Skip to main content

Monoprice UHD Matte 28-inch Monitor Review

Monoprice's new 28-inch Ultra HD monitor features an anti-glare layer, which offers great viewing angles. But can the new UHD match the performance to the company's CrystalPro 4k display?

Grayscale Tracking & Gamma Response

Our grayscale and gamma tests are described in detail here.

For business and entertainment use, the UHD Matte provides sufficient grayscale tracking so that a calibration is not an absolute requirement. Errors are slightly visible from 30 percent on up and take on a slightly warm hue, which peaks at 80 percent. We think adjustments are more valuable for their effect on contrast rather than color or grayscale accuracy.

A few tweaks of the RGB sliders produce an excellent chart with no visible errors. While not quite in the realm of professional displays, the UHD Matte is pretty close to target considering its price.

Here is our comparison group.

3.55dE is a respectable out-of-box figure for a budget monitor. It looks like slightly better performance is available from the CrystalPro version of this display. In practice though, the difference is minimal.

With a few adjustments, all the displays here offer excellent grayscale tracking with no visible errors at any brightness point. None of these products are overly expensive but again Monoprice, comes in at around $150 less than the rest.

Gamma Response

This is what a perfect gamma result looks like. And it helps make up for the UHD Matte's slightly lower contrast ratio. Accurate luminance levels across the board mean correctly saturated color and maximum image depth.

Here is our comparison group again.

A .05 variation in gamma values is well into the imperceptible range. We don't see many screens this close to the standard regardless of price or technology.

We calculate gamma deviation by simply expressing the difference from 2.2 as a percentage.

With an average value of 2.19 the UHD Matte is about as close to perfect as is possible in this test. It's nice to see that the least-expensive Ultra HD monitor on the market doesn't cut corners in the performance department.

  • alidan
    i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.
    Reply
  • jragonsoul
    i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.
    Then you should get a television unless you want to pay 2000+ USD for the monitor.
    Reply
  • g-unit1111
    What's the cost? For someone who is in the market for a new monitor this is an interesting option.
    Reply
  • none12345
    yuck 60hz.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    17501375 said:
    i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.
    I don't know about 50" (unless you're sitting like 5 feet away), but 4k resolution at 28" seems a waste, to me. My 27" is 2560x1440 and I think I'd probably have to go up to at least 32" for my eyes to make out much more detail.

    But I'm waiting for the next generation of GPUs, before I even start thinking about 4k monitors. Ideally, I'd wait until I can get a 14/16 nm GPU with HBM2 for <= $250.
    Reply
  • Nintendork
    The monitor is pretty <removed>, when smartphone screens are reaching 2000:1 using the IPS panels with "quantum dot" you ask yourself why should you buy a crappy pc monitor.

    Watch the language. - G
    Reply
  • jragonsoul
    17503284 said:
    17501375 said:
    i wish the display was bigger, 40-50 inch, at 28 i find it useless.
    I don't know about 50" (unless you're sitting like 5 feet away), but 4k resolution at 28" seems a waste, to me. My 27" is 2560x1440 and I think I'd probably have to go up to at least 32" for my eyes to make out much more detail.

    But I'm waiting for the next generation of GPUs, before I even start thinking about 4k monitors. Ideally, I'd wait until I can get a 14/16 nm GPU with HBM2 for <= $250.
    Honestly I think HBM2 is going to be reserved for higher tier GPUS (I HOPE I AM WRONG!) so I'm thinking bare minimum would be 300-350 for one. Would be glad to be proven wrong though.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    I also have 27" 2560x1440, and also think that the sweet spot for 4K is near 32". But hard to say without testing it personally.
    But in reality 4K needs G-sync or Freesync IMHO, because how much it needs horsepower to run in. Frame rates are not going to be great with these for many years.
    Reply
  • sc14s
    The monitor is pretty <removed>, when smartphone screens are reaching 2000:1 using the IPS panels with "quantum dot" you ask yourself why should you buy a crappy pc monitor.

    Watch the language. - G
    You are comparing the monitor to something that probably costs somewhere around double if you are going high end phone (which you would have to have for high end screens). This isn't even mentioning the fact that you are getting a fraction of the viewing size on the phone. Apples to oranges really.

    Reply
  • picture_perfect
    yuck 60hz.

    I wonder why you get so many thumbs down all the time.
    Reply