So what shoudl i get lokoing to get a main monitor for gaming as i have two nice 1080p screens for other stuff. I can not decide if i want to go 4k or 144hz.. what would you guys recommend
Resolution vs Refresh rate?
Onions
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Joined
·
4,639 Posts
Quote:
will be playing alot of destiny once its out so your saying the refresh rate is better then res... any recommendations in Canada shooting for around 300 to 400Originally Posted by kd5151
Best of both worlds. Plus they come with freesync or gsync. But I mean you dont play twitchy shooter games and such then go for the eye candy!
Joined
·
10,666 Posts
IMO the ~120hz is a requirement for either eyecandy or competition (60hz just isn't enough for decent motion performance and we don't stare at screenshots all day)
4k isn't quite there yet (some hacky 4k 120hz) and it's exceptionally difficult to play many games at those resolutions and framerates simultaneously
4k isn't quite there yet (some hacky 4k 120hz) and it's exceptionally difficult to play many games at those resolutions and framerates simultaneously
I've have the same exact question and setup. Been mulling over a 1080p 144hz or 1440p 144hz since I'm upgrading from a 1080p 60hz. I thinking I would like to keep a configuration that is compatible with Nvidia Surround/Eyeinfinity.. Though I only used it like 3-4 times. Games don't really support ultra wide that well. Rift does pretty well. I mostly play FPS games. Really torn to get the 1440p or not since I'm upgrading.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Joined
·
20 Posts
1440p 144hz is the sweet spot. All the midrange cards since the GTX 970 and consequently discounted 290-series generally do very well at 1440p, and the higher end cards even more so of course.
There are lots of these monitors available these days - 8-bit high-end-TN ones, IPS ones, even VA ones, for as low as 3-400$. Also, 1440p translates to a decent DPI in the 24-32" range.
4K requires a lot more from your GPU than 1440p, and you're stuck at 60hz. I'm sure we will see some affordable high refresh ones down the line, but the 1200+$ ones announced so far clearly are not.
1080p is ok DPI wise if your monitor size of choice is 24", especially if you want 144hz on a 2-300$ budget.
However, to me 1080p 240hz falls on being expensive TN monitors, combined with diminishing returns at higher refresh rates, as well as the reports that low persistence strobing modes at 144hz gives better motion clarity than pure 240hz. This isn't helped by the fact that the 240hz monitors only offer strobing modes at 144hz anyway, at which point you might as well use a 1440p 144hz monitor and strobe that instead.
There are lots of these monitors available these days - 8-bit high-end-TN ones, IPS ones, even VA ones, for as low as 3-400$. Also, 1440p translates to a decent DPI in the 24-32" range.
4K requires a lot more from your GPU than 1440p, and you're stuck at 60hz. I'm sure we will see some affordable high refresh ones down the line, but the 1200+$ ones announced so far clearly are not.
1080p is ok DPI wise if your monitor size of choice is 24", especially if you want 144hz on a 2-300$ budget.
However, to me 1080p 240hz falls on being expensive TN monitors, combined with diminishing returns at higher refresh rates, as well as the reports that low persistence strobing modes at 144hz gives better motion clarity than pure 240hz. This isn't helped by the fact that the 240hz monitors only offer strobing modes at 144hz anyway, at which point you might as well use a 1440p 144hz monitor and strobe that instead.
is there any point on getting a 144Hz monitor if your graphics card isn't pushing out at least 150fps all the time ? I get why someone running a quad sli 1080ti rig would want to run 1440p@144hz but why would someone with a single card that cant reliably hit that fps want something that's likely to be dull and lacklustre by the time a single gpu is consistently hitting that level of output ?
Joined
·
57 Posts
Quote:
Quote:
Too bad not many games support UW resolutions. That's the main reason I probably won't end up getting one. They seem nice, for sure, but the game support just isn't there.Originally Posted by DuranXL
I'd rather have 3440x1440 @ 100hz than 1440p144.
I think
Quote:
Freesync/G-Sync takes care of this issue.Originally Posted by nanotm
is there any point on getting a 144Hz monitor if your graphics card isn't pushing out at least 150fps all the time ? I get why someone running a quad sli 1080ti rig would want to run 1440p@144hz but why would someone with a single card that cant reliably hit that fps want something that's likely to be dull and lacklustre by the time a single gpu is consistently hitting that level of output ?
Joined
·
49,299 Posts
Quote:
At OP: I personally prefer 4K over 144Hz. I do not play many competative games. Even in BF1 amd Overwatch I find locked 60 fps to deliver all the response I need. Some people get used to high fps and cant handle 60Hz anymore. With 4K 60Hz its all GPU. With 1080 144 its mostly CPU and 1440p 144 is max gpu and cpu.
As long as you get over 60 fps you benefit from 144Hz.Originally Posted by nanotm
is there any point on getting a 144Hz monitor if your graphics card isn't pushing out at least 150fps all the time ? I get why someone running a quad sli 1080ti rig would want to run 1440p@144hz but why would someone with a single card that cant reliably hit that fps want something that's likely to be dull and lacklustre by the time a single gpu is consistently hitting that level of output ?
At OP: I personally prefer 4K over 144Hz. I do not play many competative games. Even in BF1 amd Overwatch I find locked 60 fps to deliver all the response I need. Some people get used to high fps and cant handle 60Hz anymore. With 4K 60Hz its all GPU. With 1080 144 its mostly CPU and 1440p 144 is max gpu and cpu.
Joined
·
2,610 Posts
I'm waiting for this baby! Best of ALL worlds
![tongue.gif]( "tongue.gif")
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG35VQ/
21:9, 1440p, 200Hz, 10-bit, g-sync
Comes at pricetag prolly...1k - 1k5 I guess...
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG35VQ/
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG35VQ/
21:9, 1440p, 200Hz, 10-bit, g-sync
Comes at pricetag prolly...1k - 1k5 I guess...
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG35VQ/
Quote:
unless those high end displays have changed massively since I originally got one last year and ended up swapping it after a week for a 27" Samsung 75hz freesync unit..... then there still a shiny con
yeah I get over 60fps which his why I bought a 1080p freesync monitor that will operate at the 30>85fps range which is about average for my cards low point outputs, going up to a 144hz monitor means the fps range would be higher so i'd suffer from more on screen issues during the lows, so unless games devs suddenly start actually optimising games then its just going to be an annoying problem for me or my monitor that's capable of running at 144hz will be running in 60hz mode and filling in the 30>85 hz freesync range meaning I wasted a couple of hundred bucks on something I effectively cant get any use out of .... of course if I bought a cheaper one that didn't auto scale its range down I would just have a nasty viewing experience....Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er
As long as you get over 60 fps you benefit from 144Hz.
At OP: I personally prefer 4K over 144Hz. I do not play many competative games. Even in BF1 amd Overwatch I find locked 60 fps to deliver all the response I need. Some people get used to high fps and cant handle 60Hz anymore. With 4K 60Hz its all GPU. With 1080 144 its mostly CPU and 1440p 144 is max gpu and cpu.
unless those high end displays have changed massively since I originally got one last year and ended up swapping it after a week for a 27" Samsung 75hz freesync unit..... then there still a shiny con
Quote:
It looks great but to be honest I'd rather have 100hz or 144hz (with those other specs) and not pay 2000 euros
is 10-bit confirmed? The specifications page doesn't load for me.Originally Posted by ASUSfreak
I'm waiting for this baby! Best of ALL worlds![tongue.gif]( "tongue.gif")
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG35VQ/
21:9, 1440p, 200Hz, 10-bit, g-sync
Comes at pricetag prolly...1k - 1k5 I guess...
https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG35VQ/
It looks great but to be honest I'd rather have 100hz or 144hz (with those other specs) and not pay 2000 euros
Joined
·
5,356 Posts
Another vote for 1440p @ 144Hz /w FreeSync or G-Sync.
- High fps + blur reduction for online/competitive play
- Adaptive Sync for non-competitive eye-candy
- 21:9 custom widescreen + downsampling for cinematic eye-candy without vertical black bars
I would have gone with a 3440x1440@100Hz monitor also if they have blur reduction.Originally Posted by DuranXL
I'd rather have 3440x1440 @ 100hz than 1440p144.
I think
Joined
·
4,975 Posts
Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by kd5151
1440p 144hz
Quote:Originally Posted by kd5151
Best of both worlds. Plus they come with freesync or gsync. But I mean you dont play twitchy shooter games and such then go for the eye candy!
I've come to jump on the "best of both worlds" train. 4K is just still too demanding for most gaming machines. 1440p 144Hz Freesync/ Gsync looks stunning with a good monitor. You don't need to go 4K to have a great gaming experience. I prefer higher refresh over mega-high rez, anyway.Originally Posted by mokkat
1440p 144hz is the sweet spot. All the midrange cards since the GTX 970 and consequently discounted 290-series generally do very well at 1440p, and the higher end cards even more so of course.
There are lots of these monitors available these days - 8-bit high-end-TN ones, IPS ones, even VA ones, for as low as 3-400$. Also, 1440p translates to a decent DPI in the 24-32" range.
4K requires a lot more from your GPU than 1440p, and you're stuck at 60hz. I'm sure we will see some affordable high refresh ones down the line, but the 1200+$ ones announced so far clearly are not.
1080p is ok DPI wise if your monitor size of choice is 24", especially if you want 144hz on a 2-300$ budget.
However, to me 1080p 240hz falls on being expensive TN monitors, combined with diminishing returns at higher refresh rates, as well as the reports that low persistence strobing modes at 144hz gives better motion clarity than pure 240hz. This isn't helped by the fact that the 240hz monitors only offer strobing modes at 144hz anyway, at which point you might as well use a 1440p 144hz monitor and strobe that instead.
Joined
·
2,610 Posts
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
