Overclock.net banner

Refresh Rate or Resolution

  • Refresh Rate (144 Hz or Bust)

    Votes: 29 35.4%
  • Resolution (Clearly Better)

    Votes: 53 64.6%

Would You Rather: Refresh Rate or Resolution?

2K views 46 replies 27 participants last post by  KaiserFrederick 
#1 ·
There is a lot of conversation and segmentation in this forum over Refresh Rate and Resolution. In an ideal (and expensive world), we would all merge together and have $300 1440p monitors with 144 Hz refresh rates...but we don't live in that world yet...

So my question is, which did you choose (refresh rate or resolution) and why?

For the sake of argument, anyone who chose a Korean 1440p monitor should vote resolution, because overclocking the panel wasn't guaranteed...

I am curious for myself as well as I have some new graphics cards and don't know which path to take.
 
#3 ·
I went 1080p 144Hz. I did consider the idea of going with one of the Korean displays, but I felt the 144Hz route made more sense for me. I play FPS games a lot, plus this Asus display was still cheaper (got mine for $290 including taxes) and I could buy locally which made warranty/returns much more convenient.
redface.gif
 
#4 ·
While I currently have a 1440p Korean monitor, and I think my GTX 670 wouldn't run anything new at 144hz anyhow, I am intrigued by the G-Sync coming to the Asus VG248QE monitors.

If I did go lower though, I'd want a triple screen setup, which again my GTX 670, or even a GTX 770 Sli setup would have a hard time keeping over 60fps anyhow on modern games so refresh might not matter.

I'm an eye-candy lover, so blazing fast FPS, while sacrificing eye-candy isn't my cup of tea. Mostly I'd want the 3 monitor setup for iRacing/Racing setups and that game, i could run all 3 on my 670 at a good refresh.

Tough question really, with G-Sync coming.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBEAU View Post

I don't know... Unfortunately, I haven't had the privilege of experiencing either one. I really want to though, I just don't know which one to try.
I haven't experienced them either...that is part of the reason I made the thread.

Does going to 1440p make games look better? I know 144 hz makes them smoother
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by seabiscuit68 View Post

I haven't experienced them either...that is part of the reason I made the thread.

Does going to 1440p make games look better? I know 144 hz makes them smoother
I guess I'm one of the few that now has both a 1440p(Qnix 27") and 144hz(Asus 24") monitor side by side?
Depending on what you're doing 1440p is a huge resolution compared to 1080. So for games that can support that resolution you can see more on your screen without needing to rotate or zoom out if you have in-game windows up that take up a lot of space. Hell, I'm actually squinting to read some ingame conversations lol. While you can overclock these monitors beyond 60hz, mine doesn't seem to like 120hz so I'm doing 110hz for now. My asus is good for fast paced gaming like Red Orchestra:Rising Storm due to faster respond time and less screen tearing(?). So for now I may lean towards resolution...1280x1024 was what I used as a kid so I guess we're moving up?
 
#11 ·
1440p = Great for the eye candy and action/adventure games (will always need the horsepower to run at 60+ frames)

120Hz = FPS killer - If you are really competitive in FPS games it makes a difference. (will still make other games smoother but not as Immersive)

I played on both and ended up with 1440p and glad I did, but I only casually play MMOFPS games. Your tastes may be different.
 
#13 ·
I'm a campaign only player for the most part and normally it's RPG games so eye candy to me beats anything. In fact, I am probably going to be skipping the 1440 movement and get a 39 inch UHD screen instead of a triple screen setup. 45 frames per second is ideal for me, I've played Skyrim down in the 30's at times and it really didn't bother me all that much although it was definitely noticeable.

The one thing that does bother the crap out of me is the visual tearing so I am definitely interested in the G-Sync tech.
 
#15 ·
The only lag your eye will see is if your video cards aren't up to the challenge.
Most of these monitors are 8ms or lower. If your eye can see anything lower than that.....well I'm speechless!

having a low response time is not going to improve the smoothness of video at all. what a low response time does do is reduce the delay between your pc input (such as in game) and the display on screen.

Do consider that the human eye blinks in 300ms or about 19x faster then the slowest response time needed for a 60hz signal.

Also, the time delays test for monitors isn't standardized throughout all companies. Don't worry about Lag or the Contrast ratio when buying a display. Just selling gimmicks.
 
#18 ·
Resolution, all the way. Once I moved up to 2560x1600 I haven't been able to comfortably go back to anything smaller, it actually gives me a little bit of that boxed in cramped feeling lol
rolleyes.gif


Even though I play a fair amount of FPS, I'm not really competitive at all, it's all just for fun, so I take the good with the bad. At least everything looks beautiful as I'm lying on the ground choking on my own blood in games
biggrin.gif
 
#20 ·
Resolution. I dont think i am that kind of elite gamer or consider myself like some do to really make 120Hz usable. I would have 120Hz over 60Hz as more is better but not in exchange for resolution, better displays colors, viewing angles.
 
#21 ·
60 Hz 1440p until I see 120 Hz 1440p 'native' resolution.

Same goes if I ever entertain the notion of Nvidia G-sync which will have to be 1440p as well.

Doesn't need AA to look even more brilliant than 1080p with maxed AA. FPS has some motion blur but nothing that has hurt my kill ratio gaming.

I own one of each on each rig btw. My 1080p is second rig to watch 3D Vision movies and 3D gaming on new titles for a spin.
 
#24 ·
Depends on what kind of games you play, for me it's 120Hz with lightboost, no questions, regret, or remorse over buying this XL2420T. I care about winning, which is fun to me, I don't care about how it looks. Miniscule motion blur is awesome, lightboost @ 120FPS is truly incredible. Also, I don't run out of desk space with 1080P and can multi-task fine on one 1080p monitor, but to speed things up I hooked up an unused 1600x900 monitor to help with multitasking.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Mac View Post

Depends on what kind of games you play, for me it's 120Hz with lightboost, no questions, regret, or remorse over buying this XL2420T. I care about winning, which is fun to me, I don't care about how it looks. Miniscule motion blur is awesome, lightboost @ 120FPS is truly incredible. Also, I don't run out of desk space with 1080P and can multi-task fine on one 1080p monitor, but to speed things up I hooked up an unused 1600x900 monitor to help with multitasking.
If someone with 60Hz destroys u in ur game who are u going to blame. 120Hz does not make u better or increase or K/D ratio. What increases ur performance is playing more. Its a simple plecible effect. The only way to see the difference is if u played the he for 10 yeah aka CS and get better at it from 120Hz
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top