It really sucks the Gigabyte can't make enough of the M27Q-X and M27Q-Pro because when they're both under $400 and easy to order, they are they best bang for the buck monitors available. Need good color accuracy? Get the Pro and still get 165Hz refresh rate. Need 240Hz refresh rate? Get the X and still get 92% DCI-P3 coverage.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
16 points (94.4% liked)
Hardware
5015 readers
1 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the hardware aspect of technology, from PC parts, to gadgets, to servers, to industrial control equipment, to semiconductors.
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to electronic hardware
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't get what a "best monitor" is supposed to be. They have six different categories themselves, and there's also pricing. The "best" they listed sucks at HDR gaming and costs $550. In my opinion, if you're going to have a "best" category it's gotta be the Samsung 240Hz 4K monitor, but they mentioned issues with it
So currently, there's no "best" monitor. They all have trade-offs.
There is nothing without trade-offs. Anyway, I get what you mean about the Samsung
Yes, but the 4090 is the "best" GPU with only minor trade-offs (DP 2.1 support?)
Monitors don't yet have an ultimate "highest res, refresh, brightness, contrast, color volume" champion. If they made a 240Hz 4K QD-OLED it would come close, but it wouldn't be as bright as the best Mini-LEDs, have burn-in, weird pixel positioning (but at 4K you can just use monochromatic AA for text)
The ultimate monitor might have to be Nano-LED, with self-emissive quantum dots. But we won't see those until at least 2025, or maybe even later
Monitors are an exciting place of development. They make such a huge difference when upgraded. The jumps between TN -> IPS -> OLED are crazy and completely change the experience. Almost nothing else makes such a big difference. Maybe HDD -> SSD was similar.