It means if you want feature X, and monitor Y doesn't have feature X, there is no way you would buy monitor Y.
Aatu's Monitor Survey April 2017
- Thread starter aatu
- Start date
It means if you want feature X, and monitor Y doesn't have feature X, there is no way you would buy monitor Y.
Here are the final results. One should never do this, but here's the "average" monitor that people want:
32"
2560x1440 (16:9)
144Hz
OLED (willing to pay £280 more over IPS)
Light Matte surface treatment
DisplayPort + HDMI
QC emphasis (>3): Dead pixels, BLB, Panel Uniformity, (IPS glow) and FreeSync/G-Sync operational range
Feature emphasis (>4): Low input lag, Fast Pixel Response Time, PWM-free, HDR (10/12b), Extensive OSD settings, FreeSync/G-Sync
Price: £920
... Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.
If I had to guess, I think the main obstacles will be OLED, G-Sync and HDR. In addition to QC, in general.
Ok, to a more serious note, here's the real deal; the detailed results with charts and diagrams (in two parts, because of image host resolution limit), with few notions/calculations at the end:
Total survey participants: 58
And a snapshot of the original survey for comparison, in case the survey host retires the survey:
More thorough details/calculations:
Average preferred monitor size, when corrected for text responses:
31,40"
Average premium people are willing to pay for OLED, when corrected for text responses:
£276,72
Full list of the final monitor price targets:
As an average: £921,47
And here's the full list of the OcUK forum users who gave their names:
aatu
1000
jimhumman
Phixsator
TangoEchoAlpha
Vega
larky
jkb
Wulfster
Mahonyy
SB
Undesirable
SBUK
Tute
eddiew
emca
saltank
Jarrastafari
Please stop selling **** monitors.
My own notions:
- Glad to see there's still some love for 16:10
- Also glad to see that people prefer bigger monitor sizes
- 1920x1080 is not getting much love, but neither is 8k
- It seems people are indeed fond of the idea of OLED, but are not willing to pay that much for it
- VA has gained in popularity quite a lot, probably because of recent IPS monitor QC issues
- I'm very glad that so many people share my hate for TN
- Surprisingly G-Sync is almost as popular as FreeSync -- I should have made a separate question with regards the premium, like with OLED...
- While the Glossy panel supporters are usually more vocal, there's no escaping the fact that the silent majority indeed prefers Light Matte
- The ambient light system option and the remote option garnered surprisingly high support (personally I would have hoped both to be higher)
- Surprisingly more people preferred 10/12bit color WITHOUT HDR -- so while it is indeed nice, people are a little wary of the cost?
- Additional note for 10/12bit colors: high score, but only a few people considers it as a deal breaker
- I think with the QC section I should have used a linear scale of 1-10, instead
32"
2560x1440 (16:9)
144Hz
OLED (willing to pay £280 more over IPS)
Light Matte surface treatment
DisplayPort + HDMI
QC emphasis (>3): Dead pixels, BLB, Panel Uniformity, (IPS glow) and FreeSync/G-Sync operational range
Feature emphasis (>4): Low input lag, Fast Pixel Response Time, PWM-free, HDR (10/12b), Extensive OSD settings, FreeSync/G-Sync
Price: £920
... Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.
If I had to guess, I think the main obstacles will be OLED, G-Sync and HDR. In addition to QC, in general.
Ok, to a more serious note, here's the real deal; the detailed results with charts and diagrams (in two parts, because of image host resolution limit), with few notions/calculations at the end:
Total survey participants: 58
More thorough details/calculations:
Average preferred monitor size, when corrected for text responses:
31,40"
Average premium people are willing to pay for OLED, when corrected for text responses:
£276,72
Full list of the final monitor price targets:
500
1000
800
500
800
600
1000
1000
1200
700
900
500
1200
750
500
600
1200
900
800
900
1600
800
1250
600
1200
800
500
600
900
1000
500
700
1500
600
1500
1000
600
700
750
4000
600
1200
895
800
200
800
900
1500
1050
450
800
800
1000
1000
400
800
2000
800
1000
800
500
800
600
1000
1000
1200
700
900
500
1200
750
500
600
1200
900
800
900
1600
800
1250
600
1200
800
500
600
900
1000
500
700
1500
600
1500
1000
600
700
750
4000
600
1200
895
800
200
800
900
1500
1050
450
800
800
1000
1000
400
800
2000
800
And here's the full list of the OcUK forum users who gave their names:
aatu
1000
jimhumman
Phixsator
TangoEchoAlpha
Vega
larky
jkb
Wulfster
Mahonyy
SB
Undesirable
SBUK
Tute
eddiew
emca
saltank
Jarrastafari
Please stop selling **** monitors.
My own notions:
- Glad to see there's still some love for 16:10
- Also glad to see that people prefer bigger monitor sizes
- 1920x1080 is not getting much love, but neither is 8k
- It seems people are indeed fond of the idea of OLED, but are not willing to pay that much for it
- VA has gained in popularity quite a lot, probably because of recent IPS monitor QC issues
- I'm very glad that so many people share my hate for TN
- Surprisingly G-Sync is almost as popular as FreeSync -- I should have made a separate question with regards the premium, like with OLED...
- While the Glossy panel supporters are usually more vocal, there's no escaping the fact that the silent majority indeed prefers Light Matte
- The ambient light system option and the remote option garnered surprisingly high support (personally I would have hoped both to be higher)
- Surprisingly more people preferred 10/12bit color WITHOUT HDR -- so while it is indeed nice, people are a little wary of the cost?
- Additional note for 10/12bit colors: high score, but only a few people considers it as a deal breaker
- I think with the QC section I should have used a linear scale of 1-10, instead
Last edited:
Nice work, interesting results.
Perhaps the average screen size of 32" @ 2560x1440 is a little skewed by people such as me who put their favoured 21:9 screen size in assuming 3440x1440, which probably translates to a 16:9 screen size nearer 27".
Perhaps the average screen size of 32" @ 2560x1440 is a little skewed by people such as me who put their favoured 21:9 screen size in assuming 3440x1440, which probably translates to a 16:9 screen size nearer 27".
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 1,341
Speaking for myself, I wasn't willing to spend a huge premium on OLED because I don't expect 21:9 35" OLED for < £1000 but rather I am hoping for 27" 16:9 OLED initially in a reasonable timeframe for a reasonable price. I don't care much for bells and whistles, as long as the QC and image quality are spot on. Televisions are generally much larger than monitors so you'd expect OLED to command more of a premium, but I'm not spending much more than £800 for 27" OLED when there have been massive TVs around for ages with OLED. Hence I think one of the first HDR monitors to be released by ASUS with a purported price tag of $1500-2000 is an absolute joke when it doesn't even have OLED.
Edit: I realise I said OLED a rather large number of times when I read it back, and that's because the word "OLED" is the only thing I really covet in the monitor world these days. That or proper quantum dot monitors (not just backlight).
Edit: I realise I said OLED a rather large number of times when I read it back, and that's because the word "OLED" is the only thing I really covet in the monitor world these days. That or proper quantum dot monitors (not just backlight).
Last edited:
OLED is doable for <£800 I would imagine, I would happily pay an extra £300/400 if I could get this exact monitor but with an OLED panel:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/lg-2...e-widescreen-led-monitor-black-mo-143-lg.html
I would love to know how much the upcoming asus 27" full array local dimming monitor would be if it was just 4k @ 60HZ or even 1440 @ 144HZ, I imagine it would be a good chunk cheaper...
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/lg-2...e-widescreen-led-monitor-black-mo-143-lg.html
I would love to know how much the upcoming asus 27" full array local dimming monitor would be if it was just 4k @ 60HZ or even 1440 @ 144HZ, I imagine it would be a good chunk cheaper...
Great work aatu. My favorite is:
- It seems people are indeed fond of the idea of OLED, but are not willing to pay that much for it
So true! Considering I would buy the vaporware 120 Hz 4K Dell OLED in a heartbeat for $5,000, I answered with 2,000 pounds haha.
- It seems people are indeed fond of the idea of OLED, but are not willing to pay that much for it
So true! Considering I would buy the vaporware 120 Hz 4K Dell OLED in a heartbeat for $5,000, I answered with 2,000 pounds haha.
... Yeah, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.
If I had to guess, I think the main obstacles will be OLED, G-Sync and HDR. In addition to QC, in general.
Funny thing is, those are just the nice to haves for me. I'd be happy to get the 'perfect' monitor without those things. Though again, considering how much people are willing to pay for OLED, I don't think we're willing to pay so much for G-sync. So considering that, it's not too far off and it's fairly possible with the 'average' listed above. Though me personally, I'd up it to 4k and larger screen size, in which case then we'd have to wait a few years.
-Bigger is better, especially with higher resolutions!
-I think most folks don't care too much about 1080p only due to already having it. If we want something new, we want to upgrade to something we don't have. As for 8k, personally I reckon it's overkill, especially with too high pixel density and UI scaling.
-I reckon OLED will eventually come down in price as technology progresses. So we'll get there, just might take a while.
-Amen to IPS quality issues, but I've discovered something else I don't like about IPS. Turn-on times (too long). Sometimes by the time the monitor shows an image after turning on, it'll be on Windows already.
-Never going back to bad viewing angles.
-As I mentioned above, I don't think many of us would pay that much for G-sync, considering FreeSync doesn't really have a price premium as the competing feature.
-Again, I've never seen these features yet on monitors, but would love them.
Bigger might be better for some but it isn't for everyone... There have been plenty of people on here who have gone back to 24" 1080P monitors from 27+" 1440/4k displays due to the size and/or 1080P being far easier to run and get a "constant" 60/100FPS with max settings, if I had to pick between a 24" 1080P and a 4k 40" "monitor", I would pick the 24" 1080P display due to the size and easier to run resolution.
Turn on times is nothing to do with IPS, my 29um65 starts up instantaneous where as my previous dell IPS monitors had a slower start up time and take a lot longer to "warm" up i.e. achieve the set brightness.
I don't see the point of a remote control either, maybe for the big 40+" monitors where you are bound to be sitting further back but not for most of the monitors sizes available today as you are already sitting within arms reach to access the OSD controls not to mention, with a monitor, it is very much a set it and forget it thing, I don't think I've entered my OSD menu on my current monitor since I set it up 4+ years ago, only reason I can imagine a remote control being useful is for people that use the built in speakers and/or have to switch inputs a lot.
Turn on times is nothing to do with IPS, my 29um65 starts up instantaneous where as my previous dell IPS monitors had a slower start up time and take a lot longer to "warm" up i.e. achieve the set brightness.
I don't see the point of a remote control either, maybe for the big 40+" monitors where you are bound to be sitting further back but not for most of the monitors sizes available today as you are already sitting within arms reach to access the OSD controls not to mention, with a monitor, it is very much a set it and forget it thing, I don't think I've entered my OSD menu on my current monitor since I set it up 4+ years ago, only reason I can imagine a remote control being useful is for people that use the built in speakers and/or have to switch inputs a lot.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Nice work Aatu!! I like the look of that 'average' monitor tbh, I could live with that if I couldn't have my mega LG 
I thought it would be just me who wouldn't even buy TN with someone else's money 
We're a small sample, but there's a clear push for quality at-a-price. Would be nice to see manufacturers being less scared to produce something that's of their best potential because they don't think it will sell...
We're a small sample, but there's a clear push for quality at-a-price. Would be nice to see manufacturers being less scared to produce something that's of their best potential because they don't think it will sell...
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 561
- Location
- Normally in the car
Daniel has already been keeping an eye on this one TNA
and a JFYI for all you OLED'ers out there - OLED isn't viable at the moment due to screen burn issues - once that is sorted then OLED will start to creep in
Dan
and a JFYI for all you OLED'ers out there - OLED isn't viable at the moment due to screen burn issues - once that is sorted then OLED will start to creep in
Dan
I'm pretty sure that is a non issue now with the 2016 and upcoming OLED TVs, at least for TV/film/gaming usage anyway.Daniel has already been keeping an eye on this one TNA
and a JFYI for all you OLED'ers out there - OLED isn't viable at the moment due to screen burn issues - once that is sorted then OLED will start to creep in
Dan
Ok, but... can we have FALD and some better BLB prevention in IPS/VA formats, please? I've been suffering monitor paralysis for over a year because everything feels like a compromise between visual quality and gaming performance
I want a large, fast, colourful screen with a sensible DPI and no defects... it shouldn't be so hard to find :/Keep in mind that just because one may have a monitor capable of a higher resolution, doesn't mean you have to always use it. I often play games at 1080p on my 1440p monitor for example. And yes, my desire for size has a lot to do with the fact that I sit far away from my monitor (akin to a TV). Hence why I'm also fond of the remote idea too.
Even though there's no GPU power for something like 4k144Hz, having one would allow one the option to either run high resolution (i.e. for movies and videos) or lower (than native) resolution + high framerate for games. I like having options and so do many others, even if many of those options are never used. Lots of folks have monitors which they haven't been able to utilise to its fullest potential (e.g. good luck getting 100fps on a 3440x1440 monitor).
Options. Give folks the option to choose something different or something that just suits them. There's no one-size-fits-all when it comes to monitors.
Yup you can do that but I would only ever use a lower than native resolution if the monitor properly supports it, in my experience and the displays I've used so far, anything but native has looked awful :/
I see what you mean but that is the point of this thread and Daniel's thread, to see what it is that people actually want and don't want e.g. there is no point adding good built in speakers that add an extra £100+ to the monitor if only say 10% of people use the built in monitor speakers, instead the money saved there could either be deducted to make a cheaper monitor or/and put the money saved towards areas that the other 80% of people want to see improved i.e. QC. That's one of the main reasons I didn't go with asus's 29" monitor as the extra £100/150 seemed to be for the Bang & Olufsen ICEpower built in speakers.
I see what you mean but that is the point of this thread and Daniel's thread, to see what it is that people actually want and don't want e.g. there is no point adding good built in speakers that add an extra £100+ to the monitor if only say 10% of people use the built in monitor speakers, instead the money saved there could either be deducted to make a cheaper monitor or/and put the money saved towards areas that the other 80% of people want to see improved i.e. QC. That's one of the main reasons I didn't go with asus's 29" monitor as the extra £100/150 seemed to be for the Bang & Olufsen ICEpower built in speakers.
