Best 23-27 inch monitor for gaming?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -
(Currently on a 21.5 inch monitor and looking for an upgrade.) Which is the best monitor for gaming? (Only intrested in 16:9 monitors which is todays standard. No black bars or loss in FOV )
#2 Posted by XaosII (16574 posts) -

Whats your budget? And are you interested in 120Hz or 3D? Or do you prefer better colors/viewing angles?

#3 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3782 posts) -
I'm only going with what I have and that's a Benq XL2410T 24" 1080p 16:9 120Hz LED, Its absolutely wonderful.
#4 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -

Whats your budget? And are you interested in 120Hz or 3D? Or do you prefer better colors/viewing angles?

XaosII
Sorry. Should have told that. I basically want a good screen. Last time I settled for 21,5 but now I think it is to small. So it was cheap in the short term but expensive in the long run because of that I allready need to upgrade. I am prepared to pay up to $500 but if $200 is enough to get a good screen that is fine too. I simply want something that I can keep for more than 6 months.
#5 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -
Don't care so much about viewingangle but like big screens.
#6 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

I'm only going with what I have and that's a Benq XL2410T 24" 1080p 16:9 120Hz LED, Its absolutely wonderful. Grey_Eyed_Elf

Can you please link me to it? I've been thinking about getting a 120hz LED.

#7 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -
How important is it with 120Hz cause currently It seems like 24 inch 120Hz or 27 inch 60Hz are the best options?
#8 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3782 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grey_Eyed_Elf"]I'm only going with what I have and that's a Benq XL2410T 24" 1080p 16:9 120Hz LED, Its absolutely wonderful. hartsickdiscipl

Can you please link me to it? I've been thinking about getting a 120hz LED.

THAR!

#9 Posted by MonsieurX (30018 posts) -
Get an IPS.
#10 Posted by Gambler_3 (7548 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Whats your budget? And are you interested in 120Hz or 3D? Or do you prefer better colors/viewing angles?

Demanded

Sorry. Should have told that. I basically want a good screen. Last time I settled for 21,5 but now I think it is to small. So it was cheap in the short term but expensive in the long run because of that I allready need to upgrade. I am prepared to pay up to $500 but if $200 is enough to get a good screen that is fine too. I simply want something that I can keep for more than 6 months.

This is the monitor to get.

I would recommend you stay away from 27" TN monitors, the size is too big for TN, screen uniformity will be horrible. 24" is the maximum you should ever consider with TN.

Unfortunately the bigger IPS panel monitors are too expensive for your budget. 23" is a very nice screen size if you ask me and should keep you happy for a long time.

#12 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Whats your budget? And are you interested in 120Hz or 3D? Or do you prefer better colors/viewing angles?

Gambler_3

Sorry. Should have told that. I basically want a good screen. Last time I settled for 21,5 but now I think it is to small. So it was cheap in the short term but expensive in the long run because of that I allready need to upgrade. I am prepared to pay up to $500 but if $200 is enough to get a good screen that is fine too. I simply want something that I can keep for more than 6 months.

This is the monitor to get.

I would recommend you stay away from 27" TN monitors, the size is too big for TN, screen uniformity will be horrible. 24" is the maximum you should ever consider with TN.

Unfortunately the bigger IPS panel monitors are too expensive for your budget. 23" is a very nice screen size if you ask me and should keep you happy for a long time.

Thank you for your answer. So no TN screen above 24 inch. :/ Would certainly be nice to have a monster at home. Did some searching for 27 inch IPS monitors and found out that Dells U2711 was pretty expensive. What about this 27 inch IPS which seem to cost 440$? Doesnt seem to be available.. :/ http://www.pcmonitors.org/news/lg-e2770v-coming-soon Maybe better to choose 24 inch 120 Hz? The problem is that I dont really know how the difference between TN and IPS or 60 Hz and 120 Hz feels.
#13 Posted by Gambler_3 (7548 posts) -

Very nice to see ASUS has entered the IPS scene. I will have to see some reviews to know how the 23" version compares with the dell.

#14 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -
The asus also 23 inch. Would like something bigger but the BenQ looks nice.
#15 Posted by Gambler_3 (7548 posts) -

The asus also 23 inch. Would like something bigger but the BenQ looks nice.Demanded
In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

#16 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

I personally use the ProArt series. It has been great so far. I just hate it when I see people use a rigor Ibuild a rig for someone with tons of GPU power and then skimp on a monitor. I built a rig very similar to mine for a friend after he used mine and when it was done he bought a mid level 1080p LCD. He is running two gtx 580 in SLI! I tried to get him to use the same monitor as I haveor get a Dell but he wouldn't do it. Im hoping to soon be running three ProArt screens but I havnt been working so it will be a while.

#17 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"]The asus also 23 inch. Would like something bigger but the BenQ looks nice.Gambler_3

In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

I agree with the 19x12 statement. You only lose a negligible amount of picture for a huge bump in IQ. Like I said though it also depends on what you are using to drive said monitor. I have two gtx580 atm and when I get two more 19x12 monitors I will go tri SLI or move on to the next top dog card. If he is set on 16:9 I would give that ASUS IPS a try as I will never go non IPS again.

#18 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"]The asus also 23 inch. Would like something bigger but the BenQ looks nice.Gambler_3

In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

You get to see smaller part of the game with 16:10 or get black bars. Therefor I am not intrested in x1200 screens. And I think it is pretty suprior to get maximum of the game and get rid of black bars as you do with 1080p. But dont really wanna discuss that. Benq XL2410T Dell U2311H LG E2770V or Samsung 2770FH are the most intresting alternatives so far. What do you think?
#19 Posted by -Wolfy- (1417 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Whats your budget? And are you interested in 120Hz or 3D? Or do you prefer better colors/viewing angles?

Gambler_3

Sorry. Should have told that. I basically want a good screen. Last time I settled for 21,5 but now I think it is to small. So it was cheap in the short term but expensive in the long run because of that I allready need to upgrade. I am prepared to pay up to $500 but if $200 is enough to get a good screen that is fine too. I simply want something that I can keep for more than 6 months.

This is the monitor to get.

I would recommend you stay away from 27" TN monitors, the size is too big for TN, screen uniformity will be horrible. 24" is the maximum you should ever consider with TN.

Unfortunately the bigger IPS panel monitors are too expensive for your budget. 23" is a very nice screen size if you ask me and should keep you happy for a long time.

+1 That Dell monitor is perfect
#20 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Demanded"]The asus also 23 inch. Would like something bigger but the BenQ looks nice.Demanded

In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

You get to see smaller part of the game with 16:10 or get black bars. Therefor I am not intrested in x1200 screens. And I think it is pretty suprior to get maximum of the game and get rid of black bars as you do with 1080p. But dont really wanna discuss that. Benq XL2410T Dell U2311H LG E2770V or Samsung 2770FH are the most intresting alternatives so far. What do you think?

Who I am to tell you its not a big deal but you should lookat thislink that shows the difference of images at different resolutions. The loss in screen really is not much at all and the resolution is a better trade off IMO if you can power it.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6251839/index.html

#21 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Demanded"] Sorry. Should have told that. I basically want a good screen. Last time I settled for 21,5 but now I think it is to small. So it was cheap in the short term but expensive in the long run because of that I allready need to upgrade. I am prepared to pay up to $500 but if $200 is enough to get a good screen that is fine too. I simply want something that I can keep for more than 6 months.-Wolfy-

This is the monitor to get.

I would recommend you stay away from 27" TN monitors, the size is too big for TN, screen uniformity will be horrible. 24" is the maximum you should ever consider with TN.

Unfortunately the bigger IPS panel monitors are too expensive for your budget. 23" is a very nice screen size if you ask me and should keep you happy for a long time.

+1 That Dell monitor is perfect

That Dell is a great option. I linked the ASUS IPS because it is said to use the same screen. The Dell definitely has better looks but the ASUS has the price advantage. Saying that $500 is max he has for budgetI would spend it on a higer end IPS just because I think it is better suited for the future.

#22 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

cheesie253

You get to see smaller part of the game with 16:10 or get black bars. Therefor I am not intrested in x1200 screens. And I think it is pretty suprior to get maximum of the game and get rid of black bars as you do with 1080p. But dont really wanna discuss that. Benq XL2410T Dell U2311H LG E2770V or Samsung 2770FH are the most intresting alternatives so far. What do you think?

Who I am to tell you its not a big deal but you should lookat thislink that shows the difference of images at different resolutions. The loss in screen really is not much at all and the resolution is a better trade off IMO if you can power it.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6251839/index.html

One of the games I intend to play is Witcher 2 and that game doesnt even support gaming in 16:10 and almost all monitors sold today are 16:9 monitors I think the support for 16:10 will get even worse so doesnt really sound like a good decision for the future to choose a ratio that is being phased out.
#23 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

One of the games I intend to play is Witcher 2 and that game doesnt even support gaming in 16:10 and almost all monitors sold today are 16:9 monitors I think the support for 16:10 will get even worse so doesnt really sound like a good decision for the future to choose a ratio that is being phased out.

Just because one size is the "norm" does not say anything about quality. I have been PC gaming for over 17 years and I can tell you right now 1080p will be "phased" out before 19x12. Its the way the industry works. If you want to go ahead and tell me and the many other people here that 1080p will outlast ahigher resolutionscreen you go ahead and do that. I don't know how long you have been gaming, being that you are here asking about what to buy I wouldn't think for very long, but if you have had any experience in the past with PC gaming going bigger with resolution is always better than being behind.

The only reason 1080p has been staying in the PC world is because it is the "norm" for the TV world and its the "Full HD" poster boy.

#24 Posted by Gambler_3 (7548 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

[QUOTE="Demanded"]The asus also 23 inch. Would like something bigger but the BenQ looks nice.Demanded

In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

You get to see smaller part of the game with 16:10 or get black bars. Therefor I am not intrested in x1200 screens. And I think it is pretty suprior to get maximum of the game and get rid of black bars as you do with 1080p. But dont really wanna discuss that. Benq XL2410T Dell U2311H LG E2770V or Samsung 2770FH are the most intresting alternatives so far. What do you think?

What are you talking about? With 16:9 you lose space vertically so no with 16:10 you arent getting smaller part of the game.

But you are right about games not supporting 16:10, that is sad indeed.

#25 Posted by Gambler_3 (7548 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

cheesie253

You get to see smaller part of the game with 16:10 or get black bars. Therefor I am not intrested in x1200 screens. And I think it is pretty suprior to get maximum of the game and get rid of black bars as you do with 1080p. But dont really wanna discuss that. Benq XL2410T Dell U2311H LG E2770V or Samsung 2770FH are the most intresting alternatives so far. What do you think?

Who I am to tell you its not a big deal but you should lookat thislink that shows the difference of images at different resolutions. The loss in screen really is not much at all and the resolution is a better trade off IMO if you can power it.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6251839/index.html

That seems like a flawed comparasion. They used the same screen to compare different aspect ratios.:?

You gotta use a 16:10 monitor and a 16:9 for comparasion, that way 16:10 monitor will show more vertical space provided the game supports 16:10 which still the majority do.

#26 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]In $500 you can get a 16:10 24" IPS panel but you only want 16:9 so as far as IPS goes you dont have much option.

What is wrong with 19x12 though? It's a demanding resolution but other than that it is superior to 19x10 in every way.

Gambler_3

You get to see smaller part of the game with 16:10 or get black bars. Therefor I am not intrested in x1200 screens. And I think it is pretty suprior to get maximum of the game and get rid of black bars as you do with 1080p. But dont really wanna discuss that. Benq XL2410T Dell U2311H LG E2770V or Samsung 2770FH are the most intresting alternatives so far. What do you think?

What are you talking about? With 16:9 you lose space vertically so no with 16:10 you arent getting smaller part of the game.

But you are right about games not supporting 16:10, that is sad indeed.

You are wrong there. Most games today are hor+ which means that the height in 16:9 and 16:10 will be the same but the width will be greater with 16:9.
#27 Posted by XaosII (16574 posts) -

You are wrong there. Most games today are hor+ which means that the height in 16:9 and 16:10 will be the same but the width will be greater with 16:9.Demanded

They both have the same width of 1900 pixels. Im confused.

#28 Posted by robertoenrique (1161 posts) -
Dumb question here, but what is TN?
#29 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -

[QUOTE="Demanded"]You are wrong there. Most games today are hor+ which means that the height in 16:9 and 16:10 will be the same but the width will be greater with 16:9.XaosII

They both have the same width of 1900 pixels. Im confused.

Let me explain The way most games work (about 95%) with resolutions is that EVERY SINGLE resolution sees the EXACT same amount vertically. Got that? That means that how much the resolution sees horizontally is determined by how wide the resolution is compared to the height. 1920 is wider compared to 1080 than it is compared to 1200. The Picture I posted clearly shows how the effect works. Since 16:10 view area can be fit inside a 16:9 view area, the effect is zoomed in. This results in more pixels used to form the same image, and thus providing more image clarity. (provided that you stay within the same resolution range like 1920x1080 and 1920x1200) This scaling method is called hor+. It's the same thing that causes 1920x1200 displays to see more than 1600x1200 displays (1920 is wider compared to 1200 than 1600 is to 1200 pixels). Get it? The OLD method is called vert-. It works the exact opposite of hor+. Vert- has the most FOV with aspect ratios closest to the non widescreen resolutions. Everything else is made to fit inside the non widescreen aspect ratio. With hor+, you can expand the view area forever. Every single resolution sees the same vertically. That means that a resolution of 1920x600 sees more than 1920x1200. Since 1920 pixels is wider compared to 600 than 1200 vertical pixels. It's kinda hard to explain on the spot. I have spent a lot of time on WSGF researching how to get some older games to work properly in widescreen, and along the way I discovered these facts. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page There isn't a single hor+ article, but if you browse enough you will find out what it means. If you aren't sure how many games use hor+ scaling, you can ask here or send me a message or search it on WSGF wiki. You'll get an answer anyhow. The 95% is an estimate. I cannot provide an actual number but it is somewhere close to that. vert- was used before 2005. After that, games slowly started to change to hor+. Nowadays everything is hor+ Just shoot me a question. I'm losing my coherency here. Ask me anything and I'll explain.
#30 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -
The image http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/2613/aspect.png
#32 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="Demanded"]You are wrong there. Most games today are hor+ which means that the height in 16:9 and 16:10 will be the same but the width will be greater with 16:9.Demanded

They both have the same width of 1900 pixels. Im confused.

Let me explain The way most games work (about 95%) with resolutions is that EVERY SINGLE resolution sees the EXACT same amount vertically. Got that? That means that how much the resolution sees horizontally is determined by how wide the resolution is compared to the height. 1920 is wider compared to 1080 than it is compared to 1200. The Picture I posted clearly shows how the effect works. Since 16:10 view area can be fit inside a 16:9 view area, the effect is zoomed in. This results in more pixels used to form the same image, and thus providing more image clarity. (provided that you stay within the same resolution range like 1920x1080 and 1920x1200) This scaling method is called hor+. It's the same thing that causes 1920x1200 displays to see more than 1600x1200 displays (1920 is wider compared to 1200 than 1600 is to 1200 pixels). Get it? The OLD method is called vert-. It works the exact opposite of hor+. Vert- has the most FOV with aspect ratios closest to the non widescreen resolutions. Everything else is made to fit inside the non widescreen aspect ratio. With hor+, you can expand the view area forever. Every single resolution sees the same vertically. That means that a resolution of 1920x600 sees more than 1920x1200. Since 1920 pixels is wider compared to 600 than 1200 vertical pixels. It's kinda hard to explain on the spot. I have spent a lot of time on WSGF researching how to get some older games to work properly in widescreen, and along the way I discovered these facts. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page There isn't a single hor+ article, but if you browse enough you will find out what it means. If you aren't sure how many games use hor+ scaling, you can ask here or send me a message or search it on WSGF wiki. You'll get an answer anyhow. The 95% is an estimate. I cannot provide an actual number but it is somewhere close to that. vert- was used before 2005. After that, games slowly started to change to hor+. Nowadays everything is hor+ Just shoot me a question. I'm losing my coherency here. Ask me anything and I'll explain.

So are you from Finland or did you just copy and paste your whole message? I frequent the overclock forums regularly. I know you didnt just write that because the person who originally posted it is pro 19x12 over 19x10.

Here is some more from the true author of what you just posted.

I don't think the FOV difference is noticiable at all. However, the extra image clarity within the same resolution and size range is somewhat noticiable

Especially if you're going eyefinity/surround, the added vertical pixels of 1200p are worth it.

You'll appreciate it in windows very much and it won't make a single bit of difference in games since you're already using 3x monitors, gaining a huge FOV.

The difference between 1080p and 1200p on the same quality panels in games is somewhat noticiable. IMO it's enough to make 1200p worth buying.

I don't recommend that you get 3x 1080p TN monitors for eyefinity. That should only be considered an extreme budgeting solution.

Get 1200p if you can, or get 3x 1080p IPS for the same price if you can.

Now this is where decisions count. I'd rather take 3x 1080p IPS monitors than 3x 1200p TN monitors.

If you can afford 3x 1200p IPS monitors, I suggest you spend your money there.

Wow.. I really can't form a coherent post when I'm tired. :|

TLDR: I don't suggest 3x 16:9 for eyefinity. It might provide a couple of more degrees of FOV, but it is not noticiable AT ALL since you already have a huge FOV with 3x monitors. Spend it on 1200p or 1080p IPS. If you can 1200p IPS

__________________

#33 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -
..cheesie253
It was a good explanation. Thats why I reposted it. no, i did not write it but it doesnt matter) it is a great explanation. Hopefully you understand how it works now. well, back to the subject. Best 23-27 inch monitor.
#34 Posted by Demanded (22 posts) -
I'd rather take 3x 1080p IPS monitors than 3x 1200p TN monitors.

If you can afford 3x 1200p IPS monitors, I suggest you spend your money there.

Wow.. I really can't form a coherent post when I'm tired. :|

TLDR: I don't suggest 3x 16:9 for eyefinity. It might provide a couple of more degrees of FOV, but it is not noticiable AT ALL since you already have a huge FOV with 3x monitors. Spend it on 1200p or 1080p IPS. If you can 1200p IPScheesie253
Well, i think one monitor is more than enough for me. I will not be able to run games in eyefinity res. Will have to think about it. Difficult to decide.
#35 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

[QUOTE="cheesie253"]..Demanded
It was a good explanation. Thats why I reposted it. no, i did not write it but it doesnt matter) it is a great explanation. Hopefully you understand how it works now. well, back to the subject. Best 23-27 inch monitor.

I have always understood how it works, and if you read the entire thread it goes to show that the verysmall loss of FOV is more than made up for in increased IQ and resolution. You asked what the best monitor is 23 to 27 inch. It will be an IPS monitor which you can get in both 19x12 and 19x10. Most people will agree that aresolution increase will be better than a little FOV.

#36 Posted by cheesie253 (840 posts) -

[QUOTE="cheesie253"] I'd rather take 3x 1080p IPS monitors than 3x 1200p TN monitors.

If you can afford 3x 1200p IPS monitors, I suggest you spend your money there.

Wow.. I really can't form a coherent post when I'm tired. :|

TLDR: I don't suggest 3x 16:9 for eyefinity. It might provide a couple of more degrees of FOV, but it is not noticiable AT ALL since you already have a huge FOV with 3x monitors. Spend it on 1200p or 1080p IPS. If you can 1200p IPSDemanded
Well, i think one monitor is more than enough for me. I will not be able to run games in eyefinity res. Will have to think about it. Difficult to decide.

That was still from the OP over at overclock. Multi monitor gaming aside 19x12 will still be a superior image to 19x10. I'm not trying to sway you from the decision to go 19x10 I am just trying to get the point across that the higher resolution and IQ IMO and many othersis a much better trade off than having a little more FOV. I will be going with three ASUS ProArt monitors when I have the money for two morebut If I was on a budget 1080p single andsurround gaming would fit the bill. You set a $500 limit and asked what the best monitor was. You absolutely cant beat an IPS at 19x12. I also linked you to an ASUS 19x10 IPS as well for about $250. The Dell is a better looking option aesthetically but the ASUS will save a few bucks.

I came froma 19x10 monitor before the recent upgrade and it took a little while to get used to it but I would never go back. 19x10 was like I said picked as the poster boy for full hd and it has taken over. I dont watch movies on my rig and if I did I could live with the black bars because I have to put up with it on my Panny plasma when watchin blu rays anyway. I guess in the end I prefer IQ and you have to pick what you want. I just ask you go with an IPS because if you do you will NEVER go back to a lesser panel.