Got a budget for your next gaming monitor? We've tested the best options from $150 to $1,500 and picked the top choice at every price point - no fluff, just clear recommendations that make buying easy.
The Best Gaming Monitors... in $100 Increments
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
Gravitytr1
Posts: 230 +138
I think it a bit off to see only 27"+ on this list. Most experts agree 24" is best when sitting at a computer desk. The human eye can only take in so much screen at a certain distance. 32" is crazy. I tried a 27" and had to return it. Simply was too much to view without turning my head to take in all the data.
Obviously size can differ if you sit back in your chair, etc. but overall 24" is sweet spot for 1.5'.
Just my thoughts.
Obviously size can differ if you sit back in your chair, etc. but overall 24" is sweet spot for 1.5'.
Just my thoughts.
I think it depends on what you're doing on the screen. I edit photos for a living, so the bigger the image the less zooming I have to do. I use a 32" monitor now and I'd go bigger if it was practical.
UdyrL
Posts: 183 +269
This is a great improvement over previous monitor recommendations.
I'd like to see the list separated by screen size as well. 27 and 32 would be the most common, with bigger screens as an additional section.
Also, please check the links. The one for the AOC Q27G40XMN redirects to the Asus XG27ACS. (Ed. note: thanks, links fixed).
User edit: the link is not fixed. It still redirects to the Asus monitor
I'd like to see the list separated by screen size as well. 27 and 32 would be the most common, with bigger screens as an additional section.
Also, please check the links. The one for the AOC Q27G40XMN redirects to the Asus XG27ACS. (Ed. note: thanks, links fixed).
User edit: the link is not fixed. It still redirects to the Asus monitor
Last edited:
AdamNovagen
Posts: 74 +80
Not only that, but pixel density makes a difference too. 24" is fine if you're running 1080p like I do, and that's roughly the same dpi as 1440p at 27", which keeps things generally consistent and readable in all applications, including older/simpler ones that don't respond to Windows' really weird dpi scaling. If you went with 1440p at 24", you'd probably have 125% dpi scaling which makes some applications look odd, others blurry. I just prefer to stay as close to the ol' 96dpi as possible.
fadingfool
Posts: 470 +630
I like my 32 inch at 1440p 75 Hz IPS screen. Would need to be bigger, higher resolution, OLED and higher refresh rate for me to consider replacing it (or at least higher resolution, IPS and higher refresh rate). I paid £300 for this one in 2016 - so waiting to get all the above for not much more than that. Might be waiting some time.........
amstech
Posts: 2,801 +1,963
Great article.
I had to adjust my Gigabyte G32QC alot to get it right, with HDR enabled it looked awful. (PM me for best SDR settings). I almost bit on the MSI 274QP to get an affordable OLED, but dont want to drop down to a 27".
Many folks are aware of 2560 x 1440p and 3840 X 2160, but a solid happy medium is the 3440 X 1440. I like the MSI MAG 341CQP alot, for $600 its alot of monitor and tech.
We talk alot on here about upgrading RAM, CPUs and GPUs, but honestly upgrading your monitor, especially now with affordable OLEDs and crazy fast VA's, is one of the best upgrades a PC gamer can do.
Would love to see Techspot do a comparison of mid to top tier GPUs running games at 2K, 2K wide and 4K.
And btw, Doom The Dark Ages takes alot to run, but honestly its not the greatest looking, its textures in many places leave alot to be desired. Doom and Doom Eternal look better IMHO, and Im playing at 1440p on Nightmare with DLSS 2X.
I had to adjust my Gigabyte G32QC alot to get it right, with HDR enabled it looked awful. (PM me for best SDR settings). I almost bit on the MSI 274QP to get an affordable OLED, but dont want to drop down to a 27".
Many folks are aware of 2560 x 1440p and 3840 X 2160, but a solid happy medium is the 3440 X 1440. I like the MSI MAG 341CQP alot, for $600 its alot of monitor and tech.
We talk alot on here about upgrading RAM, CPUs and GPUs, but honestly upgrading your monitor, especially now with affordable OLEDs and crazy fast VA's, is one of the best upgrades a PC gamer can do.
Would love to see Techspot do a comparison of mid to top tier GPUs running games at 2K, 2K wide and 4K.
And btw, Doom The Dark Ages takes alot to run, but honestly its not the greatest looking, its textures in many places leave alot to be desired. Doom and Doom Eternal look better IMHO, and Im playing at 1440p on Nightmare with DLSS 2X.
What about the 55" S90D QD-OLED @4K/144Hz that I picked up for $285?
Why would I buy any of these LCDs (or spend $1K+ on an OLED monitor) when the market is frequently flooded with 42-48" OLED TV options for $400-600? I previously had a 48C1 that I picked up for $280 until that steal came along.
I salivated over the idea of that 5K2K/165Hz for 2 years, but not for $1500.
Why would I buy any of these LCDs (or spend $1K+ on an OLED monitor) when the market is frequently flooded with 42-48" OLED TV options for $400-600? I previously had a 48C1 that I picked up for $280 until that steal came along.
I salivated over the idea of that 5K2K/165Hz for 2 years, but not for $1500.
LordVile95
Posts: 581 +324
Because TVs and Monitors have different targets. TVs are generally slower with more image processing and different accuracy targets.
Similar threads
