1440@60hz V 1080@144hz ?

Dcully

Current rig, i5 2500k @4,3ghz,8GB ram, EVGA GTX970 acx 2.0.
Thinking of going with a 120hz or 144hz route for gaming and seeking some monitor recommendations.

I plan to keep my current rig for a while yet as its running all my games at max settings with ease on both my current screens @ 1920x1200 and 2560x1080.

Ofcourse one of those new gsync 144hz IPS 2560X1440 screens would be nice but i doubt my rig could sustain 144fps constant so im considering a 1920x1080 144hz monitor.
It boils down to 2560X1440 60hz versus 1920x1080 144hz for gaming, thoughts appreciated.

ShadowHearth

1440p Monitors are lovely and are the golden spot for PC gaming right now. Not sure about maxing out games with 970 at that resolution though. At the same time I would not buy 1080p panel at this time and age even if it is 120hz+. Why not to go on a mad side a try 21:9 2560x1080?

I just think that for gaming these 21:9 monitors are better call. You actually get more benefit out of it with more screen estate. Wider view in fps and in RPGs more room for windows and information. Racing games benefit from it the most. Considering how much you want to spend, but ther are some nice 21:9 panels with vsync and gsync now and 970 would be more then able to crank eye candy on it.

Dcully

Anyone i know running 120hz say they will never go back to 60hz again.
I only recently sold my LG 2560x1080 because i was tired of quite a few of my games not supporting that resolution,flawless widescreen never really worked properly.
970 is known to run 1440 @ 60 fpsfine with little to no need to drop detail, but 1440 @ 144fps for 144hz is a different story

moc moc a moc

Dcully wrote: »

one of those new gsync 144hz IPS 2560X1440 screens would be nice but i doubt my rig could sustain 144fps constant

You're missing the point of G-Sync.

In my experience (barring the use of 3D glasses and assuming a monitor size above 24" or so) 1440p makes a bigger difference in comparison to 1080p than 144Hz makes in comparison to 60Hz.

Dcully

moc moc a moc wrote: »

You're missing the point of G-Sync.

In my experience (barring the use of 3D glasses and assuming a monitor size above 24" or so) 1440p makes a bigger difference in comparison to 1080p than 144Hz makes in comparison to 60Hz.

I fully understand gsync mate, my point is one would really need to be achieving 144fps to get what your paying for, no point splashing out to only have 80-90fps and hz.

Thanks for input.

Wizard!

I am on a GTX970 with an Eizo Forris FG2421.
The day I got this monitor (runs on 120Hz & 240oc) I had my stats in BF4 way up.
There is nothing like >120Hz in competitive FPS.
Details are nice, wide is also nice, but you will see the difference only while playing a campaign. On multiplayer, only the response time matters

BloodBath

Dcully wrote: »

I fully understand gsync mate, my point is one would really need to be achieving 144fps to get what your paying for, no point splashing out to only have 80-90fps and hz.

Thanks for input.

Not really. There is not much perceivable difference between 90fps and 120-144. There is a big perceivable difference between 60 and 90 though.

A good monitor will last you a long time as well so even if you aren't getting the full benefit initially you will in the long run when you upgrade your graphics card.

A single overclocked 970 will run most games maxed at 60-90fps at 1440p.

There's always the cheap Korean 1440p monitors to consider that will do 90-120hz if you don't fancy spending 700 on a G-Sync brand name.

Wizard!

Related to the issue of display lag, many gamers are probably focusing on the new G-SYNC technology from NVIDIA. G-SYNC is a technology that aims to cancel – without display delay – the tearing and judder that are caused by a mismatch between the variable rendering rate and the display’s fixed refresh rate due mainly to the load on the GPU. Although this display disturbance can be solved, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the moving image’s afterimage phenomenon is reduced.

However, Turbo 240, unlike G-SYNC, was designed to reduce the afterimage phenomenon from the outset, incorporating the backlight blinking feature. Thus even when G-SYNC-compatible displays appear on the market, for games with ferocious movement that demand a fast response, the merits of FORIS FG2421 will still continue to be clear.

No need to spend 700€ on a G-Sync

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-G2421-BK-FG2421-LCD-Monitor/dp/B00GBBDHY8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440790611&sr=8-1&keywords=eizo+foris+fg2421

BloodBath

Wizard! wrote: »

No need to spend 700€ on a G-Sync

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-G2421-BK-FG2421-LCD-Monitor/dp/B00GBBDHY8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440790611&sr=8-1&keywords=eizo+foris+fg2421

Only 24" though. I'd be looking at 27" for 1440.

This is what I'm going for.

http://www.ebay.ie/itm/QNIX-QX2710-LED-Evolution-ll-SE-Matte-27-2560x1440-SAMSUNG-PLS-WQHD-PC-Monitor-/121256076370?hash=item1c3b6ce452

There is always a risk with these monitors and you will have to manually overclock it to get 90-120hz but priced at €250 it's hard to resist. Customs might add another €50.

ShadowHearth

Wizard! wrote: »

No need to spend 700€ on a G-Sync

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-G2421-BK-FG2421-LCD-Monitor/dp/B00GBBDHY8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440790611&sr=8-1&keywords=eizo+foris+fg2421

24 is kind of useless for 1440p

Agree with above stuff. Getting now good 144hz 1440p monitor is a good investment even you cant push it just yet. 4k will still be more for ePenis, 1440p will stick around for a lot longer.

Dcully

BloodBath wrote: »

Only 24" though. I'd be looking at 27" for 1440.

This is what I'm going for.

http://www.ebay.ie/itm/QNIX-QX2710-LED-Evolution-ll-SE-Matte-27-2560x1440-SAMSUNG-PLS-WQHD-PC-Monitor-/121256076370?hash=item1c3b6ce452

There is always a risk with these monitors and you will have to manually overclock it to get 90-120hz but priced at €250 it's hard to resist. Customs might add another €50.

I dont see an option for pixel perfect there, is there such option?
I must look into how hard it is to overclock.
I had a catleap 2 years back and it came with a dead pixel.

moc moc a moc

Dcully wrote: »

I fully understand gsync mate, my point is one would really need to be achieving 144fps to get what your paying for, no point splashing out to only have 80-90fps and hz.

Evidently you do not understand G-Sync.

The entire point of G-Sync is that the monitor refresh rate will automatically adapt to the GPU's output rate, i.e. if your GPU outputs at 80-90fps, your monitor will refresh at exactly that rate. Running at 90fps on a 60Hz monitor is pointless as your monitor can not keep up. Running at 90fps on a 120Hz or 144Hz non-G-Sync monitor is not ideal as the monitor refresh exceeds the GPU output, resulting in tearing.

Only a monitor designed to synchronise with the GPU (i.e. either G-Sync or FreeSync) will display an optimal image under these circumstances.

Dcully

Running at 90fps on a 120Hz or 144Hz non-G-Sync monitor is not ideal as the monitor refresh exceeds the GPU output, resulting in tearing.

Thats what ive said already, but wait i dont understand gsync :rolleyes:

Wizard!

BloodBath wrote: »

Only 24" though. I'd be looking at 27" for 1440.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

24 is kind of useless for 1440p

I never suggested 1440p, thus I suggest a great 24" monitor for 1080p@120Hz/240Hz on which I have personal experience

EoinHef

Dcully wrote: »

I dont see an option for pixel perfect there, is there such option?
I must look into how hard it is to overclock.
I had a catleap 2 years back and it came with a dead pixel.

Pixel perfect is a waste on these,people have got pixel perfect with dead pixels and the non pixel perfect with no dead pixels.

In the case of the DVI-D only model to overclock just go to the nvidia control panel=>set resolution then add a custom one,in my case 2560 x 1440p@ 96Hz hit apply and your done. People add custom clour profiles sometimes as the screen can darken a little bit when overclocked but personally i didnt have that problem. Multi input version id say would be similar but i cant say for certain. Semmingly they can be overclocked to,danger781 who posts here got his multi input version to 96Hz also.

Ive been using adaptive vsync in the nvidia control panel for all games aswell,with the in game vsync turned off. Works much much better in my case than game vsync. Especially when theres a variable framerate,little to no screen tearing and a nice smooth refresh. Massive difference to 60Hz.

Dcully

Yeah ive overclocked my 2560x1080 screen only to 70hz though, was more concerned that i had to take apart the QNIX,thankfully it can be done via driver.

Wizard!

Teraing at >120Hz is almost invisible.
Some say that by using a frame cap at 118-9fps and turning v-sync on, makes tearing and lag disappear, however there only opinions written and no actual testing.

Robert ninja

BloodBath wrote: »

Not really. There is not much perceivable difference between 90fps and 120-144.

Speak for yourself I've felt single digit dips in DMC4:SE

BloodBath

Robert ninja wrote: »

Speak for yourself I've felt single digit dips in DMC4:SE

I said most games, not all. There's always exceptions like terribly optimized Japanese console ports like DMC4.

Robert ninja

DMC4 is not a terribly optiomised console port. It's actually the best console port ever made in my opinion perhaps thanks to the MT-framework. It runs like magic on even low end systems and still looks damn good to this day despite being 7 years old

I was saying it's noticiable to me to counter your point that there's not percieveable difference between 90-120-144. Although I can't speak for 144 myself.

Basically if you're used to certain games at 120fps w/ strobing for a long time you will become very sensitive for framerate variations. Not in all games, though. Planetside 2 is a game where I don't even notice even large frame variation... but that's probably because that game's framerate is a wild beast going from anywhere 40ish to 150 depending on where you area and mainly how many players are around you. The good alt+f in-game fps counter even lets you know what the bottleneck is at any given moment.

I'm sure I would notice the differences there more if the game had a more reliable fps, though. I don't think we have the tech availble to consumers just yet to be able to play with that many players and not get framerate issues considering the game handles 100s of players with close to no significant lag teleportation.

uh... I'm rambling now. :P

Dcully

Still none the wiser as to what to buy haha.

Xenoronin

Since you are already using a 2560x1080 screen, which do you feel would offer you more. Smooth gaming or even more space. You already have acres of space in that screen, and I'm assuming you are keeping it. If you got the 1080p screen the heights would match up nicely and you could do your gaming on the really pretty screen while having the widescreen for doing everything else. If you are ditching the widescreen and going with a one screen solution, it's a no-brainer for the 1440p screen.

Dcully

Xenoronin wrote: »

Since you are already using a 2560x1080 screen, which do you feel would offer you more. Smooth gaming or even more space. You already have acres of space in that screen, and I'm assuming you are keeping it. If you got the 1080p screen the heights would match up nicely and you could do your gaming on the really pretty screen while having the widescreen for doing everything else. If you are ditching the widescreen and going with a one screen solution, it's a no-brainer for the 1440p screen.

I sold the 2560x1080 mate, too many games i play dont support the res
Im tempted to go with 1440, but anything above 1080 is very expensive,if i just go with 1440 60hz im afraid i might regret it down the road.

CruelCoin

Dcully wrote: »

Current rig, i5 2500k @4,3ghz,8GB ram, EVGA GTX970 acx 2.0.
Thinking of going with a 120hz or 144hz route for gaming and seeking some monitor recommendations.

I plan to keep my current rig for a while yet as its running all my games at max settings with ease on both my current screens @ 1920x1200 and 2560x1080.

Ofcourse one of those new gsync 144hz IPS 2560X1440 screens would be nice but i doubt my rig could sustain 144fps constant so im considering a 1920x1080 144hz monitor.
It boils down to 2560X1440 60hz versus 1920x1080 144hz for gaming, thoughts appreciated.

Your rig will not make 60fps in most games at 2560x1080.
Neither will it make 144fps in 1920x1200 (well, indies you will, but AAA games? nah).

A good quality 1920x1080 60hz screen is likely your best bet.

Xenoronin

For what I do at home I'd go with 1080p 144hz personally. It is mostly a Gaming and hobby PC. I have a duel monitor setup at work for productivity. Do you work on this PC or is it just gaming and mucking about?

Xenoronin

CruelCoin wrote: »

Your rig will not make 60fps in most games at 2560x1080.
Neither will it make 144fps in 1920x1200 (well, indies you will, but AAA games? nah).

A good quality 1920x1080 60hz screen is likely your best bet.

Jaysus. The 970 can't reach high framerates these days? Must be living under a rock. Don't post rubbish without at least benchmarks to prove your point. The 970 will reach 144fps in a large quantity of games even at high/ultra graphics. A high refresh rate screen will still look smooth even at 90 - 120fps range though, 144fps isn't a target that needs to be hit 100% of the time. Only the most demanding of games will bring it down to about 60fps. He already knows that it can only make 60fps at 1440p, which is accurate and will require a bit of sacrifice on the bells and whistles in AAA games. His rig is plenty able for the options he is looking at.

Reference: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1038

Dcully

CruelCoin wrote: »

Your rig will not make 60fps in most games at 2560x1080.
Neither will it make 144fps in 1920x1200 (well, indies you will, but AAA games? nah).

A good quality 1920x1080 60hz screen is likely your best bet.

I already have a very good 1920x1200 monitor.
Every game i have plays max ultra settings @ 2560x1080 with ease, dont know how you would think otherwise.
970 is well known for playing games very well @ 1440 let alone 2560x1080.
Like i say 1440 120 hz is for future proofing, i dont expect to be able to achieve 120-144 fps at 1440, i have said that already in this thread.

Dcully

Xenoronin wrote: »

For what I do at home I'd go with 1080p 144hz personally. It is mostly a Gaming and hobby PC. I have a duel monitor setup at work for productivity. Do you work on this PC or is it just gaming and mucking about?

Gaming , browsing, watching streams is all mate.

Worth mentioning, i had a catleap 2560x1440 and it didnt look an awful lot better than the dell IPS 1920X1200, sold it on to a boardsie.
The more i think the more im leaning towards a 1080 120hz,ive done the 2560x1440,2560x1080 before, ive never done the 100+ hz.

Xenoronin

Can't hurt to try! I have been wanting a BenQ XL series monitor since Gamescom. Finally got to saw one in action and it looked so smooth.

BloodBath

Robert ninja wrote: »

DMC4 is not a terribly optiomised console port. It's actually the best console port ever made in my opinion perhaps thanks to the MT-framework. It runs like magic on even low end systems and still looks damn good to this day despite being 7 years old

I was saying it's noticiable to me to counter your point that there's not percieveable difference between 90-120-144. Although I can't speak for 144 myself.

Basically if you're used to certain games at 120fps w/ strobing for a long time you will become very sensitive for framerate variations. Not in all games, though. Planetside 2 is a game where I don't even notice even large frame variation... but that's probably because that game's framerate is a wild beast going from anywhere 40ish to 150 depending on where you area and mainly how many players are around you. The good alt+f in-game fps counter even lets you know what the bottleneck is at any given moment.

I'm sure I would notice the differences there more if the game had a more reliable fps, though. I don't think we have the tech availble to consumers just yet to be able to play with that many players and not get framerate issues considering the game handles 100s of players with close to no significant lag teleportation.

uh... I'm rambling now. :P

Ah right I misunderstood what you said. There is no way in hell you can notice single digit fps differences though especially towards the 100fps mark.

You must be using V-sync.