Why Are Monitors So Expensive ?

Associate
Joined
17 Feb 2009
Posts
1,119
I currently use an LG 43" UHD TV as a monitor and it's excellent. It was no more than £400.
Only downside is that it only does 60Hz.

I looked around for 144HZ monitors, and 32" ones cost generally over £400.

So my question is. Why are monitors more expensive than their equivalent TV ?
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
6 Dec 2007
Posts
1,384
Location
Cambridge
Bear in mind that monitors are designed to be used for text and interactivity with low input lag. TVs are typically designed for video first and foremost, and at a distance rather than up close. Gaming TVs are better, but they're not a substitute for a monitor in my experience.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
17 Feb 2009
Posts
1,119
Am I missing out on much by not having over 60hz ?
Personally I like a large screen as it's more emmersive

Do you guys not feel that anything under 32" is too small ?
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
32,046
Location
Rutland
There's the:

IIYAMA G-MASTER GB3461WQSU-B1 34" 3440X1440 IPS

Can be had for under £400 and ticks a lot of boxes:

34 UW
IPS
144hz
Freesync

Initially quality control issues were a problem but if you get a good one it looks like a bargain.
 
Permabanned
Joined
22 Oct 2018
Posts
2,451
Quantity of sales, I would think. Every household has a TV but not many people will buy a big monitor.


Am I missing out on much by not having over 60hz ?
Personally I like a large screen as it's more emmersive

Do you guys not feel that anything under 32" is too small ?

Yes, you are missing a lot. Arguably it is more important to have at least 90Hz before you go big. I waited for years before I bought a monitor with a higher refresh rate but the moment I did I couldn't go back to 60Hz, it was so painful I just couldn't stand it, lol.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
17 Feb 2009
Posts
1,119
IIYAMA G-MASTER GB3461WQSU-B1 34" 3440X1440 IPS

Can be had for under £400 and ticks a lot of boxes:

That looks good to be fair.
Maybe consider it in future.

Just wondering whether i'd miss have a 43" screen though as it would be a downsize.

I assume the G-Master has better movement and response times than my LG TV

I can only find it for £420 on OC and on Google

This guy complains about the input lag, however he only tried the HDMI and not Display Ports
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Posts
12,310
Do you guys not feel that anything under 32" is too small ?
Depends what games you're playing.

For gaming, I'm pretty good with a 27".
Going larger, and especially wider, I found I had to look around more and actually move my head, which meant I missed more things in the periphery of the opposite side.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Dec 2020
Posts
84
It really depends on what sort of monitor you get. I used the Philips 243v7qdab (wish Philips would stop using such strange model numbers) for some time and I bought that for £69 new. And for a 24 inch monitor at 1920x1080 at 75hz, with 3 inputs and speakers, you can't argue with that. That is not expensive for what you get. If you got 2, you could have an incredible value setup. If you've never used 2 like me monitors and sit only around 2 - 3 feet away from a monitor (which is as far back as I and maybe some other users can get), even 27" would be too big.

I can understand that if you go for monitors the size of the smaller end of TVs - 30" and above, that is where they start getting expensive. But monitors generally have much higher refresh rates and the colour accuracy is significantly better. TVs out the box usually look horrible if you plug them into your PC; completely over saturating the content and making the colours pop and stand out. However, many seem to like this for movies and the like so for TV it isn't so much of a problem. Some TVs have an option to turn on a "PC mode" which turns off this feature which in my view makes everything look unnatural, but they still are not as nice as monitors in general I'd say for desktop use. But in terms of colour accuracy, monitors are usually far better (especially if you calibrate them which is far harder or sometimes not possible on a TV) and I think they also look a lot better close up. One thing that does really annoy me though is that all TVs these days seem to be glossy and yet I can't find any new monitors anywhere that have this finish. They used to a few years ago, and 10 or more years ago, you could get more still. then obviously go back to the age of CRT monitors and they would be glass. I find it really helps with the colour depth, sharpness and many other things.


I'm a bit behind in terms of liking large screens. Me and my family thought a 32 inch TV initially seemed too big upgrading from a 24 (23 inch visible) Sony CRT TV, but it didn't take too long and we now have a 40 inch which still probably is smaller than most would have for our room size. I wouldn't want 2 monitors at the moment even if i had the space. I briefly had a 25 inch monitor until it had a fault and actually decided 24 was enough so that is my next plan to upgrade with. Just bump up the resolution.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Dec 2020
Posts
84
Well, I can see more advantages for going wide rather than bigger. As you usually would either get an extra wide monitor rather or two of the same size rather than extend up in height a huge amount too. Going ultra wide can be benefits for things like films if you would ever watch them on a monitor. I would want to stick with 16:9 for everything I use, but I do find it a bit annoying that every time I watch a film, my 24 inch monitor becomes a 22. Being ultrawide that is effectively like 2 monitors and just gives you more desktop space to work with width ways anyway. And it won't have the bar in the middle that you would get from using 2 monitors. But it often is cheaper getting 2 rather than one extra wide if you add up the costs and screen area.
 
Associate
Joined
11 May 2017
Posts
1,037
Location
Portsmouth
Best value is LG OLED for gaming now, 48" all the rage, beats out most monitors.

The life span of an OLED is 30,000 hours, with mixed content + playing games 12 hours a day will only last 7 years, unless you only game on it for 5 hours day then it will last 27 years
 
Associate
Joined
20 Dec 2020
Posts
84
The life span of an OLED is 30,000 hours, with mixed content + playing games 12 hours a day will only last 7 years, unless you only game on it for 5 hours day then it will last 27 years

It is pretty much guaranteed that something else will fail even in just 7 years. Monitors, TVs and most other electrical items are just not built to last these days. They constantly want you to be getting their new model that will only be available in another few years time. This isn't the case all the time, but in my case, it is so common for things to go faulty just outside of their warranty period.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
17 Feb 2009
Posts
1,119
There's the:

IIYAMA G-MASTER GB3461WQSU-B1 34" 3440X1440 IPS

Can be had for under £400 and ticks a lot of boxes:

34 UW
IPS
144hz
Freesync

Initially quality control issues were a problem but if you get a good one it looks like a bargain.

Should I go curved or not ? It's £10 more expensive but from what I hear it's more emmersive
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
20 Dec 2020
Posts
84
Should I go curved or not ? It's £20 more expensive but from what I hear it's more emmersive

While I can't explain the reasons myself, I've heard that it it incredibly hard to find a curved monitor unless over a certain size that has an IPS display. And even then, they are still not as common as then the display is flat - or at least adds to the cost. I myself would never want to go back from an IPS display.
 
Back
Top Bottom