what do you look for when it comes to monitors?

[Quantum]

penny for your thoughts.

[Electric Cupcake]

Nothing too picky. Freesync (no proprietary crap) and 1920x1080.

Displayport is preferable to HDMI since you can get around HDCP DRM.

[Kaihekoa]

In roughly this order for a gaming monitor: Refresh rate and response time > image quality > aspect ratio > resolution > adaptive sync > features (adjustable stand, USB ports) > warranty.

[r.linder]

Here are my thoughts:

1. Resolution
Arguably, the most important specification that people focus on when buying a new monitor, television, etc. is the screen resolution. With higher resolutions, there's a greater graphical demand when it comes to gaming in particular since there's a lot more pixels to be rendered in real-time.
1080p is the current standard and is pretty much crawling into its death bed as 1440p gaming becomes more and more viable for the masses. 1440p is the gold standard, and 4K/2160p is the bee's knees. (Anything higher is gimmicky and unrealistic at this juncture)

2. Size
Something that people don't take into account is the physical size of the screen/display itself. With higher screen sizes comes lower pixel density, which depending on the resolution can make the display look blurrier the closer you are to the screen.

This is why it's good to keep a distance from a TV screen, because it just doesn't look good when you're right up close.

In my opinion, 1080p is best up to 24 inches, up to 27 inches for 1440p, and 32 inches for 4K, as far as computer monitors go. For TVs, the size can be much, much larger, but if you get something larger, you need to account for how far away you're going to be from the screen.


3. Refresh Rate
The talk of the town these days aside from resolution is, of course, the refresh rate. Higher refresh rates (100+ Hz) look and feel far smoother and give an overall more comfortable experience, but your hardware needs to be able to actually handle higher framerates for the benefits to be seen in games, as you'll only see that smoothness when your frames are high enough.

One major potential downside of having a really high refresh rate, is that when your frames drop too low, the experience can be even choppier than 60Hz, though this depends on the game and settings and is really only with really low frames on a very high refresh rate panel (i.e. sub 60 FPS on a 240+ Hz panel)


4. Response Time
I'm not talking about the advertised response time, which for many monitors nowadays is as low as 1ms. That's not the true response time of the panel, because it only applies to when the screen goes from a solid color to another solid color, or grey to grey/black to black/white to white. That's what gTg and MPRT units mean for response time, in essence.

The advertised response time might be 1ms, but the response time while gaming could be anywhere from 4ms to 10ms or even higher depending on the panel model.

Why does this matter? Ghosting. Ghosting can make fast paced games look a bit weird and mess with the experience if it's bad enough, which I've seen with some panels. Which brings us to the next topic.


5. Panel Type
The three most common panel types found in computer monitors in particular are: TN, VA, and IPS. What are the differences?

TN is the fastest of the three, supporting the highest refresh rates and lowest response times (5~6ms average nowadays), but visually it looks the worst; it's washed out, and there's usually bleeding and backlight issues. It's hardly ever used in quality displays as a result unless those displays are targeted specifically for competitive gaming.

VA is the slowest of the three, supporting average refresh rates but usually having awful response times (8~9ms average nowadays) for the most part, so ghosting is a very common issue. However, it visually has the best color and constrast as well as superior viewing angles, making it a prime candidate for curved displays. Most curved displays are VA.

IPS is the sweet spot between the previous two, being that it supports high refresh rates and offers a more balanced response time (6~7ms nowadays) range and has comparable visual quality to a VA display. However, its contrast is noticeably behind VA's, particularly with shades of black. Most people opt for IPS because it's a good balance between performance and visual quality, since IPS has improved enough that TN is no longer necessary.


6. Aspect Ratio
Some people opt for wider aspect ratios, and I don't blame them. You get a much wider view, and for games that support it, the experience can be incredible with an ultrawide screen display.


7. Frame Syncing Tech
If you're gaming, you need either AMD's FreeSync technology or NVIDIA's G-SYNC technology. These technologies do the same thing; they adapt the refresh rate of the display to the content's frame rate by using a variable refresh rate. This helps eliminate stuttering and screen tearing.

If you don't have either of those active with a high refresh rate, the experience is not going to be great if your frames drop below the refresh rate. So if you're playing on a 240Hz panel with syncing disabled, you need to have 240 FPS consistently to have a smooth experience, but with frame syncing enabled, you can go below that and experience much less stuttering and have a more buttery smooth experience consistently.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

One major potential downside of having a really high refresh rate, is that when your frames drop too low, the experience can be even choppier than 60Hz, though this depends on the game and settings and is really only with really low frames on a very high refresh rate panel (i.e. sub 60 FPS on a 240+ Hz panel)

Out of curiosity, why?

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

VA is the slowest of the three, supporting average refresh rates but usually having awful response times (8~9ms average nowadays) for the most part, so ghosting is a very common issue. However, it visually has the best color and constrast as well as superior viewing angles, making it a prime candidate for curved displays. Most curved displays are VA.

IPS is the sweet spot between the previous two, being that it supports high refresh rates and offers a more balanced response time (6~7ms nowadays) range and has comparable visual quality to a VA display. However, its contrast is noticeably behind VA's, particularly with shades of black. Most people opt for IPS because it's a good balance between performance and visual quality, since IPS has improved enough that TN is no longer necessary.

I know contrast is a notable weakness of IPS (which is a strength of VA), and Blacks aren't as strong either, but I thought it IPS still had better color accuracy, and for sure viewing angles?

I am a bit behind on things though (read, a lot behind in tech time), but I know panels targeting professionals (read, graphic design like photo and video work, especially if it involved printing which NEEDED consistency and accuracy) used to tend to be IPS.

But, I know there's many new types of IPS out now. The old ones were very expensive (like $400 to $500+ starting), and the "new and upcoming" types (as of the early to early-mid 2010s) were referred to as eIPS, which IIRC was in some ways worse off than the older (H? S?) IPS, and was often lower color bit (sometimes even 6-bit compared to 8-bit or even over for the older ones), but still carried most of the advantages, and was still better than TN. And notably, it brought the cost of entry down, with some being well under $400 or even $300. I don't know what further sub-type changes have occurred, but I wonder if everything is eIPS now?

You know your stuff here and while I'm not exactly planning a display replacement right now, I think I am running down the home stretch on my current one 1200p IPS from 2010, so I may as well start trying to learn some of what I missed.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

One major potential downside of having a really high refresh rate, is that when your frames drop too low, the experience can be even choppier than 60Hz, though this depends on the game and settings and is really only with really low frames on a very high refresh rate panel (i.e. sub 60 FPS on a 240+ Hz panel)

Out of curiosity, why?

Escrito originalmente por Escorve:

VA is the slowest of the three, supporting average refresh rates but usually having awful response times (8~9ms average nowadays) for the most part, so ghosting is a very common issue. However, it visually has the best color and constrast as well as superior viewing angles, making it a prime candidate for curved displays. Most curved displays are VA.

IPS is the sweet spot between the previous two, being that it supports high refresh rates and offers a more balanced response time (6~7ms nowadays) range and has comparable visual quality to a VA display. However, its contrast is noticeably behind VA's, particularly with shades of black. Most people opt for IPS because it's a good balance between performance and visual quality, since IPS has improved enough that TN is no longer necessary.

I know contrast is a notable weakness of IPS (which is a strength of VA), and Blacks aren't as strong either, but I thought it IPS still had better color accuracy, and for sure viewing angles?

I am a bit behind on things though (read, a lot behind in tech time), but I know panels targeting professionals (read, graphic design like photo and video work, especially if it involved printing which NEEDED consistency and accuracy) used to tend to be IPS.

But, I know there's many new types of IPS out now. The old ones were very expensive (like $400 to $500+ starting), and the "new and upcoming" types (as of the early to early-mid 2010s) were referred to as eIPS, which IIRC was in some ways worse off than the older (H? S?) IPS, and was often lower color bit (sometimes even 6-bit compared to 8-bit or even over for the older ones), but still carried most of the advantages, and was still better than TN. And notably, it brought the cost of entry down, with some being well under $400 or even $300. I don't know what further sub-type changes have occurred, but I wonder if everything is eIPS now?

You know your stuff here and while I'm not exactly planning a display replacement right now, I think I am running down the home stretch on my current one 1200p IPS from 2010, so I may as well start trying to learn some of what I missed.

Newer IPS panels are a bit different, and there's newer types of IPS panels as well as you said.

Also, I'm pretty sure the extra choppiness has to do with the framerate being so far out of sync with the refresh rate. Not all games seem to handle FreeSync/GSC properly.

[Porky Pig]

Glossy screen, so I can see my handsome reflection!

[_I_]

if buying for multiple display confnigs, try to get the same brand/models
or atleast same dpi/ppi/dot pitch so windows will stay the same size across all dissplays

[Autumn_]

In order of importance;

1. Refresh rate
Can't really go below 100hz, it just becomes choppy and stuttery.
But, I also don't believe that 200+hz is going to make that much difference, and I believe 300-360hz is basically a meme that no one can see. But, I guess that's what you want, to no see updates of the monitor, so it doesn't effect you.

2. Pixel density
If it has low pixel density it just becomes a blocky mess, and unusable.
If it has like 80-90PPI (like 1080p@24 inch), I can't look at it for long periods of time.
If it has 100-110PPI (like 1440p@27 inch), it's usable.
If it has 120-125PPI (like 1440p@24 inch), it's great.
I think I would like higher, maybe 180PPI, (like 2160p@24 inch), because I can still kind of see them I think 150+ would remove them.

3. Size
I prefer 24 inches, I don't like larger monitors, but wouldn't mind using a 27 inch monitor, nothing larger.

4. Panel type.
NEVER VA. (One exception is that Samsung VA with super low latency.)
I don't like TN panels, I currently have one, and while I love this monitor, I don't like colour banding.
I like IPS panels, because they remove banding, and don't have insane latency.

5. Latency.
So long as its ~1ms below the update rate of the monitor it's perfectly fine. I'm not one of the people that stress over 'muh 1ms!?!?', since that's basically impossible without it looking like ♥♥♥♥.

I will not sacrifice colours (overshoot, undershoot, halos, ghosting, etc.) For latency.
If the panel has very bad overshoot, I will not buy it, even if the rest of the monitor is good.
I can't stand halos, I just can't. They're distracting, they're annoying, and they show that corners were cut in production if it always happens, or they did it for marketing reasons on low overdrive settings, because 'muh 1ms' is more important than actual quality.
Even though no one can see a difference between 1ms and 4ms latency.

5. Resolution
1080p is fine, so long as pixel density is good.
1440p is preferable.
I would like 2160p or higher.

6. VRR
Freesync / G-sync.
Since both cards should be able to use each tech, it doesn't bother me that much, for newer monitors.

(Or at least, there was talk of AMD supporting G-sync monitors.)

It's nice to have, and I wouldn't buy a monitor without it now, if you could find one.

7. Aspect ratio
16:9 preferred.
21:9 I want to try.
I don't think I would like 32:9 that much.
I don't like other non-standard aspect ratios like 16:10.


Edit ; formatting was messy

[Phil Mianus]

-1440p
-fast reponse time
-low latancy
-gsync/freesync
-27 inch
-iprefer 16:9

[Guydodge]

i want it all in a monitor the sweet spot is still a 27inch 2560x1440p IPS 144Hz+ w/10bit
color,100% sRGB or better w/1ms.and at least 1000:1 contrast you can run everything maxed out with all bells and whistles on a higher end rig.
27inh screen is the perfect size for the pixel count any larger and the sharpness dwindles
i'd put it up against any 4k monitor thats attempting high fps.low fps is not a option for me
not giving up butter smooth gameplay.of course this is my opinion.

[Autumn_]

Escrito originalmente por Guydodge:

i want it all in a monitor the sweet spot is still a 27inch 2560x1440p IPS 144Hz+ w/10bit
color,100% sRGB or better w/1ms.with at least 1000:1 contrast you can run everything maxed out with all bells and whistles on a higher end rig.
27inh screen is the perfect size for the pixel count any larger and the sharpness dwindles
i'd put it up against any 4k monitor thats attempting high fps.low fps is not a option for me
not giving up butter smooth gameplay.of course this is my opinion.

Good luck getting a 1ms display :^)

[Andrius227]

Currently using pg279q. 1440p, 144hz, ips, gsync. I am actually thinking about upgrading and for my next one i want better pixel density. Which means i will have to go with 4k 32 inch or smaller.

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por Autumn_:

I don't like other non-standard aspect ratios like 16:10.

It's more that it's outdated, replaced, and dead. I don't think they're really even made anymore anyway. But there's nothing functionally wrong with using them today, as the only times they don't work nice is when 16:9 is strictly forced and any extra space is unused, and when that happens, the same will likely apply to other non-16:9 aspect ratios anyway, and to an even greater degree, since ultra-wide is much further from 16:9 than 16:10 is.

Of course, I don't blame you for not wanting it today (but again, not really made anyway), but the two top end resolutions used by 16:10 (not counting Apple's niche 2880 x 1800), 1920 x 1200 and 2560 x 1600, were literally just 1080p and 1440p with 10% more vertical estate, so I really don't see what there is to actively dislike about it either. I'm actually still slightly disappointed at 16:9 for this, but since I personally have 1920 x 1200, 1440p would still be an overall increase. I imagine a few of those who got a 2560 x 1600 display were in a tough spot once higher refresh rates started coming, though.

[Magma Dragoon]

ignore the term HDR unless you are spending thousands of dollars

[Scheneighnay]

Panel type is important to stand by. IPS and VA are good quality, while TN is garbage out of the box and ages even worse.

Also if specs are too good to be true, they are. Don't trust 200hz+ refresh rates, especially on cheap monitors.