Best Computer Monitors: October 2014 (Archive)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Besides the size difference, what are the major advantages of the E27i versus the Dell U2412M? You can get it for $260 right now on newegg and it's an exceptional 16:10 IPS based monitor.
 
Even though there are some very nice monitors here right now, I'm skeptical of getting anything just as HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.3 are coming out. Also, Dell's 5K option is just around the corner, and monitors at that resolution will require a new cable to run at 60 Hz without doubling up on cables.
 
Also note that for the money is not in the title. Although this is small, it does denote somewhat that this is not for the budget oriented buyer. Really every sub $200-$130 TN monitor is the same performance-wise besides the quality of the stand and connections available.

But, I would personally recommend the Asus VX238H for a nice and fast TN monitor with a decent stand and build quality.
 
"AOC doesn’t include any blur-reduction in this display. It isn't really missed when you're using a 144Hz refresh, though."
Try dragging a window with text from a 144hz screen to a 120hz-strobing screen. The text will stay perfectly readable on the strobing screen while becoming somewhat blurry on the 144hz screen. I know you won't be reading moving text all that often, but it's just to show the difference in clarity it can give in fast-paced games.
Yes, cutting the brightness in half was quite a difference when I first found out about the strobing in my BenQ XL2420T, but in my opinion it is well worth it. I would take 120hz + strobe over 144hz without strobe any day.

On a different subject, I think it would be nice for next time to include a budget catagory.
 
Itty bitty dinky screens with insanely gigantic price tags. Yipes. Especially when 4k 120hz 40+ inch TV's can be had for less than $1000, yeah thanks, but no thanks. The computer monitor industry isn't getting my money until prices come down to align with HDTV's. These monitors are not that much better to warrant such higher pricing. I can only imagine the profit margins they're making off these things.
 
Badly researched affiliate-link bait article that has near zero good recommendations. UP3214Q should never be purchased (it uses MST with two panels in one monitor which results in a variety of issues, and has older input options) when Dell is offering newer and superior 4K IPS monitors that use SST (single stream transport) like the P2415Q and P2715Q. These brand new options aren't recommended though because they aren't overpriced at 3000 USD. The rest of these "recommendations" (ie "give me your money click these high-priced options I don't care if they suck") are terrible (the ROG swift should NOT be recommended at $1099) except for the Tempest monitor.

What happened to quality control at Tom's Hardware?
 
A worthless article for anyone looking to get 16 x 10 monitors. Not that the others shouldn't be included, but many people consider 16 x 10 a more productive monitor size for real work. Some don't. Why not include both?
 
Title is very misleading and shortsighted. This is not Best Computer Monitors: November 2014 but the list of overpriced monitors Toms happened to review in the past .
 
Did you guys not read the comments from last month? There needs to be a budget category. 90% of the people visiting this site will be looking for monitors in the $100-200 range - there are a ton to choose from, some better than others. Some best value recommendations in this tier are sorely needed.
 
I for example could not recomend a bad monitor just because its cheaper and let my rep. suffer. Good monitors tend to be more expensive. Title says "Best monitors" nor cheap nor mediocre.
 
Hi guys. Thank you for the round-up. Please could you include budget sections for 30Hz monitors and 60Hz monitors?

And could you also please include the size as one of the rows in the stats tables? It's easier than trying to decipher the size from the model's name.

Thank you!
Andrew
 
Asus ROG Swift hasn't been below $1,000 for a while, at that price it's just too much to justify for me to upgrade from my current Asus 1440p monitor unfortunately. I've been tempted by the sub-$1,000 Asus 4k monitor, but worried my 780Ti SLI won't be good enough to max out games at that resolution, nor my R9 290X Crossfires. Frankly the difference between 1080p and 1440p isn't THAT huge; to me anyway. I mean it's nice, but 1080p Gsync is probably a much smarter choice than the ROG Swift right now. I can only think of modded Besthesda games as giving me stutters though, so that would be the only reason I'd go for Gsync.
 
The summary table should list the size of each monitor. Size usually is the first factor someone looks at.
 
The summary table should list the size of each monitor. Size usually is the first factor someone looks at.
 
I agree. As long as the pixel density is sufficient, and 60 fps is possible, size is most important and reviewers appear to be totally blind to its effects. Sure, a 15" 4k monitor might look the same as a 58" 4k tv if you jam your face into it. Or ips might matter if your extending wall mount isn't adjustable. But a 34" screen is either a hunch over a desk for immersion, or an imagine its big for immersion. Which, after you play from your recliner on a big screen close up, is analogous to console play compromises. Newer 4k tvs are compatible with nvidias 900 card's hdmi 2.0 and aren't out of the price range of these monitors. I had to get a somewhat pricier Panasonic tc-58ax800u since I already had sli 780ti's with only DP, and I wouldn't play on a 34" retina oled with infinite refresh rate and 0ms lag if I had one. Size does matter. And it should be a more important factor in these reviews.
 
Nope toms as it seems gamers won't flock new g-sync and adaptive-sync technologies not for that mad price... I hope to see this in regular gaming (<200$) screens not limited top of the line 500$ plus 144hz models. That's asking too much... you buy screen for more than a few years but that doesn't justify investment... especially that this technology doesn't benefit that strongly high fps gaming solution... i expected it in you regular 60-75 hz screens. While modern games don't aim for spectacular performance on mid-high builds and seem to oscilate in 40-60 fps range on cranked up settings.
 
Nope toms as it seems gamers won't flock new g-sync and adaptive-sync technologies not for that mad price... I hope to see this in regular gaming (<200$) screens not limited top of the line 500$ plus 144hz models. That's asking too much... you buy screen for more than a few years but that doesn't justify investment... especially that this technology doesn't benefit that strongly high fps gaming solution... i expected it in you regular 60-75 hz screens. While modern games don't aim for spectacular performance on mid-high builds and seem to oscilate in 40-60 fps range on cranked up settings.
 
For "business" monitors, 1920x1080 does not cut it. Effective and productive serious office work requires at least 1200 rows and 16-inches in the vertical. And more is better. FWIW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom