Difference between £100 and £500 monitors?

aatu said:
How exactly do you see "good"? I'm not talking about "good enough". I'm talking about GOOD, in itself.

Adequate is indeed a synonym to something that's "good enough".
A monochrome monitor is GOOD ENOUGH for color blind people people with monochromacy.
A broken monitor is GOOD ENOUGH for someone who just needs it for spare parts.
They will be rubbish for the rest.

For comparison, OP's current monitor is GOOD ENOUGH for someone who desperately needs a monitor but can't afford to pay more than £1 for a new monitor.

Mediocre is by its very definition AVERAGE ("neither very good nor very bad; ordinary; average"). A £100 monitor is indeed not even mediocre. It is, pure and simple, the bottom of the barrel.
Click to expand...

I still disagree.

A £30 17" 4:3 1024x768 monitor from ebay would be "the bottom of the barrel" as you put it (assuming we're talking about something fully functional and not just for parts).

A £100 brand new 24" 1080p TN monitor is significantly better in every way.
 
I did buy a £90 1080p AOC once and it was a disaster. The viewing angles were so poor that you had to look directly at it and any head movement just an inch or 2 would ruin it. Needless to say, it was returned immediately. :p

I've had plenty of other cheaper 100-120 pound monitors from LG/Samsung and they have been absolutely fine for my usage. I'm only using a more expensive monitor at the moment because of the size.
 
Haggisman said:
I still disagree.

A £30 17" 4:3 1024x768 monitor from ebay would be "the bottom of the barrel" as you put it (assuming we're talking about something fully functional and not just for parts).

A £100 brand new 24" 1080p TN monitor is significantly better in every way.
Click to expand...

Sure. And both of them will look AMAZING when compared to a low-end monitor from the 1970s.

When I'm talking about bottom of the barrel, I'm talking about the selection when buying a new one, naturally. The OP could probably find a fairly nice used 27" VA monitor for £70-80 from fleamarket, members' market, etc., which would blow the new £100 monitors out of the water. Problem is, buying used merchandise, especially monitors, is always a risky business.

And actually, if that 17" is a CRT, then it doesn't have TN's color inversion, but will have less than 1ms input lag and pixel response time, and possibly even a 85Hz refresh rate. So in those aspects, it's actually better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom