The Best Monitors: Top 4K, enthusiast, gaming, and budget choices

[captaincranky]

I think you should have given me a "like" for post #24. I mean really, you don't seem to have an answer for it...

 

[ddferrari]

68? Well then you're 68 going on 19, and I wish I meant that in a complimentary way.

As I mentioned earlier, the higher pixel count and smaller pixel size of 1440p naturally reduces jaggies in games, before any antialiasing is applied. It's also tighter when looking up close; my setup puts me about 20"-24" away from my monitor; you'd better believe the higher pixel density makes a difference. I couldn't see an individual pixel without a magnifying glass. Can't say that about 1080p.

No one's buying 1440p to shop on Amazon and read CNN. 1440p and 4K's advantages lie in gaming, even with a 1080p source. Is this something you know about? If higher res monitors made no difference, why are high-end systems using them? Are all these "fools" just being swindled? Does that extend to review website editors, such as Techspot, who love 4K monitors? Are we all being bamboozled, except for the uber-wise captaincranky?

Let's stop acting like 1440p is for the filthy rich- you just got one for $200, yes?

Please, take your last swing and then let's move on. We've milked this one dry, and at 11,500+ posts, I'd say this stuff means more to you than it does to me. Let me have it, POPS!

 

[captaincranky]

Let's stop acting like 1440p is for the filthy rich- you just got one for $200, yes?

I never said they were, you did:

Those of us who could afford it stepped up to 1440p a few years ago and never looked back. Why? Duh- it looks BETTER!!
Using a 27" monitor as an example, at 1080p you have about 2.1 million pixels. At 1440p you have 3.7 million pixels. So tell us again why a lower resolution monitor is "preferred" and 1440p is a niche product, despite the millions that have been sold?

I'm guessing your wallet is doing the talking here; that's the ONLY reason to stay with the dated 1080p resolution. Why do you think every high-end gaming rig uses either 1440p or 4K?

OK, kiddo?

 

[nashathedog]

This articles seems incomplete, Half-arsed with just the very basics making it barely worth the read, Shame.

 

[captaincranky]

This articles seems incomplete, Half-arsed with just the very basics making it barely worth the read, Shame.

How would you have completed it? What do you think was missing? Those are fair questions, are they not?

I agree, there is a somewhere between a just few samples tested, and, "the encyclopedia of every monitor available today". Where would you place it? Again, a reasonable question.

My overall experience with this type of "buying guide", is that they're not really aimed at the forum membership, but rather visitors to the site in general.

Face it, as soon as the article hits the forum, it ceases to be the actual topic of discussion. What is actually discussed amounts to not much more than, "my monitor is better than your monitor". Neither panel BTW, are likely to have been included in the guide anyway.

 

[nashathedog]

I just went through the gauntlet of updating my 5 year old 60hz 1080p monitor to something new and went through a couple of purchases and returns before finding the right one. I started with a 35" 2560x1080 144hz VA panel with freesync from Acer and the biggest issue for me was that the resolution wasn't high enough for the size, Also AMD do not offer vsr for ultrawide so back it went, Next I bought the Asus Dominator which is a 27" 144hz IPS freesync monitor, Sadly the one I got had awful bleedin 2 of the 4 corners so back it went, Then I had a bit of luck, A member of my local forum got himself a preview model of the upcoming 38" Ultrawide LG monitor and put his 10 month old Acer XR34 up for sale, It's a 34" 3440x1440 75hz freesync IPS monitor with very little bleed, Until Vega releases it's paired with a Sapphire Fury Tri-x which does a lot better than I was expecting it too, As for the monitor it's great and sure to keep me happy for years. Which is what we want as monitors are not something we update all that often.

 

[captaincranky]

I just went through the gauntlet of updating my 5 year old 60hz 1080p monitor to something new and went through a couple of purchases and returns before finding the right one. I started with a 35" 2560x1080 144hz VA panel with freesync from Acer and the biggest issue for me was that the resolution wasn't high enough for the size,...[ ]....

This typifies my long standing gripe about aspect ratio being as important as resolution.

2560 x 1080 comes out to 2.37 to1.00, which is the aspect ratio of CinemaScope. (more precisely CinemaScope is allegedly 2.35 to 1.00, but it likely varies a tiny bit from source to source). So, if you were only going to watch mostly feature films on it, you would have been in hog heaven. 2.35 to 1.00 though, would suck to high heaven for most types of photo editing, (other than panorama), and it's pointless to the point of stupidity, to attempt to operate such a panel in "portrait orientation". It would be like reinventing the bathroom door mirror.

So, I suppose I can gripe all I want about 16:9 being pretty much pushed as the standard all purpose shape, but the truth of the matter is, if an individual wants to do different things with different types of imaging, you basically need a stash of different monitors suited to different tasks.

16:9 is also pretty shabby for doing portraiture work. It's also a bit too narrow to be used vertically. You have to crop too many elbows, knees, and shoulders off, and the pictures don't look good without them. Shots of small groups could even benefit from using a square format, like the old 2 1/4" square Hasselblad film cameras. Which again is impractical when your limited with a height of only 1080 pixels.

 

[fktech]

Cheap is better for most of us. It's mostly about the GPU that drives the monitor.

 

[deemon]

Using a 27" monitor as an example, at 1080p you have about 2.1 million pixels. At 1440p you have 3.7 million pixels. So tell us again why a lower resolution monitor is "preferred" and 1440p is a niche product, despite the millions that have been sold?

Because upscaling is ugly and I don't have hardware to run 1440p @ Ultra @ 120+ Hz.

I'm guessing your wallet is doing the talking here; that's the ONLY reason to stay with the dated 1080p resolution. Why do you think every high-end gaming rig uses either 1440p or 4K?

Yeah, I don't throw money around just because I can (because then soon I can't)... I am waiting for good enough display which has not yet come to market (well; I haven't found one yet anyway). Every single 21:9 display today is missing something... I want one that has EVERYTHING : minimum 34"; at least 10bpc colors (1.07B); 120+Hz; FreeSync with range from at least 30 to maximum the display has;