Technical jargon.

[KingSimcock]

I've been looking at some monitors to figure out what to save up for. But then realised I have no clue what most of the numbers and letters mean. What is gsync? What's a good mhz?

Can I get a high spec monitor and run it before I get the high spec gpu, would it be compatible.

I've only just started pc gaming. Skyrim is the current game on low settings. I'd like to ultra this with mods.

Any advice to help me choose is appreciated.

 

[Hedge]

What's your current spec pc?

Your pc will display on most monitors but not benefit from some of the higher resolutions or refresh rates if it's not powerful enough.

 

[KingSimcock]

What's your current spec pc?

Your pc will display on most monitors but not benefit from some of the higher resolutions or refresh rates if it's not powerful enough.

My system is a bodge together of bits, but here it is:
Bitfenix Pandora window silver case
Acer AAHD3-VC MOBO
AMD A10-6000 Quadcore 3.70GHz Processor
NVidia Geforce GT620 1GB DDR3 GPU
8GB Kingston Hyperx Fury Ram
Powercool x-viper 850W PSU
Monitor is HP and is ex office and not the best (freebie)
Kingston 120GB SSD for windows
WD Blue 1TB HDD
Windows 8

 

[eddiew]

Yeah, so your GPU is holding you back rather badly even for Skyrim. Look into a 6gb 1060, or 480, when you get the chance CPU could be better, but Skyrim isn't the most demanding game, so I wouldn't put priority here. You may want another 8gb ram if possible.

Your biggest problem may turn out to be connectivity. Most monitors now are displayport, and I don't think your GT620 will have that. You may find you have to buy an adapter - specifically an "active" adapter - which will add £30 or so to the purchase. I'd be inclined to buy the screen and the GPU at the same time so's to avoid that...

Regarding refresh frequency (hertz, Hz), it limits your maximum fps, and it's largely subjective as to what's good enough. Some people have no issue at 60Hz, others insist that games are rubbish below 100 or 144. Personally I find that 60 fps on a 60 Hz screen is perfectly acceptable.

G-sync and Freesync are adaptive-sync technologies designed to reduce the perceived stutter of low fps. To explain; if a monitor is listed at 60Hz, it means the screen refreshes at 60 times per second. Not "up to 60" but straight 60. This means that if your GPU is delivering, say, 45 fps, then for every three frames that are generated, the monitor has to display four. Over six frames and eight refreshes, they display in a pattern of 1-1-2-3-4-4-5-6. You'll perceive these double frames as a stutter, even though fps is technically reasonable. Any time your GPU isn't putting out 60 fps or above, you'll be getting frame duplication like this. Adaptive sync allows the monitor to lower it's refresh rate, so that you feed it 45 fps, and it refreshes 45 times per second with every frame getting the same display time and no duplicates.

TLDR: g-sync and freesync make games smoother when you can't drive them at the monitor's refresh rate.

Response time (miliseconds, ms) is the time taken for a pixel to fully change from one colour to another. It's also massively overhyped and misused. 1ms response implies 1000fps... and the technology used to provide it often results in poor colour accuracy. Imo there's nothing wrong with 6-10ms response times for most cases. Outside of 144Hz screens, there's really no need for ultra-low response times.

If you're really unsure what you want, it seems like the majority of people are happy with a 27" screen at 2560x1440 resolution, so that's probably where to aim. They're common, and there's a huge range of prices/performance to suit your budget and needs. Speaking of which, let us know your budget and we'll be able to suggest something

 

[KingSimcock]

Yeah, so your GPU is holding you back rather badly even for Skyrim. Look into a 6gb 1060, or 480, when you get the chance CPU could be better, but Skyrim isn't the most demanding game, so I wouldn't put priority here. You may want another 8gb ram if possible.

Your biggest problem may turn out to be connectivity. Most monitors now are displayport, and I don't think your GT620 will have that. You may find you have to buy an adapter - specifically an "active" adapter - which will add £30 or so to the purchase. I'd be inclined to buy the screen and the GPU at the same time so's to avoid that...

Regarding refresh frequency (hertz, Hz), it limits your maximum fps, and it's largely subjective as to what's good enough. Some people have no issue at 60Hz, others insist that games are rubbish below 100 or 144. Personally I find that 60 fps on a 60 Hz screen is perfectly acceptable.

G-sync and Freesync are adaptive-sync technologies designed to reduce the perceived stutter of low fps. To explain; if a monitor is listed at 60Hz, it means the screen refreshes at 60 times per second. Not "up to 60" but straight 60. This means that if your GPU is delivering, say, 45 fps, then for every three frames that are generated, the monitor has to display four. Over six frames and eight refreshes, they display in a pattern of 1-1-2-3-4-4-5-6. You'll perceive these double frames as a stutter, even though fps is technically reasonable. Any time your GPU isn't putting out 60 fps or above, you'll be getting frame duplication like this. Adaptive sync allows the monitor to lower it's refresh rate, so that you feed it 45 fps, and it refreshes 45 times per second with every frame getting the same display time and no duplicates.

TLDR: g-sync and freesync make games smoother when you can't drive them at the monitor's refresh rate.

Response time (miliseconds, ms) is the time taken for a pixel to fully change from one colour to another. It's also massively overhyped and misused. 1ms response implies 1000fps... and the technology used to provide it often results in poor colour accuracy. Imo there's nothing wrong with 6-10ms response times for most cases. Outside of 144Hz screens, there's really no need for ultra-low response times.

If you're really unsure what you want, it seems like the majority of people are happy with a 27" screen at 2560x1440 resolution, so that's probably where to aim. They're common, and there's a huge range of prices/performance to suit your budget and needs. Speaking of which, let us know your budget and we'll be able to suggest something

That's incredibly helpful thank you. I'm starting to understand fps now. Skyrim at the minute is on low setting and running 30-35fps. And feels quite stuttery, which all makes sense now.
In terms of budget I'm looking at paying about £500 and I was looking at 24" at 1080p if that helps. But other suggestions are welcome.

 

[RobinGopher]

A lot of it is personal preference, I'm sitting in front of a 21" 1080p monitor right now and to me that is the correct resolution for that screen size when browsing etc. Your graphics card is pretty weak by todays standards, it only has 1GB of memory which plenty of games will eat through at 1080p before you even look at how powerful it is. I'd be tempted to get something like a GTX 1050 / RX470 and pretty much any monitor that fits in your budget. However it might be worth visiting a bricks and mortar store and checking a few out, just to see the difference between IPS, VA and TN for yourself, and perhaps even adaptive sync ones. It is worth noting there is a massive premium on Gsync monitors and this premium extends to Freesync ones when you look at smaller displays (it seems to be pretty much free with bigger ones).

 

[eddiew]

That's incredibly helpful thank you. I'm starting to understand fps now. Skyrim at the minute is on low setting and running 30-35fps. And feels quite stuttery, which all makes sense now.
In terms of budget I'm looking at paying about £500 and I was looking at 24" at 1080p if that helps. But other suggestions are welcome.

Yeah, a steady and capped 30 fps would probably be ok, but if you drop to 29, then the monitor bounces between integer dividers of 60Hz; i.e. you get burst of fps at either 30, 20, 15, 10, 5 or 2. The bounce between 20 and 30 or even 30 and 60 can feel worse than if it was steady at the lower band. One of the big advantages of a 144Hz screen is it has more dividers that it can go down to, delivering effective fps at 72, 48, 36, 18, etc. A decent GPU will keep most games over the 48 mark, so even the low point isn't all that bad.

£500 is a budget that can either get you a high quality panel at "normal" sizes, or a middle quality screen with a big diagonal. (You can get a 24" 1080p for significantly less though, hence I start with a 27.)

I find it hard not to recommend Dell monitors, because basically I've never had a bad one out of the 10+ units I've bought for home and work. At your budget, I'd consider this at £449:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/dell...reen-led-monitor-midnight-grey-mo-080-de.html
27" with neither g-sync or freesync, but 2560x1440 a very acceptable 6ms response time, and excellent colour accuracy. It's the sort of good all-rounder monitor that will do you well in most things, with the exception of competitive twitch gaming.

If you want something more focussed on gaming and less on desktop work, then maybe consider this ultrawide from LG because... it's in your budget...
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/lg-3...descreen-led-monitor-black-red-mo-14c-lg.html
Lower pixel density, so the desktop may look rather chunky, but 2560x1080 is very easy to drive with modern graphics hardware, and you get freesync and high refresh. You are tied in to AMD graphics cards if you want to use freesync however.

 

[asteldian]

First things first, is that £500 budget for a monitor and you have more money squirrelled away for a GPU?
Because as it currently stands, a £500 monitor will get you nothing you will appreciate with that GPU. No point in having a 2560x1440 monitor without a decent GPU and I would recommend paying for a decent GPU and saving up for a nice monitor afterwards rather than get the nice monitor first.

If saving money to get both is a long journey, then I would go with a decent 23/24 inch 1920x1080 screen (should be no more than £150 tops) such as:
LG 23MP68VQ (~£130ish)
and buy a nice GPU to go with it.
Alternatively, you could go with something a bit funkier such as the Lg29UM68 ultra wide screen if you like 21:9 ratio. But I myself am unfamiliar with ultrawide. That would be about £230 and again leave room for a decent GPU within budget.

I do not know what monitor you currently use, but as it stands, a decent monitor is likely to do nothing but make your performance worse (if trying to play at the monitors native resolution)

 

[KingSimcock]

First things first, is that £500 budget for a monitor and you have more money squirrelled away for a GPU?

Yes that was the budget for a monitor only and i was looking at spending about £300 on a gpu. But them figures can be moved around as a total £800 if its better to put more into a gpu than monitor.

£500 is a budget that can either get you a high quality panel at "normal" sizes, or a middle quality screen with a big diagonal. (You can get a 24" 1080p for significantly less though, hence I start with a 27.)

I would say a solid smaller screen would be more good than a larger lesser quality, but my opinion is based on no experience.