colours are all shait.

 

Price tag around 200 to 250€ per monitor.

 

 

Anyone got any suggestions for me?

Edited March 11, 2016 by Lexx

[Ganrich]

I have an Asus VG248qe. It's 24 inch, 1080p at 144hz. It is a nice monitor. However, it is a TN panel, and thus it may not meet your color needs. It is mountable for sure. I have an Obutto Revolution (I play Elite dangerous and a few other sims), and have the monitor mounted to that. So, the monitor has VESA mounting for sure. I did zero modding aside from removing the base to gain access to the mounting holes.

 

I guess I would ask a few questions not covered in your OP. Is 1080p enough, or are you aiming for 2k or 4k? Do you want Freesync or Gsync? Are you looking at IPS monitors to get better colors? If yes (to IPS monitor), are you ok with the loss of response?

 

Edit: autospell.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Ganrich

[Lexx]

My current resolution of 1920x1080px is totally fine for me. Also I forgot to write that 24" is my target size (same as my current benq). Response should be as good as possible, regarding the colors: I don't necessarily need them to be exactly and 100% totally true to real colors, but I've read about some monitors having something like "too much blue", which is really not what I'd like to have (yes you can fiddle with the settings a bit on your own, but.. ehw).

 

About the rest of your questions... no idea. I am using a Nvidia graphic card, so I'll guess I would stick to G-Sync.

[Ganrich]

My current resolution of 1920x1080px is totally fine for me. Also I forgot to write that 24" is my target size (same as my current benq). Response should be as good as possible, regarding the colors: I don't necessarily need them to be exactly and 100% totally true to real colors, but I've read about some monitors having something like "too much blue", which is really not what I'd like to have (yes you can fiddle with the settings a bit on your own, but.. ehw).

 

About the rest of your questions... no idea. I am using a Nvidia graphic card, so I'll guess I would stick to G-Sync.

Well, the monitor I listed may be worth a look. Gsync is a hardware addon to monitors. That monitor doesn't have it (you can buy the Gsync module down the line and mod it in, but that is too much of a hassle for me), and from what I've seen Gsync will add $100+ to a monitor it is included in. So, you may want to forgo it. However, look at that Asus. I also am fine with 1080p at present, and only wanted a monitor with solid response time and 120-144hz. It has been a great monitor, and I have had it for nearly 2 years with zero complaints. I would look into its color capability because that wasn't much of a factor for me. That monitor hits every beat you are asking for except color. Color is a weak point for me as I don't care much since I am purely a gamer on my PC with the exception of music recording/mixing as a hobby.

 

Just an FYI, AMDs Freesync is a software standard that's been added to monitors via Display port and HDMI (I can't remember which versions). I am unsure about DVI. Anyway, both AMD and Intel support it, and it will likely be supported by Nvidia since Gsync adds to the price. Monitor companies are adding more Freesync than Gsync this year it seems. Time will tell which wins.

[Gorgon]

I don't remember shopping for a monitor ever being this hard. Don't care about 4k gaming since the gfx you would have to get is still too expensive. I would take the jump and upgrade just to have a 4k desktop, but which one.  My current GFX doesn't support 4k. My built in HD graphics would, but that would be terrible performance wise even in 2d.

[Ganrich]

I don't remember shopping for a monitor ever being this hard. Don't care about 4k gaming since the gfx you would have to get is still too expensive. I would take the jump and upgrade just to have a 4k desktop, but which one.  My current GFX doesn't support 4k. My built in HD graphics would, but that would be terrible performance wise even in 2d.

A couple things:

 

1) If AMD is to believed (I understand hesitation), then their Polaris cards should see more power in a lower price bracket. I think their aim is to have cards that compete with Nvidia's 970 to be around $200-250. While cards on the level of the 980 will be $400-500. They said their aim is for Polaris to make graphics capable of VR more affordable. This means cards capable of 4K will come down in price. This will force Nvidia's prices down, and that is a win/win for us consumers.

 

2) I was under the impression that 4K monitors could upconvert 1080p, or maybe it is the GPU settings. if you are in the 27ish inch range the difference between a 1080p monitor and a 4K where your game is running 1080p but upscaling to 4K would be negligible unless you are right on top of your monitor. The bigger the monitor the worse upscaling will look for sure, and native will always be better.

[Bokishi]

I think upscaling on big screens also depends on how far you're sitting from the screen. For instance 1080p XBone games scale great on my Samsung 80" 4K TV, granted I'm sitting at least 5-6 feet away

[Humanoid]

Google sent me to this handy resource that appears to show that there are exactly zero IPS 24" monitors with 120+Hz refresh rates, and exactly one with a VA panel, the Eizo FG2421, which doesn't appear to have a VESA mount and is above your budget anyway.

 

So assuming hard requirements of 2x 24", non-TN panel, VESA mount, then you'll have to settle for the standard 60Hz. There are a lot of those around, but one at 250EUR or under, I imagine that'd cut down the options quite a bit.

 

Going with the devil I know, both the Dell U2414H and the P2414H are within your budget. I'm guessing they have identical panels, but the U-series has thinner bezels and HDMI support, whereas the professional-oriented P-series has DVI input (both do Displayport). Keen pricing might have something to do with the new U2417H that was just released this month, but I don't see it on amazon.de yet.

 

(The U2415 is a 1920x1200 16:10 model if you can make use of the additional vertical space, but is a little above your budget. Likewise the U2515H is 2560x1440, for 300EUR.)

 

 

EDIT: Speculative left-field suggestion: just buy a single Philips BDM4065 4K 40" monitor and bask in its decadent glory.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Humanoid

[Lexx]

So far two people have suggested me the Asus VG248QE. It's 289€ on Amazon, but oh well, could as well increase the price range to 300€. The only thing a little bit worrying me about this one is: I've read from a few people that they had to fiddle a lot with the settings to get the colors somewhat right, because the default settings "are bad". The majority doesn't seem to care, though.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Lexx

[Humanoid]

Well no one buys a TN panel for its accuracy, so that's to be expected. Indeed in that market segment, I'd say a fair proportion of consumers actually don't want accuracy: they want brighter, cooler colours that "pop" regardless of what actually is correct colour reproduction.

 

That's not to say that you can't get reasonable accuracy on them, assuming a square viewing angle, but it's not something really doable by eye. A decent colorimeter would set you back another 100-200EUR. I use an X-rite i1Display Pro and love it, but then it's a thing where its value is proportional to the number of displays you have.

 

The other consideration is that because you will be running multiple screens, calibration isn't just about the colours being accurate to some ISO standard: the more important aspect at this point becomes that of display matching. One inaccurate display is one thing, but most people won't notice it being inaccurate because they have nothing to compare it against. Two inaccurate displays become much more noticeable because they'll invariably be inaccurate *in different ways*. Factory calibration at least helps with the matching aspect: Dell claimed my pair of U2711s were factory calibrated and they do look the same at default settings, but they were also both way too bright and somewhat too warm - I lived with the incorrect settings for a good while though, because they were matched and therefore I had no reason to assume they were that far off the standard. But without factory calibration, there can be no such assumption, two identical monitors of the same model with the exact same settings will likely look at least somewhat different to each other.

 

Finally, running multiple TN screens tends to be a bit more finicky than multiples of IPS or VA panels, because basic geometry means you won't have the same viewing angle to both of them. Therefore even if they were both calibrated correctly, the colours will appear somewhat different on each depending on how off-axis your viewing position is..

[mkreku]

I wonder why there still aren't any OLED monitors to buy? I know about that one Dell (30", 4k, a billion dollars), but I just want a 27" 1440p OLED.

 

If LG can make a reasonably priced 55" 4k TV, it should be possible to make 27" monitors with less resolution for a reasonable price too.

[Sarex]

I wonder why there still aren't any OLED monitors to buy? I know about that one Dell (30", 4k, a billion dollars), but I just want a 27" 1440p OLED.

 

If LG can make a reasonably priced 55" 4k TV, it should be possible to make 27" monitors with less resolution for a reasonable price too.

 

The issues are picture burn-in and the blue color wearing out quickly. If the model Dell is releasing shows that it solved those problems (and they don't sound too sure of it themselves), there will be other brands by next year and the price will drop drastically.

[Lexx]

Bought that VG248qe now. With default settings the screen really is way too bright. It's such a huge difference to my old monitor. The old windows default background for example was shining in a very, very bright blue. Had to fiddle a lot with the settings first, and reduce the general brightness to get it approximately to the visuals I had before. It's not exactly the same, but I think it works good enough for what I need. Still would have prefered it to work right out of the box. Well, guess one can't have everything...

The foot, though, is way too big. The monitor now stands like 15cm away from the wall, taking more space on my desk than the old one (was taking already too much space). So if I keep this one as main screen, then I will totally have to mount it on the wall. There is no way around it. Alternative would be to use the new one as secondary monitor, vertical.... Then it would fit on my desk a lot better. Still, I would need to mount the old monitor to the wall, because that's what I originally wanted to do anyway.... so might as well buy a second VG248qe instead and have it all fit together.


Life is hard.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Lexx

[ShadySands]

I think I might need a new monitor

 

It gets a weird texture on any movement on screen.

[LadyCrimson]

I've become seriously spoiled re: screen size and will give up super fast response time etc. for size. Both cheap TV's I bought were perfectly fine response time-wise/I notice nothing. I've always thought that aspect of monitors was a little over-rated.

 

At some point I keep expecting "official pc" monitors will rather disappear from the cheaper-side/consumer market and people will just stick their PC's to 4k TV's as the line between the two as distinct categories blur ever more. High quality images/game graphics (4k upscaled from 1080) still look very good on 40" tvs fairly close up, like only a few feet away.

 

But I still do need to get a 32"+ 1440 monitor at some point. Mostly because they fit better on a desk. They seem to have become overall cheaper too, cool.

Edited December 19, 2017 by LadyCrimson

[Bartimaeus]

TVs have really bad input delay: you're at a pretty distinct disadvantage if you try to play fast-paced multiplayer games with them vs. other people who are using normal monitors. So monitors aren't going to go away any time soon in gaming just for that unless TV manufacturer's priorities change (they most likely won't, given that TVs are, first and foremost, made with the best picture quality for watching TV/movies in mind). Additionally, I personally find extra large monitors and TVs to be a bit of an eye-sore, and the larger they are, the farther back you have to sit, and after a certain size, the traditional desk setup becomes incompatible with them (unless you have a really large desk, I guess). So that's gonna be a no from me. Maybe I'll change my tune in a few decades when my eyes don't work so well, though...but also maybe the issue will already be solved by then anyways.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Jozape]

There are some 40" UHD TVs still but many TVs are 55" minimum and newer TVs continue to be made larger each year, so I don't think the monitor category will go away anytime soon. Personally 40" would be the largest monitor I would consider though at the same time my preference. For TV by comparison I would like at least 80" if I were buying new; such technology is still very expensive though.

[LadyCrimson]

Yeah, I wasn't implying a 50" monitor would make a good workspace from close-up. If nothing else you'd get a sore neck swiveling to look side to side. Also, wear sunglasses. 27" is just too small tho, especially for higher resolutions. Text gets so tiny and you have to enlarge it...but I *am* already old. haha. But if you're the sort who largely plays games, watches TV/movies, occasionally surfs net/youtube etc, it's not that big a deal to occasionally sit closer and then move back to 4 or 5 feet.

 

I've noticed over the last few years that all the brick and mortar stores around here (walk-in stores) are basically moving towards having no monitors in-store. Yes they're for sale on online sites etc. but they're no longer a very visible presence inside stores, as laptops, tablets, smartphones, gaming consoles etc. take over vs. desktops. Which to me indicates "pc monitors" will slowly fade from the average public mind vs. just buying a smaller TV to toss on their rarely used desktop. I already know a lot of regular joes who do that.

 

Not saying pc monitors will disappear entire, rapidly. Only that they'll get a bit harder to find, will become online-only (edit: and those still available will likely get more expensive from lack of demand or only elitist quality being made), and then fade away as companies don't think there's enough single-consumer profit anymore. Only in the mass-orders of business sales perhaps.

Edited December 19, 2017 by LadyCrimson

[Gorgon]

Or maybe it's the same with all physical goods. Why have bulky things in store when you could have it at your warehouse, or even better at the manufacturers warehouse. Storing and moving things costs money. If they have it at the store it's because it's something that sells quick. Like an Xbox or TV or whatnot. 

 

It's unfortunate for all the things you kinda wanna see in the real world before you buy. Like a monitor.

 

I live in Denmark, and most everything I could care to buy is at a central warehouse in Germany. There is probably not as large a profit margin for PC peripherals, not f you compare with laptops and such, because the PC master race is more price aware ?

 

And there are all the cases where the value is largely only in the branding and not the specs, I'm looking at you Apple. Their regional pricing is truly atrocious. 

[Jozape]

Yeah, I wasn't implying a 50" monitor would make a good workspace from close-up. If nothing else you'd get a sore neck swiveling to look side to side. Also, wear sunglasses. 27" is just too small tho, especially for higher resolutions. Text gets so tiny and you have to enlarge it...but I *am* already old. haha.

That to me seems like improper configuration or bad software support for resolution scaling. I don't remember how it's done in Windows but in systems that use the X Window system you just set either the font to be larger or the dpi to be denser in .Xdefaults or .Xresources and restart X. In Windows you can get there just by doing some right click stuff I'm pretty sure.

[LadyCrimson]

Guys guys, of course there's multiple reasons for consumer demand and falloff and things not being displayed in brick and mortar stores. I wasn't saying those things don't also apply. But it's a fairly common thing for "out of sight out of mind" to apply to the masses and, as I stated, the average consumer who in the long run is what consumer level products are generally aimed at. Us geeky types who want our pc games (or certain other things) to be all they can be within our personal means of wealth are not the average consumer or home computing user, these days. People who are not major gamers (or certain types of workers) don't care and will care even less as time goes on. TV vs. pc monitors is not blue jeans and underwear.

 

Some of the newer TVs (the LG or Sony OLED's maybe?) already have a setting that reduces input-lag, some kind of gaming mode or something, that users are saying is quite acceptable and good for gaming. Don't have one myself but that's what I've read on some user/consumer forums.

 

 

 

Yeah, I wasn't implying a 50" monitor would make a good workspace from close-up. If nothing else you'd get a sore neck swiveling to look side to side. Also, wear sunglasses. 27" is just too small tho, especially for higher resolutions. Text gets so tiny and you have to enlarge it...but I *am* already old. haha.

That to me seems like improper configuration or bad software support for resolution scaling. I don't remember how it's done in Windows but in systems that use the X Window system you just set either the font to be larger or the dpi to be denser in .Xdefaults or .Xresources and restart X. In Windows you can get there just by doing some right click stuff I'm pretty sure.

 

No, it's because I'm old - eyes get tired faster (from everything) and I need reading glasses if something is too close but if pushed away so I don't need reading glasses then it's too far and ... sigh. You'll find out one day. Yes you can enlarge font size only via windows settings but if you make it too large (which means, not a ton larger than default) it starts to disrupt placement of other elements (on a webpage, for example) and things start to go wonky.

 

My husband's client (a large engineering firm that does a lot of State contracts) once bought a lot of 27" 1440's as an office upgrade, and just about everyone there wanted the text bigger, or downsized their desktop to 1080, or whatever other method. They didn't like it. Can't say why most didn't like it, probably wasn't all about text size, but hubby remarked it was a big complaint. I'm hardly alone. Hubby ended up bringing some of them home cause no one wanted them. I tried, it's too much eyestrain no matter how much I try. I need the monitor to be bigger if it's going to be 1440 and desktop/chair distance.

 

Edit: ps, it's not just document text, btw. It's also GUI text in buttons in software, such as something like photoshop

Edited December 20, 2017 by LadyCrimson

[LadyCrimson]

Yeah, it's the LG HDR. Firm upware update last year. Assuming the game has HDR and you set all the smart-TV settings properly while using that game, turns the input lag down to around 30ms or less, from the previous 50ms or so. Making input lag for self largely unnoticeable according to most. In terms of online competitiveness, no clue. And I'd guess such will improve later.

 

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1490236854

 

I think the cheap TV I bought might have all that actually, but I haven't tested it to be sure. Maybe not since it's not OLED but...In terms of PS4-Pro and games I play I don't find input lag to be an issue so don't care.

Edited December 20, 2017 by LadyCrimson

[Gorgon]

A thing about glasses though, if you strain your eyes slightly to get focus, even without noticing it, you need new ones. I have had tests and glasses made a bunch of times this year and I don't know why but the results seem to vary quite a bit even though my eyes haven't changed much. For whatever reason the tests doesn't conform well to real life conditions. Lighting conditions make a huge difference for me. Really I should have one set for late night and one for daytime. 

 

I can see perfectly well in the daytime and not quite as well as i would like in the night time. The slight straining that makes your eyes tired, there is a good chance it can be corrected if your glasses are 'zeroed in' for whatever protracted task you are doing, like reading or using a computer screen.

 

Do you like gray blob A better than gray blob B. They look identical and yet they are absolutely not. 35 of those questions and I wager, for my part anyway, that arriving at the wrong conclusion is a real possibility. 

 

 

It all sounds obvious, but the optician actually asked me if I spent a lot of time in front of a computer. So he could spend more time testing that range. We want multiple focus glasses so we don't have 8 different ones to carry around, but it's a compromise, at least until they make glasses that can change shape.

 

 

That went on a bit. Point being you can probably get glasses that are better suited for using a monitor. 

[Valsuelm]

A thing about glasses though, if you strain your eyes slightly to get focus, even without noticing it, you need new ones. I have had tests and glasses made a bunch of times this year and I don't know why but the results seem to vary quite a bit even though my eyes haven't changed much. For whatever reason the tests doesn't conform well to real life conditions. Lighting conditions make a huge difference for me. Really I should have one set for late night and one for daytime. 

 

I can see perfectly well in the daytime and not quite as well as i would like in the night time. The slight straining that makes your eyes tired, there is a good chance it can be corrected if your glasses are 'zeroed in' for whatever protracted task you are doing, like reading or using a computer screen.

 

Do you like gray blob A better than gray blob B. They look identical and yet they are absolutely not. 35 of those questions and I wager, for my part anyway, that arriving at the wrong conclusion is a real possibility. 

 

 

It all sounds obvious, but the optician actually asked me if I spent a lot of time in front of a computer. So he could spend more time testing that range. We want multiple focus glasses so we don't have 8 different ones to carry around, but it's a compromise, at least until they make glasses that can change shape.

 

 

That went on a bit. Point being you can probably get glasses that are better suited for using a monitor. 

 

Methinks you need a new optician and/or perhaps need to see an ophthalmologist.

 

Other things that may or may not apply depending on what you already do/have:

 

Springing for better quality lenses may make a difference (if you're not already getting the best).

Springing for a better quality monitor(s) may make a difference (TN really are garbage, you do get what you pay for with monitors to a degree).

Don't sit in the dark while on the computer.

Don't stare at small screens (your phone) for any length of time.

Look away to refocus your eyes from time to time.

Eat better.

Get exercise: cardio and the kind that has you eyes change focus a lot, i.e. a sport involving a moving ball.

 

I'm myopic and do not have the problem that you describe. My eyes have not changed their prescription at all in over 5 years, and in the last 20 have barely changed. Sometime I've even had a slight improvement.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Valsuelm

[Gorgon]

Blood pressure and smoking matters, in the long run, damages your arteries. I smoke, but my resting blood pressure is normal. Except whenever you smoke your blood pressure goes up. So there's that. 

 

 

Eye exercises won't help you with this, but of course you need to avoid the wrong kind of stresses, like staring at your phone all the time. Otherwise I could get special glasses, similar to those yellow tinted 'tactical' visors you can get, anti glare coating and filtering out certain colours and so on, they make the edges crisper. Too much of a hassle for me I think. If I couldn't see text properly on my monitor, that would drive me crazy though. I'd get stupid looking glasses for that. 

 

I assume you all know about https://justgetflux.com/ it matches your monitor levels to the time of day, helps prevent eyestrain, and makes it easier to fall asleep as well.