Need to replace my 21.5" Dell 2209WAf screen after it fell and smashed during an Assetto Corsa session.

Whilst I do do work on the PC some of the time, I mostly use it for gaming, and that's mostly driving simulators.

I liked the size of the screen, so wouldn't want to go smaller. The Dell had a 1680x1050 resolution, and suspect that a higher native resolution might make the rest of pc struggle at native, but 1920x1080 seems pretty standard now.
The dell was quoted as 6ms gtg, but appreciate that these quotes numbers don't tell much of the actual performance of the screen. But it was IPS, which is apparently a good thing.

I liked the matte screen - I do not want a glossy screen. Ever.

Would like to spend as little as possible, but £120 is probably all I can justify. I use DVI, which I gather is compatible with HDMI with an adaptor, so shouldn't be a problem.

Height adjustable is nice, but could live without it.

Any recommendations? Amazon reviews are mostly by idiots, so I don't trust them. Group tests seem hard to find for my criteria.

Thanks.

I can recommend the Dell U2312H, which is an IPS panel with still good response times and a heavy foot keeping the whole thing very stable. It also has a pivot funtion and can be raised accordingly. I have it for at least 2 years or something and runnning 24/7

Not too long ago i've read a test about the latest LG IPS series for a fair price of ~150 or something, but can't remember the name.

E: this is where i got my recomendation from: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore ... /review-dell-u2312hm.html

Normally I would point you towards Anandtech because their monitor testing methodology is very thorough. However, they don't really test monitors at that price point.

Based upon user reviews (grain of salt, all that jazz), people seem to like the ASUS VS239H-P.

If you can spare a bit more dosh, I can vouch for the ASUS PA248Q as a pretty good monitor.

Some others to consider here.

I found one Anandtech review: http://anandtech.com/show/5469 ... ips-for-a-nice-low-price/

I have a Dell U2312HM, so I could provide any feedback that you wanted. I guess it is more expensive than what you said, but you should consider getting a good monitor that last longer than a cheap one.

I like all of the monitor (but the 2 things mentioned below). IPS panels FTW, 4 usb ports, fully adjustable base...

On the bad side, it has light bleeding on the bottom-right corner, though it's only seen on full black images, so it don't really bother me. And the screen is 'half matte', my previous monitor was matte and the window did not reflect, on this you can see the light it casts, but only when the blind is fully open.


I read this review prior to buying mine, it helped a lot to make the decision: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2312hm.htm

Monitor, that its used in gaming, shouldnt have more than 2ms response time. Anything more than that creates input lag.

Also, if you are mainly playing games, like LFS, which arent graphically so demanding, or you have good graphics card, you should consider buying a monitor that has high refresh rate (120Hz or 144Hz) so you could get the optimal experience.

Quote from HenkkaWRC :

Monitor, that its used in gaming, shouldnt have more than 2ms response time. Anything more than that creates input lag.

Speaking about that. My monitor has a very low input lag, that compensates the delay of the IPS panel. I'm pretty much unable to see ghosting in any monitor though, so I can't throw my opinion on this topic.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Would like to spend as little as possible, but £120 is probably all I can justify.

That won't get you a whole lot really. Decent IPS panel is right out of the question atleast, or anything with a nice stand.

If you put a bit more money in, you'd be looking at something like Dell P2214H/P2314H or U2312HM, then again all those are 16:9 panels, which aren't very good for PC usage.

I wouldn't personally go with anything less than U2414M which is a proper 16:10 panel like your previous screen, but it's also more expensive.

Spend as much as you like but TBO, LG are fine at a good price. 24 (23.5) is a good size, noticably better than 22(21.5)

My advice, whats on sale at the right price ?, as unless you want to pay big bucks they tend to be much the same ( excluding AOC ), or any other budget brand.

If you want bigger for racing then a 32" TV may make sense as they are far cheaper than a equiv monitor, yet, strangely, often use the same panel !
If your card runs HDMI it may be worth looking at.

Quote from HenkkaWRC :

Monitor, that its used in gaming, shouldnt have more than 2ms response time. Anything more than that creates input lag

I would strongly disagree with this statement - 2ms will always cause input lag (because you've got an extra 2ms lag...) but of course this isn't noticeable.

I've used 16 and 25ms displays and not noticed it.

You'll also find that once you find monitors advertised at 8ms and under the testing methodology used to determine the response time gets dodgy and makes cross comparison very difficult - it's an artificially deflated number.

Quote from HenkkaWRC :

Also, if you are mainly playing games, like LFS, which arent graphically so demanding, or you have good graphics card, you should consider buying a monitor that has high refresh rate (120Hz or 144Hz) so you could get the optimal experience.

Quoted for truth.

Quote from Whiskey :

U2312HM

Quote from JazzOn :

U2312H

Ugh, both just 60hz. To avoid tearing (vsync off) or capping the game to 60fps (vsync on) I'd definitely recommend a 120+ hz monitor.

Dell, without a doubt make great monitors. Perhaps consider looking at alternatives that support more than 60hz.

FWIW I'm very happy with my BenQ XL2420T.

Quote from felplacerad :

I'd definitely recommend a 120+ hz monitor.

with the exception of one fairly expensive eizo those are all tn panels (ie junk)

Quote from Shotglass :

with the exception of one fairly expensive eizo those are all tn panels (ie junk)

Sure, sure. Absolutely worth taking into consideration, but ...

Quote from tristancliffe :

[...] gaming [...] Would like to spend as little as possible [...]

For gaming, a TN screen will give Tristan more bang for the buck. But I just realized 120 GBP might not even be enough for a 120+ hz TN monitor. :\

Buying a 120/144Hz monitor now isn't a very good idea, as G-sync is about to change everything in the ultra high refresh rate segment soon enough. Without G-sync, you'd also need a high performance graphics card to reach those high framerates to make full use of the refresh rates. And as shot said, they're primarily all on terribad TN panels.

G-sync isn't going to help you to achive any higher framerates? It just smoothens the picture magicially.

I'm not gonna write a novel telling how. Read it from Nvidia site.

Quote from HenkkaWRC :

G-sync isn't going to help you to achive any higher framerates? It just smoothens the picture magicially.

I'm not gonna write a novel telling how. Read it from Nvidia site.

G-sync uses 144Hz monitors (with a special scaler board) to render an image without the tearing of v-sync off and the input lag increase that v-sync on typically causes, it's the best of both worlds. I've gamed on current non G-sync 144Hz TN panels, and I'd rather a standard 60Hz IPS screen any day.

Once there are 144Hz IPS screens with G-sync then it's going to be very good, but until then it's a technology that only competetive FPS players with high performance computers can really make any use of.

In Tristans case, I suspect a 144Hz monitor to be a complete waste of money, unless he's rolling on something like a GTX 780 to make his games run fast enough to get 100+ FPS everywhere. Not to mention, such high refresh rate screens are WAY out of the price range we're talking about here.

And you might want to educate yourself with this article instead.

Quote from HenkkaWRC :

I'm not gonna write a novel telling how.

Because that would be a copy+paste anyway since you didn't actually understand it?

Quote :

smoothens the picture magicially.

anyway
personally the one id get if i were to buy a new monitor at this point would be the dell U2312HM (well actually it would be the dell UP2414Q but that ones out of the question)

since my dad is also a bit cheap i got him an AOC i2369Vm a couple of months ago (only cheap 23" model that i could find any actual test data for)
he seems to be happy with it however the stand is a bit flimsy on all of these cheaper models so that might be something to consider for someone whos known to throw monitors onto his shifters

also pro tip... if you connect the aoc (or any other hdmi only monitor to it) and have a (i believe amd were the problem) card in your pc it dont be alarmed by the bad picture for some idiotic reason the driver automatically enables a large amount of overscan for anything hdmi

Quote from Shotglass :

dell UP2414Q

I feel it's still a bit early to purchase a 3840x2160 monitor. AFAIK, lots of apps are just starting to catch up on the variable DPI necessary for readable text at that resolution without looking fuzzy.

I'd also probably prefer 1920x1200 @ 120+ Hz rather than 3840x2160 @ 60Hz. IPS is a given of course, though preferably not eIPS. I didn't do the proper research on eIPS and didn't realize most of them are 6-bit+FRC panels before buying one (ASUS PA248Q). PA249Q may have been a better option, having the same panel as the NEC PA242W at half the price, but there are numerous reports of subpar PSU's in the 249Q (inductor whine).

Quote from JazzOn :

Because that would be a copy+paste anyway since you didn't actually understand it?

I writed that post useing my phone with crappy internet connection... And I have heard how it works couple of times, but i can't remember how.

Thanks for the suggestions and comments. I'll have a look at some of the options.

Whilst there is a large part of me that wants to have a really nice screen that is 'future proof', the rest of my computer can't cope with displaying higher resolutions - on low/medium settings in AC I generally hover around 50fps.

I've never noticed tearing in anything, or input lag, so I do tend to consider them to be non-issues for me - I'm clearly not sensitive to them.

Colour reproduction and viewing angles aren't a major concern for me really, so TN would actually be okay probably, but I think I'd like to stick with IPS simply because I can.

Budget is the over-riding factor at the moment though, which isn't ideal, but that's part of my sacrifice for racing in reality.

My feeble system (bought in 2007/8, when it wasn't quite so feeble) is a Shuttle SX58H7, i7 920 @ 2.67Ghz, 6GB DDR3 @ 533Mhz RAM, 1GB ATi Radeon HD4870. I know that's not exactly top of the range anymore!

You could do with a newer GPU when you have the means to do so! It'll certainly help with multi-display setups you have. Otherwise, your CPU is still pretty good even today.

Oh no, I can see myself spending too much money.............. Must. Try. To. Resist.

Sorry for this small off-topic.

Quote from tristancliffe :

on low/medium settings in AC I generally hover around 50fps
1GB ATi Radeon HD4870

I have AC at the very lowest settings, with 2x AA, and it runs at 80fps on 1080. Comparing both cards seems that you could up the graphics a bit, though I can't really say that it looks bad at my settings ehhe

http://www.hwcompare.com/1322/ ... gb-vs-radeon-hd-5750-1gb/

I guess it depends which settings we choose to sacrifice, so maybe I could squeeze a few more frames per second out of my current card - but with a 1080 screen it'll probably pull it back down again.

So the Shuttle I've got (haven't had anything other than Shuttles for nearly 11 years now) is only a PCI-E 1.0 x16 motherboard, which means it can't take advantage of the speed of newer 2.0 and 3.0 cards/slots. At what point will the slot become the limiting factor?

Damn you all! Got the Dell U2312HM on my screen, and trying to judge if I should spend the money. I can, in theory, afford it now, but once racing starts it might mean no food for a month later in the year. Arse.

Quote from Forbin :

I feel it's still a bit early to purchase a 3840x2160 monitor. AFAIK, lots of apps are just starting to catch up on the variable DPI necessary for readable text at that resolution without looking fuzzy.

any program thats built from normal non bitmap graphics shoudl be fineish
the real issue is that 4k monitors are a massive hack atm being made up of 2 seperate mointors side by side as far as your graphics card is concerned

also 180 dpi really isnt enough yet

Quote from tristancliffe :

My feeble system (bought in 2007/8, when it wasn't quite so feeble) is a Shuttle SX58H7, i7 920 @ 2.67Ghz, 6GB DDR3 @ 533Mhz RAM, 1GB ATi Radeon HD4870. I know that's not exactly top of the range anymore!

replace the graphics card
somehting cheapish like an r9 270 or a gtx660 should easily double to triple your framerates
anythign else is absolutely fine for gaming