Budget-friendly 1440p gaming monitors have become surprisingly affordable, with several promising options available for around $150-$170, offering a great value proposition for gamers.
Mind Map
Нажмите, чтобы развернуть
Нажмите, чтобы открыть полную интерактивную карту
How much do you have to spend on a good 1440p gaming monitor?
200? 250? 300? Well, you could spend that much. But if you sort from lowest to highest price,
you might be surprised how cheap 1440p monitors have become. Sure, there's probably a lot of
junk of this price range, but some do look very promising. And these three monitors are the ones
I think look the most promising. I picked this one here, the KTC, because I've tested a few KTC
monitors in the past, and pretty much every single one performed better than you'd expect for the
price. So I have very high hopes for this one. Then we have this monitor by Gigabyte. I wanted
to see what the more mainstream brands have to offer in the budget segment, and this one from
Gigabyte is one of the cheapest name brand offerings available. And this one is a bit of a wild card.
I've never even heard of this brand before. AMZFast. Or Amaze-Fast? Amazing-Fast? I don't even
know. I may call them AMZFast for now, but this one has very promising specs for the money. I've
seen it for as low as 150 US, which is kinda crazy for a 200Hz IPS monitor. But of course,
it also has to live up to these specs. The other two monitors have very similar specs.
All three are 27-inch 1440p IPS monitors, but their refresh rates are slightly different.
And all three can usually be found in the $150 to $170 price range. I have them linked down below
if you wanna check the current prices in your region or pick one up. Okay, let's put them side
by side and see if any of these is even worth picking up. Now the first thing you're gonna
notice is that the same video footage looks different on each monitor. This is with out-of-the-box
settings and the brightness turned up to 100% on each monitor. The AMZ in the middle and the KTC
on the right look somewhat similar in most scenes, but the Gigabyte on the left looks quite different
and actually a bit worse I'd say. Part of that comes down to the maximum brightness. The Gigabyte
is the dimmest monitor of the trio, which naturally makes it look a bit dull when comparing
the monitors at maximum brightness. And as you might've noticed, the image is too warm on the
Gigabyte, which also doesn't help. Without making any adjustments, white looks the most accurate on
the AMZ, but neither of these monitors has an accurate white point out-of-the-box. Generally
speaking, the Gigabyte has the worst factory setup. The KTC is slightly better, while the AMZ
is the most accurate monitor out-of-the-box. But all three look pretty decent with default settings
and more expensive monitors typically aren't any more accurate out-of-the-box either. And fortunately,
most of the inaccuracies come down to the white point, which is pretty easy to fix. With custom
settings, both the AMZ and the KTC measure pretty well. The Gigabyte though doesn't perform
quite as good. But this might be somewhat unfair as we're measuring against the larger P3 color
space, which the Gigabyte can't fully reproduce. More about that in a second. If we measure the
Gigabyte against the smaller sRGB color space, it's almost on par with the other two monitors.
And this is what they look like with tuned settings and set to the same brightness.
I only changed some settings in the OSD, so this is without full calibration and ICC profiles,
but I have the ICC profiles I created for these monitors linked in the video description down
below as well as the exact settings I'm using here. Now, I already hinted that the Gigabyte
has a smaller color gamut volume than the other two monitors, so some colors look less saturated.
Might be pretty difficult to pick up depending on the screen you're watching this on,
but both the AMZ and KTC look a good bit more saturated. Both are able to cover roughly
140% of the SRGB color gamut volume, while the Gigabyte can't really be called a wide
gamut monitor. And there is another thing that makes the Gigabyte fall behind in this comparison.
The contrast ratio. All of these are standard IPS monitors. No local dimming, no mini-LED
backlight. So naturally, neither of these monitors is able to render deep blacks. However,
the Gigabyte has the highest black level of these three as you can see in this shot. I cranked up
my camera's ISO here to make it easier to see, but you might even be able to spot it in the
shadow areas and scenes like this. Putting some numbers to it, the Gigabyte is close to the standard
1000:1 contrast ratio that's typical for IPS panels, while the other two almost reach
1400:1, which is pretty good for IPS monitors. Now when it comes to HDR, neither of these monitors
will give you a good HDR experience. These standard IPS panels just aren't capable of producing the
brightness and contrast that's necessary for proper HDR. That being said, all three accept HDR signals,
and the Gigabyte and KTC do a decent job reproducing HDR content within their capabilities.
The AMZ really doesn't measure too well, but visually it's also fine. Again, all three monitors
aren't really meant for HDR anyways, so this is something we shouldn't pay too much attention to.
After all, we're talking about plain normal IPS monitors here, which really are meant to be used
for SDR. And considering how affordable these monitors are, I have to say I'm pretty impressed
with the SDR image quality of the AMZ and KTC. The Gigabyte also is solid for its price, the image
quality and color accuracy aren't bad by any means, but the AMZ and KTC just punch above their price
class. Both also perform very similar, so I wouldn't even be surprised if these were using the exact
same panel. Through the factory menu I was able to figure out the panels of the AMZ and Gigabyte,
but KTC likes to give their panels custom names in the factory menu, so I don't really know if
they're using the same BOE panel or not. At the very least it's a very similar panel. But one
thing I'm not really a fan of is the coating on the AMZ and KTC. Again, the AMZ and KTC look pretty
much identical here, which further supports the idea that they're using the same panel, and both
have this very strong haze anti-glare finish. The Gigabyte is matte as well, but it's way less hazy,
which I think looks better. So far I think the coating has been the only aspect where I actually
prefer the Gigabyte, but this might change when we're taking a look at how these perform for
gaming. On paper, the KTC looks like it has the edge for gaming with its 210Hz refresh rate,
followed by the 200Hz AMZ. But the Gigabyte actually has the fastest response times of these
three, so even though it's running at a slightly lower refresh rate, motion looks slightly clearer
on the Gigabyte. Both the AMZ and KTC show more smearing, mostly in the dark track, which the
Gigabyte does not. However, the Gigabyte's best overdrive mode, SmartOD, is only optimized for
the highest refresh rate. Here at 120Hz it has visible and worse ghosting, while the best modes
on the AMZ and KTC offer a true single overdrive mode experience down to 60Hz. On the Gigabyte you
either have to switch modes below 140Hz or just stick to the picture quality overdrive setting.
Which ironically makes the Gigabyte just as slow as the other two, with all three now averaging
around a 6ms response time. It's a similar story when it comes to lag. There's just a 0.3ms
difference between the slowest and the fastest result, which is totally negligible. Adaptive Sync
also works flawlessly on all three, no flickering exactly how it should be. So in the end, these
are pretty evenly matched when it comes to gaming. The Gigabyte has a tiny advantage if you're only
ever playing at the highest refresh rate, but it's hard to pick a clear winner here. All three are
solid gaming monitors really. Now, but one thing I don't like about these monitors are the
ergonomics. Sure, it's a cost saving measure, but these only come with the most basic stands.
No height adjustment at all, only tilt. So I'd strongly recommend getting a monitor arm,
especially for the Gigabyte. Just sits way too low for good ergonomics. The AMZ and KTC sit a bit
higher and the KTC stand is even made for metal, which is nice I guess. But it doesn't change
anything about the terrible ergonomics. That's just something to factor in with these budget
monitors. You gotta spend a few bucks extra on a decent monitor arm. These monitors are
very focused on the display itself, no fancy stand or RGB, no gimmicks. And that certainly helps keep
the price low. So yeah, overall I'm very impressed with these budget monitors. The monitors from AMZ
and KTC in particular offer great value for money. I kind of expected that from KTC, but AMZfast
certainly wasn't a brand I had on my radar. And I'm pleasantly surprised. Of course with these
lesser known brands, it's always a bit of a gamble when it comes to things like warranty or support.
That's not to say that the mainstream brands always do a great job, but at least they've been
around for a while. So I can understand why some people might prefer something like this Gigabyte
monitor. And yeah, it fell behind the AMZ and KTC in a few areas, but it's still a great buy.
It doesn't quite reach the contrast and color saturation you get from the other two,
but it has slightly faster response times. A pretty solid monitor for around 150 bucks.
Really goes to show that you don't have to spend much anymore to get a good 1440p monitor,
even from a name brand. Thanks for watching. Bis zum nächsten Video.
Нажмите на любой текст или временную метку, чтобы перейти к этому моменту видео
Поделиться:
Большинство транскрипций готово менее чем за 5 секунд
Копировать одним кликом125+ языковПоиск по текстуПерейти к временным меткам
Вставьте ссылку на YouTube
Введите ссылку на любое YouTube-видео, чтобы получить полную транскрипцию
Форма извлечения транскрипции
Большинство транскрипций готово менее чем за 5 секунд
Установите расширение для Chrome
Получайте транскрипции прямо на YouTube, не переходя на другие сайты. Установите наше расширение и открывайте текст любого видео в один клик — прямо на странице просмотра.
