Monitor general? Looking to buy a new 27 inch 1440p monitor.

What's a decent mid 20"s IPS monitor? I plan on doing a lot of photo editing and raw capture

scale   ppi   4K      FHD
-------------------------
1x      96    45.8"   22.9"
1.25x   120   36.7"   18"
1.5x    144   30.5"   15.2"
1.75x   168   26.2"   13.1"
1.875x  180   24.4"   12.2"
2x      192   22.9"   11.4"

>>60494155
>Dell U2715H
>60 hz
even if you don't game 144hz is nice.

U2515H is great. If you want 27", ok, but I find that 25" is enough size.

I'm looking for a decent 1080p high refresh rate monitor with lightboost or some other blur reduction technology, preferably 24".

>>60494155
1440 seems memeish. I'd just do 27" 1080p. 1440 is good for 30+

>>60494189
To be honest I can't afford that and I need a new monitor pretty badly, my old one died and I'm using a piece of shit with a whacky resolution as a back up.
>>60494197
Most tell me that 27 is ideal for 1440, but I'm open minded. I wouldn't mind dual monitor down the line so maybe you're right.

>>60494301
In terms of pixel density and clarity, I would even go down to 23" 1440p. I run at 100% scaling on my U2515H and I'd consider going even smaller.

That, and scaling on windows is really good now.

>>60494301
>To be honest I can't afford that and I need a new monitor pretty badly, my old one died and I'm using a piece of shit with a whacky resolution as a back up.
oh i feel you.
>Most tell me that 27 is ideal for 1440, but I'm open minded. I wouldn't mind dual monitor down the line so maybe you're right.
i own both a dell gsync 24in 1440p and an asus 1440p 27in and i love both. the 24in does look sharper due to the smaller pixel size thanks to having a large resolution on a smaller screen, but unless you do scaling, and setting windows to 120%, text and stuff can be small. but you lose out on some of that extra real estate provided by 1440p. so i keep it at 100% but i position the screen closer.

with my 27in it doesn't look as sharp, but with it being 1440p ips on a slightly bigger screen, i can have the monitor pushed back farther, see things slightly bigger, but look almost as sharp thanks to not being so close i can see the slightly larger pixel array. i like my freesync display more.

>why do you have both free and gsync?
i use a fury x, but picked up the second gsync 1440p super cheap during black friday. dell was selling them for $350 with a student discount. made a nice second monitor and being a slave i really don't care about it having any sync and being tn lol. couldn't beat it for being the price of non sync 1440p 144hz screens at the time.

>>60494155
>buy a new 27 inch 1440p monitor.
Why would you do this?
Buy a 4K HDR (spec) monitor with either freesync or gsync. Everything else is not future proof at all.

>>60494381
Since he has budget issues, recommend a giant 2m glass plate invisible TV, that probably costs even more.

>>60494381
>>60494416
Well since everyone is telling me its a bad idea, would I be better off just buying a reliable 1080 monitor and buying a 4k when the price comes down in a year or so?

>>60494416
Budget issues then they should stick to a nice 23 or 24" 1080p monitor. I have one and it is all I need.

>>60494155
U2715H is my current monitor and I love it. I'm a bit biased thought because it's my first ever "real" monitor. I plan to use it for a good number of years until a name brand 4K IPS panel with high refresh rate is sub $500. I also need to wait until a reasonably affordable GPU can drive that. Probably not gonna be for at least 5 more years.

I find 1440p on 27 inches to be perfect. The only problem I had was 4chan and all I have to do is zoom in a little bit.

Before I got the Dell I seriously considered this BenQ. It's the same specs but without all the bells and whistles of the Dell. If you need to save a few bucks then I think this would be a good one.

https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-GW2765HT-27-Inch-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00KYCSRSG

>>60494433
I wanted a good monitor for work, so I got a good 1440p monitor so that I could be productive.
Working on 1080p is painful for me, and 4K is expensive, so I bought a solution that works now, so that I can do my work in a much more pleasant way.

>>60494433
There is a major price difference between 4K HDR and 1080p. Asking that question is like asking guys should I have Taco Bell or go to this place on Mount Washington with fancy French cuisine and a piano player.

File: 2017-05-20 01.33.37 - Copy.jpg (4MB, 5344x3006px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5344x3006px

>>60494437
Pic related

>>60494433
1440p isn't bad at all op. its just 60hz. once you go 144hz with a pwm free backlight display you never go back. but you get what you want most. if you're happy with 60hz because you really want the extra screen real estate then by all means. get what will make YOU happy. not what will please /g/. nothing will please /g/. even getting what /g/ tells you to get will still not please them in the end. you are never right.

>>60494452
This is true for gaming. I prefer my 1080p 75Hz TN panel for home use and gaming.

>>60494450
How much?

I have a U2414H I got for $154.

>>60494448
I can afford a 1440p monitor, but the response I'm seeing is that it's not "future proof", so my question is, is getting a cheaper screen for now and getting a better screen when they are more affordable worthwhile. I.e should I just settle for meh now and get great later, or hit the middle of the road now. Opinions and all that.
>>60494452
>>60494461
Believe me I'd love a 1440p 144hz monitor

>>60494467
I got it new from Amazon for $410

>>60494381
>Buy a 4K HDR (spec) monitor with either freesync or gsync

I would recommend this, if only they didn't cost so much. The added tax of gsync and HDR bring the prices of the monitors up to ludicrous levels.

I'm in the market for one myself, but I would have to pay 1200€ for one, so fuck that.

>>60494472
I'm waiting for high refresh rate 4K monitors with good black levels before moving away from my shitty 1080p panel, because it's not worth it to me to upgrade right now.

>>60494472
I was in the same position and went with middle of the road for now. One positive is when you do eventually upgrade you will still have a nice 1440p monitor you can use as a secondary. You could also sell it and use it towards your future dream monitor.

>>60494490
>>60494506
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'll keep thinking on it.

>>60494472
it comes down to your standards op. personally i find 1440p the perfect balance between 1080p and 4k. i own two 1440p's so clearly i'm bias but i wouldn't own them if i didn't find 1440p to be worth while.and anyways, nothing is really future proof in the end. 240hz 1080p monitors will be hitting the streets next year, better 1440p & 4k gsync / freensync displays are landing by years end / next year. better ips technology coming out in 2018, and a whole slew of other crap like meme HDR and all of that. then a year or two after that? same thing all over again. just buy whatever you want and all that matters is that it makes you happy. worrying about "muh future proof" is a never ending loop of disappointment and regret.

>>60494518
Fair point. I built my first PC 2 years ago and seeing my brand new graphics card fall into mid tier so fast was something I had to accept. I guess it will be the same thing with a monitor.

I want a 4k monitor for desktop related stuff. Since 4k/144hz without severe input lag is possible should I just get a 1080/144hz monitor on the side? How well does 144hz display 60hz content? I could always just get a 120hz monitor but I'd like to hear some expert opinion.

>>60494518
People call 1440p a meme because it's not really a multiple of anything used. It's like 900p was back in the day. I realize 720x2 but I'm just explaining what people think

Can anyone recommend a 1440p 144hz monitor with gsync?
>tfw for the nvidia meme

>not getting a 4K 144Hz IPS G-Sync monitor

fucking non-future-proof plebs

Is G-sync worth it?

>>60494176
how did you go about calculating ppi?
would this work?
>sqrt(vertical_pixels^2 + horizontal_pixels^2) / (diagonal_panel_size)

Never done dual monitors before. I have a 1080p 60hz one currently.
Does different resolutions/refresh rates make a difference - on either a technical level or from a users experience?

Is hdr a meme or is it really worth it?

>>60494637
Yes. No tearing, stutter, or jitter. Gsync is a godsend.

>>60494619
Is there even one under €1000

>>60494690
There are zero on the market at the moment.

>>60494690
No. Stop being poor.

Buying chinkshit makes you miserable. When you buy a quality product, you feel better because deep down you know you made the right choice.

>>60494701
https://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG27UQ/

>>60494701
There is this one
https://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG27UQ/

>>60494729
Its not available for purchase yet

>>60494617
>Falling for the gsync jew

Why do you think you need it? It's a useless feature

>>60494723
But the graphic cards are now under 1000$! The prices don't match! What is nvidia thinking?

>>60494758
>>60494685
Who to believe

>>60494837
as an owner of a $700 gsync display, i can easily tell you its only worth it for mid range gpus. why? high end cards like 1080's and 1080 ti's will easily approach, meet, or surpass 144 fps. making gsync near or just plain worthless as it only works between 40 and 144 fps.

mid range cards that get between 60 - 100 fps can benefit from gsync obviously. but cards that get 125? 140? 250? absolutely pointless. but there is a problem, gsync displays generally are expensive. exceeding $500 burger bucks. such as my acer predator which netted me $750 burger bucks. so if you go out there and buy a $250 gpu but drop $700 on a jewsync display... that makes no sense. you are better off with a nice non-sync 144hz 1080p / 1440p monitor with a $350 gpu.

right now jewsync is for the 1%.

File: dell.jpg (310KB, 2122x1240px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 2122x1240px

>4k
>IPS
>99% sRGB
>3 year warranty
>Height adjust stand
>$370 clap dollars
Is the p2415q the best quality value monitor? If it had freesync and slimmer bezels it seems like it would be perfect

>>60494899
though freesync displays are better valued. you can get a nice 75hz 1080p / 1440p freesync display for ~$150 - $250 and pair it up with a nice ~$250 rx 580 and have a smooth, excellent gaming experience.

>>60494837

This
>>60494899


If you have a powerful system you have absolutely no need for gsync/freesync.

I have a GTX 970 and I get no screen tearing, stutter, jitter or anything, except in very few games that seem to do that regardless of how good your computer is.

But if you're one of those people that have a mid to low-end system then I guess it might be worth it. However, ask yourself, why are you spending twice the money on a display compared to a GPU at that point.

>>60494899
I have a single 970 gtx.

>>60494899
>>60494917
>>60494930
Ok thanks.

>>60494908
>24"
Sorry, I'm not an ant.

Got a BL2711U. Pretty pleased with it.

Every time I find a monitor that looks worthwhile, there are always reviews about dead pixels and bleeding
Is it genuinely bad quality control or do people just not bother reviewing if there are no issues?

>>60494916
i wish manufacturers would use freesync ranges that went a little higher in those budget monitors. my 580 is a beast at 1080p and doesn't really get gpu bound till you hit 1440p... but even at 1440p an rx 480 / 580 can easily hit around 80 - 90 fps mark. i have a 75hz 1440p freesync and many occasions i'll break the 75hz cap. like doom - vulkan. seriously more developers need to optimize like doom. yeah games like bf1 i'll average around 70 fps but that's it, 70 fps. many instances i will break and zoom to 90-100. the only game that runs like ass at 1440p that really benefits from my range is mankind divided but really that game is just an unoptimized load of garbage. doom and bf1 graphics are on par but performance is like day and night differences compared to mankind. even 1080's top off around ~60-70 fps mark in the game at 1440p from what i've seen. don't get me started on the cluster fuck WoW has become. since legion even my buddy with his 980 ti can't average more than 70 with his 1440p monitor.

so i wish they would at least boost them up to 100 - 120hz on those budget monitors. 144hz has been standard for ages now so 100 - 120hz can't be that costly. freesync scales really well and developers can really pick and choose which ranges they want to support so i don't see why they can't. 100hz would really be the icing on the cake as that will cover most mid range cards like the 580 / 1060.

1070 is really the best card to pair with a 144hz gsync but to bad gsync monitors are worth more than a 1070.

>>60494899
What about games locked to 60fps? Would gsync on a 144hz monitor be worth it for those?

>>60495147
>1440p average:
doom - 80 - 90
bf 1 - 70ish
gta v - 70 - 80
fallout 4 - 70 -80
so with the above i'll easily break the 75hz mark with these with m 580
>these ones below benefit but also pile of shit
wow - 50
mankind - 50

>irrelevant:
player unknown battlegrounds - run in a window @ 1920x1200 with shadows to low and post processing to medium with everything else to ultra and i'll average 40 fps in the starting zone / plane and 60 - 80 out in the world. really turn down shadows and post processing and the game is like another world in performance.
>semi irrelevant but also relevant
stellaris - vsync capped because a potato can run this game
skyrim special edition - vsync capped because a potato can run this game
counter-strike go - fps_max set because a potato can run this game

so yeah 1440p is the limit for a 580 but even a 580 can still benefit from a higher range than the budget 75. also i wish nvidia and amd can make window mode *sync work better. freesync unless its borderless window it won't work which is a bummer since most games, like WoW, don't have a borderless mode. and gsync window... well i can easily see why nvidia hasn't defaulted window & fullscreen gsync as default yet from reading the official nvidia forums. still bugs from what i can tell. though i'm sure someone will chime in with >works on my machine~~~~

Tfw can't find a non gaymer IPS 1440P 144HZ monitor

>>60494155
Using this monitor at work and it looks fantastic. Pre calibrated too so you don't have to fuck with it.

Jump to 144hz in 27" and 1440 is a mess as there are _no_ guaranteed good monitors available If you want IPS and all that shit and its going to be a lottery. Same factory shits out all the panels that Acer, Asus + anyone else using 144+IPS do. I got lucky with my XB271HU with only minimal bleed. Also the prices are rediculous

>>60495311
Are you talking specifically about IPS, 1440p 27 inch monitors that are 144hz... So 60hz isn't so much of a gamble?

>>60495166
well yes, they would obviously but it still doesn't make it worth buying a $250 gpu and pairing it up with a $550 monitor.... or a $650 gpu + $650 monitor to run a game at 60fps locked that most likely a potato can run, such as skyrim, isn't anything spectacular. let alone most games are not 60 fps locked to begin with.

its just really a price issue. $250 - $350 gpu makes more sense with a *sync display but since *sync, mostly jewsync displays since they're so pricey, it really leaves it as a one percenter option. if you're strapped on a budget of lets say... $700, you're better off with a $350 1070 & a $350 1440p 144hz non-jewsync monitor. if you're like me with sky is the limit budget then go knock your socks off but the universe of games right now at 1440p that REALLY will take advantage of it... is going to be relativity small. especially with a 1080 ti. that number will be near zero.

i'm waiting for 4k 144hz monitors. those will be nice as *sync will be beneficial for those with 1080 ti's.

>>60494381
I have to admit, i see IPS, 4k, free sync monitors that are within spitting distance of most 27/1440 monitors in price.

Theres a nice looking LG one.

>>60495329
yes IPS+1440 + Asus Predator series IPS up from 27". I've read the TN-panels are not any better but that was over a year ago.

The best advice i can give you is that buy from a store where you can return it / RMA it with no questions asked. This is a must as i went through 5 monitors and kept the least shitty. Dead pixels, IPS glow, backlight bleed, dirt between panel, warped edges you name it. The 27" Dell is a beaty compared to these.

Can Intel hd graphics from Sandy bridge gen run a 2k monitor okay?

>>60495385
Desktop and video watching should be fine

It's really tough deciding what to do. Looked a 1080 27" display in a store, and it's.. fine, i can live with it. But the 1440 was certainly preferable. Unfortunately they had no 4k ones out... but if it looked good as the 5k iMacs it would certainly be a nice option.

File: 1491415682862.png (167KB, 358x358px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 358x358px

>buying monitors where physical size and resolution is mismatched so you have to scale like a cuck

Don't do it, man. You're just asking for problems.

24" = 1080p or 1200p
27" = 1440p
38"+ = 4k

Some more facts:

All 40"+ 4k monitors on the market suffer from the following:

>image retention
>light leakage
>ghosting
>overshooting
>edge truncation

Ultrameme is retarded and overpriced but the only decent solution ATM if you want to go large.

>>60496048
>ultrameme
Stupid Sataniaposter.
Also if you mean ultra wide, it's not that overpriced.

File: 34UM88_1.jpg (647KB, 2800x2800px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 2800x2800px

>>60496181
You're sort of right, given that 40"+ 16:9 monitors with comparable upscaled price range still are fucking awful. Actually considering buying image related.

>>60496251
>88
I wish I had that. I went for the cheapo way and bought a 58. Still pretty good, since I mostly use it for movies and fapping.