I'm not discounting this or stating it's not true, but that's one YouTube channel that tested one monitor. I did take note of the review link above also. Making a decision based off of one review is somewhat bias which is the reason why I didn't tell the op not to purchase the Dell monitor when asked above. Don't get me wrong i'm not saying your post states that i'm just bringing this up because of how this thread has transpired over the past few days. There's no way of determining if that monitor was defective because they didn't have more than one to test against to see if there are performance variations. If you look hard enough you can find a reason out on the world wide web not to purchase something no mater what the make and model is. Not only that but monitors are extremely subjective and dependent upon the individual. What may work for one person might not for the other and personal preference may favor a certain monitor technology over the other. The OP is just going to have to dive right in and make an informed decision based on what he's learned so far. What monitor do you recommend? I've been looking at Gigabyte seeing how good their monitors are. I'm not 100% sure but they appear to be new to the game.
Really, I do agree with you. At some point you have to pick something and just see how it is. Obviously price is a big starting point for many people, and then you just try to find something in that range that the manufacturer has done a good job with - the best model at the price you can afford. It's not always an easy choice. I think I'd miss the beautiful color of my TV if I get a monitor that isn't OLED, but there aren't many OLED monitors out there right now and I'll have to choose between TN, IPS, VA, or whatever - and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. There are some games I can't play on the TV, and my old monitor just doesn't pair with my new PC. I'm glad we are getting more HDR options in the monitor market, but I haven't decided yet. Honestly, I'll probably put off buying a new monitor for a while by only playing the games suited to TV just so I won't have to spend the money. Time will only bring better and hopefully more affordable options the longer I wait, but if the product and the price is right I will go for it. I did want to provide some more info here because I do have some applicable info from my own efforts and I think more information is always better. So I guess you could say I've got some analysis paralysis! Seriously, though, I think you said this before - very few options, if any, are going to have everything you want.
Definatly some quality good info there. Honestly I didn't pay too much attention to the HDR aspect, as that technology is still new to me. Don't think PG348Q has it. After x number of hz I think you get less HDR on the LG so for high refresh rate gamers HDR is kind a mute point, until HDR quality can be sustained at 144hz. I still think it's impressive that they were able to get the LG IPS panel down to 1ms GTG (Especially the ultrawide variant) because i'm so used to seeing 5ms response time. All i'm looking for is a good quality 1440p 165hz 1ms latency response time 27" panel. Going from an old Asus 1080p 144hz 1ms panel from 2013 to an Asus 3440x1440p ultrawide ips panel is a great immersive experience, however I feel going with the most absolute lowest latency monitor I can find will give me a tactical edge out on the battlefield. Have you looked at BenQ at all?First off, I value discussion for the varied opinions because my monitor at my desk is an 10+ year old 60Hz IPS 1680x1050 that I'd like to replace with a 1440p high refresh display with good color and HDR if possible (that doesn't cost $750) so I'm very interested in everyone's input. I leave most of my statements open ended so the reader can ultimately decide, but there are sometimes things that stand out, like the fact that many displays don't meet proper HDR standards under scrutiny by independent reviewers despite the advertising as HDR capable. Both Tim from Hardware Unboxed and the folks at Rtings came to the same conclusion that the 27GL850-B falls short on HDR. Absolutely I agree with you that it doesn't mean people aren't going to like it, but there comes a point where the shortfall can start to be significant. And even if the user likes what they see, there is still a defined standard for HDR that technically should be met. The display has to be capable of peak brightness above 1000 cd/m2 (m-squared, superscript not working). You'll see that many TVs fall short here if you look at the test results on this page:
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/peak-brightness
Now here's the peak brightness of the LG 27GL850-B:
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27gl850-b#comparison_1560
It's even less than many of those TVs, which mostly also don't meet HDR standards. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't meet the technical definition. But, certainly you would want to make sure the TV or display is not at the bottom of the list or you might be disappointed. There are actually several levels of HDR defined, but as Tim stated the LG display doesn't even meet the lowest tier definition, which is HDR-400. See here for more info:
https://displayhdr.org/
Yes, I saw the reviews for the new Gigabyte monitor. I liked it until the reviewers scrutinized it
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram