Posts: 501   +12
Staff
What just happened? Following declining shipments over the past couple of years, the global PC monitor market has staged an impressive recovery, according to new data from the International Data Corporation. The market research firm's latest figures revealed 5.9% year-over-year growth in unit shipments during Q2 2024, marking the third consecutive quarter of positive annual growth.

The report attributes the stronger-than-anticipated performance to several key factors during the April to June quarter. Inventory restocking, particularly on the consumer side, provided an initial boost as vendors looked to refill pipelines. Vendors also moved to pull in orders earlier than normal in anticipation of panel cost increases that took effect beginning in April.

Another major driver was the industry-wide transition from 60Hz refresh rate panels to 100Hz as costs for the faster panels reached parity. With little premium attached, monitor makers aggressively revamped models to take advantage of the newer, higher refresh rate displays.

Growth in the consumer and gaming segments acted as a catalyst as well, the report notes. Intense competition and continued expansion in these markets, especially for gaming monitors, helped propel overall shipment volumes higher.

Looking ahead, IDC expects this positive trajectory to continue, forecasting over 2% annual growth for both 2024 and 2025. A few factors are fueling this optimistic outlook beyond just pent-up demand. With panel and component costs stabilizing, monitor pricing should remain attractive for buyers.

The ongoing migration to Windows 11 PCs is also expected to boost upgrade cycles over the next couple of years. IDC's report for the last quarter stated that the hype around AI PCs had also given the market a much-needed push.

However, the rebound is not being felt equally across all sectors and regions. On the commercial side, IDC has lowered its 2024 growth forecast to 2.8% from 3.1%.

Regionally, all major markets except China and Canada exceeded IDC's projections in Q2 2024. Gaming remained the standout category, comprising a record 20% share of total monitor shipments in the quarter as declining prices and a pause in gaming PC sales allowed users to invest in display upgrades.

IDC anticipates this recovery to continue through 2025, with the consumer space leading the charge. Unsurprisingly, the company also expects improving office occupancy rates to provide a modest boost on the commercial front. Recently, Amazon did away with work-from-home arrangements completely following a long period of crackdowns – a move that represents an industry-wide trend.

Beyond 2025, IDC forecasts the market stabilizing in the 132 to 135 million unit range annually.

Permalink to story:

 
How many more curved 34" WQHD screens can we get announced before Xmas. I reckon 50 at least.
 
120 Hz should have replaced 60 Hz long ago really. Even for work, its less tiring for the eyes and a joy to use over 60.

All 60 Hz panels can be overclocked to 100 Hz, so at least 90 Hz should have replaced 60 Hz long ago.

There's no reason to keep using 60 Hz for desktop monitors really.
 
Give me 4K 60 FPS instead of 1080p whatever Hz...
 
Hopefully we can finally push past 60hz as the standard. 90-120 is a much better range for gaming and even productivity.
 
60 Hz needs to stop. 90 Hz should be the new minimum!
 
Give me 4K 60 FPS instead of 1080p whatever Hz...
Absolutely not, 60 fps is only good enough for console!

90 fps and higher is what I demand for PC gaming!

No PC gamer should be playing at less than 90 Hz and 90 fps. This is bare minimum for smoothness.
 
Call me when the number hits 120hz. Multiples of 60 are best. 100hz is not a multiple of 60.
 
Call me when the number hits 120hz. Multiples of 60 are best. 100hz is not a multiple of 60.
It does not matter. 60 is trash!
 
It does not matter. 60 is trash!
That is a very subjective opinion. An opinion many do not agree with, for both practical reasons and technological reasons. Only parts of the world where the 50hz standard was in use will find 100hz agreeably workable. Everywhere else(most of the world) ran on 60hz. So 100hz is not a seamless and natural progression. Therefore, yes, it DOES matter and just a news flash, 60hz is the standard for a reason.
 
That is a very subjective opinion. An opinion many do not agree with, for both practical reasons and technological reasons. Only parts of the world where the 50hz standard was in use will find 100hz agreeably workable. Everywhere else(most of the world) ran on 60hz. So 100hz is not a seamless and natural progression. Therefore, yes, it DOES matter and just a news flash, 60hz is the standard for a reason.
60 Hz is the standard because bandwidth has been a limitation - and continues to be - plus TFT/LCD was not blinking liek CRT did at 60 Hz so it was considered OK!

60 Hz is mediocre at best.

We are talking about monitors here, not TVs anyway!

No one would choose 60 Hz over 120 Hz if they saw it side by side, so just because people don't know any better, does not mean 60 Hz is good.

People are free to choose sure! I would never choose less than 100 Hz these days.
 
That is a very subjective opinion. An opinion many do not agree with, for both practical reasons and technological reasons. Only parts of the world where the 50hz standard was in use will find 100hz agreeably workable. Everywhere else(most of the world) ran on 60hz. So 100hz is not a seamless and natural progression. Therefore, yes, it DOES matter and just a news flash, 60hz is the standard for a reason.

Natural progression what are you talking about. 100 Hz is day and night better than 60 Hz.

60 Hz has been the standard due to bandwidth being a problem and only because 60 Hz on LCD is not blinking like 60 Hz on CRT does. Most CRT monitors ran at 85 Hz or more. Personally I ran my CRTs at 120 Hz minimum and it was buttery smooth compared to 60 and even 75 Hz.
 
100 Hz is day and night better than 60 Hz.
I didn't say it wasn't better, only that it's not preferred. Anyone who needs a sync down function to 50/100 hz(which TONS of PAL/SECAM software needs) can easily do so with 120hz displays, but you can't just sync up to 120hz with a 100hz display. 120hz is flexible enough to serve anyone's needs world-wide. 100hz is NOT.

As I said before, call me when 120hz is the standard.
 
I didn't say it wasn't better, only that it's not preferred. Anyone who needs a sync down function to 50/100 hz(which TONS of PAL/SECAM software needs) can easily do so with 120hz displays, but you can't just sync up to 120hz with a 100hz display. 120hz is flexible enough to serve anyone's needs world-wide. 100hz is NOT.

As I said before, call me when 120hz is the standard.
I think you mistake TVs for monitors here! This is not a PAL vs NTSC discussion LOL!

100 Hz is pretty common on monitors and works flawlessly. Night and day better than 60 Hz!
 
I think you mistake TVs for monitors here! This is not a PAL vs NTSC discussion LOL!

100 Hz is pretty common on monitors and works flawlessly. Night and day better than 60 Hz!
Incorrect. However, I'm not debating this further. Think whatever you wish.
 
60 Hz is horrible.
I use 100 Hz at work and 175 Hz at home.

And yes, 100 Hz is much much better than 60 Hz.
 
60 Hz is horrible.
I use 100 Hz at work and 175 Hz at home.

And yes, 100 Hz is much much better than 60 Hz.
Didn't pay attention to the conversation huh? Try re-reading and try again. Context is important.
 
Didn't pay attention to the conversation huh? Try re-reading and try again. Context is important.
You know nothing about this. 100 Hz is far better than 60 Hz, the end.
 
You know nothing about this. 100 Hz is far better than 60 Hz, the end.
100% True. You have to be blind if you can't see the difference. 100 Hz is smooth as butter compared to 60 Hz!
 
You know nothing about this. 100 Hz is far better than 60 Hz, the end.
100% True. You have to be blind if you can't see the difference. 100 Hz is smooth as butter compared to 60 Hz!
Reading comprehension for the two of you needs desperate improvement. I never said that 100hz isn't better than 60hz. I said it is not preferred for MOST of the world because it is not a multiple of 60. This is an important aspect for many technical reasons that that seem to be completely lost on the two of you.
 
Reading comprehension for the two of you needs desperate improvement. I never said that 100hz isn't better than 60hz. I said it is not preferred for MOST of the world because it is not a multiple of 60. This is an important aspect for many technical reasons that that seem to be completely lost on the two of you.
You still make no sense at all.

This is not console gaming. This is PC gaming. Running games at 100 fps is easy and capping fps at 100 fps is easy. Hence 100 Hz will always beat 60 Hz. 100 Hz is night and day better than 60 Hz for 2D usage as well aka WORK, smoother and easier on the eyes.

60 to 120 Hz is what TVs want, due to (mostly) 30 fps video and consoles running 30/60/120 fps. However good TVs today have frame rate matching and VRR, so it does not matter anyway.

Wake up, it's almost 2025 and not PAL/NTSC days.
 
You still make no sense at all.
That is your problem and no one else's.
This is not console gaming. This is PC gaming. Running games at 100 fps is easy and capping fps at 100 fps is easy. Hence 100 Hz will always beat 60 Hz. 100 Hz is night and day better than 60 Hz for 2D usage as well aka WORK, smoother and easier on the eyes.

60 to 120 Hz is what TVs want, due to (mostly) 30 fps video and consoles running 30/60/120 fps. However good TVs today have frame rate matching and VRR, so it does not matter anyway.

Wake up, it's almost 2025 and not PAL/NTSC days.
Well look at that. You almost got there. Maybe someday you'll get the rest of the way and realize why 120hz is more important.
 
That is your problem and no one else's.

Well look at that. You almost got there. Maybe someday you'll get the rest of the way and realize why 120hz is more important.
He is right and you are wrong.
100 Hz is a leap over 60 Hz.
 

Similar threads