I need a new monitor. :: Hardware and Operating Systems

Big Boom Boom 2017 年 5 月 7 日上午 5:20

At $250 you are not going to have many options for 1440p monitor. Just get a standard IPS 60/75Hz monitor.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/jVJwrH/qnix-monitor-qx2710matte

Looks like your best bet, you can overclock it for higher refresh rate.

How to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YiFCpB8gBI

NVIDIA and AMD already has built-in custom resolution for easy overclocking unlike couple of years ago.

最後修改者：Big Boom Boom; 2017 年 5 月 7 日上午 5:24

#1

ZƐZZƐX 2017 年 5 月 7 日下午 3:48

If $250 is not a resonable price for a 1440p monitor, what price rage should I consider for a low end but decent monitor?

#2

Big Boom Boom 2017 年 5 月 7 日下午 4:31

Around $300-$350. The Qnix I listed is very good bang for buck though make sure you check the various Overclocking forum and buy from trusted seller. They use same Samsung PLS panel which is pretty much IPS, AH-VA is another IPS like. Now VA and TN are different and generally lacking in colour quality and viewing angle and are cheaper compared to IPS like panels.

http://www.overclock.net/f/44/monitors-and-displays

Good source of monitor overclock and buying guidance.

最後修改者：Big Boom Boom; 2017 年 5 月 7 日下午 4:33

#3

pasa 2017 年 5 月 7 日下午 6:59

Was the frame dropping on OC fixed in the meantime?

http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/7931?cPage=6&all=False&sort=0&page=1&slug=qnix-qx2710leddport-review

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/qnix_qx2710.htm

#4

Big Boom Boom 2017 年 5 月 7 日下午 7:32

Read the review comments, those are of a different model. Qnix qx2710 revolution ii has none of those issues. Problem is the makers like Qnix, Dstar, Crossover, Yamasako etc. don't send sample to review signs, at best it's the reseller doing this. So the 'professional reviewers' don't really review them properly. I doubt these makers even know about hardware review sites, their Engrish on manual is broken enough.

If you up the budget to $400-$450 you could get true 144Hz IPS monitor. Some Korean models are known to overclock to 185Hz and St 1440p that's damn faster than anything ACER has atm (165Hz). 240 Hz right now is only possible for 1080p.

最後修改者：Big Boom Boom; 2017 年 5 月 7 日下午 7:45

#5

Reddy 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 1:54

Get the Acer G257HU. It's a 25" 1440p60Hz IPS low ghosting monitor. It cost me $260+tax&shipping. I have it, and it's amazing.

#6

retro_Ed 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 2:46

Just upgrading monitor from 1080p to 1440p or higher is not going to add enything which affect overall gaming experience !

Faster 120/144hzpanel is way to go.... with or without freesync/g-sync.

#7

Reddy 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 2:49

引用自 retro_Ed：
Just upgrading monitor from 1080p to 1440p or higher is not going to add enything which affect overall gaming experience !

Faster 120/144hzpanel is way to go.... with or without freesync/g-sync.

Stop regurgitating that memetastic trash. If 120/144hz is so good, then why aren't all panels 144hz by now? Think about it.

By the way, upgrading the resolution improves visual clarity. Lower resolutions will be blurrier than higher resolutions, regardless of which is the native resolution.

#8

retro_Ed 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:10

引用自 Feyrom：
引用自 retro_Ed：
Just upgrading monitor from 1080p to 1440p or higher is not going to add enything which affect overall gaming experience !

Faster 120/144hzpanel is way to go.... with or without freesync/g-sync.
Stop regurgitating that memetastic trash. If 120/144hz is so good, then why aren't all panels 144hz by now? Think about it.

By the way, upgrading the resolution improves visual clarity. Lower resolutions will be blurrier than higher resolutions, regardless of which is the native resolution.

To your first question why all panels are not 120/144hz... answer is simple: money/costs.

Yes, lower resolutions are "blurrier" than higher resolutions but I dont think that 1080p is low. Always native will give sharpest image.

#9

Reddy 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:14

引用自 retro_Ed：
引用自 Feyrom：
Stop regurgitating that memetastic trash. If 120/144hz is so good, then why aren't all panels 144hz by now? Think about it.

By the way, upgrading the resolution improves visual clarity. Lower resolutions will be blurrier than higher resolutions, regardless of which is the native resolution.
To your first question why all panels are not 120/144hz... answer is simple: money/costs.

Yes, lower resolutions are "blurrier" than higher resolutions but I dont think that 1080p is low. Always native will give sharpest image.

That's not a good enough answer. The cost is only high as long as manufacturers don't put money into the technology. It won't be like that forever, and it hasn't been. The refresh rate is not important to manufacturers, for some reason, other than the super high end ones like Asus and Acer, to scalp money out of people who have fell into the gimmick. You don't need a high refresh rate. Any decent display with anti-ghosting properties/settings will do just as well, and if you don't believe me, well then have fun spending over $300 on a monitor just for this one thing and getting that good old placebo effect. I know from first hand experience.

By the way, I didn't say 1080p is a low resolution. I implied that it is, comparitively to resolutions like 1440p, and 2160p. Which is true. 2160p is a larger resolution than 1080p.

#10

Andrius227 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:23

引用自 Feyrom：
引用自 retro_Ed：
Just upgrading monitor from 1080p to 1440p or higher is not going to add enything which affect overall gaming experience !

Faster 120/144hzpanel is way to go.... with or without freesync/g-sync.
Stop regurgitating that memetastic trash. If 120/144hz is so good, then why aren't all panels 144hz by now? Think about it.

By the way, upgrading the resolution improves visual clarity. Lower resolutions will be blurrier than higher resolutions, regardless of which is the native resolution.

I have to agree with retro_ed. Refresh rate is much more important than resolution. Going from 1080p to 1440p doesnt make much difference, if at all. But going from 60hz to 120/144hz is life changing, at least to me.

I myself upgraded from 23inch 1080p 60hz screen to a 27inch 1440p 144hz screen and the image quality is almost the same. But my new screen is so much faster and smoother it blew my mind. Could never go back to 60hz.

最後修改者：Andrius227; 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:25

#11

retro_Ed 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:33

引用自 Feyrom：
引用自 retro_Ed：
To your first question why all panels are not 120/144hz... answer is simple: money/costs.

Yes, lower resolutions are "blurrier" than higher resolutions but I dont think that 1080p is low. Always native will give sharpest image.
That's not a good enough answer. The cost is only high as long as manufacturers don't put money into the technology. It won't be like that forever, and it hasn't been. The refresh rate is not important to manufacturers, for some reason, other than the super high end ones like Asus and Acer, to scalp money out of people who have fell into the gimmick. You don't need a high refresh rate. Any decent display with anti-ghosting properties/settings will do just as well, and if you don't believe me, well then have fun spending over $300 on a monitor just for this one thing and getting that good old placebo effect. I know from first hand experience.

By the way, I didn't say 1080p is a low resolution. I implied that it is, comparitively to resolutions like 1440p, and 2160p. Which is true. 2160p is a larger resolution than 1080p.

I can agree with you that there is no need for higher (60 ~ 90hz) monitors. Those 144hz are better than 60hz panels but those are just made to help and patch (with g-free-sync methods) the biggest flaw which pc gaming has (in my opinion) : fluctuating framerates !

With stable frametimes 60hz is enough, I agree.
Console players are often overlooked that they have lower framerates but at least they (might) have flatline frametimes if game is optimised well enough.

Pc gamers just have to deal all issues with brute force....

#12

Reddy 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:36

引用自 retro_Ed：
引用自 Feyrom：
That's not a good enough answer. The cost is only high as long as manufacturers don't put money into the technology. It won't be like that forever, and it hasn't been. The refresh rate is not important to manufacturers, for some reason, other than the super high end ones like Asus and Acer, to scalp money out of people who have fell into the gimmick. You don't need a high refresh rate. Any decent display with anti-ghosting properties/settings will do just as well, and if you don't believe me, well then have fun spending over $300 on a monitor just for this one thing and getting that good old placebo effect. I know from first hand experience.

By the way, I didn't say 1080p is a low resolution. I implied that it is, comparitively to resolutions like 1440p, and 2160p. Which is true. 2160p is a larger resolution than 1080p.
I can agree with you that there is no need for higher (60 ~ 90hz) monitors. Those 144hz are better than 60hz panels but those are just made to help and patch (with g-free-sync methods) the biggest flaw which pc gaming has (in my opinion) : fluctuating framerates !

With stable frametimes 60hz is enough, I agree.
Console players are often overlooked that they have lower framerates but at least they (might) have flatline frametimes if game is optimised well enough.

Pc gamers just have to deal all issues with brute force....

Thank you, but this only covers it to a small degree. The biggest selling point of high refresh rate monitors is less/no image ghosting. In my experience, with the 60Hz panels I've had...I've had less if ANY ghosting, than any of the 144Hz monitors I've tried. I've tried the Asus VG248QE, I've tried a Acer predator. It's mostly a gimmick as long as you have a decent 60hz panel to begin with.

#13

Mossy Snake 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:36

引用自 retro_Ed：
引用自 Feyrom：
That's not a good enough answer. The cost is only high as long as manufacturers don't put money into the technology. It won't be like that forever, and it hasn't been. The refresh rate is not important to manufacturers, for some reason, other than the super high end ones like Asus and Acer, to scalp money out of people who have fell into the gimmick. You don't need a high refresh rate. Any decent display with anti-ghosting properties/settings will do just as well, and if you don't believe me, well then have fun spending over $300 on a monitor just for this one thing and getting that good old placebo effect. I know from first hand experience.

By the way, I didn't say 1080p is a low resolution. I implied that it is, comparitively to resolutions like 1440p, and 2160p. Which is true. 2160p is a larger resolution than 1080p.
I can agree with you that there is no need for higher (60 ~ 90hz) monitors. Those 144hz are better than 60hz panels but those are just made to help and patch (with g-free-sync methods) the biggest flaw which pc gaming has (in my opinion) : fluctuating framerates !

With stable frametimes 60hz is enough, I agree.
Console players are often overlooked that they have lower framerates but at least they (might) have flatline frametimes if game is optimised well enough.

Pc gamers just have to deal all issues with brute force....

I own a PS4 and the forced Vsync is literally the worst. Overwatch and Minecraft have seizures where they go from 10fps to 30 (OW is locked to 30Fps) in several-second gaps. This happens on almost all games, regardless of connection.

Refresh rates do matter, as it allows cards to reach higher FPS before the x-sync is forced to kick in.

#14

retro_Ed 2017 年 5 月 8 日下午 3:46

引用自 MossyRathalos：
引用自 retro_Ed：
I can agree with you that there is no need for higher (60 ~ 90hz) monitors. Those 144hz are better than 60hz panels but those are just made to help and patch (with g-free-sync methods) the biggest flaw which pc gaming has (in my opinion) : fluctuating framerates !

With stable frametimes 60hz is enough, I agree.
Console players are often overlooked that they have lower framerates but at least they (might) have flatline frametimes if game is optimised well enough.

Pc gamers just have to deal all issues with brute force....
I own a PS4 and the forced Vsync is literally the worst. Overwatch and Minecraft have seizures where they go from 10fps to 30 (OW is locked to 30Fps) in several-second gaps. This happens on almost all games, regardless of connection.

Refresh rates do matter, as it allows cards to reach higher FPS before the x-sync is forced to kick in.

Poor game optimizing !

Perhaps technically the best gaming experience I have had is new DOOM (PS4version).
And I have read that pc version is also well done.
1080p/60fps just pure smoothness...
Secret is not the framerate, It is frametime !

#15

檢舉此篇文章