Gaming monitor recommendation

[Malachai]

GPU: GTX 680 (May be looking to upgrade soon-ish)

I do a lot of gaming, video editing, and general browsing. I also create gaming videos for YouTube which will soon(??) be allowing 60 FPS videos so being able to stay at 60+ FPS with my current card is important.

I use my computer 10-12+ hours/day so I'm OK with spending more. I'd be willing to go up to $600 if it's worth it.

I'll probably stick with 24" unless folks thinks I can swing a larger monitor/resolution and still do 60FPS w/my current card.

Thank you for any feedback.

 

[RussianSensation]

24" monitor in late 2014 is not something I can wholeheartedly recommend. Trust me, it's time to move on to 27-32" and you won't regret it. After 1 week of using it, you'll think 24" monitors are too small.

I think the 4K Samsung U28D590D is a good option although you'll need to upgrade the GPU. The Asus ROG Swift has been recommended by many but it's out of you price range. I also read a lot of positives on the 32" BenQ BL3200PT for $650. This would be a great compromise between going to a TN 4K since it's larger but has 2560x1440 resolution with an excellent VA panel that has a formidable contrast ratio.

You can also read some professional reviews for more help.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/monitors/2014/07/21/gaming-monitor-roundup-2014/1

 

[Pia]

Depends a bit on the games you play since different displays have different priorities with lag, resolution, black level, refresh rates, colors, viewing angles etc. There is no one size fits all solution.

If you aren't going to upgrade your GPU any time soon, then you indeed have to stick to 1080p to see solid 60FPS. I think these are the current options:

- Eizo FG2421: Best black levels and contrast, good viewing angles due to VA panel. 120Hz and low motion blur solution. Over $500, but I'm happy to have bought one.
- Various TN displays with 144Hz. Available for less than $250 now.
- Even lower budget solution: 60Hz IPS. Viewing angle and color advantage over TN, but worse motion.

If you want the best right now and a display good for years to come, get the Eizo. Otherwise I think I'd recommend going with the budget solution and saving your money for a substantial GPU upgrade + 1440p G-Sync display in the future. Stretching the budget to the ROG Swift right now wouldn't be bad either, but the 680 won't give you solid 60FPS though it will feel OK due to G-Sync.

 

[PenguinJim]

As you haven't mentioned watching TV or movies, you should probably rule out 16:9 screens, as that's the only area where they beat 16:10.

A 1920x1200 screen will be extremely useful for editing 1080P video in full-screen, as you'll have additional space for toolbars. Games and general-purpose usage also benefit from 16:10. There is a price premium for 16:10 screens, however, as manufacturers prefer to pump out loads of cheap and nasty 16:9 screens that have sadly saturated (no pun intended) the PC market.

With $600 to spend, you could look at a 1600P screen. A GTX 680 will not often provide consistent 60FPS in games at 1600P without lowering some details, but if you are looking to upgrade soon, the new GTX 980 will be plenty (or perhaps even an overclocked 970), and 1600P will leave you fairly well future-proofed in terms of resolution. Alternatively, you could game at a lower resolution for the purposes on creating the videos.

A 1600P screen will need to be 30". There are no 27" 16:10 screens available, and a smaller screen at 1600P is hardly a decent solution!

The Dell U2413 is a decent 1200P 24" screen for just a few hundred bucks. Perhaps take a day or two to read up on importing a Perfect Pixel 1600P screen, though!

 

[motsm]

The Eizo FG2421 is the only LCD monitor I'd consider buying my self. Quite frankly, everything else on the market either has unacceptable contrast ratios, or response times.

 

[RussianSensation]

The Eizo FG2421 is the only LCD monitor I'd consider buying my self. Quite frankly, everything else on the market either has unacceptable contrast ratios, or response times.

But it's only 23.5 inches for $600 USD! For many PC gamers this is 2007-2008 screen size at 2014 28-32" monitor prices.

The BenQ 3200 may not be as fast, but it also has a VA panel which means similarly accurate colours, awesome contrast ratio, great viewing angles, black levels plus you get 32" and 2560x1440 resolution.

 

[Pia]

But it's only 23.5 inches for $600 USD! For many PC gamers this is 2007-2008 screen size at 2014 28-32" monitor prices.

The BenQ 3200 may not be as fast, but it also has a VA panel which means similarly accurate colours, awesome contrast ratio, great viewing angles, black levels plus you get 32" and 2560x1440 resolution.

The Benq looks like a great choice for a lot of people, but I don't get why you are recommending it in this specific instance. That resolution (and no G-Sync) means OP can't pull it off very well with his current GPU. It's also slightly over OP's stated budget by itself, before any GPU upgrade. If OP really wanted to go for 1440p right now, I think he'd have to do a GPU upgrade, maybe to a GTX970. That doesn't quite leave enough budget for 1440p, but he would get a cheap 1440p IPS by throwing in an extra $100 or so.

The Eizo is flexible. Due to 1080p it matches his current GPU well (running demanding games at 60FPS), but due to the 120Hz capability, it has headroom to benefit from a huge GPU upgrade in the future. There won't be a single GPU in the market any time soon that has too much power for 120FPS 1080p at very high IQ settings, and of course you can burn even more power with supersampling.

If you look at TFTCentral, though the Benq's black level and contrast ratios are excellent, the FG2421 still does substantially better. There's also a difference in input lag and responsiveness, not merely framerate cap.

 

[motsm]

But it's only 23.5 inches for $600 USD! For many PC gamers this is 2007-2008 screen size at 2014 28-32" monitor prices.

Yes, but with picture quality that is in a league of it's own. No other LCD monitor has ever offered great contrast and motion performance, topped of course by acceptable viewing angles, color etc. It's fine if resolution or size trump all that for some people, but it wouldn't for me.

 

[Subyman]

27"+ only. Do not consider anything smaller. 1440p is great and you can get decent deals. I'd recommend the ROG Swift if you can swing the price and find one in stock. If you really want to save some cash, the Korean monitors are nice. IPS, 1440p for around $399. I purchased a Catleap 27" 1440p monitor about two years ago and its been great (I now use it as a secondary monitor.)

Plenty of options, but make sure you get 1440p or higher and 27" or higher and you should be happy.

 

[Despoiler]

Yes, but with picture quality that is in a league of it's own. No other LCD monitor has ever offered great contrast and motion performance, topped of course by acceptable viewing angles, color etc. It's fine if resolution or size trump all that for some people, but it wouldn't for me.

I have an Eizo FG2421. The monitor is on another level of image quality and specs compared to any other gaming monitor. I highly recommend them. The only issue is that there is a bit of a panel lottery. Some of them do have a right side edge (1/4") that looks washed out on dark shades of green and blue. It can be mostly brought under control by using calibrated settings though.

 

[Malachai]

Thanks to everyone so far for the responses, given me a lot more to look at. Currently at work but going through the various links and reading up on some of the the things being posted.

The U28D590D looks very nice. Even though I know my card won't be able to run games @ 4K right now I'm still tempted to get it. 28 " and 4K is hard to deny. I'm going to check out the FG2421 as well. Though pricey, if I'm understanding correctly, it delivers a high quality experience while not straining the current GPU too much. Being able to do 100+ FPS in the future is also quite appealing.

Realistically, what kind of card would someone need to run a game like, say, Far Cry 3 or Watch Dogs on high (not ultra) settings at 4K?

As you haven't mentioned watching TV or movies, you should probably rule out 16:9 screens, as that's the only area where they beat 16:10.

The reason I want to stick to 16:9 is because that's how YouTube videos are formatted. I could run my desktop in another resolution and record games @ 16:9 but I've had issues with this in the past.

Depends a bit on the games you play since different displays have different priorities with lag, resolution, black level, refresh rates, colors, viewing angles etc. There is no one size fits all solution.

I play a wide variety of games due to the nature of the content I make. I enjoy FPS but don't play them a ton and definitely not on a competitive level. I do like other fast paced games though like Devil May Cry, etc.

Viewing angles shouldn't be too critical for me. I'm usually right in front of the monitor so it shouldn't effect me too much.


Thanks again for the feedback. If anyone else has suggestions/questions I'll definitely take 'em, otherwise I'll use this info to continue my research.

EDIT: Missed some replies while I was posting. I'm torn between a larger, good monitor which will strain my current GPU and "force" me to get a new one vs a smaller monitor with very high picture quality. Going to have to think on that one.

As to the new G-Sync monitor, I looked at those and wonder if they are worth the price. Are they really THAT good to justify the $700ish(??) price?

 

[motsm]

Realistically, what kind of card would someone need to run a game like, say, Far Cry 3 or Watch Dogs on high (not ultra) settings at 4K?

Not even a GTX980 will cover it, SLI is required to maintain 60 at 4k in modern games.

 

[RussianSensation]

The Benq looks like a great choice for a lot of people, but I don't get why you are recommending it in this specific instance. That resolution (and no G-Sync) means OP can't pull it off very well with his current GPU. It's also slightly over OP's stated budget by itself, before any GPU upgrade. If OP really wanted to go for 1440p right now, I think he'd have to do a GPU upgrade, maybe to a GTX970. That doesn't quite leave enough budget for 1440p, but he would get a cheap 1440p IPS by throwing in an extra $100 or so.

I get that his 680 won't have the power but with a $600 monitor he is likely to keep it for 6-8 years which means 3 more GPU upgrades. 680 is not going to last much longer due to 2GB of VRAM anyway.

I just checked my history: I got my Westinghouse 37" at Costco on May 29, 2007 for $799 and I am still using it 7.5 years later. Since that time I have upgraded from GeForce 6600 to dual 7970s overclocked, or an increase in GPU speed of more than 60x! If the OP gets a 4K monitor, it will for sure last him a long time since there will be little incentive to upgrade the monitor. Alternatively, may be get the Asus ROG Swift, and play games at 40-45 fps with G-Sync but then he would lock himself into an Nvidia roadmap for 7-8 years.

Maybe a 23.5 inch monitor + 680 can be used a stop-gap solution for 2-3 years until 4K monitors come down in price to a level where a 30-32" would be more affordable and GPUs get faster in performance but to me gaming on a 23.5 inch monitor is inferior to gaming on a console even. I just cannot do that anymore after more than 7 years on a 37" LCD monitor. The screen is way too small for me at this point. Since the OP isn't a competitive player in FPS games, 120-144Hz would benefit him less than a larger display with a higher resolution.

Malachai, maybe go to a local store and look at 24 inch, 27-28 inch and 30 inch PC monitors. That will make you comfortable with screen size choice at least.

 

[Pia]

As to the new G-Sync monitor, I looked at those and wonder if they are worth the price. Are they really THAT good to justify the $700ish(??) price?

According to all reports I've read, yes, they are very good. The only one of the G-Sync displays I'd consider at this point is the 27" 1440p ROG Swift, though. G-Sync doesn't matter as much with a 1080p display since it's easier to reach solid 60FPS there, and on the other end, a 28" 4K display with a TN panel is a waste at multiple levels (problems with Windows scaling, much more GPU power needed for games with little IQ benefit, TN viewing angle problems get progressively worse with larger physical panel size).

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I read a TFTCentral review on the BL3200PT:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/benq_bl3200pt.htm#lag

Only thing that seems negative for my purposes is input lag. Right now I am on a 32" TV (Samsung UN32EH5000), I am guessing that moving to that monitor would be a improvement in input lag? Enthusiast testing reviews of TVs are hard to find, of course.

What about a QX2710?

 

[DigDog]

if you play FPS, get the Asus ROG Swift. 144hz and G-sync. full 27". you cannot go wrong.

 

[KingFatty]

I'm seriously considering purchasing the BL3200PT, has anyone used it and possibly have comments regarding it's use in eyefinity?

 

[guskline]

I'm seriously considering purchasing the BL3200PT, has anyone used it and possibly have comments regarding it's use in eyefinity?

KingFatty, I know AdamK47 owns one.

 

[KingFatty]

I just went ahead and ordered it last night (the BenQ BL3200PT).

I'll test it out in a mixed-eyefinity environment with two 1920x1200 display flanking the BL3200PT as the center monitor, in the different eyefinity modes (fill mode, expand mode, and fit mode).

 

[RussianSensation]

According to all reports I've read, yes, they are very good. The only one of the G-Sync displays I'd consider at this point is the 27" 1440p ROG Swift, though. G-Sync doesn't matter as much with a 1080p display since it's easier to reach solid 60FPS there, and on the other end, a 28" 4K display with a TN panel is a waste at multiple levels (problems with Windows scaling, much more GPU power needed for games with little IQ benefit, TN viewing angle problems get progressively worse with larger physical panel size).

Prices are dropping fast. 27" Asus Swift looked somewhat tempting but now for $999 BenQ introduced a 32" BL3201PH 4K IPS. You mentioned Windows scaling issues and much more GPU power but you have to keep in mind when someone is spending $650-1000 on a monitor, they are likely to keep it for 5-10 years. Like I said once you go 32" 4K IPS, it's unlikely you'll upgrade every 2-3 years unless you are a power user and always want the best display. Windows 10 should improve on scaling and you have +/- zoom in adjustments in the Chrome/Firefox browsers.

 

[Satn]

Asus VG 2048 QE

 

[Pia]

Prices are dropping fast. 27" Asus Swift looked somewhat tempting but now for $999 BenQ introduced a 32" BL3201PH 4K IPS. You mentioned Windows scaling issues and much more GPU power

My post you quoted was about the available G-Sync display options, and unfortunately the only G-Sync display with 4K is 28" TN.

Obviously, scaling issues would not be as bad with a 32" 4K display, and that Benq would be fantastic if it had G-Sync. Even more interesting to me would be one of the 34" 21:9 1440p panels - again with G-Sync.

but you have to keep in mind when someone is spending $650-1000 on a monitor, they are likely to keep it for 5-10 years. Like I said once you go 32" 4K IPS, it's unlikely you'll upgrade every 2-3 years unless you are a power user and always want the best display. Windows 10 should improve on scaling and you have +/- zoom in adjustments in the Chrome/Firefox browsers.

I'm all for investing into good displays and thinking ahead, but it's a bit much if you have to suffer for - say - two years of poor usability with a new display before the scaling stuff gets fixed sufficiently and before you upgrade to enough GPU to drive it comfortably.