Is my brand new monitor messed up or am I seeing things?

[Macro Device]

It's nowhere near default. It has old school Aero vibes.

This is how it looks by default:

 

[Octopuss]

I don't know. I use StartIsBack, but that shouldn't have any connection to the taskbar I think. Other than that, I don't use any visual addons.

 

[eidairaman1]

Just return it for money back and get a color accurate monitor

 

[Octopuss]

I'd love to do that! But my requiements of colour accuracy AND good gaming performance seem to be mutually exclusive. I mean it took me over five years of looking until I bumped into this Cooler Master

 

[Macro Device]

But my requiements of colour accuracy AND good gaming performance seem to be mutually exclusive

LG 27GN800? Was pretty dope when I used it. Not sure about colours though, I'm not the healthiest person in this department.

 

[Octopuss]

LG 27GN800? Was pretty dope when I used it. Not sure about colours though, I'm not the healthiest person in this department.

Horrible contrast https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27gn800-b#test_1381

 

[AusWolf]

I'd love to do that! But my requiements of colour accuracy AND good gaming performance seem to be mutually exclusive. I mean it took me over five years of looking until I bumped into this Cooler Master

What games do you play? Personally, I only play single player, so I'd choose colour accuracy without a second thought.

 

[Octopuss]

What games do you play? Personally, I only play single player, so I'd choose colour accuracy without a second thought.

Well, technically speaking I don't need a gaming monitor. I rarely play anything that's fast-paced like FPS games, and in fact I haven't gamed much in the past 10 years (which is likely to change again at least a little bit). I have recently started playing Delta Force though, which was the last drop to the cup of deciding whether to get a gaming monitor or not. And even if I wasn't playing any shooters, I guess I wouldn't mind a little better motion clarity. Just because shit isn't flying all over the place all the time doesn't mean it can't look better on a high refresh rate I guess.

I guess I could make do with a 60Hz monitor, but even then you really want something with decent response times (for 60Hz I guess) if you want to play anything, and regular monitors aren't good at that (they don't need to), so I'd be at the drawing board again.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Wow. 2 pages of replies and I'm barely on my 2nd cup of coffee.

I have already requested a return. I'm just going to send it straight back.

Well, I guess it is too late now, but while I agree this appears to be the monitor, I always recommend trying suspect monitors on another computer to "see" if the problem moves to the second computer with the monitor, or stays behind.

 

[Octopuss]

It's only saturday, I can certainly plug it to my wife's notebook, but I'm pretty sure it will look the same. I mean her monitor has just as good picture irrelevant of what computer is it plugged into.

Meanwhile, I've been going through RTINGS' reviews again, and it seems like 27"/1440p monitors with decent contrast and response times AND at least somewhat decent sRGB accuracy are basically nonexistant. Oh and most monitors that aren't OLED seem to have edge backlight only.

 

[AusWolf]

Well, technically speaking I don't need a gaming monitor. I rarely play anything that's fast-paced like FPS games, and in fact I haven't gamed much in the past 10 years (which is likely to change again at least a little bit). I have recently started playing Delta Force though, which was the last drop to the cup of deciding whether to get a gaming monitor or not. And even if I wasn't playing any shooters, I guess I wouldn't mind a little better motion clarity. Just because shit isn't flying all over the place all the time doesn't mean it can't look better on a high refresh rate I guess.

I guess I could make do with a 60Hz monitor, but even then you really want something with decent response times (for 60Hz I guess) if you want to play anything, and regular monitors aren't good at that (they don't need to), so I'd be at the drawing board again.

I guess you're like me, then. Unless you play competitive shooters, a super high refresh rate is pointless. With that in mind, I'd choose a 90-144 Hz VA or IPS panel if I were you. They all have Freesync these days, which is much more useful than any refresh rate, in my opinion.

 

[Onasi]

But my requiements of colour accuracy AND good gaming performance seem to be mutually exclusive. I mean it took me over five years of looking until I bumped into this Cooler Master

Color accuracy is whatever, honestly, you have a colorimeter - even shitty TN panels can be calibrated to be reasonably accurate if they have decent amount of OSD control over settings (or you just bruteforce things via LUT and an icc profile, but that isn’t ideal). Issue is with panel quality, which is a lottery by itself, and contrast, which is poor-ish on anything non-VA/OLED. I heard good things about the new IPS Black panels that are coming out right now, but haven’t seen one yet in person. And they are expensive-ish. So I am afraid that if you aren’t willing to spend a ton there will have to be compromises. Non Samsung VAs also aren’t problem-free - the motion performance can be somewhat sketchy and the off-center gamma shift IS real.

 

[Octopuss]

I guess you're like me, then. Unless you play competitive shooters, a super high refresh rate is pointless. With that in mind, I'd choose a 90-144 Hz VA or IPS panel if I were you. They all have Freesync these days, which is much more useful than any refresh rate, in my opinion.

Well, anything above 120Hz is high refresh rate to me. That's not the problem really. The problem is availability of non-OLED monitors under 4k resolution. The market seems to have evolved way too quickly, and 1440p seems to be on the decline.

I don't need to get a monitor with the highest refresh rate, but it needs to have good image quality and decent enough response times, otherwise I can just stick with 60Hz.
I was previously eying one of the new IPS black monitors from Dell, the U2724D, but people on reddit reported the response times were really bad, and I guess blurry image due to bad response times are just as bad as blurry image from low refresh rate

Color accuracy is whatever, honestly, you have a colorimeter - even shitty TN panels can be calibrated to be reasonably accurate if they have decent amount of OSD control over settings (or you just bruteforce things via LUT and icc profile, but that isn’t ideal). Issue is with panel quality, which is a lottery by itself, and contrast, which is poor-ish on anything non-VA/OLED. I heard good things about the new IPS Black panels that are coming out right now, but haven’t seen one yet in person. And they are expensive-ish. So I am afraid that if you aren’t willing to spend a ton there will have to be compromises. Non Samsung VAs also aren’t problem-free - the motion performance can be somewhat sketchy and the off-center gamma shift IS real.

The problem is that from what I could gather from all the reviews I read in the recent years, for some weird reason vast majority of manufacturers completely block colour temperature adjustments in the OSD when you go into sRGB mode. That's the major stopper for me, otherwise I'd grab the first monitor that scored well on responsiveness scale and just calibrate it like I always do - but it's seemingly impossible on anything modern!

 

[Onasi]

@Octopuss
That IS a real issue, yeah, although calibrating the screen to be accurate and sticking to wide gamut isn’t the end of the world if you’re willing to tolerate some over saturated colors in some situations. As I said, afraid compromises will have to be made. I suppose hypothetically a good OLED is a solution, but that comes with its own set of potential issues.

 

[Octopuss]

I only do photography as a hobby, so not 100% colour accurate screen is likely not a problem (althought I am an autistic-ish perfectionist), and a monitor that has at least somewhat ok sRGB mode out of the factory would probably work, but using Lightroom in wide gamut probably wouldn't work. Certainly not if I send the results to anyone or post them somewhere

There aren't many sources for thorough and scientific-like monitor reviews out there either, so that limits what one can choose from as well (as if 4k/OLED being the flavour of the day wasn't bad enough). I am aware of TFTCentral and RTINGS myself.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Most users don't need accurate colors. They just need them to look "natural". Green or blue flesh tones do not look natural. Neither does a field of red grass.

Gamers rarely ever need color accuracy. How would the programmer know what an alien from a distant galaxy looks like? How do you know what shade of blue the sky was the day that photo image was taken?

Professional designers and photographers need color accuracy but that is to ensure when their photos and designers are printed out, the printed image looks like the original. This of course, means the printer must be color accurate too.

There's another problem with color accuracy. We humans have been brainwashed since the very first day RCA released the very first color TV - way, Way, WAY back in 1953. Back then up through today, TVs and monitors have be preset at the factories to "highlight" and "contrast" certain colors to make them stand out in show rooms and our living rooms (and now our computer rooms). And those images are what our minds like and expect.

I used to use calibrate big screen TVs and projectors in expensive, high-end home theater systems using a colorimeter similar to this SpyderPro. I'd get them calibrated to perfection only to have the owner say, "I don't like it. It doesn't look natural."

This happened all the time.

It got to the point when I first arrived on site, I would ask the owner for digital copies of family photos to display, as well as my own images of Michelle Pfeiffer, The Queen and the current US president. I would calibrate the screen using the colorimeter, then, show the owner. Then I would "by eye" adjust the settings for the family and celebrity photos for "natural" flesh tones. Invariably, they would choose the family/celebrity photo settings for their preference.

I got paid and left the client happy with their expensive, uncalibrated TV.

 

[Dorek]

Id give them a second try since theres bound to be some bad monitor once in awhile.

 

[Octopuss]

I have found a review for Asus PG279QM meanwhile. Looks promising, but it only has edge backlight. It's also somewhat cheaper than the CM, and is sold locally.

Btw, I enabled HDR in Windows, started a game, and am wondering what the big deal with HDR is. There are no vibrant and rich colours at all, everything just looks brighter. Is that it? Like, seriously?

 

[Onasi]

I have found a review for Asus PG279QM meanwhile. Looks promising, but it only has edge backlight. It's also somewhat cheaper than the CM, and is sold locally.

Panel lottery will still apply.

Btw, I enabled HDR in Windows, started a game, and am wondering what the big deal with HDR is. There are no vibrant and rich colours at all, everything just looks brighter. Is that it? Like, seriously?

You won’t get anything resembling good HDR on an edge-lit LCD. Especially an IPS. End of. What you are seeing is just a very shit imitation. You might as well not bother and stick to SDR.

 

[Octopuss]

Panel lottery will still apply.


You won’t get anything resembling good HDR on an edge-lit LCD. Especially an IPS. End of. What you are seeing is just a very shit imitation. You might as well not bother and stick to SDR.

Panel lottery is a lot easier to play when you can return the monitor 10 mins away from your home though

This monitor (what I have here) is not edge-lit.

Either way, if this is what HDR looks like I really am going to stick with SDR, and I kind of intended to do so since the beginning because it's what I'm used to, and switching between the modes felt like pain in the arse even in theory.

 

[Fizban]

I'd love to do that! But my requiements of colour accuracy AND good gaming performance seem to be mutually exclusive. I mean it took me over five years of looking until I bumped into this Cooler Master

Color accuracy and great for gaming is easy. It's "affordable" that makes it potentially hard. Ignoring that one, OLED easily slam dunks color accuracy and gaming chops.

Oh and most monitors that aren't OLED seem to have edge backlight only.

Mini-LED is the only non-OLED's I'd really praise for contrast, but they have really poor response times usually.

Panel lottery is a lot easier to play when you can return the monitor 10 mins away from your home though

This monitor (what I have here) is not edge-lit.

Either way, if this is what HDR looks like I really am going to stick with SDR, and I kind of intended to do so since the beginning because it's what I'm used to, and switching between the modes felt like pain in the arse even in theory.

You won't get good HDR with anything that isn't FALD (Full Array Local Dimming), if it's not mini-LED or OLED, it's almost guaranteed to have trash-tier HDR.

 

[Solaris17]

You won't get good HDR with anything that isn't FALD (Full Array Local Dimming), if it's not mini-LED or OLED, it's almost guaranteed to have trash-tier HDR.

This, HDR is a chain of requirements. OS/Monitor/Content if 1 or more of the 3 dont have HDR enabled or native its not going to work or look like garbage. Also as mentioned above the actual monitor type will mandate a lot of your experience, as they do in a lot of other areas.

As for your monitor thats a big yikes all around. We can prattle on about "personal preference" but god damn, unless you have covered half the monitor with paper and chain smoked every second you got it even before @BoggledBeagle 's lovely filtering work I can see at least the center dot and vertical yellow split from a not so great cell phone pic.

 

[Octopuss]

Color accuracy and great for gaming is easy. It's "affordable" that makes it potentially hard. Ignoring that one, OLED easily slam dunks color accuracy and gaming chops.

I never said affordable Or I think so. And this Cooler Master wasn't even cheap at all! I mean €600 is a LOT in my opinion!

Mini-LED is the only non-OLED's I'd really praise for contrast, but they have really poor response times usually.

This one has good response times (according to TFTC review), but the contrast is kind of average for an IPS monitor. Not even 1000:1 (whatever that means, I don't understand all the monitor tech much). But then again, this looks perfectly fine to me, because I never used anything else than classic 60Hz IPS monitors, so I guess I am lucky in a way in that I don't feel like I am missing anything. Of course, I would probably drop my jaw if I saw a VA panel, but from what I read these have their own disadvantages.

You won't get good HDR with anything that isn't FALD (Full Array Local Dimming), if it's not mini-LED or OLED, it's almost guaranteed to have trash-tier HDR.

I hear you. The full dimming feature is only found on OLEDs and can theoretically by found on mini-LEDs, or what's the deal here?

I guess mini-LED monitors aren't very common at all from the sound of it, and based on all the reviews I went though...

P.S. According to specs and reviews, this Cooler Master has FALD and 576 local dimming zones along with quantum dot coating, supposedly giving superior screen quality. Unless you get a turd like I did

 

[Fizban]

I never said affordable Or I think so. And this Cooler Master wasn't even cheap at all! I mean €600 is a LOT in my opinion!

This one has good response times (according to TFTC review), but the contrast is kind of average for an IPS monitor. Not even 1000:1 (whatever that means, I don't understand all the monitor tech much). But then again, this looks perfectly fine to me, because I never used anything else than classic 60Hz IPS monitors, so I guess I am lucky in a way in that I don't feel like I am missing anything. Of course, I would probably drop my jaw if I saw a VA panel, but from what I read these have their own disadvantages.


I hear you. The full dimming feature is only found on OLEDs and can theoretically by found on mini-LEDs, or what's the deal here?

I guess mini-LED monitors aren't very common at all from the sound of it, and based on all the reviews I went though...

P.S. According to specs and reviews, this Cooler Master has FALD and 576 local dimming zones along with quantum dot coating, supposedly giving superior screen quality. Unless you get a turd like I did

576 zones is okay, but good mini-led's are more in the 2000 zone range. That said, I have seen OLED's here for less than you paid for that monitor. I personally have a pair of LG OLED's I paid over $1000 each for, but stuff like this exists here: https://www.amazon.com/AOC-AG276QZD2-Tournament-2560x1440-Compatible/dp/B0D682HF6R

That's a $499 OLED.

 

[Octopuss]

I don't want OLED, I can't afford new monitor every two years or whatever is it they last before they burn in.
Actually, I refuse to buy a new monitor more often than once in 10 years or so.