How is my monitor doing in 2017?

[xynerial]

I see a lot of thread asking similar question as "How is my GPU doing in 2017", "How is my CPU doing in 2017", or "How is my PC doing in 2017"...so I have a similar curiosity about my monitor. If anyone wana know what model it is, it's:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001474

CPU: I5-2500K
Ram: 8GB 2011/2010 model
GPU: 6950 2gb OR gtx 1070
Games: AAA with the best graphics.
Activity: Regular web browsing or average activity

 

[Petrossa]

"How" your monitor is doing all depends on what you use it for and what features require.
In my mind, there's nothing wrong with that display at all. Would take one for my desk if I could.

 

[t53186]

You tell us, How is that monitor after all these years?

 

[grimfox]

The current trends are 144hz or greater w/ freesync/Gsync. Neither of which your monitor seems to support. Color reproduction/depth is also a growing trend 10bit displays are becoming more common. The color depth allows for HDR. Resolution is slightly lagging but I don't think it's a major drawback. I don't think you need to upgrade now. I'd expect to see more 4k HDR displays coming to the monitor space in the next couple years so when you find one for a reasonable (to you) price I'd make that my next monitor upgrade.

I will say your processor paired with a 1070 is holding you back. I recently tested the 1070 on a i7-920 and found I lost about 30% of it's performance. compared to running the 1070 with a 6600k. If you can, try to upgrade that. You can probably find a used/refurbed chip for that socket for hopefully not too much.

 

[xynerial]

Well, IDK, I works as it should, I look at it and do things, web browsing, average activity, playing high graphics games...but I just wana know how future proof it is.

 

[xynerial]

But isn't Sandy Bridge one of those "BIG JUMP" that has more resilient against bottlenecking compared to something like the just previous generation of i7-900? Since the i7-920 is a 30% reduction can we expect the i5-2500k to be a 5-10% negligible bottlenecking assuming it's 5%? And can you really just plob an i5-6600k into a z68 motherboard? do they allow that?

And what visual difference is 144hz refresh rate compared to 60hz or 120hz? is the difference going from 480p or 720p to 1080p? or from 1080p to 4k? or from low detail on a game to ultra detail? what visual improvement does 144hz provide you similar to these two scenarios?

 

[dudeman509]

SB is fine, especially at higher clocks.

The first-gen i-series chips are seriously struggling these days; 2nd gen are still very competitive. Huge jumps in performance were made.

I still have 2 1080p 60 Hz monitors for my home setup and am happy. Same setup at work. It's all about what you deem necessary and worthwhile.

 

[grimfox]

But isn't Sandy Bridge one of those "BIG JUMP" that has more resilient against bottlenecking compared to something like the just previous generation of i7-900? Since the i7-920 is a 30% reduction can we expect the i5-2500k to be a 5-10% negligible bottlenecking assuming it's 5%? And can you really just plob an i5-6600k into a z68 motherboard? do they allow that?

And what visual difference is 144hz refresh rate compared to 60hz or 120hz? is the difference going from 480p or 720p to 1080p? or from 1080p to 4k? or from low detail on a game to ultra detail? what visual improvement does 144hz provide you similar to these two scenarios?

I don't have all the data. I popped a new GPU from a current system into an old rig to see the performance difference. You'd have to look at the bottlenecking guide to see just just where it falls. There you'd only get a loose representation of how much bottlenecking you get based on similar CPUs. According to CPU boss single core and perf/watt are increased pretty substantially in the 2500k over the 920 but overall performance only advanced a small amount. YMMV. No you can't slap a 6600k into that mobo they are completely different sockets. AFAIK the best you can do without a mobo upgrade is a 3770k. I only brought up the processor because I felt it was worth mentioning that it might be a more cost effective upgrade path. If you got a newer monitor you wouldn't be getting as much out of it because your GPU would be held back more and more as it pushes more pixels.

At the end of the day the monitor is fine. It's a quick FullHD monitor. If you are asking because you want to upgrade, I'm saying you can wait a year or probably two for a quick 4k HDR monitor. That would give you a notable resolution increase (4pixels at 4k for every 1pixel at 1080p) and better color, deeper blacks, richer shadows, finer color variation. I wouldn't jump on the wagon now because 4k monitors are typically slower for the money and not all have HDR so it would be strictly a pixel count upgrade, IMO not worth the cost. But it's up to you.

 

[xynerial]

Oh okay, thanks for your answers.