Anyone else unimpressed by monitor progress?

sports_brah

sports_brah

sports_brah

Thug
Soldato
Joined
4 Jan 2013
Posts
3,783
Just a simple muse...

I've had a range of new monitors up3216q, p4317q etc

However I've a pair of u3011 monitors. Old as hell, but still holds up in terms of picture quality. Hell there is zero backlight bleed or any of the other ailments.

Even the resolution is 2560x1600. We had this resolution back in 2007....

Sure we're on 3840x2160 but it really doesn't feel like there has been much progress.

Anyone else agree?
 
I'm after a no frills refresh rate 34" 3440x1440. It looks unbelievably stale in this resolution. The models I see for sale were made in 2016 or pre 2016.
 
I don't know... sure there's new features but in terms of 2560x1440 (as an example) replacing the price-point of 1920x1080, no, it doesn't seem like it. Any technological progress hasn't resulted in cheaper monitors with more features. There may be some exceptions. There are also big voids in the monitor market, like no 24" IPS 120Hz+, they all seem to be TN.

Spent £200 on a 23.5" 1920x1080 60Hz IPS back in 2013. Four years on, it costs the exact same - https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...el-led-monitor-black-with-bang-mo-049-as.html

Can I get a 24" IPS with better resolution/refresh rate today for same price? No. I'm not even sure there's any. Which is what I mean by a void. Did a search on the part picker for 21"-25", IPS, 100Hz or above, and no results came up at all. By the time it's 27" the price has shot up, and then usually the Gsync or whatever adds to it even more.

It's not like graphics cards that's for sure. Even though there's some expensive models, you pay a lot less for more performance as time has gone by. I'd say there's been more real progress on that front.
 
sports_brah said:
Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...
Sure agree and got plenty of more problem.

Progress doesn't seem to be going much anywhere in many things and is actually going backwards in some things.

Having gotten first high quality CRT (Nokia 449Xi) in 97 and then starting using 1600x1200 I guess in 2001 contrast/response time/viewing angle problems of LCDs feel like sign of half baked product.
Sure LCDs have flat size, perfect image geometry and convergence, but those other things are still behind especially Twisted Nematics being garbage.
With last CRT (Samsung 959NF) starting to malfunction because of too cheap capacitors in six years decided to move on and widen image to fit movies into with Lenovo's 22" 1920x1200 16:10 aspect ratio monitor using S-PVA panel.
I think after some year and half with that got LG W2600HP with same resolution 25.5" IPS panel.
Then in December 2013 cleared more desk space to fit 30" Dell U3014 with that lovely 2560x1600.

Now with 16:10s being replaced by 16:9 low screens only 32" 3840x2160 wouldn't be downgrade in some area.
And that would again need more space from desk while still having slightly lower vertical image size...
If it were at least 3840x2600 from 15 years ago.
And now even that 16:9 is too good vertically with latest fashion being super low screens consuming insane amount of desk space for very little vertical image.
I mean is modern Homo Urbanus Consumericus wearing some inuit snow goggles or why image has to be made constantly smaller vertically?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_goggles


And in tehcnology side ten years ago there was also other techs under research for true flat displays without contrast and viewing angle problems of separate backlight/LCD.
Like FED and SED, which kinda operated like every pixel being miniature CRT.
But FED had major challenges.
And SED development was hindered by US patent trolls and then also with global financial crisis it was completely side tracked by OLED, which sure hasn't kept too much of hurry.
 
Yes, monitor tech is stale and you obviously get more for your money from a TV at the moment, hence the giant thread on this forum about using a TV as a PC monitor. If they did TVs in a smaller size then I'd be saying "to heck with monitors" altogether. As it is, I'm sticking to my current monitor as long as possible.
 
Yeah completely underwhelmed by it - after Samsung made the 2233RZ the pace just kind of stalled and they never really capitalised on it. The U2913WM I have as a secondary monitor has great image quality and performance while not amazing had promise - it could overclock to 75Hz and with a bit of turning stuff off response times and latency were almost acceptable surely 5 years later they could have at least managed to push that upto 80-100Hz at 1440p either UW and/or 2560x1440 with the same image quality (or even a slight trade off) while boosting the response times and latency to much closer to that of current gaming TNs.

The Dell S2716DG is not a bad monitor at all but after all this time it is taking the mick we can't have something with image quality much closer to that of IPS or VA while keeping the rest of the performance profile of the monitor and adding additional features (somewhat held back a bit by limitations of the G-Sync module in terms of additional sources, etc.).
 
Agreed, really sad state of affairs with over-priced and under-specced monitors.

I'm hoping some interesting new models come to market in 2018 following the introduction of new high refresh high resolution panels in Q3 and Q4 this year.
 
Monitor progress feels glacial at times. Really quite frustrating. I have a general spec in my mind i'm waiting on and i'm genuinely not sure if i'm ever going to see it, certainly any time soon.
Ideally i'd like to see:
Approx 32" in size,
Ultrawide,
Refresh rate at least 75Hz and Free Sync range down to at least 35,
IPS,
3840x1600 res,
HDR,
5ms response minimum,
NO CURVE!
 
I actually think monitors have regressed.

I still have my dell 2209wa, supposedly a e-IPS screen and the first e-IPS to market. Oddly its also a monitor that dell abruptly pulled from the market whilst it had high demand.

The problem is, every other e-IPS screen I have purchased since then (granted only 2 of them but still), is noticeably worse viewing angles. They have VA characteristics with contrast shift.

Someone on hardforum speculated the 2209wa was actually using a high end h-ips panel, which would explain why it got pulled as it was using a panel used in monitors for 5x its price, and then we seen "real" e-IPS screens later after the 2209wa had done its job of luring people into the tech.

I have since discovered both my new e-IPS screens are not even actual IPS but rather "IPS type" screens, AUO AHVA screens. Now dont get me wrong, they not terrible, they actually have better contrast ratio than the dell due to the LED back lighting, but in terms of viewing angle they not in the same league.

Now the cheaper AHVA screen was only £120, for an IPS type monitor that is pretty amazing, its a TN level price, 6bit+FRC panel with VA quality viewing angles. The other AVHA screen is my now main monitor as in my sig, the benq GW2765HT. Its viewing angle quality despite been around 3x the price is similar to the £120 asus monitor, the benq is a 8bit monitor that can emulate 10bit via FRC. The dell cost me £220 and was 8bit but came with genuine IPS viewing angles.

The other regression I have noticed is on OLED screens, from samsung. I hoped there was no such thing as poor quality OLED but it seems there is. I have owned 4 OLED phones, the first 3 had very good viewing angles, perhaps a bit worse than the dell 2209wa but close to it. The phones had to be at a very steep angle to notice loss of quality. Then *bam* I got my galaxy s7. OLED screen with poor viewing angles. Samsung have changed "something" in their manufacturing between the s5 and s7 that has caused this regression, if I am off angle then whites become blue, its actually colour shifting like TN screens do. Thankfully not so noticeable on dark colours, but feels cheap whilst my older samsung phones the screen felt premium. I checked the panel type as samsung are using 2 different ones and apparently I have the better version.

This is why I feel there is no progression, I expect companies to improve quality over time, but instead we seem to be going backwards.
 
I'd like a 27" IPS monitor with G-Sync, HDR, a native resolution of 1440p and a clean appearance (GAMERZ branding is hideous). I'm probably never going to get it.
 
TJM said:
I'd like a 27" IPS monitor with G-Sync, HDR, a native resolution of 1440p and a clean appearance (GAMERZ branding is hideous). I'm probably never going to get it.
Click to expand...

This with a thin bezel (and possible VA instead of IPS) would be perfect for me.

I got a Korean 27" 1440p IPS in 2012 that cost under £200, nothing similar in that price range now 5 years later.
 
I guess it depends on what sort of timeframe you are looking at, and what you look for in a monitor. To buck the trend, I've actually been fairly impressed in the past few years in that we've finally got a range of stuff coming out at >120hz which we'd been stuck at since 2007 or so. There was a massive dip in the noughties when TFTs came out but were stuck at 60, 75, 120hz refresh but finally that bar has been raised to 144/165/240 etc. There was pretty much a 10 year period where gamers suffered because CRTs were phased out without much in the way of adequate replacement. Then past few years you've also got G-Sync / FreeSync which helps matters a bit too.

So in summary I'd say 2003-2013 or so really sucked but things have picked up a bit since then.

On the flipside, pricing has gone up a lot of late, I bought a monitor a month or so back and it cost £375 which is over 50% more than the maximum I have ever paid previously.
 
of course, it depends on what you from a monitor.

It seems the direction has moved from image quality, towards things like refresh rate and gaming features in the PC market. Which I have no interest in, yes I game but I can live without gsync and freesync.
 
For me it's the lack of any quality control on the new monitors along with the huge price tags compared to 4k TVs.

I have my eye on a Samsung ultrawide and I'd probably buy it if I could be sure I'd get one with no defects such as dead pixels or backlight bleed.

The thought of having to send it back 5 times before I get one I'm happy with puts me off :(
 
IvanDobskey said:
For me it's the lack of any quality control on the new monitors along with the huge price tags compared to 4k TVs.

I have my eye on a Samsung ultrawide and I'd probably buy it if I could be sure I'd get one with no defects such as dead pixels or backlight bleed.

The thought of having to send it back 5 times before I get one I'm happy with puts me off :(
Click to expand...
Same here.
 
I've literally seen nothing that catches my eyes for 3 years. I use a Crossover Blacktune which was the **** when imported from Korea and it still does the job perfectly. Absolute beauty of a screen. 8ms refresh, 60Hz, but I still come first in 90% of Siege rounds and a large number of Overwatch round.

Can't help but wonder if it'd be diminishing returns for me to grab one of these Acer Predator XB271HUs. Perhaps I'd see no difference...
 
Actually, yes... I'm less bothered by going to 4k resolution because I don't want to have to always be on bleeding-edge GPUs, but I don't feel like there's been all that much to shout about in:

- quality control; removing BLB. It's still there on many/most units.
- adaptive sync lower range; I don't worry about dips to 42fps, I worry about dips to 20
- both free and g sync support; I don't want to be tied to one brand of GPU
- colour accuracy vs frequency and input lag; no high accuracy units with over 60Hz. It's either a gaming screen or a professional screen and nobody is making an all-in-one...
- curvature; I hate it

Also... REVIEWS! Where are the reviews on new monitors? Real lack of units being sent out for review. A conspiracy fan would suggest that they can't even cherrypick a flawless unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom