If you're new to PC hardware, and are in the market for a gaming monitor for your PC, you might want to prepare yourself for some rude surprises. Monitor brands, especially the ones behind gaming displays, use every trick in the book to hide the deficiencies in their products. Whether it's technobabble, edited images, or cheaping out on essential features, monitor manufacturers have done it all. Everything that shines isn't gold, and even technically true claims can often be irrelevant. Before you drop $500 or $1000 on a fancy gaming display, here are the classic monitor marketing lies you need to keep an eye out for.

Misleading photos showing thinner bezels

Caught in the act

No one likes to see thick, outdated bezels on monitors these days, but eliminating them entirely is easier said than done. Monitor manufacturers have to make some visual compromises to support today's advanced, and often heavy, panels, which inevitably leads to a large chin and decidedly non-zero bezels even on the remaining sides. However, you can easily find almost every monitor's marketing images depicting unrealistic bezels, editing the product images to make it seem as if it somehow exists without bezels.

There is no lack of thin-bezel gaming displays on the market, and no one is clamoring for bezel-less screens. Monitor brands still cross the line when they advertise a zero-bezel look to make their products seem better than they are. Unsuspecting consumers can be deceived when comparing similar models, gravitating toward a particular model based on misleading images. Watching reviews can dispel the illusion, but not everyone invests time in a long research process before buying a monitor. Companies are expected to refrain from misleading marketing across the board — bezels are simply the most obvious aspect of it.

Half-baked HDMI 2.1

It refuses to go away

HDMI 2.1 is still a rarity on gaming monitors, but even when it's there, there's no guarantee that you'll have access to each of its underlying features. The HDMI 2.1 standard involves features such as Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM), Dynamic HDR, HDMI-Variable Refresh Rate (HDMI-VRR), and Enhanced Audio Return Channel (eARC). Good luck having each of them on a single monitor. I'm not saying such models don't exist, but they're virtually unicorns. Monitor manufacturers aren't mandated to implement every single feature under the HDMI 2.1 standard, which has led to today's fragmented situation.

Take Dynamic HDR, for instance. What should be a granular HDR implementation under the HDMI 2.1 ecosystem is often akin to static HDR, where the metadata doesn't change throughout the content. This omission makes HDR content worse, even if your source, device, and cable technically support HDMI 2.1. Similarly, eARC is supposed to make lossless audio a permanent fixture on your HDMI 2.1 monitor, but many brands don't implement the feature. Despite having a soundbar supporting Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, you won't be able to get lossless audio if you don't have a true HDMI 2.1 monitor.

HDR certification without the hardware

Not all HDR displays are made equal

It's an open secret that having HDR in the specs list doesn't make a display capable of true HDR. The ingredients required for that, i.e., high brightness, high contrast, and a wide color gamut, are missing from most HDR monitors, even if they proudly sport a DisplayHDR 400 certification. Without adequate dimming zones on a Mini LED monitor, or the per-pixel dimming of an OLED display, it's very hard to deliver a decent HDR experience. You'll either be limited by backlight bleed, halos around bright objects, inadequate brightness, or poor color volume.

The state of HDR on modern monitors is pathetic. Without spending $500–$600, you can't expect to enjoy true HDR on your display. Gamers and movie buffs will struggle to simulate something similar on inferior displays that are HDR only in name. Stricter HDR standards do exist, but they're yet to become mainstream, which would force manufacturers to ensure proper brightness, local dimming, and color accuracy levels. If you're starting to get impressed by the HDR label on a particular monitor, do your research before you waste hard-earned money on a subpar display.

Exaggerated response time numbers

The elusive "1 millisecond"

The "1ms response time" scam is an old one, and most people in the community know that it means nothing. The true average response time, even on high-end displays, lies somewhere in the 1ms–4ms range, unless you're talking OLED, where sub-1ms response times are common. New entrants to the PC hardware space might still take the 1ms claims at face value and buy a monitor expecting near-instantaneous motion clarity. This is why it's important to check the fine print, and consult reviews to gauge the real-world performance of a monitor you're considering.

Manufacturers, on the other hand, should stop using "1ms response time" in their marketing. Whether it's Gray-to-Gray (GTG) or Moving Picture Response Time (MPRT) you're looking at, you should know that neither is completely accurate. The former deals with an unrealistic scenario, while the latter uses techniques like backlight strobing to achieve low response times that still don't get as low as 1ms. Without checking reliable reviews that show sophisticated response time measurements, you should just ignore any response time claims made by monitor brands. Again, OLED monitors are the exception to the rule.

Irrelevant peak brightness numbers

We've reached the peak of false marketing

Peak brightness might sound like a critical aspect of a gaming monitor, but the way it's measured has little to do with how the average user perceives it. The thing is, monitor brands report record-breaking peak brightness numbers with every new model, but the maximum nits on the spec sheet are measured using tiny 1%–2% windows on the screen. This means the monitor can touch those sky-high peak brightness numbers, but only in small areas of the display, and for a short period of time. The true, full-screen brightness of a monitor is significantly lower than its peak brightness.

Expecting a monitor with 1000 nits of peak brightness to radically transform your viewing experience is a grave mistake. You need to find out the full-screen brightness of the monitor you're planning to buy. Consult third-party reviews for this information instead of comparing different models based on manufacturer-claimed peak brightness numbers. Modern OLED and WOLED monitors have come a long way when it comes to full-screen brightness compared to IPS and VA monitors, but they're still lagging in this department. Of course, brightness isn't everything, but you should know which specifications are important, and which are purely technical in nature.

It's all about the reviews instead of specs

The best solution to escape false monitor marketing is to use reliable third-party reviews as your only source of truth, whenever possible. If the monitors on your shortlist don't have many reviews yet, try to get first-person accounts on Reddit, or check the track record of similar models from the respective manufacturer. It's about getting as much trusted information as you can before making a purchase decision. Monitor brands will try to sell you anything, but your job as a consumer is to skirt around the lies and trust real-world testing instead of loft claims made on paper.