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?

Conclusion

After looking over and comparing the benchmark results between the two Monoprice Ultra HD monitors it's clear that the difference in results alone will make the choice a difficult one. And with only a $50 price gap it's reasonable to say that most budgets will accommodate either display.

On one hand, the CrystalPro sports a solid build, good color accuracy, reasonable contrast and a super-clear picture thanks to its optically perfect front layer. Of course that screen coating means you'll have to seriously consider your room's lighting issues before pulling the trigger. Anything like a sunny window or bright desktop lamp can easily spoil what is otherwise an excellent image.

Saving $50 on the UHD Matte means you'll see roughly the same color performance, slightly less contrast and a greater use of plastic in the chassis' construction. The stand is a wobbly one and aside from tilt there are no position adjustments. But you do get one of the best anti-glare layers we've seen on any monitor. If you need to set up in a brightly-lit space and you need Ultra HD on the cheap, this new Monoprice will take care of you.

Video cards are offering more horsepower for less money with each new generation. Because of that, Ultra HD gaming is becoming a practical reality for more users. With that in mind, the choice between the two Monoprice screens is made a little easier. Not only do we prefer the slightly higher contrast of the CrystalPro, we don't see a problem with spending an extra $50 for lower input lag and a more solid stand. If LAN parties are on your agenda, that extra beef in the chassis means your new purchase will be better protected from the rigors of transport.

Both screens are an excellent value; the UHD Matte slightly more so. If $50 is a sticking point in your budget, we're confident you'll be satisfied with the newer product. At this price point we have no complaints about its performance. The only fault we can really point out is the weak stand. Corners have to be cut somewhere to get the cost down and it seems the chassis is where Monoprice chose to save a few bucks.

Since it's currently the least-expensive Ultra HD monitor available of any size and type, it's difficult not to recommend it to those seeking maximum value. There are no major performance issues and we think it will work well for a vast majority of users. For those reasons we're giving it our Tom's Hardware Editor Approved Award.

MORE: Best Computer MonitorsMORE: Display Calibration 101
MORE: The Science Behind Tuning Your Monitor
MORE: All Monitor Content

Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware, covering Monitors.

Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Christian Eberle
Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He's a veteran reviewer of A/V equipment, specializing in monitors.
  • 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