Monoprice UHD Matte 28-inch Monitor Review

[ceberle]

Monoprice's new 28-inch Ultra HD monitor features an anti-glare layer, which offers great viewing angles. But can the new UHD match the performance to the company's CrystalPro 4k display?

Monoprice UHD Matte 28-inch Monitor Review : Read more

 

[alidan]

i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.

 

[jragonsoul]

i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.

Then you should get a television unless you want to pay 2000+ USD for the monitor.

 

[g-unit1111]

What's the cost? For someone who is in the market for a new monitor this is an interesting option.

 

[none12345]

yuck 60hz.

 

[bit_user]

i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.

I don't know about 50" (unless you're sitting like 5 feet away), but 4k resolution at 28" seems a waste, to me. My 27" is 2560x1440 and I think I'd probably have to go up to at least 32" for my eyes to make out much more detail.

But I'm waiting for the next generation of GPUs, before I even start thinking about 4k monitors. Ideally, I'd wait until I can get a 14/16 nm GPU with HBM2 for <= $250.

 

[Nintendork]

The monitor is pretty <removed>, when smartphone screens are reaching 2000:1 using the IPS panels with "quantum dot" you ask yourself why should you buy a crappy pc monitor.

Watch the language. - G

 

[jragonsoul]

i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.

I don't know about 50" (unless you're sitting like 5 feet away), but 4k resolution at 28" seems a waste, to me. My 27" is 2560x1440 and I think I'd probably have to go up to at least 32" for my eyes to make out much more detail.

But I'm waiting for the next generation of GPUs, before I even start thinking about 4k monitors. Ideally, I'd wait until I can get a 14/16 nm GPU with HBM2 for <= $250.

Honestly I think HBM2 is going to be reserved for higher tier GPUS (I HOPE I AM WRONG!) so I'm thinking bare minimum would be 300-350 for one. Would be glad to be proven wrong though.

 

[hannibal]

I also have 27" 2560x1440, and also think that the sweet spot for 4K is near 32". But hard to say without testing it personally.
But in reality 4K needs G-sync or Freesync IMHO, because how much it needs horsepower to run in. Frame rates are not going to be great with these for many years.

 

[sc14s]

The monitor is pretty <removed>, when smartphone screens are reaching 2000:1 using the IPS panels with "quantum dot" you ask yourself why should you buy a crappy pc monitor.

Watch the language. - G

You are comparing the monitor to something that probably costs somewhere around double if you are going high end phone (which you would have to have for high end screens). This isn't even mentioning the fact that you are getting a fraction of the viewing size on the phone. Apples to oranges really.

 

[picture_perfect]

yuck 60hz.

I wonder why you get so many thumbs down all the time.

 

[somebodyspecial]

No freesync or gsync? Did I just miss it in the article (admittedly just a quick skim for details I was after)? What is the point in not having one or the other for any monitor you buy today? I have ZERO intention of not going one way or the other for my future monitor purchases. Monitor makers these days don't seem to get much of their market. IE, Freesync/Gsync is the in thing (meaning having it better than not), 16:10 killed off (wider isn't better in gaming or browsing IMHO, I'd add monitors for width in gaming), 60hz etc etc. They keep making monitor after monitor missing things I just won't live without going forward. blah...I might be forced to give up 16:10 but that just means I have NO room to give on anything else I want.

 

[2Be_or_Not2Be]

No freesync or gsync? Did I just miss it in the article (admittedly just a quick skim for details I was after)? What is the point in not having one or the other for any monitor you buy today? I have ZERO intention of not going one way or the other for my future monitor purchases. Monitor makers these days don't seem to get much of their market. IE, Freesync/Gsync is the in thing (meaning having it better than not), 16:10 killed off (wider isn't better in gaming or browsing IMHO, I'd add monitors for width in gaming), 60hz etc etc. They keep making monitor after monitor missing things I just won't live without going forward. blah...I might be forced to give up 16:10 but that just means I have NO room to give on anything else I want.

Perhaps you forget that others might want it for another purpose besides gaming, like a work monitor w/higher resolution than what they have right now.

 

[g-unit1111]

No freesync or gsync? Did I just miss it in the article (admittedly just a quick skim for details I was after)? What is the point in not having one or the other for any monitor you buy today? I have ZERO intention of not going one way or the other for my future monitor purchases. Monitor makers these days don't seem to get much of their market. IE, Freesync/Gsync is the in thing (meaning having it better than not), 16:10 killed off (wider isn't better in gaming or browsing IMHO, I'd add monitors for width in gaming), 60hz etc etc. They keep making monitor after monitor missing things I just won't live without going forward. blah...I might be forced to give up 16:10 but that just means I have NO room to give on anything else I want.

There's also this thing called "cost". I don't know if you have noticed but Freesync/G Sync monitors are all in the $800 - $900+ range. Some of us want to be able to game at 4K but don't have the money to purchase those insanely expensive displays. This looks like an affordable option for those that can't afford those monitors.

 

[zodiacfml]

Get the Phillips, it has awesome contrast ratio too.

i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.

 

[Mark_139]

you can take some wallpapers for it - http://www.tomswallpapers.com/30759-lily-orange-flower.html