Monitor for PC, PS4, PS3?

[G-rex]

Hey everyone, this is my first post but I've been browsing the forums for awhile now. I know this is probably the best place to seek advice for the plans I have. I plan on building my first gaming rig soon and I want to be able to use the same monitor I choose for my PS3 and PS4. I'm mainly looking for a 24-27 inch 1080p led display; prefer 27. I just need some suggestions. I don't plan on using anything higher than a gtx 770 in my build if that helps. Something that I could hook up a desktop speaker system to would be preferred too so I could use it for all 3 devices if I can. I'm a rookie at this build stuff so bear with me, thanks.

 

[photonboy]

You should give a budget, but my advice is try pcpartpicker.com . I'll have a look.

Some tips:
1) Need an HDMI input that is HDCP
2) If you can't find 2xHDMI, then you can get an inexpensive HDMI splitter from Monoprice to choose between PS3 or PS4
3) recommend 5ms or lower

4) Do you need 3D capability for NVidia or AMD?
5) Do you want more than 60Hz?
6) IPS is better but costs more.

I'll have a quick look and post something (assuming United States).

 

[photonboy]

I recommend something like THIS: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/benq-monitor-gw2750hm

I don't think you'll find TWO HDMI connectors, but here's the basic specs:

- HDMI
- audio output (headphone jack-> can attach to speakers via 3.5mm M->M cable)
- speakers (don't use)
- DVI (for monitor)
- VGA (won't need)
- 27", 1920x1080

As I said for BOTH the PS3/PS4 you'll either need an HDMI switch (I meant switch not splitter) or just manually move the HDMI cable between them.

Monitor site:
http://www.benq.ca/product/monitor/gw2750hm/specifications/

 

[Tom Tancredi]

I recommend going down to Walmart and buy one of the TVs there. I seen plenty of nice 30" or larger TV screens (what most people buy) between $300-$500, and they come with 3 or 4 HDMI ports. Just turn the screens to the side and check how many ports. There was a very nice 120Hz I saw there 32" I think for $300?

 

[DarkSable]

Can I just throw out there that you really don't want a 27", 1080p monitor?

There is a very noticeable difference between it and a 24", 1080p monitor's pixel density when gaming - the 27" one will be more expensive and look worse.

 

[G-rex]

Sorry for the lack of info on some things. I know I'm gonna have to use a splitter of some sort if I want to hook up my ps3 and ps4. I am in the US, PA actually. Hour or so drive to Baltimore Microcenter, plan on using them for most of my needs, Amazon or Newegg for the rest. I was only considering a 27 in monitor since I'll be sitting back a little further when gaming on consoles. But if I can't find one, I'm currently using a 39 inch 120hz LED tv for the consoles anyhow. I would like to stick to one monitor at 1080p, 120hz if I can find a good one at a good price. Considered higher resolution foreign monitors (Yamasaki, catleap) if I wasn't hooking up consoles. Definitely no more than $400, less is better.

 

[CaedenV]

A 27" 1080p monitor is a horrible idea. ~4-5 years ago I picked up a 28" 1200p monitor (essentially 1080p but 16:10 ratio), and you can see each and every pixel at all times... it is quite horrible even at a little distance. At that size you really want something that is 1440p qHD. Besides, in this day and age, anyone making a display that large at 1080p is really selling a piece of junk that is going to have other issues to contend with (low contrast, backlight bleed, etc.)
A TV will do a much better job blurring things up a bit for larger low-resolution displays, and will work just fine if you are mostly using it for games and video... but could be difficult to stare at for hours on end of text. Still, if you are set on 1080p it is by far going to be the better (and cheaper) option.

So if you can stretch your budget a bit to get a 27" qHD monitor with 2+ digital inputs, then great. It should have no issue upscaling low quality PS3 and PS4 content to make it work, while allowing nice sharp PC graphics.

Otherwise I would suggest no higher than a 24" 1080p monitor, or sticking with a 32" 1080p TV.

At the end of the day, monitors last a long time. A really long time. My CRTs lasted from 1988-2009, and my 28" LCD that replaced them may not last as long... but it is certainly going to last a good 8-10 years easily. If you are going to stare at your screen for 4-12 hours a day for the next 8-10 years then you should probably do yourself a favor and get a decent quality display. Choosing a monitor is like choosing a wife, looks are not all that matter... but as you are going to look at her a long time you don't want to choose an ugly one either.

 

[photonboy]

2560x1440 monitors:

You can buy a 27", 2560x1440 monitor that supports Consoles. The one I recommend is from Asus and costs $550. I don't recommend anything cheaper:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-pb278q

Sure, that's pretty pricey but that's the cost of a quality high-res monitor.

You can get a pretty nice 24", 1920x1080 monitor for $200 though.

Not sure I'd recommend an HDTV if you plan to sit a normal distance from it for PC usage.

 

[Memhorder]

I'm buying a monitor this weekend so I'm subbing this thread.

 

[G-rex]

A 27" 1080p monitor is a horrible idea. ~4-5 years ago I picked up a 28" 1200p monitor (essentially 1080p but 16:10 ratio), and you can see each and every pixel at all times... it is quite horrible even at a little distance. At that size you really want something that is 1440p qHD. Besides, in this day and age, anyone making a display that large at 1080p is really selling a piece of junk that is going to have other issues to contend with (low contrast, backlight bleed, etc.)
A TV will do a much better job blurring things up a bit for larger low-resolution displays, and will work just fine if you are mostly using it for games and video... but could be difficult to stare at for hours on end of text. Still, if you are set on 1080p it is by far going to be the better (and cheaper) option.

So if you can stretch your budget a bit to get a 27" qHD monitor with 2+ digital inputs, then great. It should have no issue upscaling low quality PS3 and PS4 content to make it work, while allowing nice sharp PC graphics.

Otherwise I would suggest no higher than a 24" 1080p monitor, or sticking with a 32" 1080p TV.

At the end of the day, monitors last a long time. A really long time. My CRTs lasted from 1988-2009, and my 28" LCD that replaced them may not last as long... but it is certainly going to last a good 8-10 years easily. If you are going to stare at your screen for 4-12 hours a day for the next 8-10 years then you should probably do yourself a favor and get a decent quality display. Choosing a monitor is like choosing a wife, looks are not all that matter... but as you are going to look at her a long time you don't want to choose an ugly one either.

HaHa, love the wife analogy.

 

[G-rex]

The main reason I wanted to run every device into one display was to free up space and hopefully be able to run sound through monitor to a desktop speaker system. I didn't want to get a receiver for the ps3 and ps4 since they only have a digital optical port. Since most monitors used their audio out jacks for speakers and headphones fed from hdmi (correct?), I thought I could get away with it. Plus, I was going to try to run gaming on pc above 60fps and wanted a 120hz monitor to enjoy it. I do appreciate everyone's input and advice by the way. Any more?

 

[Memhorder]

I'm looking around too and the one that catches my eye and is recommended by PC Builder and great reviews is the AOC specifically AOC I2769Vm. Cheap sub 300$ monitor and is IPS and 27 inches of real estate, frame less. I don't know about you man but I think I'm suckered in

 

[DarkSable]

^ Except that 1080p at 27" is very noticeable and very ugly. You don't WANT a big monitor, you want a big resolution. There's a huge difference.

That particular monitor is also using a pretty cheap IPS panel, and quite honestly, is going to look worse than a very high quality TN panel.

 

[Memhorder]

^ Except that 1080p at 27" is very noticeable and very ugly. You don't WANT a big monitor, you want a big resolution. There's a huge difference.

That particular monitor is also using a pretty cheap IPS panel, and quite honestly, is going to look worse than a very high quality TN panel.

I don't know man. Maybe you sit with your nose pressed against the screen. AOC get's their panels from LG I believe. I mean how much difference is 3 inches gonna make is 1 of those 3 inches the straw that break the camels back? I can see if someone is slouched over the keyboard but if you sit back it should be fine, savy? Did you have a large monitor and take it back?

 

[Tom Tancredi]

I am sorry I got to really toss the B.S. Flag on this large screen very bad / ugly "You don't WANT a big monitor, you want a big resolution".

I am sitting in front of my keyboard 20" away from my Acer GD 235Hz 120Hz 24" monitor @1080p I finally upgraded to from all the 17-19" multiple screens previously and meets my needs nicely at my desktop.

To my left is my Wife sitting in bed 6 Feet away on the Vizio VL370M 37" 1080P 60Hz TV LCD, which we have her laptop, wireless mouse / keyboard connected via HDMI, as well as the BluRay Player in a HDMI port, CableTV box in a HDMI port, and powering some nice speakers via the USB Service port. I am 44" away from it when I turn my head, and in all uses of it (she has open several Chrome panels open Word Docs, chat sessions and her Firefox to her Online School) I do NOT see any of the issues described.

I am guessing that is because you all are referring to much older LCDs and using VGA connections (much cruddier displays which we saw right off when we tried that one time), but if HDMI, and the computer itself supports 1080P, then I see no issue. Further the ones I seen in Walmart (as I suggested above) are even better since they run at 120Hz which makes the displayed image much more clearer and defined.

My three cents.. spend it wisely

 

[G-rex]

Anyone go to a 27 from a 24 and enjoy it more? Mainly for gaming purposes. Asus specifically.

 

[Memhorder]

Anyone go to a 27 from a 24 and enjoy it more? Mainly for gaming purposes. Asus specifically.

I've decided 27. AOC I2769Vm Good reviews. IPS Looks pretty. Good luck

 

[DarkSable]

I am sorry I got to really toss the B.S. Flag on this large screen very bad / ugly "You don't WANT a big monitor, you want a big resolution".

I am sitting in front of my keyboard 20" away from my Acer GD 235Hz 120Hz 24" monitor @1080p I finally upgraded to from all the 17-19" multiple screens previously and meets my needs nicely at my desktop.

To my left is my Wife sitting in bed 6 Feet away on the Vizio VL370M 37" 1080P 60Hz TV LCD, which we have her laptop, wireless mouse / keyboard connected via HDMI, as well as the BluRay Player in a HDMI port, CableTV box in a HDMI port, and powering some nice speakers via the USB Service port. I am 44" away from it when I turn my head, and in all uses of it (she has open several Chrome panels open Word Docs, chat sessions and her Firefox to her Online School) I do NOT see any of the issues described.

I am guessing that is because you all are referring to much older LCDs and using VGA connections (much cruddier displays which we saw right off when we tried that one time), but if HDMI, and the computer itself supports 1080P, then I see no issue. Further the ones I seen in Walmart (as I suggested above) are even better since they run at 120Hz which makes the displayed image much more clearer and defined.

My three cents.. spend it wisely

I am not talking about the older connections, and there's no need to talk about 1080p or 120Hz - I fully understand them... which I'm not sure you do, because a 120Hz panel does not make the displayed image clearer OR more defined - what it does is it makes movement much more defined and removes visible ghosting and latency.

As for size vs. resolution, you're actually proving my point perfectly for me. You're well within the usual 2.5-3.5 ft distance that a computer monitor is typically used at, which means that 1080p is going to look sharp to you. As for the 37" TV, you are more than far enough away for that to look clear and sharp as well.

Do me a favor, and stand up from your chair. Walk closer to the TV. As you get closer to the TV, the image is going to become less "crisp" and you will be able to see pixels very distinctly.

The same thing happens when viewing a 27", 1080p monitor, but instead of walking closer to the monitor, it's sitting closer to you. Now, if you take your monitor and set it further away from you, it'll look just fine... but why would you pay to get a bigger monitor and have to put it further away from you as opposed to just getting a 24", 1080p monitor and having it a normal distance from you?

The trouble is coming from the dots per inch. On a 24" HD screen, you have essentially 92 DPI. Go up to a 27" screen, and you're down to 82 DPI. The difference between that is enough that when a 27" monitor is within the normal viewing range for a computer monitor, it looks worse and you can see pixels.

 

[Tom Tancredi]

The main reason I wanted to run every device into one display was to free up space and hopefully be able to run sound through monitor to a desktop speaker system. I didn't want to get a receiver for the ps3 and ps4 since they only have a digital optical port. Since most monitors used their audio out jacks for speakers and headphones fed from hdmi (correct?), I thought I could get away with it. Plus, I was going to try to run gaming on pc above 60fps and wanted a 120hz monitor to enjoy it. I do appreciate everyone's input and advice by the way. Any more?

1) HDMI combines both video and audio together, so if you plug from PS3/PC/whatever you want to a TV LCD, it has built in speakers and you can hear the sounds with no need for other speakers. You have to HUNT for any TV LCD with Audio OUT, to cut the costs this 'added feature' has been dropped from almost all low priced LCD TVs. In fact a few of the most name brand expensive ones have only IN jacks for anything.
2) A PC LCD (monitor) would normally NOT use HDMI because it runs the older form for all cards as compared to current TV LCDs and you can't go above 60Hz. Normally a PC to Monitor would use DVI or DVI-D (the latter for above 60Hz signals, but ONLY Nvidia supports above 60Hz displays, AMD does NOT support this per policy - and I have personal experience from this). Lastly DVI/DVI-D does NOT support audio signal and LCD Monitors do NOT normally have Audio built in, you need separate speakers.
3) If you want a TV LCD 120Hz, you must look up the make and model BEFORE purchase to see if they support PC outputs of 120Hz or not. The current Blu-Ray definition for using the HDMI can produce 120Hz from a Blu-Ray direct to the TV LCD, but that is NOT the standard by which PC makers have 'purchased' the rights to do, so are incapable over HDMI (last I checked as of Dec 2013). Again a PC to TV LCD would most likely need to use the included DVI-D connection, which means you need a DVI-D on the TV LCD that supports the 120Hz signal being pushed to it. Worse TV makers still circle around the Broadcast signal standards, which means you may be LIMITED on display resolution (say 1080P, 720P, then 1024x768) which comes into play when a game can't "detect" the video correctly so it goes to its lowest 'common' programmed resolution, which may not be something the LCD TV can display (in this example say 1440x900) so all you get is black screens.

All in all you will need to do alot of research and have two to three 'top choices' to rely on to look up and match to your system.

 

[DarkSable]

^ Very close, but a couple of issues.

1) You're absolutely right there, but audio out is a common feature on most high end computer monitors still - for headphone users.

2) That's... no. You would be very, VERY hard pressed to find any modern PC monitor that doesn't have an HDMI input. (aside from the overclocked IPS panels, and that's just because they have so much lag that every little bit, like removing the controller board, helps.) Most high end monitors will have two or more HDMI inputs. Oh, and a whole bunch of monitors still DO have built in audio - it's not a "standard" feature, but it'll be easy to find.

3) Absolutely correct, but you should also be very careful - most "120Hz" tvs aren't actually 120hz natively - they can only accept a 60hz input signal, and then interpolate that to produce 120 frames a second. All 120hz monitors accept 120hz inputs, to the best of my knowledge. (HDMI can't do that, but dual-link DVI can.)

 

[G-rex]

Anyone have any input on the ASUS VG248QE or VG278HE? I think I've narrowed it down to these.

 

[DarkSable]

The 24" monitor is cheaper AND faster. I would go with it.

 

[CaedenV]

3) Absolutely correct, but you should also be very careful - most "120Hz" tvs aren't actually 120hz natively - they can only accept a 60hz input signal, and then interpolate that to produce 120 frames a second. All 120hz monitors accept 120hz inputs, to the best of my knowledge. (HDMI can't do that, but dual-link DVI can.)

Ya, marketing is a very annoying thing. Just because the panel is capable of 120-240 fps/Hz switching, does not mean that the inputs are capable of anything more than 30fps, or at most 60fps on the TV side of things. On the monitor side it is right that all 120Hz monitors support 120Hz inputs... assuming you have the card and drivers to support it on the computer... and are running a game that your GPU is capable of pushing above 60Hz in the first place. At the end of the day you end up with a very nice effect... but the monitor is not cheap, nor the GPU to make it work properly on most high end games.

 

[CaedenV]

Anyone have any input on the ASUS VG248QE or VG278HE? I think I've narrowed it down to these.

If between the two I would pick the 24" without hesitation. You are looking at a higher density better quality panel with a better back end to support it. As I said before, 24" is the absolute largest I would go with 1080p on a desktop.

At home I am running a 28" 1200p screen, while at work I am running (several) 24" 1200p screens, and you cannot begin to understand the difference until you use them on a regular basis. The thing is that even at 24" 1200/1080p is pretty low resolution, so going larger from there only makes what is already a problem worse.

Hopefully in a few years there will be a 40" 4K option (outside of the crappy seiki TVs). That would be the same density of 1080p on a 20" monitor, which is just about perfect. It would be high enough resolution to make the pixels significantly less noticeable, but still big enough to be livable without having to use much in the way of DPI scaling (which can mess all sorts of things up). Just need to wait a few years for 4K to come down in price, and for GPUs to catch up in performance.

 

[Tom Tancredi]

3) Absolutely correct, but you should also be very careful - most "120Hz" tvs aren't actually 120hz natively - they can only accept a 60hz input signal, and then interpolate that to produce 120 frames a second. All 120hz monitors accept 120hz inputs, to the best of my knowledge. (HDMI can't do that, but dual-link DVI can.)

Ya, marketing is a very annoying thing. Just because the panel is capable of 120-240 fps/Hz switching, does not mean that the inputs are capable of anything more than 30fps, or at most 60fps on the TV side of things. On the monitor side it is right that all 120Hz monitors support 120Hz inputs... assuming you have the card and drivers to support it on the computer... and are running a game that your GPU is capable of pushing above 60Hz in the first place. At the end of the day you end up with a very nice effect... but the monitor is not cheap, nor the GPU to make it work properly on most high end games.

*tosses a red flag*

UHM You and DarkSable are going to confuse alot of people with the 'techno/geekspeak' LOL! For the rest of us idiots let me make it simpler. Watch TV/Movie? That is a SOURCE, that SOURCE is only 24frames per second (fps) of a single image flipping quick in front of you. Many have changed to 30fps, for video and film. Games on PC: what you list in MSI Afterburner's "score" of 15fps or 60fps or those charts showing BF4 at 93fps is what your PC is SOURCING to display out. That is why you spend all that money for a GPu/CPu/etc. to SOURCE alot of frames out so the details you see look 'real'.

A CRT (monitor) or a LCD or a old TV or a new HDTV LCD DISPLAY (not SOURCE) 'paint' the screen and 'repaint' it (or refresh it) as a specific measurement (Hz), previously 60Hz (or repaint the screen 60times), and now we are talking about 120times (Hz) doing it - no matter if the SOURCE spews out 10fps or 1000fps, the screen will refresh at 60Hz or 120Hz. When they toss the tech of interlope and all that, what is being said is how the DISPLAY either manipulates the SOURCE to 'fake' the fps to match up to the Hz WITHOUT adding more frames (60Hz), OR in the case of 120Hz displays ADDING frames from SOURCE material to match it up to a 120Hz (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57524894-221/what-is-refresh-rate/) BUT it does NOT increase the SOURCE actual fps it is 'making', and thus does not make the game 'smoother' or without 'lag'. Whatever your measuring IN GAME is, IS your fps.

So your game is still only playing 45fps, but the movement and details are DISPLAYING at 120Hz making thing less "blurred" but instead look "sharp and clear more defined" (Soap Opera Effect most commonly referred to). So please do not confuse the OP or others on this thread by saying " interpolate that to produce 120 frames a second." when the average person never heard of interpolate or know what that really means, much less with blanket statement as "the panel is capable of 120-240 fps/Hz switching," that most people will say "Hey get a 120Hz LCD and make my games run at 120fps". LOL

Want more info on this? Here are OFFICIAL (aka you can sue them for money for false advertisement) statements on the issue:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp
http://www.ledtv.org/content/whats-difference-between-60hz-and-120hz
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57524894-221/what-is-refresh-rate/