this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

5011 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:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iopq@latte.isnot.coffee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TheTechNerd@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is nothing without trade-offs. Anyway, I get what you mean about the Samsung

[–] iopq@latte.isnot.coffee 0 points 1 year ago

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