# whats the best monitor : BenQ vs Samung vs Dell



## Firas64 (Jun 10, 2018)

hey there !

I will buy a new pc monitor and i need some help to decide from these 3 monitors :

-BenQ 23.8 "LED - GW2470HE (https://www.benq.eu/product/monitor/GW2470HE/).
-Dell 27" Monitor: SE2717H (http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-27-monitor-se2717h/...).
-samsung 24" LC24F390 (https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/led/samsu...).

i will used it mostly for gaming and planning to overclock the monitor to 75hz or whatever.

my specs:

cpu i7 7700k

gpu gtx 1060 6gb

ram 16gb ddr4 3200mhz single channel


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 10, 2018)

All three monitors are too different to say which is best. 

The BenQ is a flat screen. 
The Dell is a 27". 
The Samsung is a curved screen. 

You need to decide what you are looking for in a monitor first. What size do you want? Do you want curved or flat? How much do you want to spend? Then find the monitors that answer those questions. Then and only then can you pick the one that is best among those fitting that criteria.


----------



## cameronh779 (Jun 10, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> All three monitors are too different to say which is best.
> 
> The BenQ is a flat screen.
> The Dell is a 27".
> ...



Bill here is correct. We need you to answer those questions in order to help you pick out a monitor. Bill gave you a great idea of what the community needs to know before helping you make a choice. Once you answer those questions im sure everyone here will help you make your choice.

Also, welcome to TPU.


----------



## Firas64 (Jun 10, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> All three monitors are too different to say which is best.
> 
> The BenQ is a flat screen.
> The Dell is a 27".
> ...


ok i want a flat screen and the size is not matter 24 or 27 is good .
allright the samsung out of the game now we have the BenQ and the Dell .
the Dell is the most expensive but if it is the best I will buy it .
the Dell is 27" IPS and 6ms response time.
the BenQ is 24" AMVA+ and 4ms response time
i want to know ho is better in gaming.



cameronh779 said:


> Also, welcome to TPU.


thnx man appreciate that


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 10, 2018)

Just looking at the specs I'd go with the BenQ. Better response time, higher contrast ratio, and 24" is big enough for me. Plus a lot of folks are saying AMVA looks better(darker blacks) than IPS. I'm not very well versed on the subject, and definitely don't have any real experience with it, though. So I'm really just guessing which I would prefer. I mean other than the size thing. Which I'd be fine with either way too.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 10, 2018)

(AM)VA panels tends to have better contrast ratios.

IPS tends to have better color acuracy and viewing angles.

That's what it comes down to really.  I prefer VA panels.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 11, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> (AM)VA panels tends to have better contrast ratios.


I agree, but unless you are doing a side-by-side comparison it is highly unlikely you could notice - assuming both monitors are setup properly.


R-T-B said:


> IPS tends to have better color acuracy and viewing angles.


I agree with this too. HOWEVER, color accuracy is really a moot point unless you are a professional photographer dealing with human faces or the like. In games, all the scenery and "characters" are computer generated - basically cartoons. Who's going to know if it should be this red or that red?

Viewing angles is another issue however. That said, I think when it comes to computer monitors, viewing angles matter little because most users sit directly in front of their computer monitors anyway. It is not the same as your living room TV where there may be viewers sitting off to side. 

So I think, when it comes to color accuracy, brightness, and contrast,  it really just comes down to how you feel the monitor looks to you. Not how it looks in the specs sheet.


----------



## John Naylor (Jun 11, 2018)

1.  Advertised specs are useless ... can not  be relied upon

2.  Panel type is by no means an indicator of quality.   For example, while it's fair to say that the best IPS screens  has betetr quality than then the best TN, a $250 TN screen is better than a $250 IPS Screen.  The best panels available today ate the Acer Predator 27" G-Sync model (XB271HU a steal at $499 ) and Asus version (PG279Q).  Both use the AHVA IPS panel M270DAN02.6 from AU Optronic (165 Hz, 10 bit color, ~ 5 ms response ti and and < 3 ms lag.  The color depth / contrast and sharpness on these panels is incredible to the extent that after playing for 2 hours on one, everything else looks "washed out"

3.  If investing any significant amount of money, you do want to see the monitor in use and in actual conditions if at all possible... not in BestBuy under flourescent lighting for example.

4.  The BenQ uses an AU Optronics AMVA 8 bit panel, 92 ppi (close enough to the target 96 minimum), 60 Hz.  The Dell uses an 8 bit IPS panel, only 81 ppi (picture will appear grainy to folks with normal vision) , 60 Hz

5. Unfortunately, these models are in a price range which doesn't get much attention from the press; therefore quality reviews are rare.  .    A similar 27" BenQ model was reviewed by tftcentral
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_gw2760hs.htm

Like the model you specified, BenQ claims a 4ms response time... they also claimed that for the modrel linked above ... but, as I said before, advertised response times are bogus.  TFT measured it the average at  10.9 ms ... but more importantly from 4.6 to 33.8 ms.  Lag wasn't bad at 8.3 ms.  The review concludes..._"The response time of the panel was a little slow by modern IPS/PLS/TN Film standards, and this remains one of the weaker areas of this VA technology. It showed improvements over some older generation AMVA panels, but there were still reasonable levels of blurring evident and with a 10.9ms average G2G response time it was perhaps not suitable for higher end gaming. The effort to boost response times even more through the 'Premium' AMA setting proved very problematic and the overshoot and artefacts are definitely to be avoided "_

6.  I must say that when making recommendations for gaming monitors at 1080p, we recommend a starting price point of $250.  The VG248QE has remained the most revered 1080p monitor among gamer's for years now.  I just did a quick google search and while I wouldn't rate the PCgamers site as among the elite review sites, they still list it as the best 1080p monitor.  It would seem that monitor manufacturers are not investing much in their 108p screens, the cost difference between 1080p and 1440p is not that much so while it makes sense to invest in the 1440p space, this doesn't hold at 1080p.  And while, yes, you can buy more modern panel types in the desired price range, the quality is such that educated consumers are avoiding them because of the panel quality.  As above, the best IPS panels are better than the best TN panel... but the $250 TN Monitor provides a better gaming experience than the $250 IPS monitor.

7.  I have purchased the VG248QE for users in recent years as low as $209... but over the last 6 month, prices have been increasing presumably as demand exceeds supply.   In  a few weeks, all attention will be on the new HDR panels, and prices will drop on all "old tech"... The impact will be significant in the $500 - $800 price niche, tho I don;t think that the impact in the sub $250 space will be that significant....still it's just a few eels so might be worth waiting for.

8.  I understand you are working within a budget bit I can not in good conscience recommend either of those two monitors for gaming given the quality level of your existing componentry.

9.  On a side note, you listed your RAM as single channel which Im guessing is meant to indicate a single 16GB stick.   Your platform is dual channel, so next time it would be best to go for 2 x 8GB


----------



## droopyRO (Jun 11, 2018)

@*Firas64*
Monitors are as subjective as headphones or speakers. If you can go in to a store and see with your eyes those monitors it would be ideal. Other than that as said above, tehnical specs are not an indicator of what that monitor looks like.
Try to get a 75Hz one since you game and/or increase that budget to a 144Hz one.


----------



## ASOT (Jun 11, 2018)

Asus and Aoc also good option


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 11, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Not how it looks in the specs sheet.



I agree with that wholeheartedly.  Unfortunately being an online recomendation, I have little else to go on.  If he can see the monitors in person, he certainly should.  A bad VA panel could end up with worse contrast than an IPS or even a (quality) Twisted Nematic panel.

I like to google the manufacturer panel specs to narrow down my model selection to units with high figures, and then go see them in person.  That's how I do the final picking.  Even this isn't perfect, but it isn't practical to see every monitor on earth, of course.


----------



## Firas64 (Jun 11, 2018)

ASOT said:


> Asus and Aoc also good option


i dont have the money



John Naylor said:


> I understand you are working within a budget bit I can not in good conscience recommend either of those two monitors for gaming given the quality level of your existing componentry.


thnx man for the help but thats right my problem is the money and the VG248QE is double the Dell price.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 12, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> I agree with that wholeheartedly. Unfortunately being an online recomendation, I have little else to go on.


That's the problem with just about any on-line purchase - unless you already know exactly what you want. It's a real PITA with clothes, for example, for people like me who are between a medium and a large - depending on who made it and on what day they made it! You would think 1 inch here would be exactly 1 inch there, but it clearly isn't. 


John Naylor said:


> 1. Advertised specs are useless ... can not be relied upon


They are not useless, but they alone cannot be relied on. Published technical specifications are not bogus - at least with the major brands promoting their genuine products. Out and out false advertising is not allowed by most governments and there are too many independent watchdog groups (including review sites) to make sure they are not bogus. 

There is a big difference between published "technical specifications" and "advertising _fluff_" and we, as consumers, must be able to determine the difference.

The problem is we rarely know the basis for any claims - that is, what are the test parameters? We don't know. That's how Ford, Chevy and RAM can all claim to have the best pickup truck - and they do! But best at what? And is that the criteria you need in a truck?

But those technical specs (not the fluff) are very beneficial when comparing two models from the same maker - two Samsung monitors, for example. And in your initial searches, they help you narrow down your choices. 

Are there exceptions out there in this tiny world? Of course! But exceptions don't make the rule and should not be used to make a point. So once you make your choice, buy only from a reputable seller who will still be here tomorrow.



droopyRO said:


> Monitors are as subjective as headphones or speakers.


Yes, no, kinda, sorta, but not really - depending on what you do with your monitor. Again, if you are a professional photographer, or in some medical imagery scenarios, color accuracy is critical and is a matter actual measurements - not subjectivity.

So where does that leave us, as consumers? Sadly, guessing most of the time. Then with fingers crossed. Read the professional reviews and see what the professional reviewers found. Do NOT put much faith in "user reviews"!  Normal users are not professionals and typically don't have the proper test equipment or skills or demeaner to make objective or unbiased reviews. Happy people don't complain so user reviews tend to be skewed from the start. And most user reviews are completed within a day or two of receipt of the product. Many products are down-rated because the Post Office delivered it a day late, UPS delivered it next door, or the box looked like it fell off the Fed-Ex truck.

So I never pay attention to user reviews unless there are many complaining about the exact same fault with the exact same product. 

After all that, you still take your chances. I bought two identical 24 inch monitors at the same time for a multi-monitor setup. They even have sequential serial numbers. Individually, their displays were gorgeous. Side by side and I could see the whites on one had a very slight blue hue compared to the other. It was so subtle, I only noticed it when I positioned an open Word document 1/2 way across both monitors. No amount of adjusting could match them up exactly. But which one was "off"? Without a professional colorimeter, there was no way to tell. But of course, most consumers don't have access to one of those.


----------



## Firas64 (Jun 12, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's the problem with just about any on-line purchase - unless you already know exactly what you want. It's a real PITA with clothes, for example, for people like me who are between a medium and a large - depending on who made it and on what day they made it! You would think 1 inch here would be exactly 1 inch there, but it clearly isn't.
> They are not useless, but they alone cannot be relied on. Published technical specifications are not bogus - at least with the major brands promoting their genuine products. Out and out false advertising is not allowed by most governments and there are too many independent watchdog groups (including review sites) to make sure they are not bogus.
> 
> There is a big difference between published "technical specifications" and "advertising _fluff_" and we, as consumers, must be able to determine the difference.
> ...


you know what Put yourself in my place and choose a monitor .


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 12, 2018)

I hear you. But I am not a gamer and I don't overclock my monitors. So I am not qualified to say what is best for you. 

Frankly, I am waiting 24" OLED monitors to come down to under $300.


----------



## cameronh779 (Jun 12, 2018)

I had no clue there was so much into picking a monitor. Learned a lot from this thread.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 12, 2018)

It can be real challenging. One thing that always gets me is I want my monitor stands to have height adjustment too. Most don't.  And that makes no sense to me. Computer desks don't have height adjustments. And most people adjust their chair heights based how it positions their arms over their keyboards. And a phone book or ream of paper doesn't look good under a monitor. Oh well.


----------



## droopyRO (Jun 12, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Again, if you are a professional photographer, or in some medical imagery scenarios, color accuracy is critical and is a matter actual measurements - not subjectivity.


I agree, but if you are a professional you don't go around forums, asking for monitor advice, having 500$ in your wallet 


Bill_Bright said:


> Frankly, I am waiting 24" OLED monitors to come down to under $300.


Wish there were 1080p OLED monitors for that price.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 12, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> I agree, but if you are a professional you don't go around forums, asking for monitor advice, having 500$ in your wallet


Why not? Forums are not just frequented by know-nothing newbies. Professionals get their information and insights from multiple sources. What are they supposed to do, ask the kid at Best Buy? 

1080P is not the problem. It is the price.


----------



## droopyRO (Jun 12, 2018)

Buy and try, there is no other way or go to Eizo and other such manufacturers.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 12, 2018)

Out of those 3 - the Dell. I had a cheap 60Hz VA before - bad idea for gaming. Pixel transition is sooo slow. 75Hz IPS will feel a lot faster in movement.

How about LG 24MP59G-P though, cheaper than the dell and it's 24", better for 1080p.


----------



## ASOT (Jun 12, 2018)

i have one great and nice response,freesync bonus,panel ips


----------



## Firas64 (Jun 13, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Out of those 3 - the Dell. I had a cheap 60Hz VA before - bad idea for gaming. Pixel transition is sooo slow. 75Hz IPS will feel a lot faster in movement.
> 
> How about LG 24MP59G-P though, cheaper than the dell and it's 24", better for 1080p.


alright the Dell is good choice.
thanks to all


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 13, 2018)

I would agree on the choice made. Cheap VA is something you want to avoid. If you see 2500-3000:1 contrast ratio on a VA, alarm bells should be going off and it means: see it, use it, before buying it. Good VA's go higher. As in twice as high, and along with that comes a higher quality across the board.

Cheap IPS is nice because apart from response times, the differences in quality are minimal. You can always do your own (re-) calibration, they all have decent color and viewing angles and a pretty stable G2G across the whole color spectrum. This is another problem area for VA: most of the time, darker hues can have a slower G2G response, causing a smear effect or, much worse, very visible color transitions that lag behind the rest of the image.


----------



## droopyRO (Jun 13, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> darker hues can have a slower G2G response, causing a smear effect or, much worse, very visible color transitions that lag behind the rest of the image.


Yup, had three cheap(er) VA panels BenQ 27", Philips 32" and a AOC 32", first two were 1080p the third was 1440p. Great contrast, good colors out of the box but slow response time coupled with very low input lag. Wich is a shame compared to IPS.
I would try a 1080p VA with 144Hz, but i don't know if i want to go back to 24".


----------



## las (Jun 13, 2018)

Most VA panels have much better contrast and much deeper blacks compared to IPS. Bad viewing angles tho. Some VA panels can vary alot in response times tho, especially when going from bright to dark or vice versa. Some VA panels are very good. IPS is generally good and has less difference between best and worst.

Going from 60 Hz to 75 Hz is barely noticeable and many monitors will do frame skipping at 75 Hz, if they are 60 Hz native.

I'd get 100 Hz or better for gaming.

Maybe take a look at Acer's upcoming Nitro monitors. VG0 series. They will be "cheap" and have 1080p/1440p IPS with up to 144 Hz. They won't have the crappy PREDATOR logo on the front either.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 13, 2018)

droopyRO said:


> Yup, had three cheap(er) VA panels BenQ 27", Philips 32" and a AOC 32", first two were 1080p the third was 1440p. Great contrast, good colors out of the box but slow response time coupled with very low input lag. Wich is a shame compared to IPS.
> I would try a 1080p VA with 144Hz, but i don't know if i want to go back to 24".



For a typical viewing distance & PPI sweet spot 1080p/24 is still very much it. Sufficient size to fill your *focused* vision, which means its good for competitive play at native res too.

Still rocking the Eizo FG2421... no desire to 'upgrade' at all... Even though I would not mind 1440p getting a panel as nice as this one is going to easily cost 800+ eur


----------



## qubit (Jun 13, 2018)

@Firas64 If you want a gaming monitor, get one with a higher refresh rate that's made for this. You'll get a better experience this way. I've got the BenQ XL2720Z which is great for this and does 144Hz + strobing. It's quite high end and the new version is expensive. There are cheaper versions though.

You mentioned casually overclocking a monitor. Note that it doesn't normally work unless the monitor has been specially made to overclock, so don't assume that your monitor will do it. For example, my BenQ will just about do 145Hz, but 146Hz gives a blank picture.


----------



## droopyRO (Jun 13, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Sufficient size to fill your *focused* vision,


At home i use a 27" monitor since 2013. For competitive play,  23-24" screens are better, yes. But for single-player a bigger screen is better IMO.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 13, 2018)

I disagree with the comments that suggest a specific size is better for competitive play or whatever task you are doing. The ideal size is determined by the distance between you and the screen surface.

There is all sorts of advice on this, none is specific. For example, you will commonly hear "arm's length". What the heck does that mean? If you have T-Rex arms, does that mean you sit 12 inches from a 15" monitor? What if you are a knuckle dragger. Do you sit 40 inches from a 32 inch monitor?

You will also hear between 20 and 40 inches. Yeah, that's specific!  And that's from OSHA! 

IMO, the ideal size monitor is the one the fills my field of vision without me having to constantly move my head back and forth and up and down. Oh and of course, that is with my computer glasses on!  YMMV


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 13, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> I disagree with the comments that suggest a specific size is better for competitive play or whatever task you are doing. The ideal size is determined by the distance between you and the screen surface.
> 
> There is all sorts of advice on this, none is specific. For example, you will commonly hear "arm's length". What the heck does that mean? If you have T-Rex arms, does that mean you sit 12 inches from a 15" monitor? What if you are a knuckle dragger. Do you sit 40 inches from a 32 inch monitor?
> 
> ...



Arm's length is basically somewhere in the range of 60-90cm and believe it or not, 95% of all people are in this range or very close to it. Its that way for many things that have to do with size. One size fits all very much applies to many things. Some variation in typical viewing distance always exists anyway because we tend to lean towards the screen as sessions get longer and attention to sitting properly wanes, that's when you edge closer to the 60cm bottom end  Screen diagonals + resolutions are also optimized for that, in a way that you're not counting pixels and when you can, you know you're sitting too close


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 13, 2018)

I've gone through 4 monitors to find a perfect one, it's different in every case

1080p 60Hz VA was great.... until I saw how bad it was compared to an IPS. Switching from 60hz VA to 60Hz IPS felt like +10 fps faster, with all the smearing and ghosting that slow VA had. The IPS had baclight bleed though, so I got rid of it and will never buy an IPS again, the bleed and silverish blacks is something I cannot stand. I went to 1440p 144Hz TN and I knew that was the s**t for gaming, but the s2716dg had issues with gamma control and ULMB, so I got myself a 24" 1440p 165hz acer and this is the perfect monitor for gaming for me.

When Cyberpunk 2077 hits I'd like to replace my s2716dg which I'm using as secondary display with a HDR VA for vibrant colors and deep blacks. I just hope to get one with good overdrive control to limit my percepion of slow pixel response. 75Hz would be enough, just get rid of most of that smearing, I hate blurry image <puke>.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 13, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Arm's length is basically somewhere in the range of 60-90cm and believe it or not, 95% of all people are in this range or very close to it. Its that way for many things that have to do with size. One size fits all very much applies to many things.


Totally immaterial. And one size does not fit all.

You're assuming arm's length is ideal for those 95%. I know lots of people who game with their monitors 18" in front of their noses. Many with so called "gaming" notebooks do that. I also know lots of people who game on their big screen TVs. They are just as competitive as other gamers.

So I am sticking with what I said before, "_The ideal size is determined by the distance between you and the screen surface_" which might be 12 inches in front of your face, or 12 feet across the room.

Edit comment: Fixed typos


----------



## qubit (Jun 13, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I've gone through 4 monitors to find a perfect one, it's different in every case
> 
> 1080p 60Hz VA was great.... until I saw how bad it was compared to an IPS. Switching from 60hz VA to 60Hz IPS felt like +10 fps faster, with all the smearing and ghosting that slow VA had. The IPS had baclight bleed though, so I got rid of it and will never buy an IPS again, the bleed and silverish blacks is something I cannot stand. I went to 1440p 144Hz TN and I knew that was the s**t for gaming, but the s2716dg had issues with gamma control and ULMB, so I got myself a 24" 1440p 165hz acer and this is the perfect monitor for gaming for me.
> 
> When Cyberpunk 2077 hits I'd like to replace my s2716dg which I'm using as secondary display with a HDR VA for vibrant colors and deep blacks. I just hope to get one with good overdrive control to limit my percepion of slow pixel response. 75Hz would be enough, just get rid of most of that smearing, I hate blurry image <puke>.


I hate motion blur/smear too. The best way to get rid of it is with a high refresh rate monitor + strobe. I see that your Acer has 144/165Hz refresh + G-SYNC, so is great for this in its ULMB mode. My BenQ XL2720Z has 144Hz refresh + strobe that works with any brand of card and at any refresh rate. Motion is like a CRT on this monitor. The strobe is great at 60Hz for migraines.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 14, 2018)

qubit said:


> I hate motion blur/smear too. The best way to get rid of it is with a high refresh rate monitor + strobe. I see that your Acer has 144/165Hz refresh + G-SYNC, so is great for this in its ULMB mode. My BenQ XL2720Z has 144Hz refresh + strobe that works with any brand of card and at any refresh rate. Motion is like a CRT on this monitor. The strobe is great at 60Hz for migraines.


TBH I rarely use ULMB, I play AAA tiltles mostly, and my 5775c+1080 can't do stable 120 fps even if I drop the settings. I still perefer having synced frames than strobing, when they're unsynced it puts me off, I can see the motion is not as fluid as with g-sync. TBH a TN with extreme ovrdrive running at 80-100 hz is not producing much blur anyway.

I agree though, ULMB is amazing when it comes to game immersion. I played hunderds of hours of dying light in ulmb mode at locked 120 fps and it was like real life.


----------



## RichF (Jun 14, 2018)

There is some questionable advice and logic in some of the posts, based on my skimming. So, hopefully, this post will help to clarify a few things:

1) In no way can any TN panel ever be as good as an IPS panel or a decent VA panel, in terms of color/gamma consistency. It's impossible, because of the pixel type. TN panels have bad vertical gamma/color shift. It's the price you pay for the pixel type being the cheapest to make and, most importantly, the fastest to refresh.

2) TN panels are the fastest, but not all of them are overdriven well. LCD pixels need to be overdriven to reduce blur. The drawback is that if the overdrive is too aggressive you'll get artifacts that make graphics look bad, like trails.

3) VA panels, as far as I know (I stopped researching extensively a while ago) always have the worst response times in the darkest dark-to-light transitions, when compared with decently overdriven TN and IPS panels. This appears to be an unavoidable drawback of the VA pixel type. If this has finally been solved since I stopped extensively following monitor tech then that would be interesting to know. I doubt it, though. Even the fancy Eizo 24" strobing backlight 240 Hz gaming panel (really a satellite monitor for $5000 sold to gamers with grade B, or something less than A+, panels) struggled with these transitions.

4) A strobing backlight is critical if you want the least motion blur, but it can cause "eyestrain".

5) PWM vs. constant control backlighting. The former causes flicker. It may cause eye/brain fatigue, since it's literally a matter of shutting off the backlight and turning it back on again quickly constantly. The speed with which the refreshes occurs may make a big difference in terms of the amount of physical discomfort related to its use. I don't think there has been any scientific research into this. Constant control backlights don't flicker but they may have more difficulty with color shift related to brightness adjustments. Constant control backlighting became a lot more common once the public found out about PWM flicker, thanks to articles on sites like prad.de and tftcentral.

6) It was said that a 2000–3000 static contrast ratio in a VA panel is a red flag because other VA panels can go higher. It's not a red flag if you're seriously considering an IPS or TN panel, neither of which can get that level of contrast. The last time I checked, the best IPS and TN can do is a bit over 1000, like maybe as high as 1200:1. The lowest VA panel I recall seeing in recent years was around 2400:1.

7) VA panels are challenging for color-critical work because of their head-on black crush, a side effect of the pixel type. It is a fairly minor issue for people who don't do color-critical work. It is very minor when compared with the color/gamma shift of TN. However, some older VA panels did get quite washed out at wider angles, and had strong color shifts. They weren't as bad as TN is vertically, though.

8) IPS not only lacks the head-on black crush of VA but also has the widest viewing angle trueness to color/gamma. The bad sides of IPS are the reduced contrast, the polishing process involved in making IPS panels (which can negatively impact uniformity), and "IPS glow". IPS glow can be eliminated by the monitor maker adding a polarizer but they're all too cheap to do so anymore. VA panels have a much fainter deep violet glow.

9) Input lag is the most important criterion for competitive gamers doing fast-paced gaming. The nicest-looking monitor is bad news if it doesn't enable you to match your input timing with the output onscreen.

10) FreeSync and G-Sync. Look them up if you don't know what they are. If you don't know what they are, in enough depth to make an informed purchase, then you should read up. Although, look into the unbranded industry spec that addresses screen tearing.

11) For movies and slow-paced gaming (like Civilization), VA is the choice, no question. For the highest-speed most competitive gaming, it's TN, no question (with a strobing backlight, very low input lag, and 120 Hz at a minimum). For color-critical work, IPS is the choice, no question — unless you really need contrast, in which case you may want to consider using a calibrated OLED TV or something to make final adjustments related to contrast. OLED is likely to get burn-in or image retention if used as a computer screen but it doesn't have VA's black crush problem and it has even better contrast. Don't overestimate the importance of color accuracy as a gamer. Many males are partially red/green colorblind, too. If you are then you may want to artificially boost the red and green output of your panel anyway. I don't know if that helps with the colorblindness, though.

12) HDR. Read up about this. Eye-searing brightness might be a drawback for some but the 10-bit color could be nice enough. It seems than the industry is moving away from fake HDR schemes to a true standard that improves color rendering, grey precision, and increases the brightness. The last bit is, in my view, mainly to enable advertisers to irritate people more effectively with commercials.

13) Uniformity is important for color-critical work and for photographic work involving greyscale images. Contrast is important, but uniformity is also. The best pro screens have uniformity compensation tech that actually works. Some have the tech but it doesn't really do anything. OLED and plasma don't have such uniformity issues but they're not really suited for computer monitors because of retention and burn-in. Uniformity imperfection mainly involves gamma differences (darker and lighter areas of the screen surface).

14) Backlighting varies, in terms of there being edge-lit and multiple point rear backlighting. Edge lighting is cheaper but tends to be less uniform. One tactic monitor makers (but especially TV makers) often use is "local dimming". This involves a multiple point rear backlight, where some of the backlight is on and some of it is off, to increase contrast. Although these dimming schemes can increase perceived contrast they can also be noticeable.

15) Dynamic contrast is the contrast spec the industry has traditionally liked to peddle but it's deceptive. Stick with comparing static contrast ratios.

16) Panels typically come in 6-bit + 2 bits of FRC dithering, 8-bit, 8-bit + 2 bits of FRC dithering, and 10-bit. Anything above 10-bit, like 10 bits plus 2 bits of FRC dithering is probably overkill. For the tiny antiquated sRGB color space, which is the standard for video games and most consumer content even today, 6-bit color is fine. What's more important than the processing depth is the gamut (the range of colors) the backlight is capable of delivering. If it's 100% sRGB with smooth coverage then you're all set, even with 6-bit + 2 bits of dithering. This is, of course, if you don't mind minor shimmering effects from the dithering and don't need HDR's 10 bits. For color-critical work, you want an 8-bit panel at the minimum, but really should get at least an 8-bit + 2 bits of FRC panel. The color processing depth can mainly be thought of in terms of the smoothness of gradients — resistance to banding. However, more than one thing can cause banding. For color-critical work you want, at the minimum, around 100% coverage of the old AdobeRGB color space (bigger than sRGB but still inadequate). If you're going to be using professional printing it's ideal to have a panel that can cover the full gamuts of the CMYK print spaces.

17) Monitor speakers are trash. Ignore them.

18) Reduced blue light modes are nice to have, so you don't have to use f.lux. That software is annoying because it constantly shifts the color depending on the time of the day. Once you get used to the comfort from a warmer white point you'll probably never want to go back to the eye-searing cold bluish 6500K+ standard. Some panels ship calibrated even colder. A warmer white point is even nicer in dark rooms. Once you're warmer than 4700–5000K, though, you're really not worried about color accuracy so much as comfort. This is an example of why a non-graphics pro workload doesn't necessarily need color accuracy.

19) TVs can sometimes be good enough gaming monitors. Look for very low input lag, especially in any kind of special mode, like 120 Hz. Some TVs do very well in input lag at 60 Hz but are bad at 120. Also, don't forget screen tearing (FreeSync, G-Sync, etc.).

20) LCD performs best at its native resolution so try to pick the resolution that your system can handle. If you get more resolution than your system can handle then at least get what your next upgrade can handle. Otherwise, having 4K or more can be a drawback. I am a fan of the 32" 1440 format, personally. Remember, that when you sit further away from a screen the pixels seem smaller. If you sit far enough away you won't be able to see, for instance, any difference in quality between an 8K and a 4K screen. Yet, you're expending a lot more processing energy and storage space, let alone the price tags.

21) Curved or not curved. That is a question.

22) Wide screen, ultra-wide, or normal dimensions.

23) What is your budget?

24) Light anti-glare, strong anti-glare, semi-gloss, glossy but muted, shiny? These have all been options in the market. One Dell VA panel, for instance, was compared to a mirror because its untreated glass surface was so reflective. Another Dell had a strong "crystalline" look from the strong anti-glare treatment of the glass. Different people have different preferences about anti-glare levels and types. Physically etched screens (versus chemical coatings) are typically the most effective at reducing glare but also cause the worst crystalline effect. Strong anti-glare has lost popularity, although it's probably the best choice for powerfully bright office lighting — like big overhead fluorescent systems — and when windows are shining onto the screen.

25) The most competitive higher-speed gaming panel has these features: strobing backlight, TN, 120 Hz or better, very low input lag (including with 120 Hz or better mode enabled), pixels overdriven "just enough" (not too much overshoot), and screen tearing reduction tech like FreeSync. Some also like tech that reduces the depth of dark areas but I don't see why that can't be done in the video card or CPU. The monitor that is geared at more generalized entertainment: no strobing backlight, 120 Hz with low input lag, a VA panel with 2700:1 or better contrast (ideally 5000:1 or so) — properly overdriven. TVs  with VA panels are generally quoted as having higher static contrast than computer monitors. Perhaps this has changed since I last checked, though. It seems that the monitors, though, lagged behind in terms of the sophistication of the VA pixel tech. The exception was the Sharp panel in that old 1080 resolution Eizo I mentioned that could reach 5000:1.

26) If you use HDMI, remember to switch it to full RGB range mode, not limited. I think the full is 0–255 and the limited is 16–255, so you lose some of the deepest blacks with limited mode. As far as I know the limited mode is made for TV use. However, it can be turned on by default in computer setups!

27) Color enhancement boosts don't add information. In fact, like sharpeners, they tend to reduce the information presented on the screen. Similarly, fancy software shader add-ins may seem neat but they may just be reducing the information level by boosting color and crushing the gamma. If your panel seems to lack contrast you can cheat by raising the gamma to a higher number. This makes things look more contrasty but you're throwing away detail in the process. You can also get the "make dark areas lighter to see your enemy" tech, at least in a limited manner, by reducing your gamma's contrast. Linear 1.0 gamma is the most "washed out" gamma setting, typically. It looks bad but perhaps it will help you see people in shadows.

28) Contrast adjustments on monitors usually shouldn't be messed with because they're boosting the RGB channels. It's better to calibrate the RGB channels separately.

29) You can't trust the human eye to do calibration. It adjusts itself to accommodate what it sees. For instance, if you switch your white point to 1900K (candle level warmth) it will seem really orange for a while. But, give it time and the red/orange will steadily become less "there". Your brain/eye adjusts for the extra red. You must use a colorimeter and software that gives good-quality results. This is if you want color/gamma accuracy. Even if you're not doing color-critical work it's nice to, at least, not have banding. Most monitors do not come very well-calibrated from the factory, although standards seem to have been increasing, at least in the prosumer and better market.

30) The best color work monitors have a programmable hardware LUT (look-up table). This enables calibration with less loss of presented information. It's less lossy calibration. LUT profiles, though, from what I've read, are less supported, in terms of what software will recognize the profile correctly, that the simpler, and more lossy, matrix color profiles. Perhaps things have changed?

That's 30 points off of the top of my head. I'm sure I've forgotten some things but I think I remembered the important stuff.


Also, watch out for BenQ/AUO because they have created a name for their pixel type that says "VA" in it but it's actually a variety of IPS. I think it's "AHVA". Why they did this is a mystery. VA means vertical alignment and IPS pixels are not VA.

PLS is another variant of IPS.

A-MVA (the common version of actual VA in recent times) used to have a competitor from Samsung called c-PVA. It was a cost-reduced variety of the old PVA type. PVA had some good points but I think pixel speed was not one of them. It was also, as I recall, a bit costly to make. c-PVA was inferior to it because of strong black crush and Samsung apparently couldn't keep up with the improvements to A-MVA.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 14, 2018)

A good read and I actually read through it. A couple of points however, one rather important, the other just a nit. 





RichF said:


> OLED is likely to get burn-in or image retention if used as a computer screen


"Likely" to get burn in or image retention? Nah! Not for normal users. 

Image retention (which is temporary) occurs when the same image is displayed for hours and hours on end and never changes. And burn in (which is permanent) occurs when that same image is displayed many hours every day, day after day. For example, at a sports bar that keeps their TV set to ESPN for hours every day, there is a good chance the ESPN logo displayed in the corner will burn in. 

But most computer users don't display images like that. The backgrounds in games change, as do objects in the game. Users check email, look at facebook, call up their browsers and do other computing tasks that change the image, thus minimize, or even eliminate the risk of image retention. 

So while image retention (and burn in) are potential problems with OLED displays, to say an OLED is "likely" to experience image retention or burn is overstating the problem and greatly exaggerating the potentials for them. 

And the nitnoid issue:





RichF said:


> You can't trust the human eye to do calibration. It adjusts itself to accommodate what it sees.


It is true you cannot trust the human eye to do calibration, but it is the human "brain" that does the adjusting (fooling actually), not the eye. The eye sees what it sees. The brain interprets, or tries to interpret based on what it thinks it should be seeing.


----------



## qubit (Jun 14, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Image retention (which is temporary) occurs when the same image is displayed for hours and hours on end and never changes. And burn in (which is permanent) occurs when that same image is displayed many hours every day, day after day. For example, at a sports bar that keeps their TV set to ESPN for hours every day, there is a good chance the ESPN logo displayed in the corner will burn in.


Image retention on a plasma TV is a right pita, I tell you and possibly hastened plasma's demise.

I've got a 42 inch 2010 era Full HD Panasonic plasma TV I bought very cheaply off a friend a few months ago. Great picture as you can imagine. However, it does actually have a bit of light burn-in now from the Sky+ HD box it's connected to.

Every time I press play, rewind etc, it shows a largish blue square at the bottom left of the screen which has a thick circle animation inside it related to the function it's doing. This lasts for around 5 seconds or so. That has now left a faint after image on the screen that annoyingly won't go away. Thankfully it's mainly visible under very dark backgrounds or a white background, but it's still there. There are other faint burn-in marks on that screen too, which were there when I bought it.

To reduce the amount of further damage, I now press the Back Up button on the remote to get rid of that animation asap. LCDs are virtually immune to retention issues, which is something I really like about them (and regularly leave my PC showing the same picture on the monitor for ages with no issues at all) but I don't know how sensitive a good quality OLED TV would be to this problem.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 14, 2018)

qubit said:


> Image retention on a plasma TV is a right pita,


My comment was specifically about OLED displays. Not plasmas.


----------



## qubit (Jun 14, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> My comment was specifically about OLED displays. Not plasmas.


I know that. I think you missed the context of my comment. Never mind.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 14, 2018)

qubit said:


> I know that. I think you missed the context of my comment. Never mind.


I note you quoted my OLED comments! So to me, that set the context to OLED displays. I think you were barking up the wrong tree! 

But to your plasma comments, pretty sure there are no plasma "monitors". In fact, I am not aware there ever was. Only TVs and pretty sure no one is making them any more either.


----------



## Totally (Jun 14, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> Who's going to know if it should be this red or that red?



The 'red' on the left is closer to real red than the second one, the one on the right is a really dark/hot pink. :sigh: I actually want to get rid of this monitor.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jun 14, 2018)

IPS has more natural colors and comes with the highest procetag of all three types. It has horrible silverish tint on black and yellow glow on all dark colors. getting one with minimal blb is a struggle as well.
TN has worst colors of all three, but with a proper calibration they're still vibrant and saturated.

If you get a good one of any type - you'll be pleased. If you get a bad one, no matter if it's IPS or wahtever else, it's going to suck. 

My choice for the IPS dell is dictated by the fact that I suspect a cheap IPS will suck less than a cheap TN or cheap VA. If you were talking triple-quadruple your budget, then a goodquality  VA/TN might be better for gaming than an IPS.


----------



## Vario (Jun 14, 2018)

I am pretty happy with my Asus PB258Q, it is a 1440P 25" IPS with 60 Hz.  I have heard that you can overclock the refresh rate but I have not tried it.  I think nowadays you should buy a higher Hz monitor than a 60 Hz but it will make your graphics card requirement more demanding.  The colors are really beautiful on the IPS compared to the TN I use as a secondary monitor.  One thing is running a 1440P on a smaller monitor (25") means that the pixel density is really high, so I don't need to run as much Anti-Aliasing at all.  The pixels are so small it looks good even with 2X AA.  If I were buying a new monitor, I would probably aim for a 27" IPS 1440P with 144 Hz.  Maybe an Asus PG279Q (Nvidia G-Sync) or a MG278Q (AMD Free Sync).  I have had good luck with Asus monitors.


----------



## RichF (Jun 14, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> A good read and I actually read through it. A couple of points however, one rather important, the other just a nit. "Likely" to get burn in or image retention? Nah! Not for normal users.


OLED's blue pixels are so weak that TV makers had to add a white subpixel to combat the premature death of the panels from fading blue. That is a big red flag for image retention and burn-in.



Bill_Bright said:


> Image retention (which is temporary) occurs when the same image is displayed for hours and hours on end and never changes.


How about a minute or two? That's the kind of retention I've gotten from my plasma.



Bill_Bright said:


> My comment was specifically about OLED displays. Not plasmas.


I have read innumerable claims that image retention (temporary and permanent) are vastly overblown concerns for plasma, too. I have a plasma and it has a bad time when used with a computer, even with moving content.

Yet, many Internet experts said it's not an issue. Perhaps my 2009 model isn't fully representative of the technology but LCD clearly has a strong advantage in terms of burn-in resistance. I assume that PWM screens are the best of all, in comparison with always-on constant control backlighting. I have seen aggressive screen dimming from an LG plasma so, perhaps, the way more recent plasma TVs made retention less of an issue was to simply lower the brightness of the screen dramatically. However, even with the contrast turned very low, my plasma still struggles with retention.

Plasma and OLED aren't the same but they share complaints from users about image retention.



Bill_Bright said:


> And burn in (which is permanent) occurs when that same image is displayed many hours every day, day after day. For example, at a sports bar that keeps their TV set to ESPN for hours every day, there is a good chance the ESPN logo displayed in the corner will burn in.


I'm not sure why you lectured me about what image retention and burn-in are. I am fully familiar with what they are. However, your claims about how long it takes apply best to LCDs, which are the most resistant.



Bill_Bright said:


> But most computer users don't display images like that. The backgrounds in games change, as do objects in the game. Users check email, look at facebook, call up their browsers and do other computing tasks that change the image, thus minimize, or even eliminate the risk of image retention.


People spend hours in content creation/editing programs like Photoshop and InDesign, where palettes don't move much. People spend hours in video games like Star Trek Online, which has (the last time I played it), a static UI. The difference between computer usage and television usage, in terms of image retention was extremely obvious when I tried to use my plasma as a computer display — mainly for playing video games.



Bill_Bright said:


> So while image retention (and burn in) are potential problems with OLED displays, to say an OLED is "likely" to experience image retention or burn is overstating the problem and greatly exaggerating the potentials for them.


Are there pro monitors made with OLED on the market? If so, I'd be very interested to see how they have improved upon the technology, as there was a reason only TVs and phones were introduced with it before.



Bill_Bright said:


> And the nitnoid issue:It is true you cannot trust the human eye to do calibration, but it is the human "brain" that does the adjusting (fooling actually), not the eye. The eye sees what it sees. The brain interprets, or tries to interpret based on what it thinks it should be seeing.


I talked about the brain compensating in my post. I used the word "eye" because it's common parlance. If I hadn't specifically mentioned the brain then it might be worth bringing up.

Update:

Well, I've checked into this and it looks like the burn-in concern for OLED is real. I had read complaints about it from multiple sources but this article has photographic evidence:

https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled






Also, temporary image retention is apparently an issue with them, too:



> *IPS TVs: *IPS TVs are the most common type of TV that suffer from image retention. Not all IPS TVs have the same degree of image retention though. See our table above for comparisons.
> *VA TVs: *VA TVs are practically all free of image retention.
> *OLED TVs: *OLED TVs are another type of TV that suffer from temporary image retention, and in some rare cases the image retention can be permanent. OLED image retention does not look the same as that seen on IPS TVs since the display technology is not the same.


I did learn something new, though: IPS is more vulnerable than VA, according to their testing. I wonder if the IPS screens may have had constant control backlighting and if that might have made a difference — of if it's the pixel technology itself that separates it from the VA results.

It may be that the bigger concern for OLED, for graphics work, though — is the fading of blue pixels. That would potentially necessitate frequent calibration and could result in a shrinking color gamut. If they're going to sell OLED for pro graphics use they'll need to beef up the size of the blue pixels, probably, instead of chasing the "great phantom pixel" beyond the limits of human visual acuity (for marketing purposes). Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that the smaller the pixels are the lower their lifespan is likely to be. That was the reason given for plasma's demise. Apparently, it was too difficult to build 4K plasma sets with enough brightness + longevity. I suppose if they're excessively tiny they can use a backup pixel strategy, where fresher ones become active after a time. That, though, still presents the issue of panel brightness. If only half of the pixels are actually active then you're putting double the strain on the ones that are active while they're active. The chase for HDR extreme brightness is another problem for OLED lifespan. Large screens, like jumbo televisions, are easier to manage the problem with. However, cramming 8K into a 27" screen for marketing purposes...

4K isn't enough anymore, after all. We're being groomed to believe we really need 8K.

Perhaps some discovery has been made, but the last time I read about it, it was simply stated that blue OLED pixels are the technology's weak link. The work-around was the addition of the white subpixel. But, a white subpixel can't create blueness so gamut shrinkage may still be an issue.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jun 14, 2018)

RichF said:


> That's the kind of retention I've gotten from my plasma.


 This isn't about plasma's. 





RichF said:


> People spend hours in content creation/editing programs


People spend 30 seconds to check their email, 2 minutes to check facebook, then leave. So my exceptions to the norm cancels out yours. Makes sense, huh? 

Exceptions don't make the rule. 

And for the record, the better OLED TVs have built-in features just to minimize the risk further. LG calls theirs "Screen Shift", Sony's is Pixel Shift. They also have pixel refresher features that run periodically. 



RichF said:


> Are there pro monitors made with OLED on the market?


Not yet because OLEDs still cost too much to make. But as prices come down, there likely will be. 

Your comment about Blue pixels is old news that makers have dealt with - just as they have with burn in and retention issues. 

If you are going to run CNN 24/7/365, don't get an OLED. Otherwise, get one and love the image. Nothing else beats it.

And your rtings.com review? Come on! If you feed a rat 10 pounds of chocolate, 6 times a day, there's a good chance you can claim chocolate kills too.

How many computer users will be running the same test pattern in a continuous loop on any monitor 20 hours per day, 7 days a week?

https://www.cnet.com/news/oled-screen-burn-in-what-you-need-to-know/


> All things considered, however, burn-in shouldn't be a problem for most people. That's why we at CNET continue to recommend OLED-based TVs, phones and other devices in our reviews. From all of the evidence we've seen, burn-in is typically caused by leaving a single, static image element, like a channel logo, on-screen for a very long time, repeatedly. That's an issue if you keep Fox News, ESPN or MSNBC on-screen for multiple hours every day and don't watch enough other programming, for example. But as long as you vary what's displayed, chances are you'll never experience burn-in.


----------



## RichF (Jul 10, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> And for the record, the better OLED TVs have built-in features just to minimize the risk further. LG calls theirs "Screen Shift", Sony's is Pixel Shift. They also have pixel refresher features that run periodically.


Those kinds of technology existed on plasma and didn't do much. A pixel "refresher" won't do anything, for instance, to help with the problem of blue pixel fading. It doesn't rejuvenate the pixels. If anything, anti IR tech like that will likely just put more stress on the pixels by turning them up to get rid of the retention.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 11, 2018)

RichF said:


> Those kinds of technology existed on plasma and didn't do much.


 

So what? Plasma screens are a totally different technology. To suggest some feature on technology ABC won't work because a similar feature didn't work on technology XYZ makes no sense.


RichF said:


> A pixel "refresher" won't do anything, for instance, to help with the problem of blue pixel fading. It doesn't rejuvenate the pixels.



Again, so what? Again, no technology is perfect. And refreshing is not the same thing as a rejuvenation. My bicycle tire pump will not "fix" my flat tire either. But keeping my tires properly inflated periodically (refreshed) will help keep them from getting flats that actually require fixing (rejuvenation). 

Just because OLED technologies are not perfect, that does not suggest they have inferior image quality. Because (at least until something better comes along) they don't.


----------



## RichF (Jul 12, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> So what?
> 
> Again, so what? Again,


You'll have to answer these pressing questions, again.


----------



## Vario (Jul 12, 2018)

We ordered a BenQ 23.8" GW2470ML VA monitor for a build, I will report back on the quality against my personal Asus 25" IPS.  Price was pretty good on this monitor for $120 and the reviews indicate it has decent colors, contrast, and is easy on the eyes.  I will see if that is the case .  I decided on this monitor based on those reviews and also for the fact that it has a DVI port unlike a lot of business monitors in that segment, which are increasingly using HDMI and old school D-Sub only.  Speakers are also useful, build is meant to be minimalist.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 12, 2018)

Had a 60hz va cheap ass Benq before, smearing in games was out of this world. Going to 60hz ips felt like a world of difference.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 12, 2018)

RichF said:


> You'll have to answer these pressing questions, again.


No I don't. The ones that actually apply to OLEDs (which of course, are not the same as plasmas) have already been addressed and answered - including the blue fade issue years ago. So to suggest they are "pressing questions" just indicates you are way behind the times. 

And certainly longevity is not an issue with OLED TVs having a projected lifespan of 100,000 hours! That's 10 hours of viewing every day for 30 years! Even if the blue fade issue cuts that in half, that's still viewing 10 hours per day, 365 days per year, for 15 years!

And burn in (for any type monitor) is no excuse these days either - not unless you plant a company logo on the screen and never ever move it about. Who does that? And why would you buy a premium monitor for that anyway?

Some common sense needs to come into play here. No monitor technology is perfect.

So with an unparalleled display, technical issues with early generation displays resolved, and _I'll-be-dead-of-old-age-before-it-dies_ is why last year, I bought what many professional review sites reported was the best TV that's ever been made. 





> Simply put, you can’t buy a better TV in 2017 than LG’s C7 OLED.



Now again, we likely will not see OLED "computer" monitors for awhile as prices still need to come down. Maybe never if IPS panel technologies continue to improve as they have. It is important also to remember that hard core computer enthusiasts, including gamers who demand super high quality displays, are but a tiny niche market compared to the entire global computer monitor market. So there needs to be increased "demand" for OLED computer monitors too before LG and others are enticed back in to the OLED PC monitor market.

OLED computer monitors are really a moot point for this discussion - but for those still interested, I'll post this good read then step out: OLED PC Monitors 2018: What's Taking Them So Long???


----------



## Vario (Jul 12, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Had a 60hz va cheap ass Benq before, smearing in games was out of this world. Going to 60hz ips felt like a world of difference.


Hope that won't be an issue for me but can always return it.  It isn't going to be used for games, purely office and some photo editing.


----------



## LPide (Jul 19, 2018)

Anyone look at Viewsonic or Asus monitors?


----------



## Vario (Jul 19, 2018)

Vario said:


> Hope that won't be an issue for me but can always return it.  It isn't going to be used for games, purely office and some photo editing.


Here is the feedback I promised on the BenQ GW2470ML 24" 1080P VA panel.  The BenQ VA panel is quite nice as an office computer panel, it is easy on the eyes and the colors are better than the older Asus VH242H TN that we had.  It is not as nice colorwise as the Asus PB258Q IPS I am using at the moment but it is much easier on the eyes when it comes to strain.  The viewable angle is extremely impressive and it appears to have an antiglare matte finish that is very nice regardless of room lighting.  The speakers on it are actually excellent, which was a pleasant surprise.  The unit is lightweight and easy to move around.  It has a DVI plug which I appreciate because I prefer DVI to HDMI due to the durability of the screw in connectors.  It also has a VGA D-SUB which is nice for older systems, and it has an HDMI.  It has an analog audio line in.  Unfortunately it did not include a DVI cable and did not include a line in cable, but I had these on hand.  The monitor itself looks elegant with a thin bezel, the OSD menu is easy to navigate, and the stand seems sturdy but it lacks height adjustment unfortunately.   I would recommend this screen if you are doing productivity tasks. I am not sure how it performs for gaming.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 20, 2018)

Not the same BenQ model but thought it was interesting all the same.


----------



## RichF (Jul 28, 2018)

tftcentral said:
			
		

> Dell UltraSharp UP3017Q 30" OLED Monitor Announced, January 7th 2016
> 
> At CES yesterday Dell showcased their new flagship monitor, the first monitor in their range (and really the first mainstream-brand monitor on the market) to used and OLED display! The 30" sized UP3017Q offers some amazing specs and is aimed primarily at professional users. It's part of their UltraSharp Premium (UP) range of displays. The UP3017Q offers an UltraHD resolution of 3840 x 2160 and offers a wide colour gamut covering 100% of the Adobe RGB reference space and 97.8% of the DCI-P3 reference space. The colour depth is also 1.07b as well through what we assume will be a native 10-bit colour depth given the cost and specs. Black depth is a key benefit of OLED as well, and this screen can offer a typical contrast ratio of 400,000:1. The response time is also an amazing 0.1ms. One source is stating it has a 120Hz refresh rate although we have not seen that confirmed anywhere else, including the Dell press release so we remain sceptical on that part. Especially considering the target audience and bandwidth requirements at Ultra HD resolution.
> Apparently it is provided with either a monitor arm or traditional stand. Connectivity wise we know it will; have a USB Type-C connection enabling single cable power, video and data connectivity with compatible systems. There also appears to be Thunderbolt featured.





			
				tftcentral said:
			
		

> *To prevent image burn-in, which can affect OLED, *Dell has “incorporated a pixel shifting algorithm to prevent image burn-in.” *Given the shorter lifetime of OLED as well*, a human motion sensor is incorporated to help turn off the display when not being used. There's plenty of pics from CES at Engadget as well if you want to take a further look. The Dell UltraSharp 30 OLED monitor will be available March 31, 2016 on Dell.com in the United States starting at $4,999. More information and detail when we get it in this article.





			
				tftcentral said:
			
		

> in 2016 Dell announced their 30" UP3017Q display, which featured an OLED panel. This emerged for sale in the US but never made it to Europe and *was quite quickly withdrawn from sale*. At the moment there are no viable desktop displays using OLED technology.



So, the "not plasma" OLED tech now has one monitor announced (January), the Asus ProArt PQ22UC, after Dell's failure. It has a 21.6" diagonal size and an typical brightness of 140 cd/m2. Maybe it's shipping already? It looks like that pixel shifting algorithm didn't do the trick for Dell.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 28, 2018)

RichF said:


> It looks like that pixel shifting algorithm didn't do the trick for Dell.


That's just speculation. Many suggest they stopped because the cost of making OLED monitors still prices them out of range for most consumers. Dell stopped making the $5000  monitor because it was not selling in big enough numbers to make it worthwhile. This report suggests Dell was unhappy with the color drift problem when viewed from the sides. But I note most computer users sit directly in front of their monitors. So IMO, with poor sales, there was no incentive (read: profit $$$) to entice Dell to invest in further R&D.

There is the very real potential for manufacturing costs in the very near future for larger OLED displays to be less than current LCD technologies. So when those manufacturing techniques improve enough so makers can produce bigger displays more efficiently, OLED monitors will return in bigger numbers - unless some yet to be discovered better technology comes along first. 

The idea that just because burn in _"can" _affect OLED displays is preventing sales is just silly. "Can" does NOT mean "will". 

And the suggestion there has been no progress in marginalizing the disadvantages identified years ago with early generations OLEDs (like burn in and blue luminance issues) is just absurd. And it is important to remember the significant advantages that OLED already has. It supports significant faster response times - into the µseconds. And unless displaying pure white, OLEDs enjoy significantly lower energy consumption. OLEDs do not use a backlight so they have thinner panels than LCDs. And because of no backlight and the fact the individual pixels can be turned off, OLED panel can produce pure absoute black for better contrast ratios. And they have better viewing angles.

It is common for early generation technologies to have substantial disadvantage at first. Look at SSDs. First generation SSDs suffered from very limited write capacities - yet they cost an arm and a leg compared to hard drives. But today, those write limits on current generation SSDs are so high, normal users will never come near them (which is one reason why SSDs are used in more and more data centers too). And the prices have significantly come down too.

In the beginning, many felt the significant disadvantages of the LCD monitor would mean the CRT monitor would never go away.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 29, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> They are not useless, but they alone cannot be relied on. Published technical specifications are not bogus - at least with the major brands promoting their genuine products. Out and out false advertising is not allowed by most governments and there are too many independent watchdog groups (including review sites) to make sure they are not bogus.



Sorry but that simply doesn't support reality.    What would you call a response time that is *more than twice* what is on the manufacturer's cut sheets ?  If you were interviewing a candidate for a job at your company, how would you react to a resume that claimed a 4.0 GPA when the transcript said 2.0 ?  There's a simple way to avoid the watchdogs, chnage the definition.  Reality is the ISO response time tests, so the simple way to avod an issue with any "watchdog" change the definition.  Another popular tactic used by manufactuyrers is to chnage panel suppliers ... after the reviews are in.  And yes, the betetr manufacturers are not as bad as the "budget" brands.

Would could argue this all day long but as they saying goes, "let's go to the videotape":

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/aoc_agon_ag352ucg.htm  AOC 352UCG  Advertised response time 5 ms, reality is show below... "reality" average is more than twice advertised with a high of 48








http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xg270hu.htm#response_times  Acer HB270HU Advertised response time 1 ms, reality is more than 5 times that






So yes, by any reasonable definition, an advertised response time which *exaggerates the performance of a monitor by a factor of between 2 and 5* is bogus and of no value for making a purchase decision.  And this is by no means an exception ... it IS the rule.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 29, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> Sorry but that simply doesn't support reality.    What would you call a response time that is *more than twice* what is on the manufacturer's cut sheets ?  If you were interviewing a candidate for a job at your company, how would you react to a resume that claimed a 4.0 GPA when the transcript said 2.0 ?  There's a simple way to avoid the watchdogs, chnage the definition.  Reality is the ISO response time tests, so the simple way to avod an issue with any "watchdog" change the definition.  Another popular tactic used by manufactuyrers is to chnage panel suppliers ... after the reviews are in.  And yes, the betetr manufacturers are not as bad as the "budget" brands.
> 
> Would could argue this all day long but as they saying goes, "let's go to the videotape":
> 
> ...



There is a truth to what you are saying but at the same time it is easy to draw the wrong conclusions based on those numbers.
A great example being the VA panels in these charts, that all suffer from an extreme highest G2G. It still does not mean these aren't 'fast' panels in their practical use case. All it means is that a specific transition of color is (much) slower than the rest. Which is what I'd dub the 'smearing' effect you get in darker hues. And its an effect that, for a lot of games, really doesn't worry me. I see it, and it really doesn't bother me. It doesn't stand out. And the 'rest' of the transitions are fast, and input lag is low.

All I have gathered from the last few pages of incredibly detailed back and forth (which is great) is a raw focus on technical specs as opposed to how they work in real life when you sit in front of each panel. In the end thát is what matters. So regardless of specs, make sure that whenever you buy a panel its going to be easy to return it free of cost.

About the image retention of OLED, that is not really an issue. The degradation of pixels (because thát is the core issue) happens with EVERY type of panel, in different degrees and for OLED its just that blues get weaker, faster than the others. Over time, OLED panels will gradually lose peak brightness, which isn't stellar to begin with. But yes, 10-15 years is what they are rated for and I have no worries they won't make that. 

The problem with OLED is that there is only one serious OEM for it and that is LG, and there is high demand for its production lines. Monitors are too much of a niche (and risk - yields are lower at higher PPI) for them to care, at least for now. However, recent OLED TVs are getting pretty decent input response times, edging into sub 20 ms territory which is OK - not perfect - for most 'gaming' and monitor needs bar the competitive ones.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 29, 2018)

You can cherry pick examples and 1 specification and use those exceptions (and there will always be some) to make a point but that just makes no sense. Exceptions don't make the  rule.

There is always marketing fluff in product marketing, but that does not imply outright lies. And since there is no industry standard for such tests, differences are bound to happen. 

How can Ford, Chevy and RAM all claim to build the best truck if not true? The fact is, they are all right - but it depends on what specification you look at.

As I noted, they are not useless, but they alone cannot be relied on. I NEVER EVER said or implied manufacturing documents should be any person's only source of information. 

I have ALWAYS recommended users do their home work and check out legitimate review sites, and to NOT believe user reviews unless there are many claiming the exact same problem. 

The manufacturer's documentation is a place to start. It alone should never be your deciding factor.


----------



## RichF (Aug 4, 2018)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's just speculation.


Yes, there is a lot of speculation happening in your post.

There is also a lot of overcooked language to go with it, such as:

"very real" and "very near" in the same sentence
"silly"
"just absurd"



Bill_Bright said:


> Many suggest


Who? I thought this was just speculation?



Bill_Bright said:


> they stopped because the cost of making OLED monitors still prices them out of range for most consumers. Dell stopped making the $5000  monitor because it was not selling in big enough numbers to make it worthwhile.


tftcentral said "quickly pulled from the market" which implies there was a technical problem.




Bill_Bright said:


> This report





Bill_Bright said:


> suggests Dell was unhappy with the color drift problem when viewed from the sides. But I note most computer users sit directly in front of their monitors.


Dell never looked at the monitor before it put it into the market? That site wouldn't happen to be partially an evangelism outfit for OLED, right? (Since we're speculating.)

https://www.oled-info.com/dell-brings-back-its-up3017q-30-4k-oled-monitor-and-slashes-price-1500


Bill_Bright said:


> So IMO, with poor sales, there was no incentive (read: profit $$$) to entice Dell to invest in further R&D.


Yes, this makes great sense. Dell was the first to market with this fabulous new OLED tech and, after having spent all the money to bring a real product to market, one that went on sale (rather than being prototype/demo vaporware), it pulled it from the market instead of doing the horrible thing of building upon its investment.

https://www.oled-info.com/dell-brings-back-its-up3017q-30-4k-oled-monitor-and-slashes-price-1500


Bill_Bright said:


> There is the very real potential for manufacturing costs in the very near future for larger OLED displays to be less than current LCD technologies.


Somehow, large format OLED is being sold in consumer-grade products but it's just too costly to sell it in prosumer and pro monitor size packages? There is at least one flaw in the technology that prevents it from entering those spaces, possibly several. The one lone monitor (has it shipped yet?) following the panel Dell removed from the market has a diagonal of 21.6" or something, and a low brightness level.

The laws of physics are a problem for some products, regardless of how much effort engineers put into working around them. It may be that the blue pixels of OLED, for instance, can't be fixed adequately for the purpose of introducing a prosumer or above monitor with HDR-grade brightness, or even less.

The recently announced small monitor makes a point of saying that it is not using the white subpixel work-around, as I recall. The wording was unclear so it may refer to something else. Interpreting it as referring to the white subpixel implementation (a workaround to help to alleviate the inherent lifespan problem of blue OLED) helps to explain the panel's low brightness. It also suggests that the white subpixel workaround is not a great solution for the prosumer/pro monitor space.

https://www.oled-info.com/dell-brings-back-its-up3017q-30-4k-oled-monitor-and-slashes-price-1500


Bill_Bright said:


> So when those manufacturing techniques improve enough so makers can produce bigger displays more efficiently, OLED monitors will return in bigger numbers - unless some yet to be discovered better technology comes along first.


In other words, when the tech has improved to be good enough, it will be good enough. Otherwise, something else will sell. This is news?

https://www.oled-info.com/dell-brings-back-its-up3017q-30-4k-oled-monitor-and-slashes-price-1500


Bill_Bright said:


> The idea that just because burn in _"can" _affect OLED displays is preventing sales is just silly. "Can" does NOT mean "will".


What's silly is the dodging you continue to do around this issue. Two professional sources have been posted that rebut your posts and yet you continue.

https://www.oled-info.com/dell-brings-back-its-up3017q-30-4k-oled-monitor-and-slashes-price-1500


Bill_Bright said:


> And the suggestion there has been no progress in marginalizing the disadvantages identified years ago with early generations OLEDs (like burn in and blue luminance issues) is just absurd.


Overwrought dismissive language doesn't create substance.

https://www.oled-info.com/dell-brings-back-its-up3017q-30-4k-oled-monitor-and-slashes-price-1500


Bill_Bright said:


> And it is important to remember the significant advantages that OLED already has. It supports significant faster response times - into the µseconds. And unless displaying pure white, OLEDs enjoy significantly lower energy consumption. OLEDs do not use a backlight so they have thinner panels than LCDs. And because of no backlight and the fact the individual pixels can be turned off, OLED panel can produce pure absoute black for better contrast ratios. And they have better viewing angles.


Plasma had important advantages over LCD and yet where are the plasma desktop monitors? Where are the plasma televisions? Why did plasma get killed off well before OLED became a dominant standard?

No matter how many positives a product has, its negatives also matter. Plasma wasn't very compatible with the fad of selling people increasingly tiny pixel pitches, pixels smaller than they can possibly see from normal TV/film viewing distances. It used more power than the efficiency marketing (which LCD makers used successfully, despite the big picture lack of relevance) made seem reasonable. It had retention and burn-in problems, like OLED. It was heavy. OLED may face a significant problem from the pixel shrinkage obsession that manufacturers have used to convince people to replace their televisions. As the pixels get smaller and the brightness increases (i.e. HDR), those blue pixels face an increasing individual lifespan strain. It may be that retention and burn-in become bigger problems as the pixels shrink. There is also the problem of color drift. If, for instance, the blue pixels dim from use faster than the other colors then the color gamut could shrink over time. Not only would the monitor need a lot of calibration (which is common with pros already) but the shrunken gamut could make the panel unusable by graphics pros.

https://www.oled-info.com/dell-brings-back-its-up3017q-30-4k-oled-monitor-and-slashes-price-1500


Bill_Bright said:


> In the beginning, many felt the significant disadvantages of the LCD monitor would mean the CRT monitor would never go away. It is common for early generation technologies to have substantial disadvantage at first.


It's also hardly unheard of for technologies to fail, or to become so niche that mass-market corporations don't invest in improving them. The main evangelist of plasma said plasma could be improved to use a lot less power and to work with 4K. Corporations, though, made the decision not to pursue plasma further.

Plasma screens were once used as computer monitors, too. Maybe we'll see OLED displays become commonplace as computer monitors. Perhaps we won't. It all depends on the severity of the drawbacks when compared with the competing technologies. There was a big demand for a better-performing PowerPC than the G4 in Mac laptops and Apple/IBM couldn't get the G5/Power architecture to work in the power envelope. So, it just didn't happen. Apple had to abandon Power in favor of Intel. The Power architecture had plenty of virtues and could have been improved. However, a mobile Power CPU, particularly one for Apple, was never developed.

The things I said in my post have been upheld. I said OLED has not displaced LCD for computer monitors. I said OLED is vulnerable to retention and burn-in, something two independent sources confirmed. If OLED were truly so great, in terms of it not having serious issues relating to those I discussed, it wouldn't have been pulled from the market. We wouldn't see giant OLED televisions at reachable consumer prices — consumer-grade products, only. We would see pro-level products, halo products — particularly given than laundry list of advantages you posted. Of course people love the contrast ratio of OLED. Pro photo/graphics people certainly aren't happy with the horrible contrast ratios of IPS, or the black crush/angle problems of VA. It's obvious that people want OLED. The question is... is it good enough? Technology typically trickles down. Reference panels, pro-grade monitors for photography... those kinds of things are above, not below, $3000 jumbo consumer TVs, readily-available for years now.

Dell had no problem selling IPS professional screens with low contrast ratios (one popular one had a ratio below 800:1 when calibrated). If OLED were truly ready I seriously doubt something as minor as off-angle viewing angle performance would have caused the company to pull their product. It's clear that just the contrast ratio advantage by itself is more important than off-angle consistency, provided that ratio doesn't come with face-on black crush, as VA does. So, it's clear that other problems, more critical flaws, are in play.



Vayra86 said:


> About the image retention of OLED, that is not really an issue. The degradation of pixels (because thát is the core issue) happens with EVERY type of panel, in different degrees and for OLED its just that blues get weaker, faster than the others.


OLED is a lot different than other panel types. We can't just say "Well, they all have problems" and hand-wave the blue subpixel longevity issue. That is, unless it truly has been fixed, like with a new material. The white subpixel workaround may be enough for televisions at 4K, but what about the 8K propaganda that has already been around for two years or more? It's only going to speed up. People will be convinced that they really can see the difference at normal TV viewing distances, even though they can't (even though 1440 would have been good enough for HDTV/film at normal, not desktop, distances). HDR is being heavily pushed, putting intense pressure on the panel to produce a lot of brightness. There is no conventional backlight to produce that brightness in OLED. 

Retention and burn-in are far more of a problem for some panel tech types than others. CRT is more prone to burn-in than TN and VA LCD, for instance. Plasma is really prone to retention and is vulnerable to burn-in. IPS is possibly more vulnerable to burn-in than TN and VA, although I wonder if that testing that suggested this was using a constant-control backlight in the IPS panel, versus PWM. It seems reasonable to assume that a particularly low duty cycle PWM would make a panel much less prone to retention and burn-in than a constant control backlight.

Plasma and CRT are dead now. They're dead because they had drawbacks that outweighed their strengths in the marketplace. This is despite the fact that both have particular strengths. I'll bet, for instance, that plasma is less prone to fading for blue and violet display than OLED is. I've never seen anyone have to work around a problem with blue fading in plasma by adding white to the mix. CRT is the best tech, as far as I know, for input lag. Plasma has better uniformity than LCD. Plasma has better contrast than the vast majority of LCD panels. Plasma has better off-angle viewing gamma/color consistency than LCD.



Vayra86 said:


> Over time, OLED panels will gradually lose peak brightness, which isn't stellar to begin with. But yes, 10-15 years is what they are rated for and I have no worries they won't make that.


Which ones? The panels in the Dell monitor that Dell took off the market? Or, are we talking about the lone replacement which has a low max brightness, fresh out of the box — just as HDR is becoming big in the marketplace.


----------

