New monitor

[tenohfive]

I think my old monitor is on the way out - there's a concerning buzzing coming from the power connection, and it's flickers repeatedly for the first minute or so when it's turned on - so (if it lasts that long) I'd like to pick up something new in the next month or two. And I have no idea where to start.

Size wise, minimum of 24 inches but I'd like to aim for 27 inches if I can afford it. The main uses will be photo editing, web browsing and a bit of gaming - but the former is the more important element, so something that's got good colour accuracy or can easily be calibrated.

Budget is up to £200, but I'm happy paying less. Whatever I get will be a big step up ultimately, but if the quality jump upwards is huge I could probably stretch the budget. Is that doable? What should I be looking out for? From a quick bit of reading a decent matte IPS screen seems to be important, response times less so, and the more resolution the better I presume?

[tenohfive]

Vaud said:

I think his point is that if he needs proper colour calibration (e.g. for production/work use) then he needs to up the budget. If it is for home/enthusiast use, less so.

I think it's pretty clear which of those brackets I fall into.

[tenohfive]

I've come back to this now the sales are here.

I'm pretty well set on the Dell Ultrasharp U2415 - I looked at the U2414H, but 16:10 sounds a lot more sensible for my use. I do have the niggling desire for a 27" monitor instead, but am telling myself to pick quality over quantity.

Am I likely to see much of a deal on monitors in the sales? I've seen the U2415 for the £220 mark and don't know whether to expect that price to drop.

[tenohfive]

Trying to get my head around one last thing before I pull the trigger on what will probably be a Dell Ultrasharp monitor of some flavour - either the 24" 1920x1200 16:10 U2415H, or the 25" 2560x1440 16:9 U2515H.

16:10 is supposed to be better for photo editing/browsing/working on than 16:9, the latter being cinema orientated - right?

Now firstly, from a editing/working/browsing perspective is the 16:10 advantage offset or negated by the extra resolution and size of the bigger monitor - is bigger better, worse or the same?
Secondly, whilst gaming is a smaller part of the requirements where does that sit in the aspect ratio/screen size/res pro's and con's tally?

[tenohfive]

deckster said:

16:9 vs 16:10 is pretty irrelevant when you get down to it. In general, more area is better and I'd be surprised if you could tell the difference between the aspect ratios unless they were side by side.

My bigger concern would be that 25" is a bit small for a 1440p monitor - on the desktop, text and icons are going to be tiny unless you increase the size, which sort of renders the extra resolution a bit moot. Added to which, as you mention gaming you will need a beast of a PC to get good framerate and quality at the resolution. GTX980 or equivalent is entry level for a good 1440p gaming experience in my book.

Your mileage may vary, but for my money I'd stick at 24" and 1920x1200, or go to 27" and 1440p.

Thanks for explaining that. Is it just in the sense of desktop icons that I'd notice an issue, or in all applications? I spend little time on the desktop - either my browser or Lightroom is running. If all menus etc are going to need fiddling with then I think I see what you mean.

If I were to rule out the 25" options then I could chuck the BenQ GW2765HT into the mix. As you say though I'm going to need to consider GPU specs...I'm currently running an old GTX470SOC which is more than a little bit dated. But the PC is due for an overhaul in the next year or so and I doubt I'll be playing anything particularly graphically intensive in the meantime.

So it's back to quality vs. quantity again. Out of the box the Dell on colour accuracy pips it, but longer term the extra size screen could be a real boon.
Anyone able to talk me out of the BenQ 27" before I pull the trigger?