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

[CleanSlate]

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]

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.

 

[CleanSlate]

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.

This is rather unexpected

 

[Greyson]

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]

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]

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.

 

[peppergomez]

The little known "pornliness gradient" IMO, haha

 

[Yelnats]

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]

Honestly, I look for HDR600 or above. That spec means colour vibrancy and contrast will be great.

HDR400 is worthless, though.

 

[sethk]

No one spec can ever tell you a monitor will be amazing and neither are any of these specs "underrated".

 

[jbltecnicspro]

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]

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.

 

[Blackstone]

Contrast and I also look for a glossy (reflective finish) for dark room performance.