Gaming monitor recommendations?

madcabbage

Hi lads, hunting for a replacement for my current tv setup. I've a 32' Sony Bravia which I use my PS4 and PC (GTX960) on it at the moment. I was looking into monitors but I'm unsure what is considered decent to cater both ways.

The main buying point would be color depth as the current tv is very poor surprisingly. I'm not a competitive gamer so I'm not sure about response times/ input lag.

My budget would be around the €500 mark but can push further if needed. I'm hoping to get a similar screen size but I'd imagine there isn't that many out there on my budget? Anyone have suggestions for me please?

SterlingArcher

ASUS VE278Q 27"

Perhaps something like this. As you can see your budget more than covers it.

I picked this particular one because it has speakers ( which are not bad compared to most monitors) also an audio output . Which when playing PlayStation will come in handy.

your 500 budget will afford you more. Can't look into right now. But you'll get some more help.

madcabbage

I'll have a look, thank you for the suggestion. Also I probably should have said that speakers aren't a necessaity, I use headphones or headsets when I'm gaming. The sound quality out of these newer slimmer tv's or monitors isn't great compared to older ones.

SterlingArcher

madcabbage wrote: »

I'll have a look, thank you for the suggestion. Also I probably should have said that speakers aren't a necessaity, I use headphones or headsets when I'm gaming. The sound quality out of these newer slimmer tv's or monitors isn't great compared to older ones.

What's your pc specs.

madcabbage

Gtx960 gaming 2G
g3258 (will be upgraded)
8GB RAM

I assume the graphics card is what is important here?

SterlingArcher

madcabbage wrote: »

Gtx960 gaming 2G
g3258 (will be upgraded)
8GB RAM

I assume the graphics card is what is important here?

Yeah, the 960 is grand for 1080p. Just curious because of the 500 budget on a monitor.

madcabbage

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Yeah, the 960 is grand for 1080p. Just curious because of the 500 budget on a monitor.

I was under the assumption that the higher the budget the better the quality? Was thinking about 1440p but because the console are limited is there any point?

grindle

madcabbage wrote: »

I was under the assumption that the higher the budget the better the quality? Was thinking about 1440p but because the console are limited is there any point?

Depending on the game's output you'll either get 720 upscaled fairly linearly to 1440, or a mushy-looking 900p and rarely 1080p with the PS4 and then the PC plays fine @1440p but at mediocre settings. If you're a non-twitch gamer I'd search for a large 1080p TV for the same price like this.

TerrorFirmer

Upgrade the G3258 before you upgrade the monitor/display. It may be fine for Fallout 4 but many games experience bad hiccups with the Intel Pentium range due to the lack of hyper threading - in layman's terms the average frame rate will be good but the minimum frame rate will be bad and disrupt game play at times.

Even at 1080P with the 960 your PC experience will be better than the PS4/XB1, but at 1440p it would be very notably superior.

madcabbage

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Upgrade the G3258 before you upgrade the monitor/display. It may be fine for Fallout 4 but many games experience bad hiccups with the Intel Pentium range due to the lack of hyper threading - in layman's terms the average frame rate will be good but the minimum frame rate will be bad and disrupt game play at times.

Even at 1080P with the 960 your PC experience will be better than the PS4/XB1, but at 1440p it would be very notably superior.

Its in the pipeline Terror, had planned to get an i5 at build but was caught on budget. Trying to think ahead with what I buy and not be caught if I considered 1440p gaming. At the moment, I'm only playing old games like Fallout 3 which run on Ultra.

Dcully

For PC atleast this is an awesome gaming experience, 144hz,Gsync and will work with your 960.
Im sure it will take your ps4 too but obviously not with 144hz and gsync and would probably be a bit small for ps4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYvriaXIr4M

madcabbage

Just googled for some rough prices....Yikes! lol

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B00LBSZHAI/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all&qid=1446651142&sr=8-1

TerrorFirmer

With €500 you could afford an i5-4440 and a 27" 1440P 144hz monitor. I would go with that, gsync is nice but you have to be willing to pay a heavy premium and your experience will be much better with the former. You could also just get an i3-4160 which is a massive improvement on the G3258 and only about €120.

madcabbage

Had been looking at this, seems decent enough and I've seen that BenQ seem decent?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00M913DVG?keywords=27%26%2334%3B%201440P%20144hz%20monitor&qid=1446651393&ref_=sr_1_fkmr0_1&sr=8-1-fkmr0#Ask

BloodBath

I wouldn't bother upgrading from a g3258 to an i3. Performance will be identical in most titles.

Go for an i5 at least if you are upgrading that or try and grab a second hand i7 if you want something for the long run.

TerrorFirmer

That's not true. In Battlefield 4/Hardline, GTA V, The Witcher 3, and other titles, the minimum framerates for the G3258 are hugely below that of the i3.

In fact some titles like GTA V are often unplayable on the G3258 due to issues. It runs perfectly @ 60fps on the i3-4160.

BloodBath

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That's not true. In Battlefield 4/Hardline, GTA V, The Witcher 3, and other titles, the minimum framerates for the G3258 are hugely below that of the i3.

In fact some titles like GTA V are often unplayable on the G3258 due to issues. It runs perfectly @ 60fps on the i3-4160.

I said most games, not all and it depends on the overclock. I still don't think it's worth going from that to an i3. Might as well get at least an i5 if upgrading it.

TerrorFirmer

I think it would be if its a budget issue. Going from an G3258 to an i3-4160 if you are playing new AAA games will dramatically improve your gaming experience. Obviously the i5 is preferable but there aren't any games in which the i3 struggles, there are countless ones where the G3258 struggles badly, and a significant number which require workarounds to even get the games to run at all in the first place due to the lack of hyper threading (dragon age, far cry 4, advanced warfare, etc).

For those reasons an upgrade to an i3 is a huge improvement, it eliminates all those issues immediately. I interchange betwen an i3-4170, i5-4440 and i7-4790 in the same PC, playing common games like BF4 and GTA I don't even notice any difference between them - but when I use the G3258 the performance drop is titanic and the host of issues that goes with it, as well, is painful. I wouldn't mind a lowered framerate, but it's the stuttering and dreadful minimum frames that make it intolerable.

BloodBath

I see your point but with a €500 budget I think he could easily fit an i5 in there assuming he'd get at least €30-40 for selling the pentium on as well should leave him with €350+ for the monitor.

That would be enough for an entry level 60hz 2560x1440 IPS panel or a 144hz 1080p model.

madcabbage

To be fair I don't play the newest games on it as I've the ps4 already. I will get Fallout 4 at some stage so like I've said before I'll upgrade the processor. Don't want to splash all my cash at once especially coming up to Xmas. Any opinion on the monitor I linked before?

madcabbage

Also let's say I get an i5, at what point am I spending too much for a monitor if I don't reach it's potential?

BloodBath

madcabbage wrote: »

Also let's say I get an i5, at what point am I spending too much for a monitor if I don't reach it's potential?

You should be fine at 144hz 1080p or 60hz 2560x1440 but it depends on the game really. I don't think I'd be venturing into 2560x1440 gaming without at least a highly overclocked gtx 970 but that's just my opinion.

Maybe even a 60hz 1080p monitor if the refresh rate doesn't bother you and you want to save money. The 144hz ones seem to be all TN panels which I'd avoid like plague.

Dcully

BloodBath wrote: »

You should be fine at 144hz 1080p or 60hz 2560x1440 but it depends on the game really. I don't think I'd be venturing into 2560x1440 gaming without at least a highly overclocked gtx 970 but that's just my opinion.

Maybe even a 60hz 1080p monitor if the refresh rate doesn't bother you and you want to save money. The 144hz ones seem to be all TN panels which I'd avoid like plague.

Im guessing your speaking about inferior colours on a TN?I cant think of any other perceived negative.

If so i can tell you now that point is vastly and i mean vastly overstated.
Sitting infront of me is an LG 2560X1080 IPS and a Dell 1920X1200 IPS and and AOC 144hz 1ms Gsync TN monitor.
The difference in colour is barely noticeable after a bit of tweaking ,yes both IPS are have better colours but id say no more than 2-5% better which imo isnt worth mentioning especially when you consider the simply mind blowing performance of the AOC compared to what feel like ancient slow IPS screens to me after experiencing gsync @ 144hz.
The AOC is noted to have superior colours than pretty much any TN out there,how i dont know but its mentioned quite often in reviews so maybe thats why im not seeing much difference.

OP ive done the 1440 IPS 60hz thing trust me once you experience 144hz gsync you will never want to game on anything less.
Ofcourse it depends on what games you are playing, fps games in particular are totally transformed @ +100hz.

Ofcourse an IPS 1ms 144hz gsync 1440 screen would be the best option but its mighty expensive both for the monitor and the GPU/GPU`s to run it.

BloodBath

Dcully wrote: »

Im guessing your speaking about inferior colours on a TN?I cant think of any other perceived negative.

If so i can tell you now that point is vastly and i mean vastly overstated.
Sitting infront of me is an LG 2560X1080 IPS and a Dell 1920X1200 IPS and and AOC 144hz 1ms Gsync TN monitor.
The difference in colour is barely noticeable after a bit of tweaking ,yes both IPS are have better colours but id say no more than 2-5% better which imo isnt worth mentioning especially when you consider the simply mind blowing performance of the AOC compared to what feel like ancient slow IPS screens to me after experiencing gsync @ 144hz.
The AOC is noted to have superior colours than pretty much any TN out there,how i dont know but its mentioned quite often in reviews so maybe thats why im not seeing much difference.

Yes vastly inferior contrast and bad viewing angle color shifting. I haven't seen a TN panel yet that doesn't look washed out in comparison to IPS.

IPS does have it's own issues like light bleed and slower response but I don't find these as noticeable.

There is no right or wrong here though. There's trade offs no matter what you use. It's down to what's more important for you individually.

Dcully

Trust me i was shocked at how close to both my IPS screens the AOC in terms of colour quality.
Viewing angles yes totally agree but again not noticeable to the one sitting at the pc
As for IPS light bleed here again i think that is overstated but i could be jsut lucky, im not sure i can see any on both mine but the difference in performance is absolutely shocking, so much so ive tried to play fps games on both IPS screens that ive used for a few years and simply couldnt hit a thing,both felt painfully slow after the AOC.