Why are monitors so crap?

Grantelicious

Grantelicious

Grantelicious

Associate
Joined
6 Apr 2010
Posts
38
Picture quality wise I haven’t seen anything that can compete with any TV I’ve bought in recent times. My LG OLED looks so amazing and it only cost me £800 brand new in a sale. Where as the few OLED options on PC are way overpriced.

However even when it comes to LCD they’re still being made with HDMI 2.0.The light bleed is horrible,HDR that works well is non existent, they have dead pixels galore and poor image quality.

I cannot find a single good reasonably price monitor. What is up with the curve thing as well? It’s horrible :/

Everything is focusing on higher refresh rates, well I cannot tell the difference between 120 and 165. However I can tell the image quality sucks. I use an iMac at work and the image is amazing, but you cannot get that from a monitor on Windows. All the attempts fall short, and you’ll have light bleed and dead pixels, where at least Apple have quality control.

I’m struggling here to find a good monitor. I tried that Samsung G7 one, I hate the curve, the backlight zoning is too distracting and sucks. The picture on it is horrible... I play games on my LG TV and see that nasty screen next to it....

Where are the good monitors?
 
Last edited:
Toothy1911 said:
Give curve a chance. It really works well sitting up close. For TV's I agree its rubbish. But monitors it adds immersion.
Maybe go see some IRL.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I wish my x34's curve was more pronounced, it really works when you have the screen right in front of you but I wouldn't want my TV curved at all.

I think for the most part gaming monitors are outrageously overpriced for what they are, In terms of image quality they all look quite flat and dull to me, and it always seems like it's a panel lottery when you order which is crazy considering the price. Like you I also have an OLED TV but to be fair that is a very different type of technology that I believe still isn't up to scratch for gaming monitors at the moment mainly due to burn in.
 
Bad QC (pixels, light bleed etc) is because people buy them anyway. Why bother with decent QC when people will happily throw £500+ at you, even when they have to play the panel lottery.
 
The market is much smaller & less discerning as far as PQ is concerned. Therefore you see the state of it. It's not going to change any time soon.
 
One of the big reasons I use Apple for my hardware is the screens are so good. If I could get something comparable as a stand-alone monitor I would consider a custom PC again. For now a 5K iMac looks stunning and for gaming my 55” LG OLED + £450 Xbox Series X will be a more than enough.
 
I’m really hoping LG can make a 32 inch OLED, but their 48 inch is stupidly priced, so I doubt it. As for burn in, I’m surprised Microsoft hasn’t patched Windows to have an aggressive anti burn in mode. IPS suffers from image persistence as well, every one I’ve owned has had it, including the iMac. It goes away when you’re watching something so it’s not as bad, but it returns very quickly with static images.

Can only hope Micro LED solves the problems. But judging the cost of monitors, it’ll be 5 years away at least.
 
I have a 7 year old 1440 60hz samsung. Thought I would treat myself to something shiny. Mehhh what an uninspiring, over priced, and or poor quality load of crap. Only thing I would like tbh is freesync. Just not worth it really!
 
I completely agree with you - monitors are over priced and lacking the connections required to run the new hardware which is coming out before Xmas.
Also, in the TV's space the screens are all too large to use as a desktop screen :(
 
'Gaming' monitors are the problem, the factories shove out any old crap and charge a premium because, as new GPU launches prove, PC Gamers for the most part, are gullible idiots with no self control and will pay stupid money for sub standard products, because of the e-peen buzz it gives them.

I went through four 27in 1440p 'Gaming Panels' last year, all of them were utter garbage in the QC department for various reasons, sent them all back and so I decided to go with the LG850UK 27in 4K monitor, aimed more at the professional end of the market, in the hope that the factory QC standards would be much higher in regards to what they let out of the factory door.

...I wasn't disappointed, No it doesn't have 144Hz but it does have Freesync/Gysnc compatibility, HDR 600 and no IPS light bleed, tight fitting panels, pristine colours and image quality.
 
When i was looking for a high quality 1080p up to 100hz non TN panel there was nothing. It was oddly strange that i couldn't spend more money for better quality, all there was was higher refresh and response times that i didn't need.

I ended up with a £140 IPS Samsung with dead pixels, light bleed and ghosting images.
For the money it's fine, and i like it. But it was merely a place holder monitor and pc build for time being.

I'm with you OP, the choice is poo. I'll be couching it up with a TV, mid tier GPU, and next gen console. With likely another cheapo monitor to add to (not replace!) above cheapo monitor.

But good TVs in 1080p seem to be almost non existent now. Sigh. I might have to cough up the £grand needed :(
 
Most of problems with monitors for me is format I don't want to be looking through a letterbox all time. I want some vertical size 1600 min. I was looking at the LG38 but problems with fan noise and low contrast put me off. Only TV 48cx looks promising again with compromise too large for desktop use.
Having waited nearly 10 years for anything half decent above Dell 30". Sad really that monitor manufactures chuck out so much under performing junk. It is not price issue per say, but when TV's out perform monitors at lower price points. I don't understand why they cannot get their act together and produce something at least reasonably competitive
 
Armadillo said:
Bad QC (pixels, light bleed etc) is because people buy them anyway. Why bother with decent QC when people will happily throw £500+ at you, even when they have to play the panel lottery.
Click to expand...

the screens are priced accordingly based on acceptable yield rates and minor flaws in some samples. Minor flaws that an average consumer isn’t going to worry about or may not even notice. It’s not manufacturers just taking the mick and hoping they can get away with it. If every panel was flawless and perfect then the prices would need to be higher as some panels and screen samples would need to be abandoned and binned, which drives up the costs and therefore retails prices. You can’t have it both ways
 
kingsk1n said:
I have a 7 year old 1440 60hz samsung. Thought I would treat myself to something shiny. Mehhh what an uninspiring, over priced, and or poor quality load of crap. Only thing I would like tbh is freesync. Just not worth it really!
Click to expand...

Yeah ok. There’s nothing better than your 7 year old 60Hz Samsung screen!?

the Samsung G7 will crap all over that one every way
 
SDK^ said:
I completely agree with you - monitors are over priced and lacking the connections required to run the new hardware which is coming out before Xmas.
Also, in the TV's space the screens are all too large to use as a desktop screen :(
Click to expand...
I would expect monitors with HDMI 2.1 to start to appear imminently. It’s only just appeared in the Tv market keep in mind. The majority of pc users for now though won’t have or need hdmi 2.1, wish DisplayPort being far more common. Pc monitors aren’t really aimed at console gaming but as hdmi 2.1 becomes more widespread on graphics card in the coming years, monitors will feature that too. No doubt in that
 
Baddass said:
Yeah ok. There’s nothing better than your 7 year old 60Hz Samsung screen!?

the Samsung G7 will crap all over that one every way
Click to expand...

Of course it will be better. But after 7 years of advancement I kinda expect a little more for the cost. Maybe my expectations are to high? I went 7 years between tv's and the replacement for the 49" sony bravia I had was just amazing in comparison. I just don't seem to see that. I suppose I could go for the g7 or g9 and just send it back to you guys if its bad and try another. Just thats hassle and I cba with hassle as I am getting older :) .
 
By “you guys” I assume you mean ocuk? I don’t work for them, just help moderate the forums

There’s been a lot of improvements and updates to the monitor market in 7 years, just as there has been in the tv space
 
Grantelicious said:
I’m really hoping LG can make a 32 inch OLED, but their 48 inch is stupidly priced, so I doubt it. As for burn in, I’m surprised Microsoft hasn’t patched Windows to have an aggressive anti burn in mode. IPS suffers from image persistence as well, every one I’ve owned has had it, including the iMac. It goes away when you’re watching something so it’s not as bad, but it returns very quickly with static images.

Can only hope Micro LED solves the problems. But judging the cost of monitors, it’ll be 5 years away at least.
Click to expand...


LG aren't anytime soon, but JOLED are, and this is the best chance of OLED making it to the PC monitor space, but it's by no means a certainty. If it does happen, it's still at least 1-2 years away, and at a price point which may still be prohibitive for most. We won't be seeing sub-£500 27-32" high refresh VRR HDMI 2.1 OLED monitors anytime soon, that's for sure.

I think the issues with LCD are just inherent to the technology though, and are always going to be there. IPS, VA, TN... they each have their limitations, and while all have improved over the years, those issues are always going to be there. It's a case of pick your poison with LCD. That said, the same is true of OLED with the risk of burn-in and it not being optimal for text/productivity/colour accurate work, where a quality IPS panel still rules, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. For gaming/movies though, OLED is amazing.

Micro-LED may be indeed be the answer, but such monitors are at least 5 years away, possibly a decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom