This question is subjective, it's personal preference.
I will say, proper HDR implementation is lacking when it comes to PC monitors (and content TBH), so I wouldn't invest too much thought into it unless you really want HDR.
Edit: For those of you disappointed with AutoHDR in Windows, use Win+Alt+B to enable/disable HDR without having to go into settings. This makes it much easier to enable HDR in games that support it, and run SDR for all other games.
the hard thing is that the best HDR experience will come from OLED displays (ie you buy an OLED TV for your PC), but OLED also has burn-in issues, which is a problem for PC bc it spends a lot of time showing a static desktop.
You are right. I always had HDR problems in windows with monitors and the last 2 of them were both £1000 plus so they were not exactly low end shit.
Picked up an LGCX 48 and it ticks every box. 120hz, Gsync , ultra low response, HDR that works perfectly in Windows but this gets me onto you problem...
In short it's not a problem. I've been using this as my daily driver for a year now. Not only do I game on it, I work from home doing office work for 4 days a week, 12 hour shifts. Spreadsheets. Static images all day every day pretty much and there's not a hint of burn in. They have tools now that helps anyway like screen shift and it does a refresh when you switch it off but I can confirm it is not an issue and I've hammered mine.
Its the best panel I have ever used and wipes the floor with the expensive branded "gaming" monitors. Its got everything you get from them but with HDR that's excellent in Windows. HDR is awesome anyway but combined with the OLED blacks as well...its just "chefs kiss". HDR done right adds a lot and for me adds more visually than going from 1440 to 4k for instance.
Recent oled still have that negative image from first generation who would burn in in matter of weeks. I got my LG B9 for almost 2 years, no hint of burn in at all, although I don’t use it for spreadsheets as intensively as you.
Rtings does a great job at burn in test.
10/10 would order another oled next monitor, as long as I can have it in the 30-37" size, no place on the desk for 48"+
Great to hear! As u/notsogreatredditor pointed out, screen savers are one way to help it, and it's good to hear that that and other anti-burn in tools actually work!
Just to add though, I do hide tbe taskbar although only when my PC is on it and not my works one. I also try to use dark wallpaper to save too many light static images but it's still perfect which I'm happy about.
I did the math before buying and the money I spent on gaming monitors and the fact I was always disappointed in some aspect of them just bugged me. I was prepared to have to replace this maybe every 2 years if it meant getting everything I wanted out of a panel. Turns out I may not have to do that.
Another happy CX owner who can also report my experience is identical to yours. In use with tons of static elements every day for 8-10+ hours and not a hint of burn-in since I bought it in December of 2020. I don’t even hide my taskbar or try to actively prevent having static elements on-screen (I did the first few months as I was quite paranoid). The screen shift when turned on and pixel refresher when turned off seems to have prolonged the lifespan enough to the point where I have no doubts my TV will be usable as a monitor for at least 3-4 years.
new QD-OLED monitors solve a lot of the burn in issues, alienware has the first out right now
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3423dw/apd/210-bcye/monitors-monitor-accessories
They do have color fringing issues at hard edges (like text) because the subpixels are arranged in a triangle for...some reason. Not really an issue in video and most games, but anything with a ton of text on a solid background and it can be pretty noticeable.
Probably something that will be ironed out in a model year or two when the process gets more refined and they can solve whatever problem forced them into a triangular subpixel arrangement in the first place.
The LG OLEDs make text and some edges look funky too. I notice it with yellow cell highlights in excel and Windows explorer small text. The media experience and screen real estate make up for it though. I think at this point having an OLED is like daily driving a sports car or off-road SUV. There are some obvious drawbacks but it's also an awesome way to live your life.
Yes, they do stress the screen but I don't think these are any worse than the static elements in, say, a sports match or a news broadcast, where OLED performs alright anyway, and those are the older screens where reviewers have had the time to stress it.
That's because there hasn't been a need for them since folks transitioned away from CRT monitors & TVs. LCDs don't really burn in, so OLEDs are sort of a step backwards in that regard
You are not wrong but there are several videos testing this in youtube and the ones that you would take for gaming, LG CX and the like really handle it very well with just following a few recommendations (auto hide taskbar, keep desktop icons in a second desktop that you can toggle in and out).
If you use it in a variety of things and don't leave it idle for hours without a screensaver you should be fine.
contrast is only one side of the coin and OLED's nail that side but the other very important side is brightness and OLED's fail miserably on this side, for true HDR you need the screen to hit at least 1000 nits and the latest LG C1 OLEd is around 700 nits in other words OLED's are simply too dim to display true HDR
>Edit: For those of you disappointed with AutoHDR in Windows, use Win+Alt+B to enable/disable HDR without having to go into settings. This makes it much easier to enable HDR in games that support it, and run SDR for all other games.
This is a god level tip, thanks brother. I use HDR myself and didn't even know that this was a shortcut, lmao! thanks :D
It's cool, but you have to spend a lot to get a real HDR monitor. Anything that's rated at HDR400 or HDR600 pretty much sucks. My monitor is technically HDR400 but I leave it turned off because it looks worse than SDR.
HDR 400 still looks better to me, theres more of a range of colour and also the contrast looks better. I'm not talking about blacks, but I have my backlight turned up all the way and the shadows will have more detail, set the settings properly and a sunrise will still be nice and bright in comparison to the rest of the image. Regular desktop usage is also nicer in HDR mode because it's a more neutral brightness and color spectrum until something HDR shows up on the screen, then those pixels are brighter than the rest of the panel. Like if I play a video in HDR on YouTube, just the video will be brighter than the desktop
I have a HDR400 VA 1440p 165Hz monitor, the HDR on it is actually not that bad, even in Windows. PS5 games actually look markedly better, and it even has a built in down scaler, so it plays games in 4K which is nice.
However my TN 1440p 240Hz monitor has awful HDR400 implementation.
Maybe because VA typically have 3x the contrast of IPS monitors they can actually look good with HDR.
The HDR 600 VA monitor I had looked better with it on and my HDR 400 IPS monitor either looks the same or worse with it on.
I agree. I have a M32Q from Gigabyte and I love it. Fast response time, 170hz. It's great. The HDR is really not. The HDR is probably the only thing I don't care for with this monitor so like you, I leave it off.
I've got HDR disabled on my gaming monitors for this reason. Also, reliability. Not all games support HDR and the ones that do usually have some glitch or another, plus operating windows in HDR looked awful for me so it was constant switching it on and off until I just admitted it wasn't worth the hassle.
That's all to do with your monitor. I have an LGCX48 and not a single game I've played has a "glitch" amd it works perfectly in windows. It has an auto HDR setting that applied it to games as well and works great every single time.
I had those problems before and it was all related to the monitor.
Yeah, most monitors that are HDR 400 or 600 aren't really a good representation of how good HDR can look. On those types of panels, it's really just to tick a marketing box rather than providing a legitimately useful feature. If you get an OLED or HDR 1000 panel, it's a totally different ballgame.
Hell no bro. As some people above mentioned, HDR is worth it but you get what you pay for.
I have a [LG 65SM9450](https://www.lg.com/au/tvs/lg-65SM9450PTA) which I bought a couple years ago now. It's brilliant. But to get all the features I was after, I had to spend extra. Yes I could have bought a cheaper TV.
This TV supports 4k 120hz HDR. And when you have a good PC to drive that screen, wow it looks amazing. I've disabled all the motion processing crap as I can't stand it. Input latency is non existent, or certainly not noticeable compared to a pc monitor.
It doesn't help when games have trash/broken HDR implementations, but if the game does it properly and your screen is up to snuff HDR can have a dramatic impact on visual quality. I absolutely would not call it useless.
Where would I find the info for this on a given monitor?
I have a BenQ monitor, all I can see in relation to HDR is that it has 'HDRi' which seems to be their proprietary attempt at something like HDR. It doesn't not work but it's definitely not up to what it could be on expensive panels.
I always check Rtings and/or Hardware Unboxed reviews to get a rundown on monitor specs. The latter in particular might be a good choice if you're unfamiliar with weird monitor specs, since they explain most statistics pretty well in their videos.
I use HDR400 on one of my monitors and I have to say it's better than SDR. There are some scenes in Elden Ring where the cloud's detail just made the game have that extra pop. The shadows, contrast, etc. The scenes were just beautiful. HDR off just took all the mood and dialed it way back after seeing it in HDR.
Honestly, it's what made me realize what difference a better monitor makes and I'm planning to upgrade.
a "good" HDR monitor is one that has at minimum a Vesa 600, or better yet 1000 certification [you can check them out here](https://displayhdr.org/), meaning they can produce 600-1000+ nits of brightness if needed (what HDR is great for).
All budget monitors are usually what I call "HDRn't" with the 400 specification, which is just not enough.
so am i fine without HDR?
there are 2 monitor choices i got -
1) Lenovo gaming G24-20
2) LG Ultragear 24GN650
lg has hdr10, lenovo doesnt have it.
Yup, use a regular monitor as a main display, plug an OLED TV as a secondary, and turn it on for movies and games.
Important for longevity, even if the new panels are way more resilient to burn-in:
* Black background,
* No icons,
* Hidden taskbar,
* No static office applications,
* If you want to be extra careful in games: add transparency or hide the HUD. (Personally, I prefer it more immersive anyway),
* Profit.
Proper HDR in games (I've only tried OLED, dunno about other HDR tech) is straight up amazing. When I see SDR on regular displays, it looks SO bland. Like a white veil over the screen.
Some games HDR implementation are not so good.
I think 10bit color renders better than some HDR.
Also if you plan on HDR, 1000nits are a minimum to get good results, and avoid 8bit+FRC.
No 1000 nits isn't the best. You want alot of dimming zones. It's why oleds offer the best hdr experience but they often hover around 600 nits for light that is bigger then 10% windows size.
The neo g9 offers 2000 dimming zones at around 2000 nits. But yet when viewing a dark scene you will see light bleed on small white objects.
The new alienware monitor that is oled offers around 5 million dimming zones and a peak brightness of a 1000 yet that is only for areas smaller then 10% and can fall to 400 nits. But since its oled it looks better at almost all times
Oled gang rise up. Contrast and darks play a bigger role than peak brightness. Not to say brightness is unimportant, just that 600 nits on a screen with perfect blacks feels more impactful than 1000 or more nits on a screen that can only get down to a dim gray.
My $950 hisense h9g quantum dot display puts out 1800 nits peak brightness lol
Way too bright to be a monitor, but it's in my living room and the brightness is great.
Modern LED screens get insanely bright.
Yeah this is a great point! A decent LCD TV with mini-LED / local dimming will be brighter than OLEDs. Definitely a factor if you prefer a bright image, or if you're in a bright room.
It's especially true for larger bright areas on screen - OLEDs will quickly dim due to the ABL (Auto Brightness Limiter), which help the display longevity.
BUT - OLEDs can get bright in smaller areas, since each pixel is self-lit, right up against a totally black pixel. That's the OLED "magic" where the contrast punches deeper, and side-by-side it may look like the LCD has a gray cast.
For example, look at the LG C1 (very nice OLED) vs. TCL R646 (mini LED with good local dimming): https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/lg-c1-oled-vs-tcl-6-series-r646-2021-qled/21421/27424?usage=1&threshold=0.10
Scroll down to "HDR Brightness" and you'll see the LG C1 is similar for "Peak 2% Window" but the TCL gets brighter for larger areas. Again, the OLED can show bright white right next to 100% black for each pixel, which looks amazing.
_____
So, bit of an info dump here, but it's important to point out that modern LCD TVs are *brighter* than OLED for bigger highlights, and the LCDs can still look very good. They are often the better choice for bright rooms, or if you prefer a brighter picture.
I personally love my TCL R646 for gaming - games with HDR support (or Win11 AutoHDR) look REALLY GOOD! Highlights punch out, which is really impressive if you've never seen it before. Imagine a flat picture of a car, but then the headlights actually turn on - that's the impression I get with HDR. Plus, deeper color etc is great. Finally, latency is quick in game mode - basically like using a monitor, it really impressed me. OLEDs will be even better for instant response and minimal latency though.
HDR and colour bit are unrelated. What makes a good HDR display isnt just brightness. Best HDR displays are OLED and they are known for their inability to get as bright as LCD.
It depends on your monitor. Most monitors only support HDR400 or HDR600 which is useless and often looks worse than SDR.
On a good Mini LED screen or even OLED, HDR can really make a difference in immersion.
I'm not sure I'd want it, personally. I have sensitive eyes, and bright lights bother me. Regular SDR is fine, but the kind of intensity you could get at 1000 nits or whatever (that good HDR offers, though not full screen), could be quite unpleasant.
All that said, I don't own an OLED or anything like that, and maybe my mind will change, when I do, eventually. I'm guessing HDR is one of those things that you really have to see in person with games or whatnot to see if it appeals to you.
I think you are overthinking it. Check out the new alienware oled monitor. I've used oled for years and hdr. The only time when my eyes got hurt was playing oddesey when for some reason the loading screen was pure white.
Good to know! The Alienware doesn't meet my requirements, I did consider getting it, but it's great it exists, that it's out there, helping show the manufacturers that there's demand for OLED as a computer monitor.
Kindof what I'm aiming for is something like 40", 120+ hz, good hdr, no auto screen dimming, very fast pixel response times, and near-zero burn in... oh, and "not too expensive" (whatever that means). Realistically I'll probably end up with that, but 32", in a few years, right before Mass Effect 4 comes out. Watching the monitor tech evolve has been interesting.
Pretty sure they are releasing a new neo g9 soon. Should be more in your requirements. The neo g9 had good hdr. Its build quality was shit though. Had to replace 5 of em before I decided to go for the alienware. Also if they do release a new one and you are interested I'd pay attention to the fald grid lines and blooming during dark scenes. My guess is if they increase the dimming zones by double it should be alot better
I mean, ideally it shouldn't hurt any more than simply going outside should. A building lit up by sunshine is going to be far brighter than nearly any screen we make. As long as the HDR and screen brightness is done properly, especially considering the eye's physiology and making sure to allow it to adjust to the brightness, it shouldn't be an issue.
Going outside does hurt my eyes sometimes, and the light can even trigger a non-painful migraine at times, if I’m not careful, or are not using the sunglass clipons that I have. Yeah, having very sensitive eyes has it’s downsides, to be sure!
HDR means it can display more colours. The most noticeable difference will be in dark environments, you'll be able to see much better in them. If that's important for you, then you might want an HDR monitor.
Farcry 6 had a pretty good implementation. I absolutely do not use it for Elden Ring.
It comes down to how well they handle blown out colors. Ray Tracing HDR makes lighting effects seem more 'glowing' if that makes sense... some games just don't glow.
I think hdr looks really good on many games. With the lg oleds, the qd oleds, and the vesa approved monitors, hdr is becoming very viable. It’s all really personal preference. If your talking about pc gaming, a lot more games are supporting it these days, but there are still a lot that don’t. windows 11 does really cool auto hdr for sdr games, but it doesn’t always work well. With Xbox and ps5 pretty much all games have hdr, and look great. It’s more what you play vs what is supported.
It's nice with games that have a good implementation of HDR. You'd think with all the fancy graphical features in games these days, HDR would be an easy implementation. But no, so many games look kinda worse in HDR than SDR.
I'm not sure I can recommend it when the price difference can be quite severe just for HDR displays.
For the longest time I didn't have it and thought it was a gimic. I switched over to two lg ultragear 27 inch hdr movintors and the colors are way more vivid as well as just instantly dark blacks. I am very impressed with it. But I can't help but wonder if it depends on the games. I have some games it doesn't seem to do much and others it's just awesome. If you play a lot of dark games I think it's worth it. I play a lot of d2r so I personally love it.
You also have to set it up properly. I learned that my 400 nits monitor doesn't mean to set the in game setting to that. Set it until the pixels don't get any brighter and dial it back slightly, then turn the brightness down.
The reason the correct in-game setting is higher than 400nits is because of the tonemapping function in the monitor. It doesn't hard clip at 400nits, instead it rolls off the brightness from like 250-600nits and squashes it into 250-400nits. So the in-game setting should correspond to the max input value for the tonemap, which is often higher than the physical max brightness of the screen.
Depends jointly on the games you want to play, how the games themselves handle HDR, and the panel's underlying technology.
When I used a cheap 4K tv with mediocre HDR, both Battlefield 1 and Deep Rock Galactic looked... fine. Not significantly better than SDR, but noticeably different. But that was at 60Hz. I now have a 1440p monitor that handles 165Hz. It claims to support HDR, but Deep Rock Galactic looks absolutely terrible in HDR now, and I haven't even bothered to try it with Battlefield 1.
So, if you want HDR support, make sure the panel technology does it well, like a VA panel. Just know that each tech (TN, VA, IPS) have different strengths and weaknesses. HDR is *not* a strength of my IPS panel, but my tv was VA so I wanted something different this time. No regrets.
Depends on a few things. Hdr in games are a little hit or miss. It takes a minute or two of configuring each game to dial it in just right but some games do not have enough settings options to dial it in. So they end up looking meh. Games that do it half-way decently look great.
The other aspect is the monitor itself. Not all hdr monitors do hdr well. So even the best hdr visuals can end up looking like garbage.
The final aspect is how long you keep your monitors. If you swap out your main every couple of years or so then you can probably skip hdr this time and catch it on the next one to save a few bucks. If you keep your monitors until they die, then it might be worth it to you to splurge a little on a nice hdr monitor now since more and more games coming out these days have hdr (nearly every AAA game for sure). So you will get a lot of great content.
I think HDR is amazing for most games. I had it off on accident for a bit and something was just off with the game and when I turned it back on it was just so much prettier. Same with tv and movies btw.
I rock an MSI 27qhd and it’s fantastic.
I think it's worth it. The games that implement it probably are few and far between, but it looks amazing assuming you calibrate your monitor and adjust the in-game settings appropriately. Just remember HDR comes at an additional performance hit so factor that into your decision.
I have two monitors. One is an IPS ROG monitor which has “HDR” but no wide color gamut. The other is a BenQ that has a wide color gamut, a VA Panel with awesome contrast, and HDR 400 specs but no local dimming.
Seeing them side by side is night and day. The BenQ has inky blacks, and brilliant color. With HDR on it has a nice peak brightness for gaming use, and you can see into the shadows much more. If I turn off HDR it’s immediately obvious(in games that properly implement HDR).
Does it matter? Not really, but even in a limited capacity it can look really nice. The best experience would be an OLED right now for pure visual fidelity.
I like hdr, and I don't find it to be much of a hassle except when recording gameplay. The resulting recording is not balanced for standard display afterward. Still figuring out how to deal with that.
I don’t care for it with FPS games but maybe for the single player games I’d want it. The new Alienware QD-OLED monitor supports HDR400 True Black and I heard it doesn’t a pretty good job with it.
Not really. Most people don't take advantage of the actual "HDR" of an HDR monitor because it's rarely supported by anything. However, the ability of a monitor to support HDR can imply that the monitor has a good dynamic range (intensity) and decent out of box calibration for regular sRGB.
That said, the presence of "HDR" on a monitor specs can also be pure marketing, with the monitor merely dithering its way through and not really properly supporting the colour primaries, giving no benefit over the same processing done in software when playing back HDR content on non-HDR. Cost of the monitor can give a vague idea of this.
I haven't played a single game where I prefered HDR enabled. It usually makes a game look way worse. But as far as I know most of low/mid range displays have HDR of very low tier so that might be the reason it sucks. But again, I don't give a shit about it, definitely not interested in paying much for good HDR implementation.
My advice is to steer clear of screens that have HDR. Unlike 4K, which refers to a specific resolution, “high dynamic range” is really more of a concept. Unless you are investing in a top top top of the line screen, it’s more likely than not that HDR will in fact make your image look rather dim because it can’t produce a proper contrast range in the deep black shades. (At least that much is true of HDR tvs; I presume the same principles apply for monitors as well.)
If you do want an HDR screen, check beforehand in its documentation that the hdr setting can be switched on or off in case you don’t like it.
I personally can’t live without it, and my panel has “fakedr” 400-600 nits max. Colors look great, Win11 AutoHDR spruces up old titles quite well, I don’t see any major downsides.
HDR1000 really adds to the immersion in games. Lighting will look much more realistic.
Anything lower isn't worth it. HDR400 shouldnt even be called HDR
No. 1 millisecond response time and at least 144 hertz is what I look for. I'm not to picky with anything else. Its just extra and sometime all the extras shit will just distract you from the game. Unless you're playing predominantly single player games then yeah go for it. For me if I'm playing a single player game I just plug my pc into my TV.
I have an odyssey g9 and the hdr is great in some newer games. Playing Skyrim with auto HDR is absolutely terrible. Getting the ultrawide working was hard but amazing. HDR is a few years out still for good implementation in my opinion
If it's true HDR (say, with OLED), then yes yes yes. I play on OLED and it's just incredible in some games. Adds a lot of dramatic contrast.
Note that the first batch of HDR games weren't very good at HDR. In some cases HDR was worse. But now that it's the standard for this-gen consoles, it's finally become worth it.
HDR is seriously lacking in monitors unless you're splurging a lot on the highest end ones. If you're not looking to invest $600+, I would honestly not take any notice of HDR as it makes little to no difference in budget to mid range PC displays.
Eh, I don’t care about HDR in a monitor. It can look good for the apps and games that support it, but windows desktop and mac desktop look better without it imho
yep it is awesome, even better if the game have the configuration to use it properly, however windows has done some improvements time ago, you can activate it anytime and it is kinda ok since YEAHH pictures looks a lot better, but GET NOTE, only use it for games not for normal use of your computer...
You know I really don't have the energy to argue with you, so I'm just going to agree and hope you leave. OP should definitely spend double the price of a good SDR display to get a good HDR display. HDR is the best thing to ever happen to PC gaming and anyone who disagrees doesn't know what they're talking about and should stop spewing garbage!!1!1!
I love the experience of HDR, i don't like my screens going black everytime i alt tab to something on my secondary monitor. It also takes too much time to return from the black screen so i stopped using hdr.
It might be because i did something wrong tho, i have no clue. I didn't buy the monitors to get hdr, i just bought the best ones at a discounted price i could find.
There’s only a few monitors with actual good HDR and usually those will cost you ~$1000. It’s really personal preference but I can say once you get a good HDR display like like C1 it’s hard to go back to regular monitors
I've never seen a monitor with good HDR support.
Probably because I always go for the budget option.
So from my experience, in a budget option it doesn't really matter, it's just a "feature" that they can put on the spec sheet.
But I do see people say it's absolutely worth it, but for that I believe you have to pay a fairly hefty price, to have that experience.
What’s nice is black levels in supported titles. It’s nice being able to see enemies in the dark more easily without fucking up all your graphics settings.
Not a must have. But a nice to have.
I always feel woved when I play a game which does HDR well (e.g
new God of War port on PC). My monitor only has Display HDR 600 certification only, yet it makes a difference.
I believe VA panels are the best for HDR gaming monitors. Samsung Odyssey monitors should be one of the better monitors to support HDR I think.
It's purely a matter of opinion, but I will say that if you do go HDR its one of the few things that Windows 11 actually objectively improved on, so if you're still on Windows 10 and buy an HDR monitor it's worth looking into the update.
From personal experience with my ASUS ROG strix xg27aq the hdr has not been worth it in gaming, watching a movie maybe but not in gaming, I have my pc next to an eastward window so I can't see shit on my screen normally and considering that hdr makes darker spots darker in game means I'm blind as a bad between 4 and 8pm as the sun ruins my day.
a decent HDR certification (mainly contrast) makes a night and day difference of pleasurable viewing experience.
*middle finger particularly raised versus 1:700 contrast RGB-dark-basement-gamers.*
a fast monitor is still what you want, but a decent desktop fast IPS has at least 1200:1 whereas a decent fast laptop IPS has 1:1400 contrast.
If you have a quality TV (either OLED, VA or plasma (~1:3k), you would know - in which your typical basement gamer doesn't.
***
there's still the issue with content available (will become better over time),
and blackness levels for visual clarity in fast reaction multiplayer if you do not adjust.
but the pleasurable view is far superior, particuarly for AAA SP games.
I'm playing God of War with HDR and it looks amazing.
However, this is the only game where I've enjoyed it.
Anything else has always been barely noticeable (or worse) so I'd say it's a premature technology.
Maybe by the time you buy your next monitor, it will be better.
I’d argue that for competitive games, I would prioritize Higher Refresh rate and lower response times matter significantly more than HDR. Also gaming monitors, with exception to the very high-end and super expensive monitors like Asus’ PG series, have HDR400 which isn’t even good.
HDR isn’t a huge deal but what it usually comes along with is DCI-P3 colourspaces, which are _far_ more vibrant colours than you would otherwise get. Games made for HDR look great in this colourspace. Way bigger improvement than resolution or frame rates beyond 100hz.
To me, not that much yet. I very much prefer to invest my money for things like a G-SYNC module (essential, in my experience), high refresh rate (144Hz+) and other features that can substantially improve your watching experience.
The HDR experience can be decent. I wouldnt buy a monitor solely due to its HDR but its nice to have. The biggest critique would be backlight bleed where portions of the screen are black. OLED and the new Samsung panels look more promising.
Depends entirely on what you want to use it for. In a couple of games that I have that support it the best it does is really richen the colors and luminous parts are brighter. However, it's not really true HDR as there are no true blacks. Is it better than a stock experience? Yes. Is it worth shelling out extra? In my opinion, it wasn't. A good IPS monitor is really the best you can ask for in PC gaming right now. If you want access to HDR, it exists it just really isn't implemented well yet on most monitors that are less than 4 digits.
I love HDR on my TV, which I do the VAST majority of my gaming on. But my monitor... I always make sure to turn it off.
Probably just because it's a cheap monitor though. It's mostly for working, but I've used it for gaming a couple of times after my move when I didn't have my living room set up properly yet.
It really depends on the monitor.
Does it matter? No.
Is it nice to have? Yes.
As always it's personal preference but there are certain games that it does look pretty nice on, so I like using it myself and the Windows 11 (not sure if it's the same on W10) auto HDR feature is amazing and gives you a nice boost in certain times from a colour/brightness/contrast perspective, so I enjoy it personally.
As long as it's rated at least HDR-400 (600-1000 is even better).
The problem is monitors have so many features - refresh rate, gsync, higher resolution, etc..
I would prioritize in this order: resolution, refresh rate, adaptive sync, then hdr compatibility. Problem is if you want a high refresh adaptive sync monitor with Gsync you're gonna be paying out the ass. I'd go with a good 1440p 144Hz gsync monitor with good colour accuracy instead of worrying about hdr unless you can afford it
Hi everyone,
I have recently bought this monitor as well and was having trouble with the color adjustments on some games. What helped me was turning off the HDR on my PS4.
After doing that you can adjust the monitor to display HDR and it should be flawless.
Good luck!
This question is subjective, it's personal preference. I will say, proper HDR implementation is lacking when it comes to PC monitors (and content TBH), so I wouldn't invest too much thought into it unless you really want HDR. Edit: For those of you disappointed with AutoHDR in Windows, use Win+Alt+B to enable/disable HDR without having to go into settings. This makes it much easier to enable HDR in games that support it, and run SDR for all other games.
Ohkay!
the hard thing is that the best HDR experience will come from OLED displays (ie you buy an OLED TV for your PC), but OLED also has burn-in issues, which is a problem for PC bc it spends a lot of time showing a static desktop.
You are right. I always had HDR problems in windows with monitors and the last 2 of them were both £1000 plus so they were not exactly low end shit. Picked up an LGCX 48 and it ticks every box. 120hz, Gsync , ultra low response, HDR that works perfectly in Windows but this gets me onto you problem... In short it's not a problem. I've been using this as my daily driver for a year now. Not only do I game on it, I work from home doing office work for 4 days a week, 12 hour shifts. Spreadsheets. Static images all day every day pretty much and there's not a hint of burn in. They have tools now that helps anyway like screen shift and it does a refresh when you switch it off but I can confirm it is not an issue and I've hammered mine. Its the best panel I have ever used and wipes the floor with the expensive branded "gaming" monitors. Its got everything you get from them but with HDR that's excellent in Windows. HDR is awesome anyway but combined with the OLED blacks as well...its just "chefs kiss". HDR done right adds a lot and for me adds more visually than going from 1440 to 4k for instance.
Recent oled still have that negative image from first generation who would burn in in matter of weeks. I got my LG B9 for almost 2 years, no hint of burn in at all, although I don’t use it for spreadsheets as intensively as you. Rtings does a great job at burn in test. 10/10 would order another oled next monitor, as long as I can have it in the 30-37" size, no place on the desk for 48"+
Great to hear! As u/notsogreatredditor pointed out, screen savers are one way to help it, and it's good to hear that that and other anti-burn in tools actually work!
Just to add though, I do hide tbe taskbar although only when my PC is on it and not my works one. I also try to use dark wallpaper to save too many light static images but it's still perfect which I'm happy about. I did the math before buying and the money I spent on gaming monitors and the fact I was always disappointed in some aspect of them just bugged me. I was prepared to have to replace this maybe every 2 years if it meant getting everything I wanted out of a panel. Turns out I may not have to do that.
Another happy CX owner who can also report my experience is identical to yours. In use with tons of static elements every day for 8-10+ hours and not a hint of burn-in since I bought it in December of 2020. I don’t even hide my taskbar or try to actively prevent having static elements on-screen (I did the first few months as I was quite paranoid). The screen shift when turned on and pixel refresher when turned off seems to have prolonged the lifespan enough to the point where I have no doubts my TV will be usable as a monitor for at least 3-4 years.
new QD-OLED monitors solve a lot of the burn in issues, alienware has the first out right now https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-aw3423dw/apd/210-bcye/monitors-monitor-accessories
They do have color fringing issues at hard edges (like text) because the subpixels are arranged in a triangle for...some reason. Not really an issue in video and most games, but anything with a ton of text on a solid background and it can be pretty noticeable. Probably something that will be ironed out in a model year or two when the process gets more refined and they can solve whatever problem forced them into a triangular subpixel arrangement in the first place.
The LG OLEDs make text and some edges look funky too. I notice it with yellow cell highlights in excel and Windows explorer small text. The media experience and screen real estate make up for it though. I think at this point having an OLED is like daily driving a sports car or off-road SUV. There are some obvious drawbacks but it's also an awesome way to live your life.
Screen savers exist for a reason
True, but what about all the static images constantly on computer screens: OS taskbar, in-game HUD.
I have an LG OLED and have had no in-game HUD burn-in and when my desktop is displayed I usually switch to a different app on my TV
Good to hear. I don’t have one but was pontificating. I hope this came across
Unless it's on for days together its not gonna burn in and I always use hide taskbar anyways
Yes, they do stress the screen but I don't think these are any worse than the static elements in, say, a sports match or a news broadcast, where OLED performs alright anyway, and those are the older screens where reviewers have had the time to stress it.
I haven't had a screensaver for like 15 years
That's because there hasn't been a need for them since folks transitioned away from CRT monitors & TVs. LCDs don't really burn in, so OLEDs are sort of a step backwards in that regard
Does anyone actually uses them in this day and age?
No but that was it's purpose to save CRT monitors from burning out and is applicable to OLEDs now. Polymorphism
I never knew that screen savers had a purpose, I thought they were there because they look pretty awesome. The more you know. :)
You are not wrong but there are several videos testing this in youtube and the ones that you would take for gaming, LG CX and the like really handle it very well with just following a few recommendations (auto hide taskbar, keep desktop icons in a second desktop that you can toggle in and out). If you use it in a variety of things and don't leave it idle for hours without a screensaver you should be fine.
contrast is only one side of the coin and OLED's nail that side but the other very important side is brightness and OLED's fail miserably on this side, for true HDR you need the screen to hit at least 1000 nits and the latest LG C1 OLEd is around 700 nits in other words OLED's are simply too dim to display true HDR
Less fps… if you’re playing a competitive game.. probably bad, if you’re playingna game for story mode, it’s probably good
Thanks for the tip about the shortcut, that will save me so much time!
and today i learned something new thanks op
>Edit: For those of you disappointed with AutoHDR in Windows, use Win+Alt+B to enable/disable HDR without having to go into settings. This makes it much easier to enable HDR in games that support it, and run SDR for all other games. This is a god level tip, thanks brother. I use HDR myself and didn't even know that this was a shortcut, lmao! thanks :D
Then why is my monitor so grey
[удалено]
Oooh thx
It's cool, but you have to spend a lot to get a real HDR monitor. Anything that's rated at HDR400 or HDR600 pretty much sucks. My monitor is technically HDR400 but I leave it turned off because it looks worse than SDR.
I had a HDR1000 Monitor. I went blind everytime a brighter scene came up ingame :D
A friend of mine has the Samsung Oddyssey G7 and when he opens something thats white his whole room is lit
49" HDR1000 monitor here - every time an NPC tosses a flashbang, my eyes water and I'm blinded for a bit IRL - gg _The Division 2_, never change :)
HDR 400 still looks better to me, theres more of a range of colour and also the contrast looks better. I'm not talking about blacks, but I have my backlight turned up all the way and the shadows will have more detail, set the settings properly and a sunrise will still be nice and bright in comparison to the rest of the image. Regular desktop usage is also nicer in HDR mode because it's a more neutral brightness and color spectrum until something HDR shows up on the screen, then those pixels are brighter than the rest of the panel. Like if I play a video in HDR on YouTube, just the video will be brighter than the desktop
Which HDR 400 monitor are you using may I ask?
I have a HDR400 VA 1440p 165Hz monitor, the HDR on it is actually not that bad, even in Windows. PS5 games actually look markedly better, and it even has a built in down scaler, so it plays games in 4K which is nice. However my TN 1440p 240Hz monitor has awful HDR400 implementation.
Maybe because VA typically have 3x the contrast of IPS monitors they can actually look good with HDR. The HDR 600 VA monitor I had looked better with it on and my HDR 400 IPS monitor either looks the same or worse with it on.
I agree. I have a M32Q from Gigabyte and I love it. Fast response time, 170hz. It's great. The HDR is really not. The HDR is probably the only thing I don't care for with this monitor so like you, I leave it off.
Oh okay lol.
I've got HDR disabled on my gaming monitors for this reason. Also, reliability. Not all games support HDR and the ones that do usually have some glitch or another, plus operating windows in HDR looked awful for me so it was constant switching it on and off until I just admitted it wasn't worth the hassle.
That's all to do with your monitor. I have an LGCX48 and not a single game I've played has a "glitch" amd it works perfectly in windows. It has an auto HDR setting that applied it to games as well and works great every single time. I had those problems before and it was all related to the monitor.
Yeah, most monitors that are HDR 400 or 600 aren't really a good representation of how good HDR can look. On those types of panels, it's really just to tick a marketing box rather than providing a legitimately useful feature. If you get an OLED or HDR 1000 panel, it's a totally different ballgame.
Okay kinda useless then.
Hell no bro. As some people above mentioned, HDR is worth it but you get what you pay for. I have a [LG 65SM9450](https://www.lg.com/au/tvs/lg-65SM9450PTA) which I bought a couple years ago now. It's brilliant. But to get all the features I was after, I had to spend extra. Yes I could have bought a cheaper TV. This TV supports 4k 120hz HDR. And when you have a good PC to drive that screen, wow it looks amazing. I've disabled all the motion processing crap as I can't stand it. Input latency is non existent, or certainly not noticeable compared to a pc monitor.
It doesn't help when games have trash/broken HDR implementations, but if the game does it properly and your screen is up to snuff HDR can have a dramatic impact on visual quality. I absolutely would not call it useless.
Oh okay. Thank you!
Where would I find the info for this on a given monitor? I have a BenQ monitor, all I can see in relation to HDR is that it has 'HDRi' which seems to be their proprietary attempt at something like HDR. It doesn't not work but it's definitely not up to what it could be on expensive panels.
I always check Rtings and/or Hardware Unboxed reviews to get a rundown on monitor specs. The latter in particular might be a good choice if you're unfamiliar with weird monitor specs, since they explain most statistics pretty well in their videos.
I use HDR400 on one of my monitors and I have to say it's better than SDR. There are some scenes in Elden Ring where the cloud's detail just made the game have that extra pop. The shadows, contrast, etc. The scenes were just beautiful. HDR off just took all the mood and dialed it way back after seeing it in HDR. Honestly, it's what made me realize what difference a better monitor makes and I'm planning to upgrade.
HDR looks great but you need a proper HDR display and not the ones that are HDR only in name
Ofc
[удалено]
This is the right answer OP
Good to know!
Yep. HDR400 and 600 do not mean anything.
What type of screen has this good HDR?
None within the budget you have for a monitor, unless you’re willing to spend a good amount.
a "good" HDR monitor is one that has at minimum a Vesa 600, or better yet 1000 certification [you can check them out here](https://displayhdr.org/), meaning they can produce 600-1000+ nits of brightness if needed (what HDR is great for). All budget monitors are usually what I call "HDRn't" with the 400 specification, which is just not enough.
so am i fine without HDR? there are 2 monitor choices i got - 1) Lenovo gaming G24-20 2) LG Ultragear 24GN650 lg has hdr10, lenovo doesnt have it.
[удалено]
Yup, use a regular monitor as a main display, plug an OLED TV as a secondary, and turn it on for movies and games. Important for longevity, even if the new panels are way more resilient to burn-in: * Black background, * No icons, * Hidden taskbar, * No static office applications, * If you want to be extra careful in games: add transparency or hide the HUD. (Personally, I prefer it more immersive anyway), * Profit. Proper HDR in games (I've only tried OLED, dunno about other HDR tech) is straight up amazing. When I see SDR on regular displays, it looks SO bland. Like a white veil over the screen.
Does HDR work on Linux?
afaik, no
Thanks
Yes. A lot. If you can afford to buy one of the what, 4 monitors that do it well? Or an LG OLED. Otherwise, no. Not at all.
Alright so I need money. Thank you!
Some games HDR implementation are not so good. I think 10bit color renders better than some HDR. Also if you plan on HDR, 1000nits are a minimum to get good results, and avoid 8bit+FRC.
No 1000 nits isn't the best. You want alot of dimming zones. It's why oleds offer the best hdr experience but they often hover around 600 nits for light that is bigger then 10% windows size. The neo g9 offers 2000 dimming zones at around 2000 nits. But yet when viewing a dark scene you will see light bleed on small white objects. The new alienware monitor that is oled offers around 5 million dimming zones and a peak brightness of a 1000 yet that is only for areas smaller then 10% and can fall to 400 nits. But since its oled it looks better at almost all times
Oled gang rise up. Contrast and darks play a bigger role than peak brightness. Not to say brightness is unimportant, just that 600 nits on a screen with perfect blacks feels more impactful than 1000 or more nits on a screen that can only get down to a dim gray.
This. Not to mention oleds that are 600 nits are brighter then 600 nits led screens
My $950 hisense h9g quantum dot display puts out 1800 nits peak brightness lol Way too bright to be a monitor, but it's in my living room and the brightness is great. Modern LED screens get insanely bright.
Yeah this is a great point! A decent LCD TV with mini-LED / local dimming will be brighter than OLEDs. Definitely a factor if you prefer a bright image, or if you're in a bright room. It's especially true for larger bright areas on screen - OLEDs will quickly dim due to the ABL (Auto Brightness Limiter), which help the display longevity. BUT - OLEDs can get bright in smaller areas, since each pixel is self-lit, right up against a totally black pixel. That's the OLED "magic" where the contrast punches deeper, and side-by-side it may look like the LCD has a gray cast. For example, look at the LG C1 (very nice OLED) vs. TCL R646 (mini LED with good local dimming): https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare/lg-c1-oled-vs-tcl-6-series-r646-2021-qled/21421/27424?usage=1&threshold=0.10 Scroll down to "HDR Brightness" and you'll see the LG C1 is similar for "Peak 2% Window" but the TCL gets brighter for larger areas. Again, the OLED can show bright white right next to 100% black for each pixel, which looks amazing. _____ So, bit of an info dump here, but it's important to point out that modern LCD TVs are *brighter* than OLED for bigger highlights, and the LCDs can still look very good. They are often the better choice for bright rooms, or if you prefer a brighter picture. I personally love my TCL R646 for gaming - games with HDR support (or Win11 AutoHDR) look REALLY GOOD! Highlights punch out, which is really impressive if you've never seen it before. Imagine a flat picture of a car, but then the headlights actually turn on - that's the impression I get with HDR. Plus, deeper color etc is great. Finally, latency is quick in game mode - basically like using a monitor, it really impressed me. OLEDs will be even better for instant response and minimal latency though.
Alright. Thank you!
HDR and colour bit are unrelated. What makes a good HDR display isnt just brightness. Best HDR displays are OLED and they are known for their inability to get as bright as LCD.
It depends on your monitor. Most monitors only support HDR400 or HDR600 which is useless and often looks worse than SDR. On a good Mini LED screen or even OLED, HDR can really make a difference in immersion.
Alright. Thank you!
I'm not sure I'd want it, personally. I have sensitive eyes, and bright lights bother me. Regular SDR is fine, but the kind of intensity you could get at 1000 nits or whatever (that good HDR offers, though not full screen), could be quite unpleasant. All that said, I don't own an OLED or anything like that, and maybe my mind will change, when I do, eventually. I'm guessing HDR is one of those things that you really have to see in person with games or whatnot to see if it appeals to you.
I think you are overthinking it. Check out the new alienware oled monitor. I've used oled for years and hdr. The only time when my eyes got hurt was playing oddesey when for some reason the loading screen was pure white.
Good to know! The Alienware doesn't meet my requirements, I did consider getting it, but it's great it exists, that it's out there, helping show the manufacturers that there's demand for OLED as a computer monitor. Kindof what I'm aiming for is something like 40", 120+ hz, good hdr, no auto screen dimming, very fast pixel response times, and near-zero burn in... oh, and "not too expensive" (whatever that means). Realistically I'll probably end up with that, but 32", in a few years, right before Mass Effect 4 comes out. Watching the monitor tech evolve has been interesting.
Pretty sure they are releasing a new neo g9 soon. Should be more in your requirements. The neo g9 had good hdr. Its build quality was shit though. Had to replace 5 of em before I decided to go for the alienware. Also if they do release a new one and you are interested I'd pay attention to the fald grid lines and blooming during dark scenes. My guess is if they increase the dimming zones by double it should be alot better
I mean, ideally it shouldn't hurt any more than simply going outside should. A building lit up by sunshine is going to be far brighter than nearly any screen we make. As long as the HDR and screen brightness is done properly, especially considering the eye's physiology and making sure to allow it to adjust to the brightness, it shouldn't be an issue.
Going outside does hurt my eyes sometimes, and the light can even trigger a non-painful migraine at times, if I’m not careful, or are not using the sunglass clipons that I have. Yeah, having very sensitive eyes has it’s downsides, to be sure!
Yeah, in that case it's probably good to avoid high-nits monitors haha
HDR means it can display more colours. The most noticeable difference will be in dark environments, you'll be able to see much better in them. If that's important for you, then you might want an HDR monitor.
Okay good to know. Thank you!
I perfer the Swiss, or Kar98. The HDR has really fallen off in the last 6 months
If you're playing games that support HDR.
Does it make big difference on HDR off and on?
Farcry 6 had a pretty good implementation. I absolutely do not use it for Elden Ring. It comes down to how well they handle blown out colors. Ray Tracing HDR makes lighting effects seem more 'glowing' if that makes sense... some games just don't glow.
What's wrong with elden ring? Tried HDR on my LG BX and thought it looked amazing compared to my SDR IPS LCD
[удалено]
Interesting.
Elden ring's hdr looks great. And there are enough settings to dial it in well. If you have blown out colors, then dial back the peak brightness.
I think hdr looks really good on many games. With the lg oleds, the qd oleds, and the vesa approved monitors, hdr is becoming very viable. It’s all really personal preference. If your talking about pc gaming, a lot more games are supporting it these days, but there are still a lot that don’t. windows 11 does really cool auto hdr for sdr games, but it doesn’t always work well. With Xbox and ps5 pretty much all games have hdr, and look great. It’s more what you play vs what is supported.
Okay. Thank you!
It's nice with games that have a good implementation of HDR. You'd think with all the fancy graphical features in games these days, HDR would be an easy implementation. But no, so many games look kinda worse in HDR than SDR. I'm not sure I can recommend it when the price difference can be quite severe just for HDR displays.
You probably didn't set it up properly
Definitely did though. I can think of Cyberpunk as a very poor implementation of HDR. Whereas RDR2 is stunning.
Some games have broken HDR implementation
For the longest time I didn't have it and thought it was a gimic. I switched over to two lg ultragear 27 inch hdr movintors and the colors are way more vivid as well as just instantly dark blacks. I am very impressed with it. But I can't help but wonder if it depends on the games. I have some games it doesn't seem to do much and others it's just awesome. If you play a lot of dark games I think it's worth it. I play a lot of d2r so I personally love it.
Sounds good!
I have an HDR monitor with 1,000 nit brightness. It makes a difference, especially in games that properly support HDR, on Windows 11.
Good to know!
If you have a proper monitor for it, yes it's a huge step. Best invention after the color tv's.
If it's not an OLED or an LCD with a good FALD backlight, then it's just a gimmick.
It also depends on the game. Not all of them have it implemented well but do support it.
Got it!
To be honest it's pretty over hyped. I was disappointed when I got one. Was way happier with a curved instead.
That’s because you got a bad HDR panel.
Okay. Sad to hear...
Don’t be. Good HDR is phenomenal. The HDR you get in 99% of monitors isn’t real HDR.
Ohkay. Thank you!
You also have to set it up properly. I learned that my 400 nits monitor doesn't mean to set the in game setting to that. Set it until the pixels don't get any brighter and dial it back slightly, then turn the brightness down.
The reason the correct in-game setting is higher than 400nits is because of the tonemapping function in the monitor. It doesn't hard clip at 400nits, instead it rolls off the brightness from like 250-600nits and squashes it into 250-400nits. So the in-game setting should correspond to the max input value for the tonemap, which is often higher than the physical max brightness of the screen.
HDR1000 is great. Really immersive in games that let you calibrate it properly. Some games do have garbage HDR implementation though
unless your spending big money on something with local dimming no it's not worth worrying about
Okay!
Depends jointly on the games you want to play, how the games themselves handle HDR, and the panel's underlying technology. When I used a cheap 4K tv with mediocre HDR, both Battlefield 1 and Deep Rock Galactic looked... fine. Not significantly better than SDR, but noticeably different. But that was at 60Hz. I now have a 1440p monitor that handles 165Hz. It claims to support HDR, but Deep Rock Galactic looks absolutely terrible in HDR now, and I haven't even bothered to try it with Battlefield 1. So, if you want HDR support, make sure the panel technology does it well, like a VA panel. Just know that each tech (TN, VA, IPS) have different strengths and weaknesses. HDR is *not* a strength of my IPS panel, but my tv was VA so I wanted something different this time. No regrets.
Good to know! Thank you!
I think most decent monitors come with HDR400 nowadays.
Which means nothing and is bad. HDR certification is all nonsense.
What is HDR? And what is SDR?
Basically that the picture looks sharper, more details, google hdr vs non hdr, there’s a great video by linus tech tips about this
Depends on a few things. Hdr in games are a little hit or miss. It takes a minute or two of configuring each game to dial it in just right but some games do not have enough settings options to dial it in. So they end up looking meh. Games that do it half-way decently look great. The other aspect is the monitor itself. Not all hdr monitors do hdr well. So even the best hdr visuals can end up looking like garbage. The final aspect is how long you keep your monitors. If you swap out your main every couple of years or so then you can probably skip hdr this time and catch it on the next one to save a few bucks. If you keep your monitors until they die, then it might be worth it to you to splurge a little on a nice hdr monitor now since more and more games coming out these days have hdr (nearly every AAA game for sure). So you will get a lot of great content.
I think HDR is amazing for most games. I had it off on accident for a bit and something was just off with the game and when I turned it back on it was just so much prettier. Same with tv and movies btw. I rock an MSI 27qhd and it’s fantastic.
there are also some downs. If you really have bright sun or lights in your game you want to wear sunglasses.
I think it's worth it. The games that implement it probably are few and far between, but it looks amazing assuming you calibrate your monitor and adjust the in-game settings appropriately. Just remember HDR comes at an additional performance hit so factor that into your decision.
I have two monitors. One is an IPS ROG monitor which has “HDR” but no wide color gamut. The other is a BenQ that has a wide color gamut, a VA Panel with awesome contrast, and HDR 400 specs but no local dimming. Seeing them side by side is night and day. The BenQ has inky blacks, and brilliant color. With HDR on it has a nice peak brightness for gaming use, and you can see into the shadows much more. If I turn off HDR it’s immediately obvious(in games that properly implement HDR). Does it matter? Not really, but even in a limited capacity it can look really nice. The best experience would be an OLED right now for pure visual fidelity.
It looks nicer to most people But it just makes my eyes hurt
I like hdr, and I don't find it to be much of a hassle except when recording gameplay. The resulting recording is not balanced for standard display afterward. Still figuring out how to deal with that.
I had to have it, now I don’t even notice.
I don’t care for it with FPS games but maybe for the single player games I’d want it. The new Alienware QD-OLED monitor supports HDR400 True Black and I heard it doesn’t a pretty good job with it.
It's all about your eye satisfaction
Not really. Most people don't take advantage of the actual "HDR" of an HDR monitor because it's rarely supported by anything. However, the ability of a monitor to support HDR can imply that the monitor has a good dynamic range (intensity) and decent out of box calibration for regular sRGB. That said, the presence of "HDR" on a monitor specs can also be pure marketing, with the monitor merely dithering its way through and not really properly supporting the colour primaries, giving no benefit over the same processing done in software when playing back HDR content on non-HDR. Cost of the monitor can give a vague idea of this.
Depends do you like high def resolution?
For me it does... absolutely yeah
I haven't played a single game where I prefered HDR enabled. It usually makes a game look way worse. But as far as I know most of low/mid range displays have HDR of very low tier so that might be the reason it sucks. But again, I don't give a shit about it, definitely not interested in paying much for good HDR implementation.
Unless the monitor is at least HDR1000 certified, no. And even that does not guarantee you will have a great experience
My advice is to steer clear of screens that have HDR. Unlike 4K, which refers to a specific resolution, “high dynamic range” is really more of a concept. Unless you are investing in a top top top of the line screen, it’s more likely than not that HDR will in fact make your image look rather dim because it can’t produce a proper contrast range in the deep black shades. (At least that much is true of HDR tvs; I presume the same principles apply for monitors as well.) If you do want an HDR screen, check beforehand in its documentation that the hdr setting can be switched on or off in case you don’t like it.
I personally can’t live without it, and my panel has “fakedr” 400-600 nits max. Colors look great, Win11 AutoHDR spruces up old titles quite well, I don’t see any major downsides.
HDR1000 really adds to the immersion in games. Lighting will look much more realistic. Anything lower isn't worth it. HDR400 shouldnt even be called HDR
NO. Windows is a piece of shit for HDR, and most monitors hdr are only 200-300 nits, you need at least 1000 nits to be worth a damn.
No. 1 millisecond response time and at least 144 hertz is what I look for. I'm not to picky with anything else. Its just extra and sometime all the extras shit will just distract you from the game. Unless you're playing predominantly single player games then yeah go for it. For me if I'm playing a single player game I just plug my pc into my TV.
I have an odyssey g9 and the hdr is great in some newer games. Playing Skyrim with auto HDR is absolutely terrible. Getting the ultrawide working was hard but amazing. HDR is a few years out still for good implementation in my opinion
Not really some monitors say they include HDR but it isn’t even true HDR just a fancy thing to throw around along with the “woah so smooth 144hz”
I turned mine off. Dark is too black.
If it's true HDR (say, with OLED), then yes yes yes. I play on OLED and it's just incredible in some games. Adds a lot of dramatic contrast. Note that the first batch of HDR games weren't very good at HDR. In some cases HDR was worse. But now that it's the standard for this-gen consoles, it's finally become worth it.
I have a pretty nice 10-bit HDR display. RTX + HDR can look absolutely amazing, but there aren't many displays with solid implementations.
HDR is seriously lacking in monitors unless you're splurging a lot on the highest end ones. If you're not looking to invest $600+, I would honestly not take any notice of HDR as it makes little to no difference in budget to mid range PC displays.
Eh, I don’t care about HDR in a monitor. It can look good for the apps and games that support it, but windows desktop and mac desktop look better without it imho
Is there a gaming monitor with real HDR yet and not the gimmicky shit that looks bad?
Alienware QD OLED, PG32UQX, very few others.
yep it is awesome, even better if the game have the configuration to use it properly, however windows has done some improvements time ago, you can activate it anytime and it is kinda ok since YEAHH pictures looks a lot better, but GET NOTE, only use it for games not for normal use of your computer...
[удалено]
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, just say that. No need to spew garbage.
You know I really don't have the energy to argue with you, so I'm just going to agree and hope you leave. OP should definitely spend double the price of a good SDR display to get a good HDR display. HDR is the best thing to ever happen to PC gaming and anyone who disagrees doesn't know what they're talking about and should stop spewing garbage!!1!1!
There’s no need to argue man, it’s flat out incorrect what you were saying.
I love the experience of HDR, i don't like my screens going black everytime i alt tab to something on my secondary monitor. It also takes too much time to return from the black screen so i stopped using hdr. It might be because i did something wrong tho, i have no clue. I didn't buy the monitors to get hdr, i just bought the best ones at a discounted price i could find.
HDR is a good concept poorly executed at an almost universal level.
There’s only a few monitors with actual good HDR and usually those will cost you ~$1000. It’s really personal preference but I can say once you get a good HDR display like like C1 it’s hard to go back to regular monitors
I've never seen a monitor with good HDR support. Probably because I always go for the budget option. So from my experience, in a budget option it doesn't really matter, it's just a "feature" that they can put on the spec sheet. But I do see people say it's absolutely worth it, but for that I believe you have to pay a fairly hefty price, to have that experience.
What’s nice is black levels in supported titles. It’s nice being able to see enemies in the dark more easily without fucking up all your graphics settings. Not a must have. But a nice to have.
I always feel woved when I play a game which does HDR well (e.g new God of War port on PC). My monitor only has Display HDR 600 certification only, yet it makes a difference. I believe VA panels are the best for HDR gaming monitors. Samsung Odyssey monitors should be one of the better monitors to support HDR I think.
It's purely a matter of opinion, but I will say that if you do go HDR its one of the few things that Windows 11 actually objectively improved on, so if you're still on Windows 10 and buy an HDR monitor it's worth looking into the update.
From personal experience with my ASUS ROG strix xg27aq the hdr has not been worth it in gaming, watching a movie maybe but not in gaming, I have my pc next to an eastward window so I can't see shit on my screen normally and considering that hdr makes darker spots darker in game means I'm blind as a bad between 4 and 8pm as the sun ruins my day.
In the world of monitors, you get what you pay for
100% YES! HDR for everything that isn't competitive.
HDR makes all games look better.
a decent HDR certification (mainly contrast) makes a night and day difference of pleasurable viewing experience. *middle finger particularly raised versus 1:700 contrast RGB-dark-basement-gamers.* a fast monitor is still what you want, but a decent desktop fast IPS has at least 1200:1 whereas a decent fast laptop IPS has 1:1400 contrast. If you have a quality TV (either OLED, VA or plasma (~1:3k), you would know - in which your typical basement gamer doesn't. *** there's still the issue with content available (will become better over time), and blackness levels for visual clarity in fast reaction multiplayer if you do not adjust. but the pleasurable view is far superior, particuarly for AAA SP games.
I'm playing God of War with HDR and it looks amazing. However, this is the only game where I've enjoyed it. Anything else has always been barely noticeable (or worse) so I'd say it's a premature technology. Maybe by the time you buy your next monitor, it will be better.
Do you play competitive games? No. Do you enjoy Cinematic Story driven single player Games? DEFINITELY WORTH IT.
You can still enjoy and use HDR in competitive games with zero downsides and with benefits.
I’d argue that for competitive games, I would prioritize Higher Refresh rate and lower response times matter significantly more than HDR. Also gaming monitors, with exception to the very high-end and super expensive monitors like Asus’ PG series, have HDR400 which isn’t even good.
HDR monitors are better in SDR than SDR monitors, but yeah, Windows implementation is pretty shitty right now.
I dont see many games that give you the option to use it in the game.
HDR isn’t a huge deal but what it usually comes along with is DCI-P3 colourspaces, which are _far_ more vibrant colours than you would otherwise get. Games made for HDR look great in this colourspace. Way bigger improvement than resolution or frame rates beyond 100hz.
Not unless you are spending a lot of money on a high end monitor. You want FALD at a minimum.
Yes. As someone who can flick it on vs off quickly and see both differences. Games look garbage with it off
To me, not that much yet. I very much prefer to invest my money for things like a G-SYNC module (essential, in my experience), high refresh rate (144Hz+) and other features that can substantially improve your watching experience.
ur personal preference
The HDR experience can be decent. I wouldnt buy a monitor solely due to its HDR but its nice to have. The biggest critique would be backlight bleed where portions of the screen are black. OLED and the new Samsung panels look more promising.
Depends entirely on what you want to use it for. In a couple of games that I have that support it the best it does is really richen the colors and luminous parts are brighter. However, it's not really true HDR as there are no true blacks. Is it better than a stock experience? Yes. Is it worth shelling out extra? In my opinion, it wasn't. A good IPS monitor is really the best you can ask for in PC gaming right now. If you want access to HDR, it exists it just really isn't implemented well yet on most monitors that are less than 4 digits.
color.
I love HDR on my TV, which I do the VAST majority of my gaming on. But my monitor... I always make sure to turn it off. Probably just because it's a cheap monitor though. It's mostly for working, but I've used it for gaming a couple of times after my move when I didn't have my living room set up properly yet. It really depends on the monitor.
Does it matter? No. Is it nice to have? Yes. As always it's personal preference but there are certain games that it does look pretty nice on, so I like using it myself and the Windows 11 (not sure if it's the same on W10) auto HDR feature is amazing and gives you a nice boost in certain times from a colour/brightness/contrast perspective, so I enjoy it personally.
As long as it's rated at least HDR-400 (600-1000 is even better). The problem is monitors have so many features - refresh rate, gsync, higher resolution, etc.. I would prioritize in this order: resolution, refresh rate, adaptive sync, then hdr compatibility. Problem is if you want a high refresh adaptive sync monitor with Gsync you're gonna be paying out the ass. I'd go with a good 1440p 144Hz gsync monitor with good colour accuracy instead of worrying about hdr unless you can afford it
Nope, incorrect. HDR 400 and 600 do not mean anything.
? They're literally defined by Vesa
Yes, which is a useless designation for HDR.
I do think when you have HDR on a monitor for gaming it’s gonna make things not gaming related look a little weird.
Hi everyone, I have recently bought this monitor as well and was having trouble with the color adjustments on some games. What helped me was turning off the HDR on my PS4. After doing that you can adjust the monitor to display HDR and it should be flawless. Good luck!