Is there any real need for a 4K gaming monitor over a 2K one (same size screen)? Just wondering if you even notice the extra pixels in a moving shooter, there has to be a point where most people won't even notice until the screen size gets much bigger. A 4K screen with a 240Hz refresh rate needs top of the line GPU set to medium in new AAA games.
| VCF East | Apr 04 - 06 2025, | Infoage Museum, Wall NJ |
| VCF Southwest | Jun 20 - 22 2025, | University of Texas at Dallas |
| VCF Southeast | Jun 20 - 22 2025, | Atlanta, GA |
| VCF West | Aug 01 - 02 2025, | CHM, Mountain View, CA |
| VCF Midwest | Sep 13 - 14 2025, | Schaumburg, IL |
| VCF SoCal | Feb TBD, 2026, | Hotel Fera, Orange CA |
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
I wonder how long I can expect a new Monitor to last
- Thread starter seaken
- Start date
For text work and number crunching I would say no. But definitely if you're doing video editing and things along that line. Again yes, a large video card is needed to push those pixels around. At least a 3080TI and up. It all depends on what performance factors you value. There are other factors in gaming like raytracing. To take full advantage these days you need the biggest card you can land (afford). It mainly depends on what era gaming you're partaking of. I suggested 4K because it looks good. You know, like when buying a new car; do you opt for deluxe wheel covers or just the 'poverty' hub caps? 4K to me, while reading text, is better than looking at book on my setup. White whites and black blacks.
Eudimorphodon
Veteran Member
Sure, there's some truth to that. A thing you really need to watch out for when you buy anything these days is that brand names alone hardly mean anything anymore; a lot of the "good" brands from ages past are just ghost names pasted on top of OEM products to increase perceived value over the same thing with a more generic/unknown moniker. It's very easy to spend way too much for a Potemkin village of a product, but it's also possible to find great deals on products branded with less sexy names using the same guts (panels, mainly) as a much more expensive unit with a sexier label. Reviews can help, but sometimes you need to just buy something and find out, unfortunately.
It's not like that's really a new thing, of course. Back in the 80's and 90's there weren't *that* many OEMs making CRT monitors; you might find the same thing hiding underneath a dozen different labels, with just slightly different combinations of components populated and different plastics skinned on top.
What I do is read every review on computer related products that I can before committing any funds.
Last edited:
seaken
Veteran Member
I will be doing my research before I invest in a monitor for my workstation that I want to be an upgrade from what I have been using. But up till now I have been happier with the previous 1920x1080 monitor over what I had and all I did was but the monitor for $25 from a the surplus store. In this last case I just needed a similar monitor fast. I really didn't want to take the time to research. I was willing to roll the dice to get something to keep me working at my normal rate of production.
This is why I started this post. I was concerned that what I could buy at the local retail was going to be a lower grade monitor and would die in a few months. But now I am not so sure. A lot of years have gone by since I bought a new monitor for the computer. And while it is generally true that generic retailers do tend to sell the lower grade stuff, the technology has sufficiently advanced to the point that what we can get at a lower price is significantly better than what was available a few years ago at a much higher price. This is generally true for a lot of stuff. But it remains that the "latest" and "best" stuff is going to sell at the higher price. Since I don't usually care about buying at the leading edge of technology I may be able to get a pretty good experience for less money. But again, it is a crap shoot as to whether what I buy is going to be "good enough" to last or a real piece of junk. In this case I didn't really care. I was just wondering about what I might end up experiencing. And only time will tell, although it is interesting to discuss the possibilities.
Seaken
This is why I started this post. I was concerned that what I could buy at the local retail was going to be a lower grade monitor and would die in a few months. But now I am not so sure. A lot of years have gone by since I bought a new monitor for the computer. And while it is generally true that generic retailers do tend to sell the lower grade stuff, the technology has sufficiently advanced to the point that what we can get at a lower price is significantly better than what was available a few years ago at a much higher price. This is generally true for a lot of stuff. But it remains that the "latest" and "best" stuff is going to sell at the higher price. Since I don't usually care about buying at the leading edge of technology I may be able to get a pretty good experience for less money. But again, it is a crap shoot as to whether what I buy is going to be "good enough" to last or a real piece of junk. In this case I didn't really care. I was just wondering about what I might end up experiencing. And only time will tell, although it is interesting to discuss the possibilities.
Seaken
seaken
Veteran Member
I picked up a 24" 1920x1080 screen at surplus last year and put in on my home Windows 10 machine. It was an upgrade in size from a 1440x900 screen. It was beautiful! It has a nice shiney face and the screen really pops! I considered it a nice upgrade and it only cost a few bucks. I have since seen these 27" and 32" screens at the stores and wondered if they would be an improvement. But I have been so pleased with that old surplus monitor that I didn't see the need.
Now, as time has moved on, everything is about 4K and gaming. But I don't need a monitor that is targeted to gaming and I doubt that I need 4K on my office workstation. I don't do video editing or gaming in the office. So now I am wondering what I will find that is targeted toward the office. I am interested in other features other than the size and resolution of the screen. I will be trying to research such things as back lighting and eye strain and ergonomics, etc. And I am doubtful that I want a curved screen. But maybe I won't need two screens if I go with a 32" flat panel. Hmm. Lot's to think about. But maybe I'll be walking through the local surplus and I will see an "old" 27" flat screen that was cast off by some gamer who wanted a newfangled 4K screen and couldn't live with the old 27" 1920x1080 anymore.
Seaken
Now, as time has moved on, everything is about 4K and gaming. But I don't need a monitor that is targeted to gaming and I doubt that I need 4K on my office workstation. I don't do video editing or gaming in the office. So now I am wondering what I will find that is targeted toward the office. I am interested in other features other than the size and resolution of the screen. I will be trying to research such things as back lighting and eye strain and ergonomics, etc. And I am doubtful that I want a curved screen. But maybe I won't need two screens if I go with a 32" flat panel. Hmm. Lot's to think about. But maybe I'll be walking through the local surplus and I will see an "old" 27" flat screen that was cast off by some gamer who wanted a newfangled 4K screen and couldn't live with the old 27" 1920x1080 anymore.
Seaken
fdiskitup
Experienced Member
I got a 4k 60 Hz Acer pannel from walmart about 5 years ago and its fine as a daily driver. The extra pixels mean you dont need 2 screens for having multiple windows. OLED technology is still $500 so a nice IPS 27” is the sweet price point. I wouldnt bother with curved.
Jeremy Laird reviews alot of screens search him on toms hardware etc for honest technical reviews.
Jeremy Laird reviews alot of screens search him on toms hardware etc for honest technical reviews.
Bentendo64
Experienced Member
We've got 28" UHD at work, and I hate the UI scaling. We have laptops, so I like no scaling on the laptop screen, but 1.25x on the 28 inchers. When I work from home, my monitors don't need UI scaling, so I have to reboot if I want things to look right. Not to mention if I undock the computer at work, then everything looks like crap, and some programs don't even work properly; the click box locations don't always update right when switching between UI scales...
I'd say for a desktop, UI scaling is fine. It kinda sucks on a laptop that you move around a lot between different docking stations.
I don't know how this situation is on Linux, however.
I'd say for a desktop, UI scaling is fine. It kinda sucks on a laptop that you move around a lot between different docking stations.
I don't know how this situation is on Linux, however.
seaken
Veteran Member
I don't generally use scaling on my desktop workstation either. I do use it on larger TV screens where I am farther away and can't see the text without it. But so far it has not been a problem on the desktop. But I can imagine if I do end up with a larger monitor the text will have to scaled to a larger size. One nice thing about these 1920x1080 screens is when I am browsing the websites and trying to read text I can hit Ctrl+ and increase the page view to make the text bigger and since my monitor is usually large than the webpage size I can keep a lot of the advertising stuff littered along the side of the text I am trying to read. With the smaller 4x3 screens it was always tuff to moved the ads out of the way and make the text big enough to read. Of course I do use Reader view a lot also.
One thing I noticed right away when I got these larger screens was that my forms that I designed for our in-house database application become much harder to read. The forms do not scale. So, I have been updating some of the forms to a larger size with larger fonts. But I haven't finished them all yet. I have to wear 2x glasses for those forms.
Seaken
One thing I noticed right away when I got these larger screens was that my forms that I designed for our in-house database application become much harder to read. The forms do not scale. So, I have been updating some of the forms to a larger size with larger fonts. But I haven't finished them all yet. I have to wear 2x glasses for those forms.
Seaken
It's not just gamers who upgrade screens, programmers do as well.
I got a free 24" LCD monitor from a guy who needed more room for programming, it was a Westinghouse brand 1680x1050 monitor with built in speakers.
Most of the cheap 27" gaming monitors are TN panels and I like IPS ones better. The curved monitors would probably be better for flight sims.
I got a free 24" LCD monitor from a guy who needed more room for programming, it was a Westinghouse brand 1680x1050 monitor with built in speakers.
Most of the cheap 27" gaming monitors are TN panels and I like IPS ones better. The curved monitors would probably be better for flight sims.
I'm thinking QD-OLED 32" 4K (Curved) 240Hz will be my next monitor. Yes, they are pricey but the presentation and performance are phenomenal. I have a piggy bank set aside and I will probably go for it if and when I land the 5090. My 4090 is now history and am back to using my older 3080TI for now.
The 4090 died?
No, I sold it to fellow down in San Antonio. I had it posted on a different forum. I'm anticipating a 5090 sometime this spring or when ever they become available. BTW, I recouped my original outlay for the 4090. It was a real good deal and had it up here on VCF for a spell but no one seemed interested.
Chuck(G)
25k Member
I still prefer the monitors with the external supplies, because those can be repaired or replaced easily. The monitors with internal supplies tend not to have good heat management and can cook components faster. I figure about 10-15 years for display life is reasonable. After that, technology has moved on and raises the performance-price issue.
But I've still got 15" 4:3 displays using CCFL backlighting in service.
Hugo Holden
Veteran Member
This is why I like CRT's, aside from burn in issues that can be avoided, you don't end up like the guy wearing the shirt that says " see dead pixels"
The number of large flat screen TV's I have had to trash now due to dead pixels is becoming legendary.
Even the relatively new Sony Bravia in our living room, the screen Pixels are already starting to drop out around the screen perimeter, though at least there are no dead lines across the screen yet. Warranties are not worth the paper they are written on for modern throw away appliances, by the time you need them your set is already out-spec'd, valueless and not worth replacing with the same model. The same applies to mobile phones. Welcome to the world of E-waste that manufacturer and consumers help create.
And it raises the question a lot of the time......is new Tech better than old Tech ?
Here is some food for thought: The conversion of the energy content in gasoline to the mechanical energy of a rotating shaft by a petrol engine in a car is about 40% efficient at best, some quote it lower maybe 30%. But the conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy is usually around 60% efficient (say by an Alternator) could be 70% best case.
What this means is that in a petrol powered car, the conversion of the energy in gasoline to electrical energy is about 0.6 x 0.4 or about 24% efficient. Nearly about 4/5 of the fuel source is wasted as heat if the fuel source of gasoline is converted to electricity.
This essentially means that the last thing in the World you want is additional electrical equipment in a gasoline powered car.
In the vintage car like the 1000cc Morris Minor (that did 40 miles to the gallon by the way) the total electrical demand on the system with the lights full on and the Heater motor running was only about 300 Watts. But later, with all the electrical gear added to a modern car with electric controlled this & that, it was over 2kW. Then someone invented a Hybrid car which was basically a Petrol powered high power consuming electrical platform on wheels, and somehow we are supposed to believe its a good idea ?
The Google AI says: A typical hybrid car converts only around 20-35% of the energy stored in gasoline to motion of the car, which is about right based on the above.
But maybe the AI forgot, if you take most of the electrical items out of a gasoline powered car, such as electric fuel pumps, fuel injection, electric steering and other electric controls etc and go for mechanical solutions, with the right design (and minimal electrical equipment in the car) you can get the efficiency of a petrol powered car to near 40% or a little more and get back to that vintage 1000cc Morris Minor idea.
And the new tech has a short life, more E-waste, more pollution , more entropy, less easily repaired (how about custom unavailable firmware that will stop you in your tracks repairing it)
Sometimes, old tech is actually better for longevity and for the Planet. It is almost the same with the CRT vs flat screens, that is if you can accept a smaller screen with a deeper cabinet.
The number of large flat screen TV's I have had to trash now due to dead pixels is becoming legendary.
Even the relatively new Sony Bravia in our living room, the screen Pixels are already starting to drop out around the screen perimeter, though at least there are no dead lines across the screen yet. Warranties are not worth the paper they are written on for modern throw away appliances, by the time you need them your set is already out-spec'd, valueless and not worth replacing with the same model. The same applies to mobile phones. Welcome to the world of E-waste that manufacturer and consumers help create.
And it raises the question a lot of the time......is new Tech better than old Tech ?
Here is some food for thought: The conversion of the energy content in gasoline to the mechanical energy of a rotating shaft by a petrol engine in a car is about 40% efficient at best, some quote it lower maybe 30%. But the conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy is usually around 60% efficient (say by an Alternator) could be 70% best case.
What this means is that in a petrol powered car, the conversion of the energy in gasoline to electrical energy is about 0.6 x 0.4 or about 24% efficient. Nearly about 4/5 of the fuel source is wasted as heat if the fuel source of gasoline is converted to electricity.
This essentially means that the last thing in the World you want is additional electrical equipment in a gasoline powered car.
In the vintage car like the 1000cc Morris Minor (that did 40 miles to the gallon by the way) the total electrical demand on the system with the lights full on and the Heater motor running was only about 300 Watts. But later, with all the electrical gear added to a modern car with electric controlled this & that, it was over 2kW. Then someone invented a Hybrid car which was basically a Petrol powered high power consuming electrical platform on wheels, and somehow we are supposed to believe its a good idea ?
The Google AI says: A typical hybrid car converts only around 20-35% of the energy stored in gasoline to motion of the car, which is about right based on the above.
But maybe the AI forgot, if you take most of the electrical items out of a gasoline powered car, such as electric fuel pumps, fuel injection, electric steering and other electric controls etc and go for mechanical solutions, with the right design (and minimal electrical equipment in the car) you can get the efficiency of a petrol powered car to near 40% or a little more and get back to that vintage 1000cc Morris Minor idea.
And the new tech has a short life, more E-waste, more pollution , more entropy, less easily repaired (how about custom unavailable firmware that will stop you in your tracks repairing it)
Sometimes, old tech is actually better for longevity and for the Planet. It is almost the same with the CRT vs flat screens, that is if you can accept a smaller screen with a deeper cabinet.
Last edited:
cj7hawk
Veteran Member
This is one of the reasons why the US military ( and AU military ) still extensively use image intensifiers - They are 1960's era CRT technology, but they run on about 30mA which means very long battery lives and are better than 90% efficient at converting that entirely to light - very little is lost as heat and what is, is lost in the power supply. They provide zero-lag amplification that is still hundreds of times better than the best digital night vision technology available today intended to replace it. ( whether SWIR, Black Silicon, Electron Bombarded CMOS etc. )
CRTs are incredibly efficient, but I love my modern LCD or LED screens. The detail is much better and I can have a huge screen. They also pack more light into smaller areas making things like my VR goggles work and we're not far off of virtual monitors, though they too are more efficient than huge desktop screens.
As for cars? I wonder if people even realize how much hydrogen is needed to replace an equivalent tank of petrol, and whether they would be happy if they understood... Yet so much hydrogen development. Hydrogen development is good for some things... Probably electric fuel cells. But not much good for anything else.
I made my own electric bike that used a small petrol generator I developed - they are still legal in WA. It got 200 miles per gallon - A pint of fuel would get me to work and back - around 60km. I don't ride it anymore, since I got hit by a car or had a close call once a week, but it was a great hybrid technology. Meanwhile SUV sales are going up like crazy.
I never understood the idea of hydrogen powered cars. You burn so much of it that you need the supply to be under great pressure and all cars will eventually leak so you have a major fire hazard or explosion.
Electric cars make sense if you have small cheap nuclear reactors in every neighborhood and batteries get much smaller and more energy dense. If you burn coal to make electricity to power cars you might as well just use gas.
Electric cars make sense if you have small cheap nuclear reactors in every neighborhood and batteries get much smaller and more energy dense. If you burn coal to make electricity to power cars you might as well just use gas.