What should I look for in a gaming monitor?

[Zabatakis]

My gf's monitor took a dump so I gave her my 2nd screen. After only a day and a half I have decided I must return to dual screen glory. That means its upgrade time for me! What should I look for in a gaming monitor though? About the only metric I understand from all the things listed at pcpartpicker is resolution and refresh rate.

If it matters, I will mostly be using this new monitor for WoW, D3, various steam games, and netflix/hulu.

[Floross]

Maybe anti-glare ? Depends on whether your screen is generally exposed to some sunlight.

[Mormolyce]

Only thing I really look for is a good review and 2ms (I've read that 2ms or 5ms makes no real difference though).

[Daez]

I would think the big things are size, resolution (most should be able to do 1080x960 at this point), HDMI input (assuming your card has HDMI output) or compatible output with your card. Refresh rate never really matters that much unless you think your eyes can see the difference between 5ms and 2ms which they cannot, since your monitor constantly refreshes and your eyes see it as a solid screen. Having a good rating from a reputable source is always nice. The Lenovo I bought 5 years ago is still a decent monitor, and Lenovo is a pretty decent brand for price/value generally.

[Knslyr]

I would think the big things are size, resolution (most should be able to do 1080x960 at this point), HDMI input (assuming your card has HDMI output) or compatible output with your card. Refresh rate never really matters that much unless you think your eyes can see the difference between 5ms and 2ms which they cannot, since your monitor constantly refreshes and your eyes see it as a solid screen. Having a good rating from a reputable source is always nice. The Lenovo I bought 5 years ago is still a decent monitor, and Lenovo is a pretty decent brand for price/value generally.

This is so wrong, HDMI is the worst of all the cables when it comes to data transfer. The only thing it got going for it is that it also sends sound as well as picture. But most people use speakers and/or headsets, so that doesn't matter. HDMI can only use up to 120Hz (if supported) or 60Hz. DVI-D and DisplayPort are much better.

Refreshrates are measured in hertz, not milliseconds. Response times are measured in milliseconds.

Refreshrates makes a huge difference, the only ones saying it doesn't is someone who heard a myth during the 90s that the eyes can't see higher than 60 frames per second, or because they've never compared 144hz to 60hz.

Response times isn't too important, but everything adds up, so the faster the better. It shouldn't be above 5ms, and preferably around 2ms for 144hz.

- - - Updated - - -

The first thing you should decide is if you want a fast and smooth screen, or a screen with great color saturation and accuracy.

[Deleted]

Looking at the usage of the screen, I would look into a good IPS monitor. I would look at the Ultrasharp line from Dell, or some IPS screens from BenQ/LG and others from Dell.

[Deleted]

The latency should be as low as physically possible. So 2ms is the minimum, otherwise you start getting trails behind moving objects and moving objects become blurry.

God I miss my CRT monitor, it didn't have the resolution of LCDs but at least moving objects weren't blurry colorful amalgamations even on a 2ms monitor.

[Remilia]

This is so wrong, HDMI is the worst of all the cables when it comes to data transfer. The only thing it got going for it is that it also sends sound as well as picture. But most people use speakers and/or headsets, so that doesn't matter. HDMI can only use up to 120Hz (if supported) or 60Hz. DVI-D and DisplayPort are much better.

I'm probably going to have to point this out again, but, DVI is the one that's going to be lagged behind. It doesn't support a 8bit+FRC/10bit panel while both HDMI and DisplayPort do.
Normally I would say it doesn't matter, but AUO have been offering very affordable panels with 8bit+FRC.

The first thing you should decide is if you want a fast and smooth screen, or a screen with great color saturation and accuracy.

These are not mutually exclusive to begin with.
To quote myself

Panels' color coverage or gamut is largely dependent on what is used for back light. Earlier were using CCFLs which aren't as harsh / bright as LEDs but allowed a different variety of color gamut. Nowadays it's LEDs with W-LEDs giving a rough coverage of the sRGB gamut (72%~ NTSC). GB-r / GB / RB LED LEDs giving a rough coverage of Adobe RGB (104%~ NTSC), and RGB LED or Crystal LED (CLED -rip-) covering more than 114% NTSC comparable to OLED and Plasma gamut.
Factory calibration is also to play part with the coverage.

Now, TN, VA and IPS (including AHVA, PLS and IGZO) can have that color coverage provided it's using the proper back light and calibration.

Color accuracy like gamut is independent from panel type. Color accuracy is largely dependent on calibration / factory set up. Some can have issues calibrating, doesn't matter if it's TN, VA or IPS. PA248Q comes to mind with having issues calibrating with user settings.

Especially when the affordable AHVA high Hz monitors that are coming out later in Q1, you're looking at TN panels having the only advantage of lower pixel response time, and nothing else now. The high refresh Sharp MVA has the advantage of very good contrast compared to every other panel type.

The latency should be as low as physically possible. So 2ms is the minimum, otherwise you start getting trails behind moving objects and moving objects become blurry.

God I miss my CRT monitor, it didn't have the resolution of LCDs but at least moving objects weren't blurry colorful amalgamations even on a 2ms monitor.

That is two different things.
CRTs work by a quick impulse of an image per refresh as oppose to a sample and hold like every other screen that exists. OLED and Plasma both have near instantaneous (for all that matters) pixel transitions, it however doesn't eliminate perceived motion blur. A 240Hz, Motion blur reduction, Ultra Low Motion Blur, or light boost technologies are all forms to replicate the impulse with a strobe backlight.
https://pcmonitors.info/articles/fac...esponsiveness/
http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/

Reality wise, for the 1-2ms response time TN panel monitors, expect it to be actually 4ms without harsh response time compensation / overdrive. Ironically this leaves a dark trail behind as opposed to a pale image.

That said, in general a total lag of both signal process and response time of lower than 1 frame / 16.6ms. If you're more of a professional gamer, as in doing it for a living in competitions, then you'd be more prone to getting something as low of a signal process and pixel response possible. or get a CRT cause they have the lowest of all.