Back to Today's Deal

I'm looking for some wisdom about computer monitors.


Thoughts about this one ?


I love the way you say I’m lying:

Then admit it’s correct:

then change direction:

Here’s the friendly, civilized way to disagree: “While human reaction time may be X, I believe perceptual resolution (Y) is the more important factor here.” I don’t disagree, and it’s a good point. Then you would provide some numbers instead of mudslinging. I can do that for you, too: perceptual resolution for simultaneity in visual stimuli is 20 - 30 ms. Still way way higher than 5 ms (or the 4 ms delta it probably makes more sense to talk about).


That’s the one I linked you … in the first reply post to this thread and my bad I wasn’t really throughout and through and didn’t provided much of an explanation at all. I’m sorry if something I typed doesn’t make much sense or meaning, but it’s been a long work day for me.

Won’t go into technicalities about monitors, because those have already been mentioned or being mentioned right now :slight_smile:

I will back story my process a bit: In my field of work I’ve worked with tons of monitors… big… small, curved, flat … from years on years. In gaming I tried to play quake 3 arena and quake live competitively for years, so I know better than most how important response time is (Quake is the only shooter ever made in my book ;]) and I plugged my 17 inch CRT 125 Hz LG for that same reason up to like 6-7 years ago. Nothing could beat CRT… It’s almost non beatable now as well, but that’s another story. Not to mention the far better colors compared to modern monitors (not including ultra sharp technology by Dell, because those aren’t budget at all).

When I started to build my own PC build (didn’t made one since 10 years, because I used laptops for the mobility and the ability to do field work when traveling) my monitor choice went to this one as a main >

I need 3 in total for multitasking, but the middle one needs to satisfy my needs to try hard in competitive shooters. This has insane build quality and options for it’s price so I went to check it out locally and I was pretty impressed. 144 Hz… great view angles… The stand is heavier than the monitor itself (or the same weight) with insane adjustability options.
I ended up buying 2x60 Hz from the older versions of this exact monitor from 2017, because this is for sure my choice for a “main - gaming” one and they were great price for the same build quality and comfort. I need to move to a new apartment pretty soon and I need to order 2,2 meter long desk when I get there to put all of them on top. I don’t have space for this thing to keep it in the box even, but it dictated my side monitors choice and currently I’m only with them and they are amazing… I do need 144 Hz though, so can’t wait to buy it when I have the desk to put it on as long as Quake Champions isn’t dead on player numbers :smiley:

I linked you the 27 inch version, because you want it bigger… and it seems it can go a bit faster even - 155 Hz overclocked :slight_smile:


Important thing to note, this 1ms response time that my LG has refers to how long it takes a pixel to go from grey through to grey again and 1ms will mean no ghosting. It is not a measure of input latency. So some monitor manufacturers advertise 1ms response time in a way that makes you think of latency instead which is a bit deceptive imo. In reality it will be more than 1 ms between your mouse click and the animation appearing on screen. Look up latency charts instead if you want a super snappy input response.


I stand by my statement, the information in your post is inaccurate or false.

I admit it could in some cases be correct. For competitive gamers it is likely incorrect.

I don’t care much for euphemisms when something is misleading.

Surely just a misunderstanding, I don’t recall making malicious allegations to you. If you’re referring to the mudslinging at LTT, he deserves it after the years of leeching and misinformation.
My post was never meant to be malicious (towards you).

I don’t have any links to quality papers on this. The reality is that judging perception, immersion or feel is way more complicated than simply comparing to the raw numbers of how fast a human processes visual input. In this case the most useful statistic would be on visual perception linked to sensory perception.

Next, the total lag in your system is already > 15ms (according to the LTT video). This is already pretty close to your proposed perceptual resolution and thus it is possible that adding any more will start to be noticeable.
IIRC these studies typically are testing very simple situations where they show you one image after the other, which is not a test for perception of fluidity. I can’t find the study I was looking at before now and I’m also not a neuroscientist so maybe you can link your findings?

Furthermore, the sooner the image appears on your screen, the sooner that 20-30ms visual perception resolution timer starts, the sooner you get to react to the image. Thus lowering latency would almost always be desirable. Of course, if you’re playing on a 60 Hz monitor, you only get to see a new image every 16.(6) ms so it doesn’t make much sense to reduce the total latency much below that, since it wouldn’t be drawn in the screen on time anyway.

The point I’m making is not that one should strive to buy a minimal lag system, personally I replaced all my screens with IPS over TN since TN looks horrible. I’m just saying that if you are buying new gear, you should be wary of both the people saying “it doesn’t matter your reaction time is slow anyway” and the people saying “you need to get a TN panel with a gaming mouse and a …”. Everyone should buy the gear they are most comfortable with, hence why I said the following:

Marketing and misinformation is terrible in this scene. I’m just bringing up my own experience and points I came across doing my own research. And now, I will stop derailing this thread.

I agree with this for competitive FPS, but believe making compromises on latency and frame rate are acceptable nowadays in favour of colour gamut and viewing angles if you’re not playing for money.


For the latency dumpster-fire:

Monitor Technology roll-up:

For the following monitor review, the updated methodology (some are before the switch)

Pixio PX275H

Viewsonic Alphabet Soup:


LG 27GL850 (I saw this and now I want it :confused: )

The video version of the Techspot article linked by @delenn13

Pixio PX7 Prime

I don’t have a video for the Dell 27" linked. but it appears to be a decent one.


In this Microsoft Research video, you can clearly perceive latencies as low as 10ms:


It’s a TN panel. If you’re not playing any high-level Ranked games, get an IPS instead.


That second video was disappointing, first he promises explanations from nvidia and AMD and then he goes on about games for 10 minutes. Finally the comments from nvidia and AMD didn’t explain anything. I guess the GPU load explanation makes sense.

I wouldn’t be suprised if they have an FPGA under that piece of cardboard interpreting the touch input and displaying on screen fully in hardware. The response you get from no-software systems is pretty cool.


Well i play RS6 , not on any meaningful level though.
Thing is i dont find any affordable IPS, if i do they have very high MS


Well im looking at a interesting problem here. All really good models , from top10’s are out of stock here .

AOC,ViewSonic,BenQ only have crappy stuff left and nothing from those sweet tops.

Getting a little bit ridiculous.


I recommend refreshing r/BuildAPCSales every few hours. There are some crazy good 10-minute deals on PC parts, including monitors. I saw an Acer Nitro with the specs I listed above for just around $270. which is a steal for what it is.


So after a lot of digging i ended up with these 3 options,mostly because they are the only ones available to purchase locally.

Dell 27 Gaming Monitor: S2719DGF

Any comments on which one would be best?I’m not really after 32inch but it’s just lack of choise really.


Don’t get a 32 inch unless it’s a 4K. But honestly, 32 inches is REALLY large. Like, 27 at 1440p will already feel REALLY huge, 32 is just overkill, and worse.

32 has worse pixel density. Do not get 32 inches, and if you absolutely need it, go with 4K on that.

Else, stick with 27 at 1440p. And really, get an IPS monitor, you’ll thank yourself in the long run.

The Acer Nitro VG271U goes on sale a lot, for example. But honestly, like I already said, if you need the monitor ASAP, like, any minute, just get the LG 27GL83A, it’s pretty much the best of the best at this category.

And do not worry about the MS man. Anything 5 and below is more than fine. It only really starts mattering when you’re in the higher end of Diamond elos of competitive games, minimum.

And online buying is much better than locally for monitors, especially if THOSE three are the main options.

Please just trust us here, we know what we’re talking about. 1080p = 24", 1440p = 27", anything higher is 4K. And IPS. Do not get TN. It’s 2020, stop buying TN monitors.


IPS for side monitor, yeah. For gaming not really… not yet anyway.


I’d recommend the LG 27GL850, as I have it myself as well. But it’s a bit outside of the budget so all I will say is this.

AOC 24/27G2U

Unless you want a higher resolution of course. But if you want 1080p then there is pretty much no reason to choose a different monitor currently.


Apparently I forgot to post this?

And for the Dell. It’s a TN. Twisted Nematic has gotten better, but I would still prefer IPS. That being said, IPS is a price premium. If you are okay with a TN panel, go for the Dell. It appears that your current monitor is TN.

I actually just ran across one of those Dells on Craigslist.


Lack of options again is the problem . I cant find any affordable IPS with my desired specs in that price range . Cheaper brands are not really available at large here so in the end i m stuck with what i can get


I want 1440p this time around.


There’s also VA tech which seems to be least popular but sort of middle of the road?