[Aussiejuggalo]

Title says it all really lol, I wanna get 2 new IPS monitors to replace my Dell U2311Hs there getting a little old now and I think its time to upgrade

I'm after a couple of 24" either 1080 or 1200p, lowish lag would be good, somewhere around 10ms or lower, as accurate colours as possible and if I could get ones that dont have as aggressive AG as the U2311Hs do that would be awesome

. They'll be used for mostly photo editing, watching movies and general stuff. Willing to spend around $1200 maybe up to $1500 AUD for both

Any monitors that come to mind?

Thanks

Edit, also needs to have a VESA mount

 

[jlhawn]

I do lots of photo editing and I bought a LG IPS 27 inch from new egg 6 months ago for around $300.
theres really no reason to pay to pay as much as you think.

this is just an example, it's a 23"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005531

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlhawn

I do lots of photo editing and I bought a LG IPS 27 inch from new egg 6 months ago for around $300.
theres really no reason to pay to pay as much as you think.

27" is to big for me lol I gotta fit it more or less under a shelf on my desk and in Aus our prices are sometimes double what you find on Newegg

thats why I said so much

 

[Carniflex]

Does it need to work out of the box right away or are you willing to build something?

If you are then ipad 3/4 "retina" screens can be arranged into something you might or might not like. There is a good long thread about building the screens from laptop/tablet parts: http://www.overclock.net/t/1389756/custom-screen-31-3600x1600-cost-250/0_50



And VESA mount is easy, just piece of veneer with 4 bolts sticking out of it

4608x2048 at approx 20'' diagonal packet. IPS and 60 Hz.

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carniflex

Does it need to work out of the box right away or are you willing to build something?

If you are then ipad 3/4 "retina" screens can be arranged into something you might or might not like. There is a good long thread about building the screens from laptop/tablet parts: http://www.overclock.net/t/1389756/custom-screen-31-3600x1600-cost-250/0_50

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

And VESA mount is easy, just piece of veneer with 4 bolts sticking out of it

4608x2048 at approx 20'' diagonal packet. IPS and 60 Hz.

Hahaha that looks interesting but I think I'd rather a normal monitor

 

[Carniflex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussiejuggalo

Hahaha that looks interesting but I think I'd rather a normal monitor

Thanx. I must admit that ppi on these is a bit on the high side.

DELL has this new 24'' 4K screen, so relatively small, if 27'' is too big for you. I do not remember from top of my head if it was IPS but should be, I would guess. Should fit into your budget all right and would provide you with 4x more pixels than single 1080p screen or approx 2x more than a single 1440p screen.

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carniflex

Thanx. I must admit that ppi on these is a bit on the high side.

DELL has this new 24'' 4K screen, so relatively small, if 27'' is too big for you. I do not remember from top of my head if it was IPS but should be, I would guess. Should fit into your budget all right and would provide you with 4x more pixels than single 1080p screen or approx 2x more than a single 1440p screen.

I think 4K is to over the top atm seeing most GPUs cant really run it good lol

I also wanted 2 screens as I multitask with them, sometimes I'll have photoshop and premiere pro up at once

 

[Carniflex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussiejuggalo

I think 4K is to over the top atm seeing most GPUs cant really run it good lol

I also wanted 2 screens as I multitask with them, sometimes I'll have photoshop and premiere pro up at once

Depends on your definition of "good" and on game ofc

A 7870 does not have major problems running 4K at acceptable fps in most titles as long as you do not use presets but do the settings manually avoiding excessive AA and some effects (like excessive motion blur). I was running my 5400x1920 for a while on 7870 and would be still doing it if it would not have gone into warranty for few months so had to get something to last me for that time. 7950 (equivalent of R9-280 after rebrand) does it even better even in pretty modern titles. Now I do not own BF4 so cant comment on that but things like Crysis 1 and 2 (dont own 3), Metro 2033, etc all play pretty ok at that reso, not consistent 60 fps with the settings I'm using but minimum stays above ~35 with my settings so I'm happy.

If you want 2 displays then I think getting two 1440p Koreans would be pretty reasonable. Should leave also some funds to spare.

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carniflex

Depends on your definition of "good" and on game ofc

A 7870 does not have major problems running 4K at acceptable fps in most titles as long as you do not use presets but do the settings manually avoiding excessive AA and some effects (like excessive motion blur). I was running my 5400x1920 for a while on 7870 and would be still doing it if it would not have gone into warranty for few months so had to get something to last me for that time. 7950 (equivalent of R9-280 after rebrand) does it even better even in pretty modern titles. Now I do not own BF4 so cant comment on that but things like Crysis 1 and 2 (dont own 3), Metro 2033, etc all play pretty ok at that reso, not consistent 60 fps with the settings I'm using but minimum stays above ~35 with my settings so I'm happy.

If you want 2 displays then I think getting two 1440p Koreans would be pretty reasonable. Should leave also some funds to spare.

Ah ok, what if I did what I do with my current setup, game on a 144hz screen then use the 4k as a secondary? would I take much of an FPS hit, getting a 290 Tri-X next week to replace this broken ass 670 lmao

The Korean monitors are to big due to there height, I can only fit 24" monitors into the desk space I have

 

[Karnoffel]

Consider the BenQ BL2411PT or the HP Z24i.

The BenQ has faster pixel response times but it has a grainier matte coating than the HP, which has a true semi-gloss coating, although =DEAD='s HP Z24i has light cross hatching.

They are both 1200p and have <5ms input lag.

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karnoffel

Consider the BenQ BL2411PT or the HP Z24i.

The BenQ has faster pixel response times but it has a grainier matte coating than the HP, which has a true semi-gloss coating, although =DEAD='s HP Z24i has light cross hatching.

They are both 1200p and have <5ms input lag.

Thanks I'll have a look at them

I was looking at the Dell U2413 but I'm gonna guess it has the standard grainy AG that most Dells have?

Also what about the ASUS PA249Q is it any good?

 

[Karnoffel]

Here are two reviews of the PA249Q by PRAD and =DEAD=

In a nutshell:
- Average input lag is 19-21ms
- Both reviews mention an audible buzz coming from the monitor
- =DEAD= mentioned seeing black stripes on his monitor.

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karnoffel

Here are two reviews of the PA249Q by PRAD and =DEAD=

In a nutshell:
- Average input lag is 19-21ms
- Both reviews mention an audible buzz coming from the monitor
- =DEAD= mentioned seeing black stripes on his monitor.

Oh well that ones out then lol

What about the Dell U2413? I seen on TFT Central they said its AG is a semi glossy one and not as harsh as they normally do and on game mode the input lag is around 6ms

 

[Karnoffel]

Check out =DEAD='s review of the U2413.

 

[Carniflex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussiejuggalo

Ah ok, what if I did what I do with my current setup, game on a 144hz screen then use the 4k as a secondary? would I take much of an FPS hit, getting a 290 Tri-X next week to replace this broken ass 670 lmao

The Korean monitors are to big due to there height, I can only fit 24" monitors into the desk space I have

That would work. The secondary screen memory footprint if its showing just 2D stuff is rather modest and performance impact is negligible even if it's 4K and then you have 4 GB of vRAM on 290's. Tri 290 would be adequate even for gaming on the 4K without issues. And it would give you option to pick the best screen for the job depending on the game - where you like 4K you could do it, where you don't you would have that 144 Hz option available.

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carniflex

That would work. The secondary screen memory footprint if its showing just 2D stuff is rather modest and performance impact is negligible even if it's 4K and then you have 4 GB of vRAM on 290's. Tri 290 would be adequate even for gaming on the 4K without issues. And it would give you option to pick the best screen for the job depending on the game - where you like 4K you could do it, where you don't you would have that 144 Hz option available.

Ah ok, thats kinda good

Wouldnt 4K be to small on a 24 inch tho? I thought that was the whole point of never having 1440p on anything less then a 27

 

[Carniflex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussiejuggalo

Ah ok, thats kinda good

Wouldnt 4K be to small on a 24 inch tho? I thought that was the whole point of never having 1440p on anything less then a 27

Depends on your viewing distance. 24'' 4K is approx 180 ppi which becomes "retina" at approx 50 cm viewing distance. In this sense it is on a bit small side for such resolution. I would personally prefer 4K resolution at approx 36'' package (~75 cm optimal viewing distance) but if space is limited then in my opinion 24'' 4K is still usable resolution. I am typing this reply on a ~265 ppi display atm which becomes retina at approx 30 cm distance (which happens to be roughly the distance I have mounted it up in VESA stand in front of my face). That is a bit on the small side - you can read more detailed impressions of usability of it in the thread I linked in my first reply here (post #393 in there). So it really depends - if you will have display relatively close to you anyway (because of limited space) then 24'' 4K can be fine. If you will have display at 90 cm then a person with 20/20 vision should no longer be able to tell difference between 24'' 4K and 24'' 1920x1200 display if the content scales well (i.e., if the text size in millimeters on screen is the same).

Link to ppi calculator: http://isthisretina.com/

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carniflex

Depends on your viewing distance. 24'' 4K is approx 180 ppi which becomes "retina" at approx 50 cm viewing distance. In this sense it is on a bit small side for such resolution. I would personally prefer 4K resolution at approx 36'' package (~75 cm optimal viewing distance) but if space is limited then in my opinion 24'' 4K is still usable resolution. I am typing this reply on a ~265 ppi display atm which becomes retina at approx 30 cm distance (which happens to be roughly the distance I have mounted it up in VESA stand in front of my face). That is a bit on the small side - you can read more detailed impressions of usability of it in the thread I linked in my first reply here (post #393 in there). So it really depends - if you will have display relatively close to you anyway (because of limited space) then 24'' 4K can be fine. If you will have display at 90 cm then a person with 20/20 vision should no longer be able to tell difference between 24'' 4K and 24'' 1920x1200 display if the content scales well (i.e., if the text size in millimeters on screen is the same).

Link to ppi calculator: http://isthisretina.com/

Well my viewing distance is around 30 - 40cm lol, I still think 4K is over the top and again I would prefer having a 3 monitor setup, just makes more sense to me and is more versatile

With movies and stuff how does 1200 compare to 1080? I seen a while ago some people complain that with 1200 it has black bars around the video its self

 

[Aussiejuggalo]

Bump, anyone got any other suggestions on 1080p or 1200p monitors with light AG, vesa mount & have good accurate colours?

Thanks

 

[Karnoffel]

There's the Eizo EV2336W.