Recommendation for HD 1080?

Wootje

Wootje

Wootje

Associate
Joined
10 Aug 2012
Posts
45
Hello

I thought I'd pick the brains of you all for a affordable monitor that is Full HD 1920x1080.

My graphics is a Radeon HD 7800 and this last year been playing with a dull monitor thats not even HD and is about 6 years old, maybe even more.

So I need a affordable monitor that does a great display but all gizmo's are not needed.

My budget is up to £120.

I heard Dell Ultrasharps are brilliant but I wanted to get everyones opinions and experiences.

Many thanks!
 
Just thought I should warn you:

Most people here probably don't have that much experience on the 21-22" range. You would have better luck asking about any of these:
- 24/27"
- IPS/PLS, especially at 2560x1440
- 120/144Hz

Your budget gives only one choice, which is pretty much locks out all of the above:
22" TN 1920x1080 60Hz
:D

Well, we could give semi-educated guesses, but they will probably be as good as yours. Though somebody should have by now suggested increasing the budget for £170 and getting Dell UltraSharp U2312HM (IPS 23"), which was quite popular at some point. Well, looking at the OCUK store, there's also the Iiyama Prolite X2377HDS (IPS 23"), which is £140. I would probably take my chances with the Iiyama, as Dell has lately been getting some flack for lowering their backlight bleed standards.
 
The dell monitors are great, but when i bought mine they were about £180, so maybe just out of your price range.
 
I heard Dell Ultrasharps were good but I heard negative things like the anti-glare made the screen greyish.

Anyone got one?
 
These BenQ's get excellent reviews, worth a look and in your budget. Better than TN panels, I have the 27" version, same panel only bigger. Great blacks, contrast, colour and no problems gaming, played Far Cry 3, Hitman Absolution, Tomb Raider and currently Crysis 3 which looks fantastic. My monitor was rubbish out the box but after setting up properly now has a fantastic picture. :)
 
Last edited:
Ok well did a bit of research and IPS is just another form of LCD but improvements that was created in 1996. But far as my knowledge goes LED's have a better picture but I'm guessing IPS has a better response time and no 'ghosting'?
 
The linked BenQ monitor is equipped with a VA panel. VA is traditionally known for its deeper blacks, but also being slightly slower. The latter linked (and earlier discussed) U2312HM is an IPS monitor.

I think pretty much all the modern computer monitors are LCD. The "LED" is just indicating the backlight type. And LED is by far the most common one these days. The one before LED was CCFL. Either type can be combined with IPS, PLS, VA or TN.

If you play lots of online FPS and are enthusiastic about fast response times, then TN is your choice. But that enthusiasm should usually go all the way to 120Hz, and your budget doesn't go that far. Nobody will recommend a regular 60Hz TN.

For general usage, IPS, PLS and VA panels are better, as they have better image quality and better viewing angles. IPS is usually seen as the best compromise. Relatively fast, and very good colors. And nowadays they're also relatively cheap. Five years ago they were definitely a premium choice with a premium price. Nowadays they are very price-competitive, and thus the preferred option.
 
Thank you for your input.

Just one last question, I read about people calibrating the monitors for best picture. Is this just adjusting the brightness/gamma/contrast to get the best performance?
 
Usually when people are talking about calibration, they talk about hardware calibration. Which requires a separate sensor device and software, and costs from £100 upwards. Hardware calibration is useful (or even necessary) for people doing color critical work, like professional photographers and designers.

For most people, it's sufficient to just try to get a "pleasing" image quality, which shows the colors approximately correctly. Here's one useful link, which is quite commonly mentioned in a variety of forums:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

Some people and reviewers share the settings they used to get the optimal results. These are usually a good starting point, but every monitor can deviate a little bit from the next (even if it's the same model), so you'll have to trust your own eyes, in the end.

Also, I would suggest that you don't grip too tightly to the "correct" image. If it looks wrong in your eyes, or in worst case tires your vision, then simply use the settings that you feel comfortable with.

PS. The lagom-test is from late-CRT/early-LCD -era, I think. But it should still hold true with regards to calibration. Also, be sure to use it with native resolution and without browser zooming.
 
Last edited:
Wootje said:
Thank you for your input.

Just one last question, I read about people calibrating the monitors for best picture. Is this just adjusting the brightness/gamma/contrast to get the best performance?
Click to expand...

If you are doing colour critical work, then it's important. Some tweaking when you set it up is all you need to do. Most are fine "out of the box".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom