>>54576177
Wait for 240hz anon. Much worth.

>>54576177
Get the 60Hz one and overclock it

>>54576177
The first thing I noticed when I used my 144hz screen for the first time in CSGO was the smoothness of the animations.
Panning the camera quickly felt glorious and the recoil of the guns felt more natural (what stroke me the most was that I could actually see the gun moving backwards instead of a direct jump during recoil). However 144hz is more like a luxury and wont give you any substantial increase in your skill (It will give you more room for improvement in movement though). If you are unsure your rig is capable of handling 144fps, take into consideration that the only games where this feature pays off are competitive fps like CSGO or Quake which run pretty well on decent builds

>>54576177
>$900 on the same specs but with 144hz and gsync.

I have a nice colorful screen with 144hz 1440p freesync, but it was a bit over £400- about $600 dollars and stuff is usually more expensive over here. Are you looking at a super premium eizo foris display or something?

>>54576374
>dollarydoos

>>54576374
I should say the screen I have is ips and it's an Acer model.

>>54576301
This is really the dumbest thing you can do. Most, if not all lower Hz panels will break/overheat from this kind of overclocking.
This is the best way to ruin a monitor.

>>54576177
I've always stuck to 60 or 75Hz, I rather get a nice resolution and better panel (not all IPS panels are the same) than spending ludicrous amount for 144Hz.

I recently upgraded from 144hz 1080p TN panel to a 60hz 1440p IPS panel.

144hz isn't very well supported across the majority of games you'll play, even if your rig can keep up. I play a ton of first-person games and even then, most games have an engine cap at 60fps that makes games look noticeably artificial on a 144hz display versus a 60hz display.

Most Source games do a good job of supporting high-refresh rates but everything else is really hit and miss, I don't think I'll go out of my way to get a 144hz monitor again when a 60hz monitor with a 1ms input delay performs basically the same across all games for a few hundred cheaper.

Not to mention, higher resolutions and better quality panels are more deserving of the extra money, if you ask me. On top of that, the higher the resolution, the worse your odds of ever approaching 100+fps in the first place. On a single 980, most current gen titles will need some judicious trimming of graphics settings in order to keep your framerate maxed out and around 120fps.

Frame dips are also inevitable and look much worse on a 144hz than a 60hz.

Just stuff to bear in mind, I'm not saying that 144hz doesn't look better in motion than 60hz, because it does. It's just that, having lived with both kinds of displays, I believe your money can go farther when sunk into different aspects than refresh rate, especially considering how multiplicative the cost becomes when you pay for a boosted refresh rate on a high quality monitor.

>>54576177
Looks awesome, takes a shitload more hardware to do it.

I have a 144hz tn 1080p panel and it's not worth getting over a nice ips high res monitor

>>54576177
holy shit gsync is overpriced lol

>>54576447
Either bait or shitty panels, my SyncMaster is running at 80Hz instead of stock 60Hz since almost 3 years now. You shouldn't overclock laptop-panels though.

>>54576177

regardless of all the dickriding g does on ips displays they are usually garbage. read the amazon reviews for the monitors you are thinking about and notice how many are sent back for backlight bleed and stuck pixels. They are just not that good unless you are getting professional ($2k+) displays for muh adobe rgb color space.

>>54580480
>read the amazon reviews for the monitors
you can do that with any monitor and it will have the same shit

>>54576177
What monitor are you talking about? 144hz ips or tn?

>>54576177
the eye can't see more than 20 frames per second