Spending an extra 50% on a VA panel, freesync and bits

Can't tell what's the quality of the new Samsung CFG series, as they're still on pre-order. But specs-wise, they're quite expensive, and for a slightly cheaper price, you can actually get a bigger model from a competitor with otherwise identical specs:
Acer XZ271 for £300

I'm using the bigger brother (Acer XZ321Q, which is £430), and it's GOOOOD.

Then again, Samsung also boasts a 1ms pixel response time, which is apparently a first for VA panels? But from what I've found, this is achieved by "impulsive scanning technology", which synchronizes the backlight with the frames output on the screen. Which to me sounds like backlight strobing, which in practical sense means flickering.

As for the actual question:
Yes, in my opinion it is worth it to pay 50% extra to get a VA or IPS, instead of a TN monitor. But usually you don't have to pay that much premium to get them.

Ps. Performance-wise, all of these are the same (1920x1080 @144Hz), so I think jigger is suggesting that with your Fury and i7, you could probably even go for 2560x1440 @144Hz, or 4k @60Hz.
 
aatu said:
Can't tell what's the quality of the new Samsung CFG series, as they're still on pre-order. But specs-wise, they're quite expensive, and for a slightly cheaper price, you can actually get a bigger model from a competitor with otherwise identical specs:
Acer XZ271 for £300

I'm using the bigger brother (Acer XZ321Q, which is £430), and it's GOOOOD.

Then again, Samsung also boasts a 1ms pixel response time, which is apparently a first for VA panels? But from what I've found, this is achieved by "impulsive scanning technology", which synchronizes the backlight with the frames output on the screen. Which to me sounds like backlight strobing, which in practical sense means flickering.

As for the actual question:
Yes, in my opinion it is worth it to pay 50% extra to get a VA or IPS, instead of a TN monitor. But usually you don't have to pay that much premium to get them.

Ps. Performance-wise, all of these are the same (1920x1080 @144Hz), so I think jigger is suggesting that with your Fury and i7, you could probably even go for 2560x1440 @144Hz, or 4k @60Hz.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for the reply, I'll look at the Acer.
2560x1440 or 4k would be a bigger monitor though right? I'm using a real old 22inch right now and sit pretty close.

B25FD518-D845-4332-9B57-F8491E652F47.jpg
 
Well, the higher resolutions are usually indeed found in bigger monitors, but there are 24" 4k monitors, as well. Like the LG 24UD58 for £290. 4k on a 24" is for most people an overkill, though. 27" is slightly better for 4k, but you will probably still need to squint a little when reading text. One such option would be the LG 27UD58 for £350.

But because of current bandwidth limitations, 4k is only available with 60Hz refresh rate. And judging from your rig, you probably also want to game on it, which means that 144Hz might be the optimal choice, in which case 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 are the better options. And because you have an AMD card, it means you should also look at FreeSync monitors (in comparison, G-Sync monitors are limited to nVidia cards, and are more expensive, as well).

So next comes the question with budget. If you want 2560x1440 @144Hz, then you're probably looking at a budget starting from £400 and upwards, like the Acer XF270HU. The Acer XZ271 I mentioned earlier is very good bang for buck at £300, but it's also only 1920x1080, which some people think is too low for 27". But that is highly dependent on one's own eye sight and viewing distance. Like said, I have the XZ271's big brother XZ321Q, you can check my review of it here. Should be quite similar in most aspects, except for the diagonal size.

Ps. I'm only listing IPS and VA monitors, as I personally won't recommend TN monitors.
 
Often touted as the best 'budget' 144hz 24 1080p freesync monitor, the ViewSonic XG2401 would be a good pick. Is on sale at the moment in some places as well, under £190.

I would imagine the gains (better panel tech) are worth a premium, maybe £75. But an extra £140 seems a bit steep to be honest. Have also heard some weird issues relating to purple being displayed randomly on this Samsung panel? And the atrocious freesync range really put the nail in the coffin for me (it starts at around 70hz iirc).
 
aatu said:
Well, the higher resolutions are usually indeed found in bigger monitors, but there are 24" 4k monitors, as well. Like the LG 24UD58 for £290. 4k on a 24" is for most people an overkill, though. 27" is slightly better for 4k, but you will probably still need to squint a little when reading text. One such option would be the LG 27UD58 for £350.

But because of current bandwidth limitations, 4k is only available with 60Hz refresh rate. And judging from your rig, you probably also want to game on it, which means that 144Hz might be the optimal choice, in which case 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 are the better options. And because you have an AMD card, it means you should also look at FreeSync monitors (in comparison, G-Sync monitors are limited to nVidia cards, and are more expensive, as well).

So next comes the question with budget. If you want 2560x1440 @144Hz, then you're probably looking at a budget starting from £400 and upwards, like the Acer XF270HU. The Acer XZ271 I mentioned earlier is very good bang for buck at £300, but it's also only 1920x1080, which some people think is too low for 27". But that is highly dependent on one's own eye sight and viewing distance. Like said, I have the XZ271's big brother XZ321Q, you can check my review of it here. Should be quite similar in most aspects, except for the diagonal size.

Ps. I'm only listing IPS and VA monitors, as I personally won't recommend TN monitors.
Click to expand...
Lots to think about there, thanks for all that.
Pretty sure I don't need 4k 24", I'd prefer a higher frame rate, I'm young with very good eyes but don't see that amount of benefit.
Suppose I need to decide if I really do want a 24" or if 27 would be better. I'm used to a 22 right now so maybe 27 is a leap.
 
jigger said:
I'd be looking at a higher resolutions than 1920x1080 with that system. Dell UltraSharp U2515H maybe. The Dell lacks FreeSync but might over well.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18759926&page=3
Click to expand...

Yeh I think they Dell looks really nice, but its only 60Hz, I want to try a higher frame rate monitor.
So i think i want a nice looking 24-27" 2560x1440 IPS/VA running at least 120Hz. And preferably freesync.

This hits it alll but is only TN... the ACER XG270HUAomidpx
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/acer...n-led-zeroframe-monitor-orange-mo-11g-ac.html
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people are missing that the Samsung display is a Quantum Dot VA display, which means the potential for seriously incredible black levels, almost OLED-level.

For those who care about that kind of amazing contrast, it would indeed be worth it over other options.

Frankly, I'm quite excited to see quantum dot displays come to PC monitors, and in such an affordable position given that OLED's are a questionable future and undoubtedly will be very expensive for quite a while still.
 
Seanspeed said:
I think a lot of people are missing that the Samsung display is a Quantum Dot VA display, which means the potential for seriously incredible black levels, almost OLED-level.

For those who care about that kind of amazing contrast, it would indeed be worth it over other options.

Frankly, I'm quite excited to see quantum dot displays come to PC monitors, and in such an affordable position given that OLED's are a questionable future and undoubtedly will be very expensive for quite a while still.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't actually know thats what it meant.
I am swaying toward the 24" Samsung.
I know I can do higher res with my rig but finding the right screen that's bigger is proving to be difficult.
A 27"+, with 120Hz+, more than HD (2560x1440), freesync preferable, preferably not TN. All in a sleek, high quality display and at an affordable price (I can't even find one at an expensive price!).
 
Seanspeed said:
I think a lot of people are missing that the Samsung display is a Quantum Dot VA display, which means the potential for seriously incredible black levels, almost OLED-level.
Click to expand...
Samsung is using a Quantum Dot backlight in their monitors, the panel is still plain old VA so I wouldn't expect to see any change in black depth. All QD backlights do is enable a very wide colour gamut without the expense of fooling around with RGB-LED arrays.
 
DrBombcrater said:
Samsung is using a Quantum Dot backlight in their monitors, the panel is still plain old VA so I wouldn't expect to see any change in black depth.
Click to expand...
Samsung is reported to have made some serious breakthroughs in using Quantum Dot backlighting to create not only HDR-standard wide color gamut, improved efficiency, but also incredibly improved contrast.

I'd heard they were bringing this tech to monitors, but maybe this is still using the old QD tech? That could be the case. It wouldn't make a QD monitor not worth it, it still has some really nice advantages, but yea, maybe not the OLED-like quality that they're ultimately capable of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom