[Pilege21]

I'm not sure on what to get for a monitor. I recently upgraded my computer to perform max settings in gaming. I would like to get a monitor that can hold the card that I have. I don't know a lot about monitors and whether to get high contrast or not. Would 1ms be better than 2ms or 5ms. I found these monitors on Newegg. Is there any other suggestions or would one of these monitors be best? I'm looking for around 23" and under $200.

Here's my graphics card: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814125418

Thanks!

Attached File(s)

•  Monitors 2.PNG (91.75K)
  Number of downloads: 11
•  Monitors.PNG (74.54K)
  Number of downloads: 9

[coastie65]

Hi. In short, this one should do fine: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824236059

[LiveBrianD]

FWIW, I've seen some 23" 1080p IPS monitors on sale for the same price as that one. (Dell and HP)

[Pilege21]

Thanks for the suggestion. How does the 20000:1 differ from the 80mil:1? Given the 80mil has better contrast, would this be better for an all around monitor? Like blu ray, dvds, and gaming? I've done some research on monitors but not to sure on what features are better than others.

Thanks!

[coastie65]

Pilege21, on 24 February 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Thanks for the suggestion. How does the 20000:1 differ from the 80mil:1? Given the 80mil has better contrast, would this be better for an all around monitor? Like blu ray, dvds, and gaming? I've done some research on monitors but not to sure on what features are better than others.

Thanks!

To tell you the truth, I don't really pay a lot of attention to those ratios. I have heard in some circles that they really don't mean much. Mine is 8000 to 1 and it does fine and looks good.

[LiveBrianD]

Those ratios are almost certainly dynamic contrast ratios - white on the highest brightness setting, and black on the lowest brightness setting. By definition, you can't achieve both at once. Static contrast ratios are at the same brightness, but still don't mean much, and IIRC there's no standard way of measuring them.

[waldojim]

Ok, here is the truth about contrast ratios: Every one of them is a lie.

First, Contrast ratios are simply the difference between the brightest whites, and the darkest backs. These numbers are very easy to fake by adjusting the AMBIENT lighting in the testing room.

Second, because they are a ratio against black, it is very easy to throw off the readings. For example, a monitor with a black level of .5 cdm and white level of 250cdm has a ratio of 500:1. If that level is off slightly (say bad calibration, ambient light, or even just a flawed or binned display for testing) you end up with screwy results. For example, a reading of .6 cdm black changes the ratio to 416:1, while a reading of .4 will give us 625:1. In the end, all of those monitors would look IDENTICAL to the end user.

Third, The typical PC display only actually achieves 500:1~750:1. High end displays can reach 1200~1500:1. The very best I have heard of can hit 2500:1. ANY number over 2500:1 is a flat out, bold faced LIE. Ignore that number.

The numbers that REALLY matter are the numbers you will never see posted. TYPICAL black levels (many monitors barely get below 2.0 cdm, very few can sustain < .8. TYPICAL White levels are also important, as that tells you how bright that monitor can be. Lastly, uniformity. Some displays are very sloppy, and have obviously brighter edges, or center. Others have very uniform brightness.

Again, you will never see these numbers. SO, your best bet, is to do what most of us do: poke through a decent number of reviews.

Go with an ips display if you can afford it (Asus and Samsung are trying to make them affordable). Get something in a "higher end" display. For Samsung, this means avoid '3' series, and move to '5' or even '7' series displays as an example.

I use Samsung now, and like it. But the next one, will likely be an Asus ips, like this one here.

Lastly, the 1ms to 5ms times you are seeing are telling you how quickly a display can change color. The faster the change (lower number), the less ghosting you will see. Typically, anything under 8ms is considered decent. I doubt you will be able to notice the difference between a 1ms and 4ms, so don't focus too much on that.

[Pilege21]

Ok, I'm getting the hang of these now. I'll look into the IPS monitors, probably more of around $200 would work for my budget. I don't need anything about 23" I think I will do fine with that. I do like Samsung and ASUS products. There was an ASUS that I compared that was 80mil on contrast, according to all that posted that would be a lot for a monitor. Most TVs don't have that. lol. Who would benefit from that monitor? Just curious.

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824001549

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824236059

I've been looking towards these. Would one of these be great or would another one be more beneficial? To post what I'm doing again is playing games and possibly watching movies in HD, depending on if I have an available TV or not.

Thanks!

[LiveBrianD]

FWIW, here's another one to consider: http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824260109 I'm not a fan of Dell at all, but their Ultrasharp IPS monitors are known to be pretty good. On the other hand, I have an HP 2511x and have been fairly happy with it (got it for $200). It's not IPS unfortunately, but it's pretty good for the money. In my case, the slightly lower ppi works better since I have the monitor fairly far back, and font scaling isn't great in Windows. (not to mention that if I were to have an equivalent of 1080p with scaling, the monitor would cost too much)