looking for a particular monitor....please advise
jmlazgar
Posts: 47
I do a fair amount of editing of photos in photoshop, a decent amount of stuff like portraits and comics (for my own enjoyment) in Daz Studio and Carrara. But I also play a few games such as Skyrim and Fallout 4, etc. My game use is not such that I need i billionth of a second response time. Actually, even for games, it would be just as important that they look rich and appealing as well as not exhibit too much of a stutter/lag. I think I need a more photoshop oriented monitor. I am looking for 23-24 inches, and under $300.
What are you suggetions?
Thanks!
Jay
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
AOC make a good monitor the main reason I got one was they still use DVI inputs on some of their monitors.. The other is that I was able to pick up a E2752V 27 inch monitor for under $330.. The other brand is Samsung I have a old 940B that is still going strong even after my 22 Inch LG monitor we boom..
Whatever I end up using, for me I believe it's good to look at the SAME THING using each monitor, when choosing. My best monitor for pixel-by-pixel image editing seems to be the screen on my old Lenovo Thinkpad laptop running WinXP. Since it is portable by design, this "favorite screen" of mine is easy to take along to the store, to compare to the latest and greatest designs.
NB. I am actually not sure if a good CRT monitor isn't better than lower-end LCD panels, but for me the Thinkpad is very crisp.
Attached, a recent picture that I put together after last month's "super moon" rose in the eastern sky here in North America. Lots of post-work, to convert the daytime picture of the little dog, to look more like night.
I'm still using a monitor a Acer 27" FHD (1920x1080) monitor I bought in 2006 for $149. There nearest in modern technology (4K) is no where as cheap as $149 but there are a few right at the $300 price range if you buy used.
https://smile.amazon.com/ASUS-PB287Q-3840x2160-DisplayPort-Monitor/dp/B00KJGY3TO/ref=sr_1_3?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1481337171&sr=1-3&keywords=4k+monitor
If you click on the 23", FHD, 178 degree icon from the link above, that monitor costs $189.
Looking at these 2
ViewSonic VX2776-SMHD 27" IPS 1080p Frameless LED Monitor
DellTM UltraSharp 24 Monitor – U2415.
Both IPS, high rated on Amazon, good response time for basic gaming. Both under $250
Sorry, couldn't find button to change font size when cut and paste.
Check the aspect ratio - 16:10, if you can find it, is going to be much more usable than 16:9 - a slight reduction in width that can probably be easily spared will get you a noticeable increase in height, crucial in apps that have long lists of items, bones, and layers, and parameters. Makers of 16:9 displays should be made to view the world through glasses with the top and bottom of the lenses painted out.
16:10 monitors are very useful especially for web browsing and coding/development as the extra vertical estate (extra 120 pix for 1920x1200) more than makes up for its lesser width. But not so good if you want to open two apps side-by-side in the same monitor (of course you can go for dual monitor, but we are talking about single monitors here I guess). Also do take note of the panel some of the cheaper monitors use. Never buy TN panel if you can afford IPS panel. There can be significant difference in color reproduction across these two and normally the price difference is not that high. Dell (especially their UltraSharp models) monitors are very cost effective and can be used for gaming also if you do not mind their 60 Hz in the lower-mid price range. Their high freq monitors are a bit costly though and you may find Acer and BenQ gaming monitors more affordable with 120/144Hz at that price point. Gaming wise if you are using 3D then you should not be looking at anything below 120/144Hz as the refresh rates almost halves for some 3D display technologies.
Also your graphics card and monitor cable BOTH must support hi-speed data transfers (at least dual-link in case of DVI) to use 3D or that 4K resolution and in some cases people have even reported better colors in HD resolutions. So do not ignore that cable ;)
Yes, my 16:9 display is frustrating at times because ideally I'd have an app set to run at FHD and still have a portion of the bottom of the screen available for OS menu and program menu items. It's not like a 16:9 television where you just play back content and the game menus are integrated over the content.
I have a HP E271i that is really really good imho
I do all my modeling and DS work on it and its really awsome for Skyrim and my other games. I honestly feel like Im looking through a window into another world when I play my games.
Wow, I have never heard of 16:10 displays, although I have been wondering about 4K technology and what that's going to enable. So these newer pixel sizes then, on the 16:10 displays are usually what...??? And they come with sets of drivers that go back to cover Win7, or...?
16:10 displays have been there since quite a while. My 10 year old Dell Precision M6300 had one of those at 1920x1200. The current trends are more towards 4K and thunderbolt 3 for connectivity. Many current gen PCs are already shipping with thunderbolt 3 ports for connecting multiple storage and display devices through a single port due to support for large bandwidths (upto 40 GB/s). Prior to thunderbolt, this was possible through DisplayPort using daisy chaining (v1.2 onwards) for multiple monitors but since the bandwidth was limited only few of them could be chained together. These should be available within OP's budget but unfortunately good insulated hi-speed cables (such as Accell) are hard to find outside US and Europe.
Hmmm... a casual search shows lots of mentions of Apple, but I did find a Windows item: www.startech.com/ca/Cards-Adapters/Laptop-docking-stations...
It definitely mentions 40 GB/s, yes.