Are today's common budget monitors as effective as 2006 pro monitors?

[Under S.]

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but y'all have been so helpful in the past that I thought I'd risk it.

When my Dell 2407WFP-HC died on me almost a decade ago, a close friend happened to be upgrading his own set-up and was kind enough to gift me his pair of regular (non-HC) Dell 2407WFP's; so that's what I've been designing on ever since. According to the specs on the back, these were manufactured in 2006, suggesting 18-year-old technology.

One of them just made a ZAP sound, shut off, and I can smell a slight burning scent coming from the top; right in the middle of working. It's dead. I still have its twin, but can't work with just a 24" screen so I'll need a quick replacement. And unfortunately, this is happening at the worst possible time, as I just spent a fortune on more pressing needs; so budget is a huge concern.

On the bright side, I've just been informed that even the cheapest of today's monitors might actually be better than the older ones I was using. And by cheap, I mean something like this Samsung (LS27C330G) which Best Buy is selling for $150 in Canada.

In this scenario, I'd be going from 24" to 27", and from 60Hz to 100Hz; which are both improvements (I always felt 27" would be the sweet spot for a dual-monitor set-up, despite having only experienced 24"). On the downside, the brightness would be dropping from 400 to 250 cd/m² but I'm not too worried about that since I work in the dark (and always lower the brightness + saturation levels of my screens for work). The resolution would also be taking a small hit, from 1920 x 1200 to 1920 x 1080 (Dells sure loved the WUXGA 16:10 aspect ratio back then).

You'll notice the one thing I haven't mentioned is the number of colors, which is pretty important for design work; but I'm having the hardest time finding that info for the older Dells. However, according to displayspecifications.com, the budget 2023 Samsung I quoted above can do 16,777,216 (24 bit). So I assume this is the baseline for today's monitors. Number of colors isn't something I feel too crazy about downgrading from what I've been used to.

So my first question is : how naive would it be of me to think that an average $150 Samsung screen released in 2023 could be just as effective for today's graphic design work as a $600+ Dell screen released in 2006?

As for the type of design work, it's mostly digital (website images, PDF, some video, etc.) with the occasional print job (posters, book covers, expo booths, etc.). Things like 4K, lower response times and even higher refresh rates would be nice-to-haves (since I also own an Xbox Series X) but gaming is a very secondary concern. Work is more important. I can get a 3rd gaming screen later.

Monitor recommendations are also welcome, as long as they have my (unfortunately) tight budget in mind. I can go about $250 (CDN) max right now. Brick & mortars like Costco & Best Buy would be ideal locations, but I'll order online if it's worth it.

Thanks!

[D Fosse]

The best advice I can give is to ignore the specifications. It's just marketing fluff with no substance. "Number of colors" is just nonsense.

This is what it boils down to. This is what you don't want:

That is not a cheap monitor (a Dell U2713 actually). Check carefully before you buy.

Budget is budget. It means they're cutting corners somewhere. Usually, they do it where it doesn't show up in the spec sheet.

[Lumigraphics]

What he said. In addition, a better display will have a larger colorspace (say, 100% of AdobeRGB rather than 76% of NTSC), be an IPS vs TN panel, be 10-bit vs 8-bit, have lower delta-E (better color fidelity), have additional features like speakers, webcam, more inputs, etc), higher refresh rates, use better technology like mini-LED, and so on.

[D Fosse]

Given the budget, I would actually advise against wide gamut, 10 bit capability and high resolution.

All those things cost a lot of money, meaning the basic panel quality suffers even more at a given price point. Some manufacturers go to extreme lengths to pump up the specifications at the lowest possible price. But there's no free lunch.

If you're on a tight budget, go as basic as possible! The only thing I would make an exception for, is IPS. That's worth the extra cost regardless just to get workable viewing angles.

[Under S.]

Everything you just wrote would lead me to believe that the 2023 Samsung LS27C330GANXZA (which is just a renamed LS27C330G according to the displayspecifications site) wouldn't be a bad pickup. It's on special at Best Buy right now for $150 CAD. The Amazon reviews look good, too.

Other than how bright it gets, is there ANYTHING about a 2006 Dell 2407WFP that could be considered superior to one of today's budget monitors? And do you (or anyone else) have a better monitor (than the Samsung I keep referring to) to suggest? I don't mind adding a few more bucks if worth it ($250 CAD would be my max).

[Under S.]

In addition, a better display will have a larger colorspace (say, 100% of AdobeRGB rather than 76% of NTSC)

Well, that's kind of what I'm asking : is my colorspace decreasing if I'm going from a 2006 Dell 2407WFP to a 2023 Samsung LS27C330GANXZA? I'm having a hard time comparing this info. Everything else (besides the brightness) seems like a step up to me.

[D Fosse]

Both of those are standard gamut monitors, with a native color space fairly close to sRGB.

The thing about monitors is that you get what you pay for. That sounds like a cliche, but with monitors, it's generally true. When you go down in price, you sacrifice something.

The trick is to sacrifice the right things.

Big panel size, high resolution, wide gamut, high dynamic range - all those things send the price right up, and incredibly fast. But you're not really getting a better monitor, meaning one you can trust to show you the file correctly. They just give you a more expensive monitor at the same basic quality level.

Stick to 24 inch, 1920 x 1200, standard gamut. The only "luxury" you should afford yourself is an IPS panel. That's really a necessity for image editing.

You're on a very limited budget. To get a really excellent monitor, you'd have to pay three or four times that, and it would be worth it. But that's fair enough. We all have budgets. But down the road, when you have something extra, you should really consider getting a calibrator.  That's absolutely one of the best investments you can make - and they're not nearly as expensive as most people think.

[Under S.]

So after not being able to find the number of colors for 2407WFP anywhere, I finally asked ChatGPT and it just spat the answer right out 😉 16M colors, just like today's cheaper monitors. The HC version has more, but the ones I was working on were the default non-HC.

As you suggested, everyone's nice-to-have's and don't-care-about's are different. In my case, I don't need brightness, I work in the dark; and that's probably the biggest downside the new Samsung S3 line has compared to the old Dells. Number of colors is the same, screen size is an improvement, and so is 100Hz refresh rate (vs the old Dells' 60Hz I've been working on).

Best Buy has the newer, cheaper Samsungs for $150 each in Canada, but Costco will give you a PAIR of them for $280. The idea of replacing the 24" monitor I've been working on with TWO 27" monitors with equal or better specs (besides the brightness) is very attractive. I'd be moving to a 3-screen set-up sooner than I anticipated (with the 3rd being the 24" Dell that still works). When the 24" inevitably dies (or I get fed up, whichever comes first) I can replace it with a 4K display.

[Trevor.Dennis]

Did you really have to put that test up Dag?  Only it has not exactly made my day.  😞

Of course, I had to try it, and I got a shock!  This is a photograph taken with my phone, and I don't see the slight tonal variation looking at the screen, but that bright band on the left, and the smaller bright area top right, are very apparent.  I have no idea why I hadn't noticed it before, because it is suddenly the 'only' thing I can see.  This is a 32 inch BenQ PD3200Q that is a bit over seven years old now.

I was about to buy a new saw for my workshop, but I think that's going to have to wait. 😞   I don't do Pixel Peeping, but that's rediculous.  Right now I can identify with this very old video clip.

[D Fosse]

@Trevor.Dennis 

What I always said, Trevor - you get what you pay for 😉 

When the price goes down, something has to give. And these brands are smart enough to make sure they cut the meat where it doesn't show in the specs. 

It's a shame that NEC seems to have pulled out of the monitor market. Their PA series was premium and expensive, but they also had a budget line that kept their basic quality standards while stripping out all the extras. They didn't look spectacular on paper, but they were really good. Eizo does that too with the Flexscans, but they don't support hardware onboard calibration like the NECs did. The Eizos are more targeted for office/commercial use.

Unless you decide to get the best and pay what that costs, and get a ColorEdge.

[Conrad C · Accepted solution]

Problem 1 is that specifications are just what the manufacturer says it does, but do not communicate enough about actual performance.

Problem 2 is that you’re right to look at numbers, but they aren’t the right numbers. These are some of the numbers that really matter today, and some that don’t.

Brightness. This is becoming a complex topic. If your work mainly targets print, then the same guidance applies as it has for many years: Aim for between 90 cd/m² and 120 cd/m², depending on the print process. But now that screens have become a dominant final delivery medium, 150 cd/m² and up can be appropriate if most of your work ends up on a website or in an app. Now Adobe is leading the charge to full HDR. It isn’t yet time for most people to require this, but if you do, then to unlock full HDR editing in Adobe photo apps, Adobe recommends a display that can sustain 1000 cd/m² and peak even higher for HDR highlights.

Number of colors. Not important, almost everyone has enough. First, it has long been standard for even the cheapest computers and displays to support 24-bit RGB video (which means 8 bits per RGB channel) video or 16+ million colors; in 2024 you will find it extremely difficult to find a display that can’t. So this is not a differentiator. Some pro graphics hardware has gone to 10 bits per channel or higher.

Size of color gamut. Aha, now we have something important. Color range can make a difference. In the past, your 16+ million colors was often distributed only within the sRGB color gamut or less. It has become much more common for mobile devices, televisions, and computer displays to be capable of reproducing a wider range of 16+ million colors, using color gamuts such as Adobe RGB and Display P3.

Refresh rate. Very important for motion media, often not important for photographers staring at the same image that is not moving. Many high end pro color displays are still 60Hz, but have far better color accuracy than anything else out there.

Pixel dimensions. 4K and up is nice to have, but because it has absolutely no effect on tonal and color accuracy, it isn’t necessary for photography. It affects only the density of detail you can see at a given magnification.

Color accuracy. This is often not on a spec sheet. You are looking for a low Delta E number. Some websites such as RTings do measure and review this. It is very important for photography.

Uniformity. Also very important: Does a given tone or color look the same from edge to edge? Is it darker in the corners? If it is, it will be hard for you to make edits consistently across the image Again, most spec sheets do not cover this, look at reviews that measure uniformity.

Are cheap new displays as good as old pro displays? Potentially. For example, in the 2000s, the Apple Cinema displays were held up as a high standard. But I think those old Cinema displays (I have one) would not be near the top given what’s available today. It seems like the average level of quality has gone up quite a bit since the 2000s. I think it’s more like a $350 display today is like a $800 display a few years ago, and pros might now spend $800+ where 10 years ago what they need might be $1500+.

What to do on a budget? There are two things you can do:

1. Again…go to a good review site that measures tone and color accuracy, and uniformity. Many inexpensive displays now score well enough for most work, although the high end pro models can still stand out beyond that.

2. After buying the display, run a color measurement tool on it to generate a custom display profile, to specs appropriate for your typical delivery medium. At this point, it should perform quite well, and buying a pro display might not improve things all that much.

[Under S.]

Based on everything you just wrote, going from a 24" Dell 2407WFP to a 27" Samsung S3 S33GC for only $150 (or a pair of them for $279) as a quick replacement seems like a no-brainer. Especially since the only obvious downside (other than not levelling up to newer tech like 4K or wider color gamuts) is the peak brightness being lowered from 400 to 250 cd/m² -- which seems like a non-issue since I work in the dark and your recommended levels are 90-120.

Amazon has 6000+ reviews on this pretty basic Samsung monitor, 90% of them 4 to 5 stars. It also appears to be an "Amazon Choice" product. Samsung has discounted them by $150 at the source so these previously-$300 monitors are now going for $150 pretty much everywhere. Canadian currency, too.

Should I stop looking a gift horse in the mouth and just pick one (or two) up already? 😉

[D Fosse]

If your budget won't budge, so be it. It's probably as good as any.

If you put your budget there because you feel you "shouldn't" pay more for a monitor, but you could stretch it if you really wanted to, then it would be worth stretching. Just so it's said.

[Lumigraphics]

You could also look for used displays. I got an insane deal on a couple of LG 4K wide-gamut displays, $20 each at Goodwill. Not likely to see that again but you never know. Thrift stores are awash in used monitors.

[Conrad C]

You could also look for used displays. I got an insane deal on a couple of LG 4K wide-gamut displays, $20 each at Goodwill. Not likely to see that again but you never know. Thrift stores are awash in used monitors.

By @Lumigraphics

That’s a nice idea because today’s displays probably deteriorate less than they used to. CRTs and the older LCD panels lit by CCFL bulbs could fade and shift badly in just a few years. I would avoid those used. But the LCD panels lit by LEDs, which have been made for a while, should be stable for many years and could be a good deal as a used item.

[Lumigraphics]

I've picked up a couple of Dell UltraSharp displays used, and the LGs were a huge improvement over the HP display I was using. I've taken a MacBook Pro, HDMI cable, and HDMI-DVI adaptor shopping before 😄 If nothing else, a $12 used display isn't a huge investment.

[Conrad C]

I can’t find any technical reviews of the Samsung S3 S33GC (user reviews are nice but usually don’t talk about real color issues), so then it becomes hard to follow that part of my own advice. However, for the types of graphics you mentioned originally…

mostly digital (website images, PDF, some video, etc.) with the occasional print job (posters, book covers, expo booths, etc.)

By @Under S.

…there’s a fair chance the S3 S33GC will do the job. For those purposes, an sRGB-type gamut is fine. If the color accuracy isn’t quite right out of the box, running an inexpensive display profiler/calibrator on it every few months should mostly close the gap. There may still be some issues that aren’t correctable, such as if it has poor uniformity. But to put that in context, over the years thousands of working designers have bought some computer and used whatever display it came with and gotten paying work done; the S3 S33GC might be no worse than that. And again, if it was me and that was the display I was given to work with, to get the most out of it, the first thing I would do is generate a custom display profile for it.

[Under S.]

@D Fosse @Lumigraphics @Conrad C 

I was this close to just picking up the aforementioned pair of cheap, bare-bones, no-frills Samsung 1080p 27-inchers (100Hz, 5ms) for $280 at Costco to replace my dead Dell 2407WFP (2006), before a close friend talked me out of it.

He instead talked me into the Gigabyte M27Q-Pro. Despite the fact that it's a VA panel (correction: it's not, it's IPS) it's 1440p (vs 1080p), boasts 135% sRGB coverage (vs 95%), 165Hz refresh rate (vs. 100Hz) and 1ms response time (vs 5ms). It also has a USB-C connector and an audio out (which can independently redirect sound to my mixer, should I also use it with my gaming console).

It was named RTING's best budget monitor for 2024 before being replaced due to a lack of availability. But not only is it available here in Canada, it's currently on special at $300 CAD (down from $450) at my local brick n mortar.

Stores are closed today here, but I plan on picking it up tomorrow. It's just $20 more than I would've spent on the dual Samsungs, but the gains seem worth it. When my remaining Dell 24" dies, it will likely be replaced by another 27" 1440p screen.

Am I making a terrible mistake? $300 CAD was pretty much my budget for this emergency replacement and this M27Q-P seems to check all the boxes.

[D Fosse]

Actually...I'm not thrilled about the VA panel. They also have pretty restricted viewing angles, although better than TN. Do check it first to see that it's acceptable! Pull up an image with good blacks and move around the chair a bit. See if the blacks change when you move position.

Refresh rate and response time are things the gamers are concerned with. They're not important for Photoshop.

[Lumigraphics]

Are you mostly interested in gaming? Usually good gaming displays are not good for photo retouching. You can't use G-Sync with Photoshop.

I would not choose this display for photography.

[Conrad C]

If the store has a good return policy, then you could go ahead and try out the Gigabyte. Make some prints and exports during the return period and decide whether it meets your expectations enough to trust it.

Yeah, it’s a VA panel and definitely on the budget side, but, RTings did say it seems reasonably accurate and with OK uniformity. It could cost a lot of money to improve on those specs, which is why it might be best to test the Gigabyte and see if it’s close enough for your work.

The whole gamers vs artists thing is critical. So many “this is the best monitor ever” reviews on the web/YouTube are by gamers who don’t care about accuracy and just want fast response times and high refresh rates at the lowest possible price. For photography and graphics, it’s so important to keep your eye on the basics for those uses: Accuracy, uniformity, gamut.

One thing that is good about Rtings is that they do provide those separate scores for gaming, office work, and media consumption vs media creation to account for how those uses weigh specs differently. They did think this one scored well enough on media creation that maybe it’s worth a shot, as long as you keep those VA viewing angles in mind.

[Lumigraphics]

You could also take a quick look at reviews online.

https://petapixel.com/best-monitors-photography-photo-editing/

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/by-usage/photo-editing-graphic-design

https://www.techradar.com/news/best-monitor-for-photo-editing

[Under S.]

Here's what I'm not understanding about the responses I'm getting : the M27Q-P touts 140% of the sRGB gamut, while the majority of monitors under $300 CAD tout 95-99%. But I should pass on it because it also has low ms and high refresh, as those are "gaming" concerns?

How is a high refresh rate or low response time going to hurt me when I'm editing or playing videos? Because I'll also be watching movies on this thing. And while I wasn't planning on sharing it with my gaming console, now I might. Are these not all positives, rather than drawbacks?

The truth is -- after a week of looking up lists, reviews and local CAD pricing -- I would've jumped on ANY 27" 1440p monitor touting 135% of sRGB under $300 that scored as well as this one did in most categories on RTINGS. That it also happens to be in-stock at my favorite computer store (when RTINGS is lamenting its scarcity) seems like an omen.

[D Fosse]

Here's what I'm not understanding about the responses I'm getting : the M27Q-P touts 140% of the sRGB gamut, while the majority of monitors under $300 CAD tout 95-99%. But I should pass on it because it also has low ms and high refresh, as those are "gaming" concerns?

By @Under S.

No, what we said was that you should pass on it because it's a VA panel.

Refresh and response are irrelevant here. They don't enter into the equation.

A wider gamut than sRGB is a nice bonus, but shouldn't be a priority with your budget, because it sends the price up, meaning basic panel quality goes down at the same price.

Plus, with a wide gamut monitor, you need to factor in a calibrator in your budget. You simply can't use a wide gamut monitor without a calibrator.

[Under S.]

No, what we said was that you should pass on it because it's a VA panel.

Turns out it's not, my original claim was erroneous. It's IPS.

Also, I find it odd that you would so casually dismiss 135% of sRGB as merely "a nice bonus" for a graphic designer, when it's actually a pretty big deal.

Since I'm running out of time and not seeing anyone recommending anything better in my price range, I've decided to give the M27Q-P a try. I have 15 days to return it, no questions asked. Crossing fingers.