What is the most underrated monitor spec that indicates a monitor will be amazing?

Which spec is the most underrated?


  • Total voters
    15
  • This poll will close: .

CleanSlate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Messages
5,229
Curious as I'm pretty new to trying to guess at how a monitor may look vs another of similar specs just by glancing at the specs.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
20,083
Pixel type and resolution. Really though, you can't go just by specs for researching what to buy. Look for reviews and forum threads about them.
 

Greyson

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
74
There isn't one. Every monitor is a compromise of what features you care about the most and each of the three main panel technologies used in desktop monitors sucks in their own way.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
88
Most people already look for the obvious ones (resolution, refresh rate, panel type, black levels, color accuracy) so I wouldn't actually call those underrated -- they are highly indicative of what you'll actually get.

It's not on the list, but I'd say the finish (matte, semi-glossy, glossy) is probably the most underrated spec, as it's not commonly advertised, and consumers usually have to dig for it.
 

Daleon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
292
Most underrated spec been looking at lately is Brightness for quality of the panel itself. Low quality panels are usually 250 nits. I won't go below 350 now and try and find 400 or better so i can actually do HDR.
 

Yelnats

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
234
Pixel type (TN vs IPS)

I voted for this. I'd say that it is the most important feature that is often left off of spec sheets (If it isn't listed, it's probably TN). But I haven't really done any monitor shopping in a few years, and I think IPS is much more common than it used to be, so maybe it's not as much of an issue now?

Most overrated for me would probably be pixel response times. Sample-and-hold blur will usually be a much higher contributor to motion blur than pixel response times.
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,262
Honestly, I look for HDR600 or above. That spec means colour vibrancy and contrast will be great.

HDR400 is worthless, though.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,880
No one spec can ever tell you a monitor will be amazing and neither are any of these specs "underrated".
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
6,310
Static contrast. This number is the honest number of a monitor’s actual contrast ratio. Dynamic contrast ratios are mostly made up. Static is not. Now not all monitors hit the static contrast, but it gives you a good idea of what you’re getting. Whereas dynamic contrast ratio is basically the biggest number they can print on the box and is meaningless.
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
13,349
I don't think a single one those indicates anything. Its always a combination of features that determines greatness. And even then, it can have all the best features and still be terrible if they're poorly implemented.

Reviews are what you look at, not specs.
 
Top