Question Best office + moderate gaming monitor <$500?

[jadamsuw]

Hi all,

I'm looking to upgrade from my 10-year-old Asus monitor, now that I need to convert my home office into something I can work from most of the time. My computer currently uses an old GTX 670, and while I have some dreams of buying a more modern computer, I probably won't for 1-2 years.

I'm looking for a monitor which is:
At least 27". A bit larger is fine. I don't prefer an ultra-wide.
Preferably works well in a dual-monitor setup, and if so, I'd buy 2
Is well-designed for work (which mostly consists of a lot of writing, video conferencing, viewing electronic medical records, email, and spreadsheets, sometimes simultaneously),
Will not feel like a drawback when gaming (I sometimes casually play shooters online, such as pubg, and while I have no illusions of being a competitive force, I would prefer not to notice screen tearing, color/display issues, or be hindered by longer response times)
Not necessarily a high-end gaming machine. I enjoy shooters, but mostly play single-player, and my favorite games tend to be strategy/simulation games - Civilization, Europa Universalis, or similar.
Preferably <$400-$500 per monitor. Ideally would be between $250-$350 but budget is flexible.
Ideally, monitor would be appropriate for a hypothetical future gaming machine in the next couple of years, which itself will likely be moderately-high-end, but not super high-end.

Most reviews that I've found suggest either Dell monitors which are reputedly excellent for work, or Samsung/BenQ monitors which are reputedly excellent for gaming, but has been challenging to find one that is notably recommended for both.

I sincerely appreciate any input/leads. Thank you!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hmnm, monitor for work AND gaming, and you don't want an ultra-wide.

Maybe you should wait a short while, for HDMI 2.1-compliant monitors, that can do 4K UHD @ 120Hz, with FreeSync / G-Sync Compatible. Maybe with HDR too.

A few years ago, I stepped to to 4K UHD @ 60Hz TVs, that do 4:4:4 Chroma sub-sampling (@60Hz), and have four HDMI 2.0 inputs. I really kind of lucked out, as I was buying blind.

Most people that I've seen commenting on this forum, prefer a single large / high-res. monitor to multiple monitors. (There's just so much that can go wrong with multiple monitors. Unless you're building a flight-sim cockpit replica or something, there's really no need, although sometimes dual-monitors can be helpful at times.)

If you haven't sat down in front of a large (32" or larger) 4K UHD screen, you really should do so, and see what you think.

The biggest drawback to 4K monitors, thus far, has been gaming. Because of (HDMI 2.0) limitations, you could only drive them at 4K60, whereas 1440P monitors could be driven @ 144Hz or higher. But now that newer (Ampere, hopefully Big Navi from AMD as well) cards support HDMI 2.1, they can support the bandwidth needed to 4K 120 or 8K. Plus, Ampere has the actual chops to play many/most AAA games @ 4K realistically, with decent settings. (So I hear, I don't actually have one to test.)

So... if you can wait for a few more months, consider an HDMI 2.1-compliant 4K UHD monitor (or TV, if it fits on your desk) that can do 4K 120Hz with FreeSync. That's what I would do, in your shoes.

Or just pick up a decent 32" 1440P 144Hz "gaming monitor", if you can't wait.

I am also curious why you aren't interested in Ultra-Wides. Any particular reason? Some people find them helpful for doing office work, basically they can act like two monitors next to each other, but without the bezel in the middle.

 

[jadamsuw]

Hmnm, monitor for work AND gaming, and you don't want an ultra-wide.

Maybe you should wait a short while, for HDMI 2.1-compliant monitors, that can do 4K UHD @ 120Hz, with FreeSync / G-Sync Compatible. Maybe with HDR too.

A few years ago, I stepped to to 4K UHD @ 60Hz TVs, that do 4:4:4 Chroma sub-sampling (@60Hz), and have four HDMI 2.0 inputs. I really kind of lucked out, as I was buying blind.

Most people that I've seen commenting on this forum, prefer a single large / high-res. monitor to multiple monitors. (There's just so much that can go wrong with multiple monitors. Unless you're building a flight-sim cockpit replica or something, there's really no need, although sometimes dual-monitors can be helpful at times.)

If you haven't sat down in front of a large (32" or larger) 4K UHD screen, you really should do so, and see what you think.

The biggest drawback to 4K monitors, thus far, has been gaming. Because of (HDMI 2.0) limitations, you could only drive them at 4K60, whereas 1440P monitors could be driven @ 144Hz or higher. But now that newer (Ampere, hopefully Big Navi from AMD as well) cards support HDMI 2.1, they can support the bandwidth needed to 4K 120 or 8K. Plus, Ampere has the actual chops to play many/most AAA games @ 4K realistically, with decent settings. (So I hear, I don't actually have one to test.)

So... if you can wait for a few more months, consider an HDMI 2.1-compliant 4K UHD monitor (or TV, if it fits on your desk) that can do 4K 120Hz with FreeSync. That's what I would do, in your shoes.

Or just pick up a decent 32" 1440P 144Hz "gaming monitor", if you can't wait.

I am also curious why you aren't interested in Ultra-Wides. Any particular reason? Some people find them helpful for doing office work, basically they can act like two monitors next to each other, but without the bezel in the middle.

This is very helpful, thank you. Given how much I have to use my home office and how uncomfortable my current setup is, I'd probably rather spend less on a stopgap then upgrade again in a couple years if necessary, in which case I could probably fairly easily pick up a $100-$200 monitor for work and worry about the rest later.

I guess my hesitance with ultra-wides is that I don't have much experience with them, particularly as pertains to wanting to use 3 or more windows side-by-side. I'm not familiar with newer versions of Windows and am unsure how well they are adapted for easy use of multiple windows all at once, whereas I imagine with 2 decently-sized monitors it might be easier to 'snap' up to 4 windows (2 per screen) side by side. Currently I find myself using my old MacBook and my PC as 'dual monitors' but they're not connected and obviously that's subpar. My machine currently uses Windows 7 though of course could upgrade. And I'm certainly open to a gorgeous, large single monitor rather than multiple smaller - I very much subscribe to 'bigger is better' with TVs, I can generalize that.

 

[Shmee]

I would be wary about upgrading your monitor until you can upgrade your GPU. I think the computer will likely need an upgrade first, otherwise you will have trouble pushing frames.

 

[CyrusPhillip]

I suggest you not to mix needs for gaming and office. Do prioritize which monitor is most vital for you at present. Office and gaming monitors are made differently for different needs. Monitors for gaming purposes can be expensive in price due to high-speed performance, high resolution, and improved graphics technologies such as AMD freesync and NVIDIA g sync.

If you want to purchase gaming monitors under 500$, here are my opinions:
Viewsonic elite xg270
ASUS VG279Q
For office work:
LG 27UK650-W