Hook a gal up: Please rec a monitor and/or graphics card?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Hey all. I recently completed a major freelancing gig and the resulting profit is burning a proverbial hole in my equally proverbial pocket.

After buying all the necessities and socking a hefty portion away in savings, it’s time to feed my addiction. I’m a tech geek and there’s no way I’m not putting some of this dough into my computer.

For once I don’t think I need to upgrade the actual system, even though it’s from 2011; I worked with the excellent drachillix, who put together a configuration that has kept me in good stead for the past three years. Here it is just in case it’s helpful (spoiled just to keep this looking short):

AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 3.2GHz AM3 125W
2x Memory 4GB DDR3 1333 CL9 (total 8GB)
1TB Western digital SATA 3.0 hard drive 64mb cache
Windows 7 home premium 64 bit
Asus motherboard ASUS M4N75TD - AM3 - GF750a - ATX
500W Antec PSU
eVGA GTX 460 1GB DDR5 VGA card
Cooler Master Mid tower case
24x DVDRW

Looking at the specs, sure, I know I can always use more RAM (an extra 8GB would be lovely), and of course there are way faster CPUs, and this newfangled* SSD thing sounds groovy. But those can wait, I think.

What I do think is essential is a new monitor. The one I have now dates from 2007, a 19" Dell Viewsonic LCD with a max 1440x900 resolution. I *may *need to upgrade my graphics card, which as you see above is an nVidea GTX 460 w/ 1GB memory. If possible I’d rather hold off on that unless the consensus here is that a new card is a must if I’m to get anything decent out of a new monitor.

If it helps, here’s how I use my monitor most:

[ul][li]I’m on my computer at least 12 hours a day, and I admit I tend to sit too far from the screen (I keep it on a mobile cart and even roll it to bed when watching videos or reading), and that’s probably not gonna change []I’m an author so I write a ton[]I also freelance as a proofreader/book doctor/editor[]I also create websites and graphics[]Without cable & TV, my PC is now my conduit for movies & TV shows via Netflix, Hulu, etc.Every now and then I play a good shoot-em-up FPS. [/ul][/li]
So call me a size queen if you must, but I don’t think 19" is satisfying my needs anymore. I’d love something HD, but I don’t know if my budget makes it possible. Obviously I need something that will work with my above system and memory and graphics card.

(I’ve yet to find a game that makes that card even blink, but I also admit I haven’t played many new games. I buy games on sale and then don’t play them for lack of time. I’m still waiting for the chance to play things like FarCry 3, Saints Row IV, stuff like that. Yeah I’m strangely violent for someone who can’t kill a bug in real life.)

Budget: Small, I admit. I can justify a max of $350 to spend on a monitor, or possibly can stretch to $450 for both a monitor and graphics card if people really think I’m gonna need something better than the GTX 460.

So gang, any suggestions? General specs or actual product recommendations are all greatly appreciated.

  • I know it’s not newfangled. I’m just that oldfangled.
2

Hmm… you first need to determine how important gaming is to you, because that determines how much money you must set aside for a graphics card and thus how much money you can still keep for the monitor.

Let’s assume you want to play some modern games at medium-ish settings. In that case, a $120 Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 (or $30 more for the slightly better Ti model) will get you a very good graphics card for very cheap, and it’s also very power-efficient so you wouldn’t need to run any additional cables to it or upgrade your power supply. It’s the first in Nvidia’s new chipset series, and this one is targeted exactly at people like you, the occasional 3D gamer who likes new-ish games but not necessarily at peak performance.

That leaves you about $300 to spend on a monitor, which is enough to get a 1080p IPS (or PLS) monitor up to 27 inches or so. I would recommend an Asus, Viewsonic, or Samsung one, according to their latest Amazon or Newegg reviews. IPS or PLS is the technology that matters, because they enable very good color rendition and a very wide viewing angle. The actual manufacturer doesn’t matter as much, because most of them are the same panels manufactured by a few Korean and Japanese companies and then (usually Samsung or LG) and then relabeled by the brand names. Just look at the reviews to be safe.

If you can hold off a bit longer on the graphics card, you can spend $400 (used) to $500 on this baby, Asus’s 1440p 27" monitor for professional graphics. I love mine, except it’s not as good for gaming because the higher resolution taxes my GTX 560 Ti too much and I play everything on lowest details. SR4 runs fine, but Crysis kinda crawls (still playable though). It’ll be slightly worse with a GTX 460, about the same or slightly better with a GTX 750.

3

Thanks Reply! I really appreciate all the info.

I sure wish I understood modern LCD monitors better. I’ve always been tech savvy but for some reason my ability to grok newer technologies tapered off about 2008 or so. Smartphones and HD monitors/HDTVs intimidate the heck out of me, and I don’t know why! Ugh, I’m old.

Anyway, when I see “1080p monitor,” in my mushy brain that doesn’t sound hugely different from my 1440x900 monitor (assuming the 1080 refers to the height), but obviously it is or it couldn’t be HD, so… what’s the deal here?

You’re exactly right about my gaming level–I like things that look great (although even the original S.T.A.L.K.E.R. impresses me, as does Just Cause 2, and they’re like 7 years old), but I can deal with medium settings. Oh, and I don’t know if this matters regarding graphics, but I don’t play online (i.e. multiplayer) games because I suck way too much to expose myself to that whole thing. So if that’s a consideration, it doesn’t matter to me.

I did purposely get a relatively high power supply (at least for 2011) so that upgrades wouldn’t cause too many problems, so I’m glad I thought ahead for that. Boy, 27" sounds massive–then again, 19" seemed “massive” to me at one time, and here we are.

So as I’m reading you re: the Asus 1440p you’ve got, the higher the resolution, the more strain on the graphics card? If Crysis is a problem then yeah, that’d be an issue for me, especially if I wouldn’t be able to afford an upgrade. But yeah that looks miiiighty sexy to me. Sigh. What do you think of this Asus 1080p, 24" version? Or is a 24" monitor not gonna make that big a difference and I’ll regret it in two years? It does say it’s TN rather than LPS/IPS, whatever that means. Oy, I have to educate myself. Oh, or this Dell Ultrasharp 24" IPS puppy with 1920x1200 resolution?

(Good to see speakers, too–my PC doesn’t have 'em, they’re part of my monitor. It’s not a dealbreaker if the new monitor doesn’t come with a sound system, as I probably should get a separate set anyway.)

4

The asus you listed is overpriced for your needs (it has a 144hz refresh rate, which you don’t need unless you are gaming with a very very powerful graphics card).
Gaming resolution doesn’t have to equal monitor resolution - most games look fine at say 1280x720 (720p) on a 1920x1080 (1080p) monitor.

I personally would recommend going one of two ways:

  1. TWO 1920x1080 monitors, 24" or so. Both bigger than your existing, and going with two is a bigger improvement than you would think.
    http://www.amazon.com/Asus-VS247H-P-23-6-Inch-Full-HD-LED-Lit/dp/B005BZNDS0/ref=sr_1_262?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1400696611&sr=1-262&keywords=24+inch+led (<$275 for 2 after rebate)

  2. A 27" 2560x1440 monitor. You can see a lot more on these but some things appear a little small - and you generally want to browse the web at 125% zoom on these. But if you want to be able to see a lot more content on your screen, these are awesome
    Products no longer Available
    (you can save $50-$100 off that price if you buy direct from Korea on Ebay)

You should be able to use your existing graphics card for #1) for sure. For #2) you need to check whether you have a “dual link DVI” port - you probably have exactly 1, but there are probably some models of GTX 460 sold with two vga outputs or other weird combinations.

Edit to add, for comparison I myself currently run 2x24" ASUS 1080p monitors (one in portrait), and 1x27" Achieva Shimian Korean monitor in the middle of the 2 smaller ones.

5

Don’t let 'em get to ya :slight_smile: They’re just glowing dots on a circuit board.

1080p is shorthand for 1920 x 1080, which is 60% bigger than 1440 x 900. You don’t gain much in the vertical axis but it does become a lot wider (think movie theater image). Because of the popularity of widescreen TVs, this wider aspect ratio has become standard for all monitors and many smartphones too.

Get the monitor first, and get a new graphics card separately and only when you feel like you need to. They lose value very quickly, and are about worthless in 2-3 years after they come. If you want, you can even look on eBay or Craigslist for older models.

I did purposely get a relatively high power supply (at least for 2011) so that upgrades wouldn’t cause too many problems, so I’m glad I thought ahead for that. Boy, 27" sounds massive–then again, 19" seemed “massive” to me at one time, and here we are.

Yes, a 1440p monitor is even higher resolution than 1080p, which is good for fitting a lot of stuff on your screen at once (if you have a lot of post-it notes or whatever that you use while writing). Several of my writer friends use Scrivener to help them organize their stories, and having more screen real estate for that could help.

It does, however, tax your graphics card more for gaming. So it’s more a productivity tool rather than a gaming upgrade.

Personally, I think a 23" or 24" monitor is more than big enough. The 27" actually kind of hurts my eyes in dark rooms because it’s so bright (even at the minimum brightness setting), like staring into a florescent light the whole time. I had a 1080p 23" before this one and was perfectly happy with it for gaming and most things and only decided to upgrade for graphics and photography work, which I do on an amateur basis.

Agree with jacobsta811 about the 144Hz, don’t get that, just a regular 60 Hz 1080p IPS monitor of whatever size you like (like the Asus one he linked to), from a reputable brand. I think the Dell is a bad idea – they’re overpriced compared to monitors of similar quality, and useless unless you’re super-rich and super-pro – and I’d personally stay away from the obscure Asian brands myself because their after-sales support tend to be nonexistent. The brands I would trust, again, are Asus, Samsung, LG, Viewsonic, and maybe a few others I can’t think of right now. But always read the reviews first. And if possible, buy from somebody at least as good as Amazon. They’ll take care of you if the panel arrives in bad shape, or has bad pixels, whatever, while other resellers may just make you go to the manufacturer for support (which will take forever, and they won’t always deal with dead pixels).

TN is just another technology used in LED panels, which generally faster redraw rates and worse viewing angles/color rendition. As both technologies improve, the differences between them decrease, but for now what I said should be true.

The speakers are crap. Get a $20 USB speaker and you’ll be a lot happier.

6

I have 2 Dell 24" 1920x1200, and they kick ass over my husband’s 2 24" 1200x1080 ones. Like major difference. He hates me for my monitors. Don’t let anyone tell you that 1200 versus 1080 isn’t a big deal; it is.

But seriously, the most bang for your buck IMO is MO MONITORS. If you only have 1, get a second. I have 3 and if I could fit a 4th on my desk, I’d get one.

7

Do the math. It’s 10% more pixels for 75% more money.

8

I can’t do math :smack: More like 66% more money, I think.

Put it this way:
A 1080p monitor gets you 14 kilopixels per dollar
A 1200p one, 9.2 kilopixels/ A 1440p one , 8.2 kilopixels/

At those prices, 2x 1080p monitors would indeed be the way to go :slight_smile:

9

So? As I said before, I’ve worked with both setups, and IMO the larger resolution is WAY better. Worth the money IMO. Way, way worth the money. Pretty sure my husband is considering upgrading once he gets the spare time.

10

I understand. I just disagree :slight_smile: I’ve worked with all those setups too, and the 10% upgrade (of 1200 vs 1080) is not worth the money IMO, but to each their own. The multi-monitor setup might very well be if you do need that many more pixels or screens. It’s nice having a portrait-oriented monitor for reading PDFs and the like. The 1440p is also nice, but gets you fewer net pixels than 2x 1080p monitors (though it’s better for movies and gaming than 2 monitors – for that you’ll need 3, so you don’t have the center of the movie/game running down between your monitors’ borders).

11

I have two 1920x1200 monitors. One is in landscape mode, the other portrait. I have a 4K monitor on order, and I will then have both my current monitors in portrait mode.

12

Wow, so much info! Very useful, thanks guys.

I’m not sure multiple monitors are great for my set up, although I could just get a bigger trolley/cart to fit them. I don’t quite get how they work. I mean, I can see how they’d be useful for multitasking (if I needed one document on one side, and another workspace on the other), but for actually expanding one’s viewspace when using a single program (e.g. Photoshop, or a game, or a movie) it seems wonky. Unless I just use one of the monitors, I’d just get a big ol’ barrier down the middle as Reply mentioned.

I do see the merits of going with the 1200p monitor but it does seem like a significant boost in price. Hypothetical: would it be better to have a 27" at 1080p vs. a 24" at 1200p?

Oh, and can someone elucidate–pun intended, I guess–about the benefits of “back-lit” versus… uh, whatever the alternate would be? LCD vs. LED? Or “glossy” vs. “matte”? Seems like matte would be way preferable in a screen–who wants any glare? Unless they’re just talking about the “frame,” in which case, who cares?

And re: HDMI, is this something I would have to use a special graphics card for? I’m not even certain what HDMI is, except for the first two letters, or if I need anything unique to use HD. One of the recommendations for “add-ons” over at NewEgg is a “high speed HD USD cable.” Is that required for HD? (Oh, I can just Google it, I know I shouldn’t force others to teach me Flatscreen Monitors 101!)

13

Multiple monitors are absolutely the way to go. If you’re restricted by space, just ensure the monitors have a VESA mount on the back and get a mounting arm.

WRT 27" vs 24" @1080p, how good is your eyesight? Text will look better on the 24" due to the more pixels per inch (PPI), but if your eyesight is not so good then you may appreciate the larger size of the text on the 27".

As for HDMI, it’s a type of monitor connection. There are four main types: VGA which is a blue 15 pin connector is now obselete but your existing monitor may use it, DVI which is a white connector and comes in various forms but the usual one is DVI-D, HDMI, which is used for monitors and TVs, and Displayport which is a high-bandwidth connection for monitors. Just make sure that your GPU has matching connectors. If your current monitor uses VGA then you should check that your GPU comes with a DVI to VGA converter.

The USB issue is completely irrelevant.

14

For 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 monitor purposes, HDMI and DVI are interchangeable (you can buy a convertor or cable to connect them, IE http://www.amazon.com/DVI-HDMI-Cable-6ft-Male-Male/dp/B0002CZHN6).

15

I agree with this. When I purchased my monitor I specifically got one that was 1200 high.

You have to ask yourself, what will you want/need more. More width or height? I work with a lot of photos and reading on mine (not movies), so more width was just wasted. That extra bit of height was worth every penny.

Another thread about this.

16

When I bought my last computer, I wanted a high quality monitor without breaking the bank, since I also am an occasional gamer and do after-shoot photo enhancing. After a lot of research, I ended up with the NEC P221-W (22" screen), which ran about $500. More than you want to spend, I know. They sure make a nice product, though.

17

You wouldn’t use them with a single program, typically, unless you’re gaming across three monitors to increase your field of view.

In productivity mode, you might have Photoshop on one window and your web browser or a PDF document on the other monitor for reference. There are also utilities out there to help you carve up open programs into half or quarter-screen grids. At the very least, the shortcut keys Windows+Left and Windows+Right will move your current window to the left right half of your screen, and push it a few more times and it’ll jump to other monitors.

The 27" would make it easier to see. If you have vision problems, or if you play games/movies more than work, having a bigger screen might be nice. In terms of pixels though, you actually get more work surface with the 24" 1200p (not much more, but still) that gives you more room for webpages, PDF documents, whatever before you have to scroll down.

But for the same price you can get two 1080p monitors and have one rotated into portrait mode for reading.

Backlit is generally better compared to sidelit because the lighting distribution is more even. The pixels themselves don’t glow, so monitors have light tubes (or LEDs) either along it back or along its sides. The side-lit ones can cause slightly more uneven lighting, but in practice either should be fine; they’re not that distracting in day to day use. All these monitors are LCD. LED refers to the backlight technology, compared to florescent tubes. LED is better. Matte is not glossy, better for sunny rooms, cafes, etc., anywhere where a bright light will cause a reflection in your screen. Glossy looks better with movies and such in a dark room because it can make the colors seem more vivid. IMO glossy sucks and you should always go with matte unless you’re trying to show off instead of being productive. In the real world, it’s hard to find non-professional “matte” monitors because dumb consumers seem to prefer the glossy look that reflects everything. Ooh, shiny!

HDMI is new-ish. Anything made in the last 5 years would likely have at least one HDMI port. If not, it should have a DVI port which can connect to HDMI ports with a $10 cable. Check your graphics card manual (or just look at it) to be sure.

I don’t know what a HD USD cable is; are you sure you read that right?

18

This is the graphics card I came in here to recommend. I just bought one and I’m very happy with it. Do get the Superclocked Ti version. This is the exact model I got but you can shop around if you like:

Everything looks gorgeous in my games and the card runs perfectly quiet and cool.

As far as monitors, I wouldn’t go above 27" or bother with dual monitors. That graphics card could handle it but it’s a lot of glare on your poor eyeballs. Start with one and then see if you want to add another.

19

Mmm, thanks for the responses and information so far, all! I think I’m sold on the graphics card. It’s inexpensive (for my purposes) and would provide a good boost for a quite reasonable charge.

As for the monitor (yes, it will definitely be single for now–I know, I know, we all like lots o’ monitors, but it’s just not feasible for my current space), first, I really appreciate the tutelage, Reply, Quartz and everyone else who’s been so patient with me.

For me it feels that as much as I’d looove to go 27", it’d be a shame to go that big without the additional increase in resolution to 1440p. Things like text will look bigger, but wouldn’t “spreading out” either 1080p or even 1200p to a 27" screen (and the number of 1200p monitors at that size seem vanishingly small) wind up losing some sharpness?

So that narrows things down to 24" and 1080p vs. 1200p. I do like the 1200p’s extra height–it may only be 120 pixels but that’s fairly significant–not quite as big as the leap from my current 900p to a 1080p screen, but still noticeable.

The negatives of going 1200p would be money (but if I’m only buying one monitor and it’s a 24" size, it seems all of them are $300 or less either way) and I suppose the fact that for movies, the 16:10 would result in letterboxing, right? I can live with that–it’s what happens now. (In fact, since my current monitor is 1440x900, isn’t that 16:10 already?)

So far I’m looking at:

ASUS VS24AH-P Black 24" 5ms (GTG) HDMI Widescreen LED Backlight ($229 at Newegg plus $20 rebate = $209)

ASUS PA248Q Black 24.1" 6ms (GTG) HDMI Widescreen LED Monitor ($292.31 at Amazon, $272.31 w/rebate; I’m a Prime member so no delivery fee, yay!)

Dell UltraSharp U2412M Black IPS Panel 24" 8ms Pivot, Swivel & Height Adjustable LED Backlight ($266 at Amazon). At one of my favorite gaming sites, Rock Paper Shotgun, several users mention this as terrific; it’s also the 3rd most popular monitor at Amazon, which surprises me. Curious to see what others here think.

Any thoughts on these options? Am I headed in a decent direction?

20

Yes, but 1080p doesn’t look too bad even at 27". We measure monitor sharpness in pixels per inch (ppi). A 27" 1440p monitor is 108ppi, and a 24" 1200p monitor is 94ppi, which means it’s 13% less sharp.

Is this noticeable? It depends on how good your eyes are and how far away you sit from the monitor. It’s more a psychological thing, I think… you can get as picky about it as you want.

My 10" Android tablet is higher resolution than my 1440p monitor, but in normal use I don’t get annoyed that my monitor isn’t as sharp. Its size more than makes up for it. YMMV, of course.

Yeah. 16:9 is a more common aspect ratio than 16:10, but even then, most movies are letterboxed regardless, because they are often a different ratio altogether in the theaters (1.85 to 1 or 2.35:1), so unless they’re direct-to-DVD/direct-to-Netflix, they’re rarely exactly 16:9 anyway.

I have no experience with any of those particular models, but they all look fine, and they all got good reviews… seems like a go!