Is it worth upgrading this 10-year old monitor?

[tmb8300]

Hello,

We have a Digital Storm Vanquish 5 system with a GTX 1060 6GB graphics card. We use it for home office work, browsing the web, and gaming. It's hooked up to an old 24" Dell monitor (S2049Wb) that still works.

I was looking at newer 24" monitors with good reviews (such as the Dell Ultrasharp U2415). It would provide 1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080, but other than that, the specs don't seem much improved. Viewing angle, brightness, refresh, and contrast are all about the same. I can pick up the U2415 for about $200 on Amazon right now, but it's not obvious it will be much of an improvement.

I could spend a lot more than $200 on a 24" or 27" monitor with gsync and/or higher resolution, but I suspect game performance will start to drop at higher resolutions and refresh rates unless I also upgraded the graphics card.

Is it worth upgrading a decade-old monitor if I'm going to stay under $300?

Thanks, Tom

 

[bjornl]

That depends on you. You can certainly get some excellent monitors for under 300.

This one is currently 400, but I bought a few weeks ago at 300. I'd bet that in a week or two it is on sale again.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LXPX9I4/

This one is currently 300 but I bought several last month for $250.
https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-GW2765HT-27-Inch-2560x1440-Monitor/dp/B00KYCSRSG/

 

[delaro]

running 1080p on a 1920x1200 gets annoying you get a thin black line at the top of the screen.

ASUS VS248H-P 24 inch Monitor $130ish for instance
1920x1080 2ms
50,000,000:1 ASUS Smart Contrast Ratio Not sure how this translates to other displays but the colors are move vivid and enjoyable when you compare it to a older LCD.

Samsung SE330 Series 27-Inch FHD Monitor $179
1920x1080 1ms Response Time
Lacks DVI but that gaming mode really is a nice improvement.

These are just some examples, yes newer monitors add a better immersion factor over older LCD's, the color scale and depth is much better if you sit them side by side and play the same sample you will see what I mean.

 

[Solandri]

How did you determine the specs were the same? Dell's S series was their budget line. Their U series is their semi-professional line.

https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/71b5755
https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/f3cb58

The S2409W is a TN panel (160 and 170 degree viewing angle) with CCFL backlight. After this many years, the backlight's brightness is probably only about half what it was new, and the color has probably shifted.

The U2415 is an IPS panel (178 and 178 degree viewing angle) with LED backlight. Aside from slightly slower response time (6-8 ms vs 5ms), everything about it is superior. Better viewing angles (and notably almost no color shift), LED backlight which doesn't fade or change color with age, uses less power, can swivel into portrait mode. IPS tends not to have as dark blacks, but compared to a decade-old TN monitor the blacks will probably be about the same.

Personally I prefer 16:10 (1920x1200) over 16:9 (1920x1080). The extra vertical resolution is handy if you have two programs or browsers open side-by-side. And if you do photo or video editing, the extra space is handy for viewing the full image at native resolution while still having editing tools still visible on the screen. 16:10 doesn't look as awkward in portrait mode either. I'm not sure why the previous poster complained about black bars. Does it really matter if the black areas of your monitor are screen or bezel? The only impact the extra 120 pixels of vertical screen space has when you're displaying a 16:9 image is that the image will be 97% the size it would be on a 24.1" 16:9 monitor. i.e. It'll be the equivalent of a 23.4" 16:9 monitor.

All that said, if you game AND you can see and are bothered by tearing AND you don't like the lag vsync introduces, then a Gsync monitor is probably worth it.

Edit: For comparing response times, it's important to keep in mind that 60 Hz is 16.7 ms between each frame. An average response time of 8 ms is more than sufficient for gaming at 60 Hz with minimal to no smearing.

 

[tmb8300]

bjornl: Thanks for the suggestions. I'm looking for 24-27", so I'll keep your second one in mind.

delaro: Thanks for the suggestions.

Solandri: Thanks for the reply. I think any viewing angle over 160 is probably fine - who looks at a monitor from almost edge on? I agree there are aspects to the U2415 that are superior, but I was thinking in terms of strict peformance (contrast, response, resolution, etc.) and it just didn't seem like that big a leap after 10 years. Still, worth considering, and also might be worth looking more carefully at gsync options.

 

[delaro]

You should probably head over to a Best Buy or equivalent store and physically look at these newer displays, they are so much better than LCD's in every aspect.

 

[Solandri]

I think any viewing angle over 160 is probably fine - who looks at a monitor from almost edge on?

The viewing angle somewhat unfortunately measures the angle at which the picture completely disappears. Color shift can occur at much smaller angles, especially with TN panels. I've used TN panels where when displaying a solid color, the top was a different color from the bottom due to the color shift between slight difference in viewing angle between top and bottom.

But you're the one using the monitor so you're the best judge. If viewing angle isn't a problem on your current monitor for the work you do, then it's not a problem.