Best Computer Monitors: October 2014 (Archive)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Was excited to see a monitor list, until I realized that it wasn't a Best for the Money version. You tend to limit your audience when the least expensive monitor is $450. That's enthusiast class.

 
These monitors are for suckers. Nothing in here is value-oriented. Take a look at the offbrand korean monitors if you want performance at a price. I'd much rather have something like the 27 inch crossover IPS display with a 2560x1440 resolution vs the HP for the same money.
 
Hmm. I think tomsHardware is only considering the products they reviewed. There are so many monitor models out there and tomsHardware only reviews a couple of them and also recommends them when there could have been a better model. This article and that Best Motherboard article both.
 


I think that's entirely reasonable. They can and should only have a definite opinion on products they reviewed. I find it slightly puzzling why, as in my earlier post on this thread, they don't include all products they reviwed recently, are within the categories and are still current. - cf. the Asus ProArt series monitors and some Samsung models reviewed in mid- to late-2013.

 


I think you're right, but a counter question would be: how can you recommend a monitor without reviewing it? I am actually glad that Tom's doesn't just look around the web and recommend random monitors other sites like.
 
I fully agree with the others requesting for this to be turned into "best monitors for the money" rather than simply "best monitors". Hardly any of your readers will gain much from an article that doesn't provide recommendations at a wider range of prices. How many gamers are actually going to consider choosing between a $450 IPS screen and a $900+ TN panel? And of course, there are many gamers who would be happy with a 1080p, 60hz screen to go with their mid-range graphics card, which couldn't push those kinds of resolutions and frame-rates anyway.

Of course, I can understand the issue of only being able to review a limited number of displays, and that you're probably more likely to get review samples for higher-end models, but perhaps you should try moving to a quick-review process that allows you to cover a much wider range of screens. Perhaps, instead of having a thorough, 10+ page writeup for each screen you review, you could run a roundup of multiple screens in a given category at once, with just a page or two dedicated to each, with longer writeups reserved for the few that do something new and different. It's hard to take a list of "best monitors" seriously when it's only drawn from a very limited selection of higher-end screens.
 
You wouldn't just buy a car without testing it out, would you? So why assume Tom's have any knowledge what monitors are best buys for the money? You'd be better off getting out of the house and down to your local super electronics store and do the comparisons your self, than to rely on a web site that never tried these monitors out for themselves.

And here's the kicker, if they recommend a monitor, and it turns out it's totally trash, the backlash would be aimed directly back to them, because their name is attached to that recommendation some of you are demanding. You can see the problem created here. And most reputable sites won't recommend a monitor they never tested out themselves.
 
Right now, with several new screen technologies in the pipeline (4k, ActiveSync, HDMI 2.0) I'd suggest waiting a bit to see what happens. Even if you're not going to future-proof your investment, it's likely these monitors will drop in price in the upcoming months.
 
Yea it's pretty hard to beat the BenQ Lightboost panels!! I love my XL2420TE!! I wouldn't buy any other brand other than BenQ after owning one!
4k res is stupid.....30fps ?? whaaaaatttttttt?
 


I agree. But the problem is toms reviews so few monitor models compared to what is available and also mostly aimed at the high-end market. One would be missing out on a monitor model that offers better value than these recommended. Of course toms reviews are great - they have the hardware tech and those expensive software for calibration but i would rather like a general "what to look in a monitor/recommended brands and features" than a "recommended specific monitors article". Most BenQ monitors don't come with good out-of-the-box calibration. Also no mention of 3D Vision support. The Asus' ROG Swift PG278Q is expensive because of 3D vision support other than G-Sync. The "Best Gaming CPUs and GPUs for the money" articles are reasonable but not this article
 


G-sync eliminates tearing, but you can really reduce perceivable tearing (it's still there, but you notice it far less) with a good 120Hz or 144Hz monitor and a GPU or GPUs to match (depends highly on the monitor resolution).

Without G-sync, the important requirement here is the GPU power to push the much higher framerates of the high-refresh (120Hz+) monitor.

If G-sync were never invented, I'd still be gaming on my Acer HN274H 120Hz monitor with 2 GTX 780s. Since I have a G-sync monitor, I can run at smoothly at lower framerates (anywhere from the high 20s to 100+) without having to deal with tearing or the input lag of v-sync.

When it comes to gaming, high-refresh monitors are definitely the next best thing compared to G-sync.
 


I haven't looked at the HP's specs, but the specs you listed are nothing to shout about.

Firstly, the monitor is too large and if one were to sit at a usual distance from it, the pixels would appear grainy at that pitch.

Looks like 6-bot color depth at the most as well.
 
What's up with 27" ? Is this how majority really likes to game? Imho 27" is almost a TV it's infact small TV... some years ago I had tv that was much smaller than that. I find 27" too be too big for desktop gaming... it's cool for movies though. when you tilt the chair and turn on the speakers. This and bigger can be great for design work... but IMHO 24" is where the gaming is good.

27" I get the size of image has good impact on immersion when image fills some of the peripheral vision but in gaming you can't really allow that... you need all image in you field of view... at my regular viewing distance I find that eye travel from edge to edge is just too long can become tiresome and impractical in gaming session.

I only feel like the gpu/monitor manufacturers try to push this expensive thing in telling 'hey gaming is here and where are you?" While in fact instead of following consumer need they try to create one, while neither consumers or developers want to go there yet.

Devs won't be bothered with creating games to fulfill needs of 1% people spending 3000$ and beyond on they gaming rig. 1440p 4k, 8k all are incrementally better, but they don't strain the hardware in linear way it is infact 4 times more with every increment. While in the meantime single gpu's aren't all that powerful at 1080p... and we aren't nowhere near this point where performance is so high that devs are saying ok it's too costly make more detailed scenery we can go higher resolution.

Console gaming hardware is at 30FPS 900p ... and that's considerable part of the market and it's a constant for next several years unlike varied PC builds where gaming power has more to do with local average income.
 
please, i want to find a review for monitors, as to it's impact to health and what is the best for eye care.
i seat in front of monitors around 12 hours daily. and i have a lot of my friends like me, even in gaming, business, social media and etc .. .
 
was a hard decision for me to pick between 3D options, higher refresh rates, and QHD+ resolutions. ended up getting a LG D2743 for the 3D and it looks and works great for $350. 60hz 27" @ 1080p with 3D gaming is fine for me, for now. has great color and black levels. of course next will be 120hz+ @ 2160p, but that can wait another year or so.
 
I've been using my same 24" Dell LCD for 9 years. I just don't feel the need to upgrade. Don't judge me. lol
 
Having LG25UM65 for a short time makes me not want any screen of 16:9 anymore, 21:9 ratio is awesome and worthy of a new cathegory to make for, so it won somewhere.
 


Feel of the picture is very similar to the wide cinema screen, you feel like you had a small one on the table. I´ve played some games already and it is very pleasing, as well as working with this screen, the side menus take the extra pixels and raw workspace is all the middle of the screen, thus very large and not squeezed by the menus. I believe there appear soon models of the kind you just described. It´s somewhat addictive ratio and probably becomes very popular.

 
I use my computer more like an HTPC to watch video. I find my Samsung 40" HDTV to work just fine. It is not top of the line. In fact I purchased it because I wanted the lower refresh rate of 60 and the 4 HDMI ports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom