5 Of The Least Reliable Computer Monitors, According To Users

We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.

One of the benefits of owning a desktop PC is being able to upgrade your screen whenever you see fit.  Maybe you’ve finally saved enough to invest in a second gaming monitor, or perhaps you’ve picked up some graphic design gigs and need a bigger, brighter, and more colorful display and want to avoid bad monitors. Whatever the reason may be, there are hundreds of computer monitors to choose from, both online and in stores. But much like other consumer tech, not all monitors are created equal, and there are definitely some models you should skip.

We decided to cast a wide net to track down some of the least reliable monitors on the market. These models have received multiple reports of early visual glitches, horizontal and vertical lines appearing on the screen, or the entire display straight up dying after just a few months of use. We did our best to reflect various budget levels and use cases, such as video editing, gaming, and web browsing. Not only that, but we paid close attention to user feedback, and that’s why each of these items scored four stars or higher on Amazon, but the reviews highlighted issues and complaints that must be discussed. Here’s why each of these five monitors made the list, starting with one made by a top TV brand.

We expect big things from any QD-OLED screen, and the Samsung 49-inch Odyssey G93SC doesn’t disappoint when it comes to colors and black levels. Many Amazon shoppers were pleased with the picture quality and gaming performance — from its 240 hertz refresh rate to the 0.03 ms response time — but things start falling apart once you peel back the curtain.

First off, the G93SC doesn’t have Wi-Fi capabilities, which means you’ll need to manually update its software using a USB flash drive. Many customers reported quality control issues, such as defective menu joysticks and dead pixels being some light offenders. Others reported the G93SC dying after just a few weeks. One user reported cheap USB-C ports that wouldn’t allow cables to properly “click in,” often resulting in dislodged wires. 

The 49-inch Odyssey G93SC is very expensive, even when its price is down to $899 from its $1,249 list price, which seems like an awfully high cost for a monitor with this kind of mixed feedback.

On the surface, the LG 34-inch WR55QK-B doesn’t seem all that bad. As part of the UltraWide lineup, it offers a 21:9 display that pushes up to 3440-by-1440-pixels of resolution. The WR55QK also delivers 99% coverage for the sRGB color space, a refresh rate of 100 hertz, and HDR10 support. Sure, that’s a bit on the basic side for specs, but it only costs $350.

Still, many customers were unhappy with the picture quality the WR55QK-B brought to the table. Complaints range from black smearing and washed-out colors to ghosting and vertical green lines that look like a dead column of pixels. Multiple users reported a completely defective display after just a few months of use, while others mentioned a cracked screen right out of the box. A few customers also weren’t happy that its stand height couldn’t be adjusted.

While 4.6 out of 5 stars based on over 1,100 reviews may sound like a safe bet, we think the 34-inch UltraWide WR55QK-B is worth steering clear of.

At first glance, the MSI 27-inch MAG 271QPX may seem like an excellent purchase for high-octane PC gaming and video editing. It’s marketed as a 1440p QD-OLED screen with a 360-hertz max refresh rate, a 0.03 ms response time, and a range of connections, including HDMI, DisplayPort, and USB-C. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with another case of quality control gone awry, on top of some overly-distracting pixel care tech.

More than one Amazon user complained about dead pixels, and one reviewer mentioned flickering horizontal lines that varied in intensity. Far and away, though, the leading detractor of this screen is MSI’s aggressive OLED pixel care system. Multiple Amazon reviews talk about a big, blue notification appearing at the center of the screen that can’t be disabled, even if you’re right in the middle of a gaming session. 

Fortunately, there are numerous gaming monitors and video editing setups on the market, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to swap the MAG 271QPX for something else.

When it comes to gaming hardware, a monitor like the ASUS 27-inch TUF VG27AQ may seem decent at first glance. Delivering up to 2K resolution at 165 hertz, the VG27AQ is G-SYNC compatible and has a 1 ms response time — which are all solid gaming specs. That said, there were a number of customers who experienced issues with this ASUS product, reporting a handful of dead pixels right out of the box and haloing at the corners of the screen.

Built-in speakers are a low point for many monitors, so we haven’t really let audio quality be a factor in our selections. But the VG27AQ is the exception here, because one reviewer complained that the speakers sound “abysmal.” Their monitor didn’t wake when their computer did, forcing them to power toggle the ASUS display manually. When it kicked on, it would automatically route audio through the VG27AQ, forcing them to use these speakers.

Even worse, one user reported screen tearing and permanent black bars after 18 months of use. Its price point of $276 is simply too much to spend for a monitor that’s proven to be so problematic.

Last up on our list of least reliable monitors is the Acer 24-inch Nitro KG241Y, a 23.8-inch 1080p screen that pushes up to 180 hertz. It also boasts up to a 0.5 ms response time and support for AMD FreeSync Premium. It scored a 4.1 out of 5 stars on Amazon based on over 400 reviews, but upon further research, we found a number of unhappy users sharing their thoughts.

First and foremost, the quality control with the KG241Y is all over the place; while many customers didn’t experience issues at all, others mentioned a dead or defective monitor right out of the box. Some reviews report that the KG241Y died after only a few months of use. Sure, you could take a chance, but it sounds like rolling the dice on the Acer Nitro simply isn’t worth it.

User feedback can be deceiving on the surface. The lion’s share of computer monitors on Amazon scored 4 stars or higher, which can make anything seem like a good pick. But we knew to look into the comments from users who gave these products 3 stars or lower, and we looked for consistent reporting for cons related to defective displays within a short period of time, not just occasional dead pixels. Even a 4-star or 5-star review may present these cons.