What is the best LED monitor for someone who has been gaming on a CRT?

[test_123]

I've been bashing my head trying to find a suitable replacement for my CRT gaming monitor. I've come to the conclusion that CRT gaming is the best. However, I have no choice but to go to LED, modern video cards stopped supporting CRT's with the 980Ti. What is the least bad option in LED monitors? There is simply no perfect replacement. Well, at least in the near future.

 

[getochkn]

What size, how much do you want to spend, what GPU do you have, what resolution do want to game at, FPS, where do you live, etc? Best monitor can just go dump a thousand and call it a day, but other factors such as all the above questions come into play.

 

[androbourne]

The "best" or the best in terms of price vs performance? What is your budget? What type of system specs do you have? can your system support 1080 at 144herts? We need a little more details.

 

[test_123]

Sorry.

Under 30 inches but prefer around 25 inches.

I plan to build a monster rig. I would use a 1080 GTX.

I currently game at 1600x1200 (a resolution which some games don't support without black bars). I prefer 1440p.

I love RPG and FPS. All types really.

I live in US. I work and price is not really an issue.

 

[test_123]

As point of clarification, I'm looking for something that comes as close to the CRT experience as reasonably possible. I'm concerned with ghosting. I'm concerned about view angles.

OOps. I'm looking to game at around 60fps. I like to play with all the bells & whistles turned on.

 

[androbourne]

Look at AOC monitors from Amazon. I game with gsync on 144herts at 1080p. I bought my monitor for around $300 and it as very good specs for gaming. High refresh rates and low MS (2 MS to be exact).

I believe they have higher resolution versions that are a little more expensive.

Here is the one I purchased. I also bought the AMD version for Freesync. They are pretty awesome monitors.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SIZ8QDM/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I never had ghosting issues or viewing angle problems etc.. with those monitors.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

The best gaming experience available today will be found on monitors with AU Optronics 165 Hz, IPS, 1440p panels. The As us PG279Q offers 8 bit color and costs around $750. The Acer XB271HU offers 10 bit color and costs around $700. Of course you need an adequate GFX card to drive it. And you have to pick nVidia / G-Sync or AMD / Freesync. While IPS panels do provide the wide viewing angles you are looking for, be aware that while the best IPS are better than the best TN, cheaper IPS panels ($300-$500) are simply not up to the demands of gaming and you'd be bettrr served by say an Asus PG278Q

G-sync is primarily useful from 30 - 70 fps .... it still provides some benefit above 70 but many users prefer to switch to ULMB (Motion Blur reduction) technology after this point. The ULMB feature is provided by an nVidia hardware module installed in the monitor

Freesync is primarily useful from 40 - 70 fps ... it still provides some benefit above 70 but unlike G-Sync there is no hardware module to provide any form of Motion Blur Reduction technology. You can buy a monitor which includes Freesync and MBR but the latter technology is then provided by the monitor manufacturer. As with G-Sync, this adds additional cost and the quality of the technology varies by manufacturer.

For 1440p, we recommend at least an nVidia GTX 1070. No opinion on AMDs new Vega cards as yet until we see what the AIB cards are capable of.

You can start here and use the next / back buttons to see performance in other games.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Gaming_X/20.html

 

[androbourne]

The best gaming experience available today will be found on monitors with AU Optronics 165 Hz, IPS, 1440p panels. The As us PG279Q offers 8 bit color and costs around $750. The Acer XB271HU offers 10 bit color and costs around $700. Of course you need an adequate GFX card to drive it. And you have to pick nVidia / G-Sync or AMD / Freesync.

G-sync is primarily useful from 30 - 70 fps .... it still provides some benefit above 70 but many users prefer to switch to ULMB (Motion Blur reduction) technology after this point. The ULMB feature is provided by an nVidia hardware module installed in the monitor

Freesync is primarily useful from 40 - 70 fps ... it still provides some benefit above 70 but unlike G-Sync there is no hardware module to provide any form of Motion Blur Reduction technology. You can buy a monitor which includes Freesync and MBR but the latter technology is then provided by the monitor manufacturer. As with G-Sync, this adds additional cost and the quality of the technology varies by manufacturer.

For 1440p, we recommend at least an nVidia GTX 1070. No opinion on AMDs new Vega cards as yet until we see what the AIB cards are capable of.

I can agree on the monitors, however I don't totally agree with your Freesync and GSync statements.

Freesync and GSync tend to work best when they can match your monitors herts. If you have a 144hert monitor, as long as your FPS is 144fps or below. Freesync and GSync will help. However, both them tend to have issues if the FPS is over the herts limit.

I have this exact issue with CS:GO my FPS in that game is over 250fps. Even with Gsync on, it can not properly match my fps to hert of the monitor and causes lag issues. I still get the lag even with Gsync off. However, if I go into CS:GO console and set max_fps 144. It is smooth as butter.

There has also been a few benchmarks around the Gsync vs Freesync settings. That show similar rating. However, having them on and limiting your FPS limits might be the best way to go about it. I wouldn't limit it to use only within the 30-60fps ranges.

 

[test_123]

Are there still production issues with PG279Q and XB271HU? I heard some of them have light bleed issues (an issue I've never worried about when buying CRT).

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Yes both G-Sync and Freesync work but your response is not responsive with what I wrote.

1. Yes, matching fps to refresh rate is what they do, never said it didn't help.

2. Never said it was limited to 30 - 70 fps, only that the observed improvement lessens as fps increases.

3. What i said was, it has been well established the there is a difference in the power threshold with regard to effectiveness.

4. I also said was that is is well established that impact of what they do as far as what the player sees is diminished as fps rises.

5. The other thing is that G-Sync offers you the laternatigve to turn off G-Sync and use ULMB. Freesync does not have this option.

All of the above are described in detail here:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/variable_refresh.htm

It should be noted that the real benefits of variable refresh rate technologies really come into play when viewing lower frame rate content, around 40 - 75fps typically delivers the best results compared with Vsync on/off. At consistently higher frame rates as you get nearer to 144 fps the benefits of FreeSync (and G-sync) are not as great, but still apparent. There will be a gradual transition period for each user where the benefits of using FreeSync decrease, and it may instead be better to use a Blur Reduction feature if it is provided. On FreeSync screens this is not an integrated feature however, so would need to be provided separately by the display manufacturer.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Are there still production issues with PG279Q and XB271HU? I heard some of them have light bleed issues (an issue I've never worried about when buying CRT).

The posts you are reading are confusing light bleed with "IPS glow". IPS glow is a consistent "thing" with IPS screens, tho it does vary between panels, "backlight bleed" is a defect.

https://www.monitornerds.com/backlight-bleed-ips-glow-pixel-dead-stuck-pixel/

 

[androbourne]

Yes both G-Sync and Freesync work but your response is not responsive with what I wrote.

1. Yes, matching fps to refresh rate is what they do, never said it didn't help.

2. Never said it was limited to 30 - 70 fps, only that the observed improvement lessens as fps increases.

3. What i said was, it has been well established the there is a difference in the power threshold with regard to effectiveness.

4. I also said was that is is well established that impact of what they do as far as what the player sees is diminished as fps rises.

5. The other thing is that G-Sync offers you the laternatigve to turn off G-Sync and use ULMB. Freesync does not have this option.

All of the above are described in detail here:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/variable_refresh.htm

It should be noted that the real benefits of variable refresh rate technologies really come into play when viewing lower frame rate content, around 40 - 75fps typically delivers the best results compared with Vsync on/off. At consistently higher frame rates as you get nearer to 144 fps the benefits of FreeSync (and G-sync) are not as great, but still apparent. There will be a gradual transition period for each user where the benefits of using FreeSync decrease, and it may instead be better to use a Blur Reduction feature if it is provided. On FreeSync screens this is not an integrated feature however, so would need to be provided separately by the display manufacturer.

Yes I get that. What I'm saying is "primarily useful at 30-60fps". Totally do not agree with that statement at all.

There has been many benchmarks that show that isn't some set small range and it just "works best" within those ranges. That's not how Gsync or Freesync works.

Every monitor, card and system setup will have different ranges and settings for which those feature work best at.

I'm not saying your other statements are wrong. Just dont agree with that exact statement.

Anyways, take it for what you will. Moving on.

 

[test_123]

Does Asus make a 10bit equivalent monitor with G-Sync? I prefer to use Nvidia (not trying to start a post war; wait this isn't wccfetch).

 

[test_123]

Thanks for the link. Wow! So many potential issues! I hope I luck out and get a good one.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Yes I get that. What I'm saying is "primarily useful at 30-60fps". Totally do not agree with that statement at all.

There has been many benchmarks that show that isn't some set small range and it just "works best" within those ranges. That's not how Gsync or Freesync works.

Every monitor, card and system setup will have different ranges and settings for which those feature work best at.

I'm not saying your other statements are wrong. Just dont agree with that exact statement.

Anyways, take it for what you will. Moving on.

I think you are misreading it ... the sync utility is working any different. The impact of what the user sees is different. The problem that G-Sync and Freesync are designed to correct is most seen at low fps. G-Sync and Freesync have a lot of work to do here and the observation with or w/o G-Sync / Freesync is very pronounced.

When you get past 60 fps ... the problem without G-Sync and Freesync is not as pronounced. Therefore the level of improvement which G-Sync and Freesync can provide must be less. It's not that the quality provided is any less... it's that the baseline is less allowing for greater levels of perceived improvement.

Quality of image at 40 fps = 55 w/o G-Sync and Freesync
Quality of image at 40 fps = 85 w/ G-Sync and Freesync ... improvement = 30

Quality of image at 50 fps = 65 w/o G-Sync and Freesync
Quality of image at 50 fps = 90 w/ G-Sync and Freesync ... improvement = 25

Quality of image at 60 fps = 75 w/o G-Sync and Freesync
Quality of image at 60 fps = 95 w/ G-Sync and Freesync ... improvement = 20

Quality of image at 70 fps = 85 w/o G-Sync and Freesync
Quality of image at 70 fps = 97 w/ G-Sync and Freesync ... improvement = 12

Quality of image at 80 fps = 90 w/o G-Sync and Freesync
Quality of image at 80 fps = 98 w/ G-Sync and Freesync ... improvement = 8
Quality of image at 80 fps = 100 w/ ULMB ... improvement = 10

Again, this is not my conclusion ... read any technical article in the subject and they all say the same thing (from link above)

....around 40 - 75fps typically delivers the best results compared with Vsync on/off. At consistently higher frame rates as you get nearer to 144 fps the benefits of FreeSync (and G-sync) are not as great, but still apparent.

Of course you are welcome to disagree but that is the widely accepted consensus ... which is why people turn off G-Sync and use ULMB

https://hardforum.com/threads/gsync-vs-ulmb-for-gaming.1841352/

ULMB has the biggest wow factor for me. Even with a ROG Swift, 144Hz GSYNC still blurs. But turn on ULMB and all of a sudden the backgrounds come in sharp focus

Even 90 fps or above ULMB is probably better. G-Sync is greatest especially when you're only getting 60 fps or less. Between 60 and 90 fps is where you must make a choice between G-Sync and ULMB. I suppose this depends on the game. But the dream condition is to always be above 90 fps, where ULMB would be better.

 

[androbourne]

^ as I stated. Not here to argue. Simply stating what I have seen in recent benchmarks. You can look up Linus videos on youtube. He does some pretty good benchmark tests between the two features. I also have expreience with this since I'm a Gsync user as well. I've had not experience things as you had suggested.

Now back to the users issues at hand.

 

[test_123]

Just be clear, I'll benefit from G-sync because my target FPS is 60, right?

 

[androbourne]

The general idea of Gsync is to match your monitors herts\fps to the GPU so you do not receiving tearing. So yes. You will benefit from using Gsync in that aspect.

This is why I'm in disagreement with Jack. He is simply looking at it in terms of performance. I'm looking at it in terms of playability. Gsync functions properly in various FPS ranges. Not just a target of 30-60fps (or best at). If your goal is to remove tearing. Then yes. Gsync works just fine for your setup needs.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

^ as I stated. Not here to argue. Simply stating what I have seen in recent benchmarks. You can look up Linus videos on youtube. He does some pretty good benchmark tests between the two features. I also have expreience with this since I'm a Gsync user as well. I've had not experience things as you had suggested.

Now back to the users issues at hand.

An argument would involve discussing the same subject. We are addressing two different things ... I am talking about observed visual quality, screen tearing and blur ... you are talking about benchmarks and fps which has no relevance in that discussion. If you look at the test results, having sync on / off changes fps less than 1%, not distinguishable to the naked eye whereas the reduction in screen / image issues is profound. No one buys G-Sync to get more fps. You can have high fps and a unsatisfactory visual image.

Have several G-Sync boxes / monitors and built many others here .... but with the GFX horsepower available, have G-Sync turned off as, often as not, the image quality is better. When playing Witcher 3 @ 100+ fps ... G-Sync is off because ULMB provides a better visual experience.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Does Asus make a 10bit equivalent monitor with G-Sync? I prefer to use Nvidia (not trying to start a post war; wait this isn't wccfetch).

No, they don't. AU Optronics makes both panel, Asus picked the 8 bit (M270Q008 V0) and Acer chose the 10 bit ( M270DAN02.6)

Just be clear, I'll benefit from G-sync because my target FPS is 60, right?

You will always benefit from G-Sync .... well at least from 30 fps to just a hair shy of your monitor's refresh rate. There is no perceptable gain in performance from G-Sync. The difference in fps is not perceptable (~ 1%) and it's oft been observed to be negative.

The main impact when you turn G-Sync on and off at 40 fps, you reaction is "wow, holy crap, no more [insert various screen artifacts, primarily tearing here]".

When you do that at 60 fps, G-Sync is still going exactly what it did before, but it just doesn't have as many things to "fix" as the visual problems are not as evident at 60 fps.

When you get up to 90 fps, again G-sync's impact is going to be far less because at 90 fps, w/ G-Sync off, you won't be seeing many issues. How many people w/o adaptive sync monitors are complaining about issues at 90 fps ? Adaptive sync solves a problem that is very profound at low fps and at worst a minor annoyance at high fps.

 

[test_123]

Thanks for info about Acer. I assumed they would use the same panel.

 

[androbourne]

^ as I stated. Not here to argue. Simply stating what I have seen in recent benchmarks. You can look up Linus videos on youtube. He does some pretty good benchmark tests between the two features. I also have expreience with this since I'm a Gsync user as well. I've had not experience things as you had suggested.

Now back to the users issues at hand.

An argument would involve discussing the same subject. We are addressing two different things ... I am talking about observed visual quality, screen tearing and blur ... you are talking about benchmarks and fps which has no relevance in that discussion. If you look at the test results, having sync on / off changes fps less than 1%, not distinguishable to the naked eye whereas the reduction in screen / image issues is profound. No one buys G-Sync to get more fps. You can have high fps and a unsatisfactory visual image.

Have several G-Sync boxes / monitors and built many others here .... but with the GFX horsepower available, have G-Sync turned off as, often as not, the image quality is better. When playing Witcher 3 @ 100+ fps ... G-Sync is off because ULMB provides a better visual experience.

I said benchmarks of Gsync and Freesync. it is not an FPS benchmark. It is a performance benchmark and totally relevant. Just because you see the word "benchmark" does not always mean FPS. I'm speaking performance in relationship to graphics and quality. Not FPS gain.

The point behind Gsync which is prevention of screen tearing which I have also mentioned. I have even provide you with a source to gather that data on. I suggest you do that first so you are on the same page.

There is no point in further discussing the issue as it is now being a forumfall thread and falling out of the topic matter.

The question was about better LED monitor coming from a CRT. Not the drilled down details of Gsync technology.

Time to move on.