Monitors, 1080p 1440p 4K....

[Vitric9]

the Asus PB278Q is on a sale close to where i live. I am not sure whether the prices on 1440p Displays will go down soon or even in the next few months. 4K is getting cheaper but I am not sold on a single one just yet. This 27" PL panel seems like the a good deal especially since i would not have to pay for shipping. So 1440p PLS now or 1080p IPS for half the price, wait for a decent 4K, or just se if the prices of 1440p drop in general??

 

[deadlockedworld]

I think more context would be useful. How much is the rest of your PC worth? Can your video card handle it? How long to you intend to keep the monitor? All relative to how much $$ you feel like blowing. (says a person with 1440p)

 

[Episodic]

I doubt the prices of 1440p will drop in the coming months. Possibly ASUS 1440p monitors will drop a little when the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q is released, but I wouldn't count on it. If you want higher resolution, go with the ASUS PB278Q, if you want more vibrant colors go with the 1080p IPS one. Both are good choices, it just depends on what you are looking for most. More vibrant colors or higher resolution?

 

[Vitric9]

Hard to find a decent critical review of the Asus PB278Q and the PLS panel that it uses over an IPS panel. I keep seeing that PLS is a new kind of IPS or uses the same technology but side by side in the shop there was a difference. Hard to notice though. Still the 1440P PLS panel is far better than my TN panel in Color reproduction and picture quality in general. I had a nice AOC 23" IPS monitor, Long story short it fell and is the screen has a big crack and needless to say does not work. Using a VG24QE 144hz for everything now. So Got to get dat good picture quality and colour accuracy. but in response to more Pixels or better colour Can't I have both?

 

[Episodic]

Dell U2713HM, 1440p and IPS panel. The main issue people have is finding a high resolution IPS monitor with low response time, which is nearly impossible to find unless you want to spend a crazy amount of money. IPS technology hasn't come to the point where it can get a 1ms response time on a 1440p+ resolution screen. If you don't mind 5ms+ response times, then you can get the Dell one or the ASUS, even if its not IPS.

 

[deadlockedworld]

I have the Dell u2713HM. Its pretty good except for a couple of annoyances. First, on black screens it shows a bad backlight bleed in the bottom left corner (google it -- its common) and second the "gaming mode" doesn't work well -- brightness peaks and plummets unexpectedly in first-person shooters. I always keep it in "multimedia" mode.

Great color and picture though. I don't ever see any tearing or screen issues running COD Ghosts at 1440p and 90fps.

Edit: at the time I bought mine, about 6 mo ago, the Asus comparable also had the backlight issues -- so there wasn't much difference. Not sure if Asus has improved with new models.

 

[Episodic]

I have the Dell u2713HM. Its pretty good except for a couple of annoyances. First, on black screens it shows a bad backlight bleed in the bottom left corner (google it -- its common) and second the "gaming mode" doesn't work well -- brightness peaks and plummets unexpectedly in first-person shooters. I always keep it in "multimedia" mode.

Great color and picture though. I don't ever see any tearing or screen issues running COD Ghosts at 1440p and 90fps.

Edit: at the time I bought mine, about 6 mo ago, the Asus comparable also had the backlight issues -- so there wasn't much difference. Not sure if Asus has improved with new models.

I am also looking for a 1440p monitor, have you had a 1/2ms TN monitor before you went to the Dell U2713HM? I ask because right now I have a 2ms TN ASUS monitor, but I can definitely see how bad the colors are. I'm just not sure how noticeable the 5ms is compared to using a 2ms for awhile now.

 

[Vitric9]

Dell U2713HM, 1440p and IPS panel. The main issue people have is finding a high resolution IPS monitor with low response time, which is nearly impossible to find unless you want to spend a crazy amount of money. IPS technology hasn't come to the point where it can get a 1ms response time on a 1440p+ resolution screen. If you don't mind 5ms+ response times, then you can get the Dell one or the ASUS, even if its not IPS.

Well Asus has their Flag ship Pro Art 1440 IPS panel which is considerably more expensive then their PB278Q 1440p PLS panel Which I cannot find a lot of info on. IPS is great. But Side by Side in the store vs an IPS The 1080p 23" AOC IPS looked better while playing back the same movie. I hope it was just the fact that the Movie was 720p and was upscaled to fit the bigger screen...

 

[Vitric9]

This is the best review and comparison I came across in the last 5 minutes...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6460/asus-pb278q-review-an-ips-competitor-emerges/3
For the price it is decent but on paper is still quiet a ways off from being as good as the Dell U2713HM in colour accuracy..

 

[Rationale]

I have the Dell u2713HM. Its pretty good except for a couple of annoyances. First, on black screens it shows a bad backlight bleed in the bottom left corner (google it -- its common) and second the "gaming mode" doesn't work well -- brightness peaks and plummets unexpectedly in first-person shooters. I always keep it in "multimedia" mode.

Great color and picture though. I don't ever see any tearing or screen issues running COD Ghosts at 1440p and 90fps.

Edit: at the time I bought mine, about 6 mo ago, the Asus comparable also had the backlight issues -- so there wasn't much difference. Not sure if Asus has improved with new models.

I am also looking for a 1440p monitor, have you had a 1/2ms TN monitor before you went to the Dell U2713HM? I ask because right now I have a 2ms TN ASUS monitor, but I can definitely see how bad the colors are. I'm just not sure how noticeable the 5ms is compared to using a 2ms for awhile now.

I switched from 5ms to 2ms and didn't notice a difference, so I'd think the colors are worth a lot more than a few ms of response time.

 

[deadlockedworld]

I went from 2ms 20" TN to 23" 6ms IPS to the 27" Dell, which is actually 8ms (the significantly more expensive u2713H is the one that hits 5ms). So not really, I don't notice the difference.

That said, I care a lot more about rendering Civ 5 textures in ultra HD than I do about FPS. That was part of my decision.

 

[Rationale]

Really, I think this whole TN vs IPS millisecond debate is a load of ****, and IPS panels are really just overall better. Allow me to explain.

There are 1000ms in one second. A 1ms response time would ideally match 1000 fps, and a 2ms response time would ideally match 500 fps. 3ms would be 333 fps, 4ms would be 250 fps, 5 ms would be 200 fps, 6 ms would be 166 fps, and the highest I've ever seen advertised on a monitor, 10 ms, is still the match to 100 fps.

As most monitors are only 60 hz, with a few rare (and imo, pointless) ones being 120hz or 144hz, it should be physically impossible to see the difference below 6ms on any monitor, or 10ms on most monitors. Any amount of "ghosting" the monitor removes with the high refresh would be tiny compared to the framerate limit itself. On an LCD panel or LED panel, the image is retained until the next frame replaces it, and one the image is replaced the response time comes into play, clearing the previous image and determining how long into the frame there's still an "afterimage". However, your eye reads the framerate and the artificially retained image the same way. At a framerate of 60 or below, the afterimage will be minuscule and far outlasted by the new frame, making additional blur virtually (or perhaps literally) impossible to see if the monitor is accurately advertised.

The people who claim to see a difference from 1ms to 2ms are probably the same ones who claim their $300 HDMI cable improves the [digital] signal quality over a $10 HDMI cable. If you know how digital works, you'll know how inherently ridiculous that claim would be.

 

[Vitric9]

Really, I think this whole TN vs IPS millisecond debate is a load of ****, and IPS panels are really just overall better. Allow me to explain.

There are 1000ms in one second. A 1ms response time would ideally match 1000 fps, and a 2ms response time would ideally match 500 fps. 3ms would be 333 fps, 4ms would be 250 fps, 5 ms would be 200 fps, 6 ms would be 166 fps, and the highest I've ever seen advertised on a monitor, 10 ms, is still the match to 100 fps.

As most monitors are only 60 hz, with a few rare (and imo, pointless) ones being 120hz or 144hz, it should be physically impossible to see the difference below 6ms on any monitor, or 10ms on most monitors. Any amount of "ghosting" the monitor removes with the high refresh would be tiny compared to the framerate limit itself. On an LCD panel or LED panel, the image is retained until the next frame replaces it, and one the image is replaced the response time comes into play, clearing the previous image and determining how long into the frame there's still an "afterimage". However, your eye reads the framerate and the artificially retained image the same way. At a framerate of 60 or below, the afterimage will be minuscule and far outlasted by the new frame, making additional blur virtually (or perhaps literally) impossible to see if the monitor is accurately advertised.

The people who claim to see a difference from 1ms to 2ms are probably the same ones who claim their $300 HDMI cable improves the [digital] signal quality over a $10 HDMI cable. If you know how digital works, you'll know how inherently ridiculous that claim would be.

"As most monitors are only 60 hz, with a few rare (and imo, pointless) ones being 120hz or 144hz"
Really?.

 

[Rationale]

Really, I think this whole TN vs IPS millisecond debate is a load of ****, and IPS panels are really just overall better. Allow me to explain.

There are 1000ms in one second. A 1ms response time would ideally match 1000 fps, and a 2ms response time would ideally match 500 fps. 3ms would be 333 fps, 4ms would be 250 fps, 5 ms would be 200 fps, 6 ms would be 166 fps, and the highest I've ever seen advertised on a monitor, 10 ms, is still the match to 100 fps.

As most monitors are only 60 hz, with a few rare (and imo, pointless) ones being 120hz or 144hz, it should be physically impossible to see the difference below 6ms on any monitor, or 10ms on most monitors. Any amount of "ghosting" the monitor removes with the high refresh would be tiny compared to the framerate limit itself. On an LCD panel or LED panel, the image is retained until the next frame replaces it, and one the image is replaced the response time comes into play, clearing the previous image and determining how long into the frame there's still an "afterimage". However, your eye reads the framerate and the artificially retained image the same way. At a framerate of 60 or below, the afterimage will be minuscule and far outlasted by the new frame, making additional blur virtually (or perhaps literally) impossible to see if the monitor is accurately advertised.

The people who claim to see a difference from 1ms to 2ms are probably the same ones who claim their $300 HDMI cable improves the [digital] signal quality over a $10 HDMI cable. If you know how digital works, you'll know how inherently ridiculous that claim would be.

"As most monitors are only 60 hz, with a few rare (and imo, pointless) ones being 120hz or 144hz"
Really?.

Yes, really.

 

[Vitric9]

I am an advocate of more....more visuals at more FPS and more refreshes on the display...Not going to explain, no need to kick a dead horse....But For all y'all, that enforce that 30Hz or 60Hz or however many Hz is the limit...Short Video but informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCWZ_kWTB9w

 

[Vitric9]

Ok,, Thanks for the feedback on 1440p, Episodic, thanks, your were helpful and I did find out that PLS is a Samsung variant of IPS..

 

[deadlockedworld]

I am an advocate of more....more visuals at more FPS and more refreshes on the display...Not going to explain, no need to kick a dead horse....But For all y'all, that enforce that 30Hz or 60Hz or however many Hz is the limit...Short Video but informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCWZ_kWTB9w

No disagreement that faster would be better, however as the market stands the tradeoffs for faster refresh rates are just too high. Right now there is no way to get faster hz, ultra hd, a real brand w/ warranty, and good image quality at the same time.

 

[BustaRhymes]

You need to get 4-way eyefinity with 4k monitors for a total resolution of 7860x4320, it'll be awesome trust me

 

[Vitric9]

I am an advocate of more....more visuals at more FPS and more refreshes on the display...Not going to explain, no need to kick a dead horse....But For all y'all, that enforce that 30Hz or 60Hz or however many Hz is the limit...Short Video but informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCWZ_kWTB9w

No disagreement that faster would be better, however as the market stands the tradeoffs for faster refresh rates are just too high. Right now there is no way to get faster hz, ultra hd, a real brand w/ warranty, and good image quality at the same time.

Sorry, I meant to reply to an earlier comment. Just wanted to share a video in that reply.