I'm thinking about getting a 144hz, 1440p monitor this summer. Is gaming at 120fps+ a meme or is it worth it? Should I stick with a 1440p at 60hz or 1080p at 144hz? The money isn't really that much of an issue but I still don't wanna drop 500 bucks on something marginally better.
We can also have a /pc building/ general if you want. Ask any questions
>>339170865
>implyingyou could eve get DCS to run at 120 FPS
>implying you could even see the difference in DCS.
>>339171003
What is dcs
>>339170865
you need monster pc to run 1440p at 144 fps
If you have the money for a 144hz 1440p monitor to waste why are you asking, it's ludicrously expensive to have a setup that can run that on modern releases, just go for it
>>339171683
A 980 wouldn't work?
>>339171291
Well i know /v/ is too normie for anything that aren't meme sims but i mean you could google it.
>>339171683
This, at least for modern shit. I'm looking at Polaris/Pascal and even then I'm setting my hopes at 60 fps 1440p.
>>339171831
Yes with games released 10 years ago.
>>339171878
You're kind of an asshole
>>339170865
144hz is simply the result of manufacturers hitting a wall in marginal utility. there is literally no gain from 144hz over 60hz. Marketers tried to push this, along with gaming laptops, and esports about 15 years ago, and the only reason it's working now is because kids are too young/stupid to know that.
>>339171831
Not a chance. A single 980ti couldn't power 144hz at 1440p on anything remotely modern, you'll be pushing 90 best case with lowered settings.
>>339172318
I've heard from places that 120fps really is all that and then some, and I haven't experienced it for myself.
>>339172190
>>339172361
I mean, would a 980 still be able to get close to 100 fps? Is 80-110 fps even that much better than 60?
You could just get one of the 1440p60 that you can overclock to 1440p120 for 200$
>>339172285
It's 4chan m8, but I'm sorry.
>>339170865
Of course it's a fucking meme. Don't feel put off by this there is a minute difference but it doesn't make games better. At work we have renders up at 300fps and I cant see much difference from 60.
>>339172467
It's unlikely you'll be breaking 100fps depending on the game but no, getting 80fps instead of 60 will make literally no difference unless you're playing Counter Strike or something.
Don't fall for it
Your EYES can ONLY see at 30 fps
Imagine trying to see your monitor, it just wouldn't work at all
>>339170865
If you play CS or TF2 or Q3 or any other competitive shooter at a semi-serious level, then yeah. If you only play singleplayer games, then no, it's absolutely not worth it.
>>339172318
>there is literally no gain from 144hz over 60hz
You've either not used a 144Hz monitor for more than 5 minutes, or you were playing the wrong kind of games.
Simple answer:
People who say it doesn't make a difference have never used a 120/144 hz monitor.
>>339173138
>move faster than 30 fps
>become invisible
wow
>>339170865
Do it. It's like night and day.
>>339172361
Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>339173187
>>339173305
60hz to 90hz I can see a difference, but anything past that looks the same to me.
It comes down to whether you'd rather have a way better picture with better colors with an IPS monitor, or whether you'd have slightly less input delay and a higher refresh rate. The actual impact of 144Hz and 2ms vs 8ms is so tiny in practice that the better picture of an IPS is much more worth it, especially if you aren't into competitive arena shooters and shit, and if you play console games.
>>339170865
144Hz is placebo effect. People only think it's better because "hurr higher number means it MUST be better right?"
It's the same shit as 60Hz
>>339173591
Would a regular 980 be powerful enough to get close to 120 fps at 1440p?
does anyone know if the gsync thing works?
quick /g/...umm I mean /v/
recommend me a budget 144hz 1080p or 1440p monitor
>>339173732
if you have a 144 hz next to a 60 hz monitor, even the smoothness of the mouse movement around the desktop is literally night and day
>>339173732
t. 60fps cuck
>>339173732
>I have never used a 144Hz monitor
Thanks for your contribution anon
>>339173831
Asus VG248QE
>>339173831
VG248QE
>>339173305
This is the most retarded meme ever.
I am literally using an Asus VC279H right now. Both 120 and 144hz is irrelevant.
My eyesight is amazing too. Stop pretending you have some magically superior eyesight than others because you aren't seeing shit, it's all placebo.
The only games that I would want to play at 144fps are TF2 and Overwatch and there is no computer that exists that can even play them at solid 144+fps during intense moments with stuff happening all around.
>>339173654
Are you actually getting +120fps though? You need a pretty good pc to get constant +120fps even at 1080p on high-ish settings.
>>339174146
>no computer that can play TF2 at 144 fps
K E K
E
K
>>339172467
980 would get you 80-110 on most games. I have no problems with 390x, on 1440p
144hz is totaly worth it, and gaming is just part of it. Your whole pc using experience will be much smoother.
At 60hz even mouse cursor movement feels janky, especially if you have a big 27' monitor, while with 144hz it's smooth and fluid.
Also look into IPS panels. They cost a bit extra, but have way better viewing angles, contrast and colour accuracy
And don't fall fall G-sync, it will ad 100-150$ to the price
Just got a 4k monitor to replace my 1440p
running at 30hz until my Displayport Cable comes tomorrow
I'd take 4k over 144hz any day
Op here again
So what would give me more bang for my buck, in all your glorious wisdom
1080p at 144 hz
OR 1440p at 60hz
>>339174135
Buyers remorse turns people into morons. Thanks for not being part of the problem, anon.
>>339170865
>want to get a new monitor after getting an IPS tablet screen for art and seeing how shit and yellow everything is on my default monitor
>lowest input lag for an IPS monitor i can find is 8ms
Is this decent enough lads? I'm fine with 1080p/60fps but the colours I can't deal with any-more.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00H3JIGHA/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=36LH9A98L6QFV&coliid=IHGK692SYYWRM
>>339174135
you're aware that isn't a high refresh rate monitor, right?
>>339174258
It's a tough choice.
My advice - take both 1440p and 144hz
>>339174219
If you care about a marginal improvement in refresh rate, why the fuck would you want to add input latency to that with an IPS panel?
>>339174258
unless all you do is game, 1440p
the extra real estate from 1440p is great for CAD and other shit
>>339174341
>lowest input lag for an IPS monitor I can find is 8ms
The fuck? They go as low as 1ms at this point.
>>339174258
If you play competitive fps games Id go with 144hz/1080p, if you play single player games id probably go with 1440p, just make sure your video card can handle 1440p at decent settings or you'll just be looking at a bigger game with shittier settings.
>>339174341
Ultrasharps are the best bang for your buck you can get and 8ms is still fine for gaming and better than any HDTV
>>339174374
I'd really like to, i do have the money for it but I'd rather save it and use it on food. Unless you can find me a $300-350 with 1440p and 144hz
If you really think those 2 things are that much better, I'll pull the trigger later this summer
>>339174419
the improvement isn't marginal
And you can find IPS monitors with 4ms response time. This isn't 2010
>>339173732
You just haven't seen it. I thought the same thing until I actually got a 120hz monitor and it's the same difference as 30fps vs 60fps. 60fps looks like a slideshow now. It's a serious turn off for games that are locked at 60fps, and 30fps is basically unplayable
>>339174474
I haven't found one that isn't a retarded amount of cash.
>>339174532
Thanks for the info I'll look it up.
>>339174135
>using a 60hz monitor
>'Both 120 and 144hz is irrelevant.'
>>339174419
response time doesn't affect input latency (at least, not noticeably)
it mostly adds more motion blur, ghosting, etc
going from 60hz to 120hz+ is not "marginal" either, it's the same as going from 30fps to 60fps. very noticeable
>>339174662Link me to some? Been thinking about upgrading.
>>339174217
https://youtu.be/Np0JcqbjmTA?t=51
Just watch how the FPS fluctuates when you're crowded around a bunch of people and a lot of shit is happening. This is on a gtx980. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have stable 144+fps in TF2 for a 144hz monitor.
>>339174819
>it's the same as going from 30fps to 60fps
no it isn't.
>>339174851
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-mg279q-27-inch-freesync-monitor,4262.html
My current.
>>339174258
http://www.ebay.com/itm/140934439651
$200
IPS
1440p60
Can be overclocked to 120hz
I have two and I love them.
>>339170865
unless you play counterstrike and shitty mobas you're not going to be running anything at that high framerate
1440p 60hz for rpgs and shit like that
Whatever you do OP, get a G-sync monitor. It will change your gaming life forever.
>>339170865
depends, up to about 90 fps you can tell the difference in action games. Most games you wont really notice a huge difference between 60 and 90+ fps.
>>339174906
>a 2 generation old card
kek, lets see how a 980ti, 1070, 1080, Fury X, 390x, or Fury handle it
>>339174906
And also, you never specified max settings, you could easily get 144 fps on a 970 or lower by just lowering some of the settings
>>339170865
Don't waste your money on a 144hz monitor unless your computer can get 144fps on average.
>>339174970
I was thinking about buying that monitor, but after reading all negative reviews on Amazon and Newegg, it seems like Asus hit a new low with their quality control. It's literally a russian roulette. I'm looking forward to a new batch of monitors to be revealed at Computex
>>339173801
Nope. You'll mostly have no issues running most games at 1440p, but you really would want atleast a 980ti for 1440p especially if you're aiming for 120/144hz.
Or better yet wait until the non rferance 1080's are out and you'll be golden.
>>339175209
The settings don't make a difference. You could set it to crapass Directx8 mode and you'd see the exact same framerate hiccups.
>>339175214
irrelevant concern with gsync.
>>339171683
It's not that hard to run older games at full 144hz.
>>339174029
>>339174031
this
im using one right now and my only complaint is that the sound is cancer
>>339174973
I just fucking bought this haha
I don't even know how to overclock tho, I guess I'll take the 1440p at 60 fps and might upgrade again in a few years when the 144hz get a bit cheaper
Thanks for all your help
>>339174943
>I've never used a 120hz monitor
>>339170865
The human eye can only see up to 60 fps. Needing more than that is a marketing meme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMT_mZ21O_Y
can someone tell me if 1440/60 makes any difference over 1080/60
>>339174973
>response time: 8ms
enjoy your horrific ghosting
>>339175231
Yes I've read complaints about faulty monitors, mostly with dead pixels and backlight bleeding
Apparently they had a bad batch at release of this monitor, but they have improved.
Sure it's still unnerving, but I took a risk and got mine in perfect condition and it's a thing of a beauty
>>339174973
>8ms
>DVI only
I upgraded last year from 60hz to 144. The difference in every aspect is night and day. It's smoother. It looks better. I don't need super special eyes to feel the results, especially considering my old monitor is now right beside it.
>>339175731
>Panel: PLS
Dafuq is this?
>>339174906
I get 120-144 FPS in TF2 with a GTX 750
Suck it, faggot
Learn how to optimize your settings
>>339175790
you are me
got a asus VG248QE now my old samsung is secondary
i think the old samsung has better blacks than the new asus
>>339175832
basically IPS
>>339175553
1440p makes a difference, but it's hard to explain.
Best way is to take your current 1080p monitor, and run a game at 720p, and then after at 1080p. It's just a much clearer image, even if you think 1080p is clear enough.
>>339175832
The panel is the exact same as Samsung uses in some of their 400$ IPS monitors.
went out on a limb and got a benq xl2411z last year, with my 980ti
I thought 120fps would be a marginal upgrade over 60fps but it's almost as big a difference as 60fps was over 30fps
I never want to go back and tend not to play games that are fps capped anymore
Sometimes it can actually be too smooth, it takes my eyes a while to adjust
Question: Is stable 60 fps better than fluctuation fps between 60 and 144?
>>339174532
Been considering an Ultrasharp, but worried about the 8ms response time. Will going from 2ms to 8ms be noticible?
>>339176191
G-sync/Freesync helps a lot in the second case
>>339175515
I overclocked my monitor from 60hz to 75hz and the difference is amazing.
>>339176201
dont listen to anyone on /v/ about monitors and response time
ive been buying monitors since the early 90s. response time stopped mattering in decent lcds in like, 2002. there is 0 noticable ghosting or anything on ultrasharp monitors, they are intended as professional displays
idiots think that response times from 20 years ago = response times from today. it's not the same thing, 8ms then is not 8ms now
how long till 240hz monitors
>>339175553
more and smaller pixels - clearer, sharper image
>>339175457
>the sound is cancer
I'm using a VG248QE right now, and I love it.
no idea why you would use sound through your monitors instead of headphones or dedicated speakers
>>339176423
60hz is too laggy to notice a 8ms response time, especially with backlight strobing and other tricks they do now to reduce motion blur
but on a 120hz display, 8ms is atrocious. I disable things like backlight strobing (pwm can give some people headaches) and I notice motion blur even on a 1ms delay. the higher the refresh rate, the smoother the motion, the more you notice the blur
saying you can't notice blur on your shit 60hz display is like saying you can't notice the difference of high octane gas in your 87 pontiac fiero
>>339176823
we're not talking about 120hz displays
>>339176960
i'm sorry what was the topic of this thread again
why did everything go from 1080 to 4k? why not 2k first
>>339177395
1920x1080=2k
>>339177640
>>339177395
1440p is commonly called 2k
assuming this isn't bait
>>339177862
no it's not
it's 2.5k if it's anything
We keep having the same discussion everytime. A good 24" monitor with low input lag and no motion blur is what you need. Don't get 4K, big drawback is that for you to notice the difference is that you need to get close, however, a major flaw is that you can't see the entire screen and thus lose angles.
http://www.144hzmonitors.com/
>>339178797
>http://www.144hzmonitors.com/
fucking 16:9 everywhere
fuck this, im not even upgrading until a good 16:10 monitor comes out
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Hithiro/saved/8NrNnQ
First build, hope I can slide with thistrying not to go over $1k, at fucking $999.93 before rebates, roflcopter
>>339181223
>getting a meme card when 1070 is around the corner
>believing in tick rate for your monitor
so if I get this 144 mumbo jumbo will the 20 tickrate in overwatch not matter?
Get an LG ultrawide and over clock it to 75hz or 90hz (depends on model)
>>339170865
biggest fucking meme on the planet senpai, avoid at all costs
>>339182000
I'm okay with not running the best graphics and highest FPS
Needing the latest and greatest is an even bigger meme
I still might shave down this build quality and use the extra ching for more games
>>339179561
>16:10
When will this meme end?
>>339182531
get a i5 4690 instead of the 6500 should be cheaper and the mobo should be cheater to
Oh no, not a whole $500 for the monitor you probably stare at for hours every fucking day! I'm spending a grand more than that for a 100hz 1440p ultrawide and I don't care, it's a worthwhile investment.
>>339182531
When the "latest and greatest" costs the fucking same as the older gimped meme card and is far more powerful, it's a pretty poor decision to go with the old and busted.
>>339177786
>4k resolution refers to a horizontal resolution of 4,000 pixels (the actual resolution is 3,840)
2k resolution, therefore, would refer to 2,000 horizontal pixels, with the actual resolution being 1920.
Or are you just pretending to be retarded?
>>339183170
Thanks, I'll look into that
>>339183561
I was under the impression the 1070 would cost a fair bit more than the 970. If I'm mistaken, you're correct. I'll bother with it when it's actually out tho
>>339174973
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/140934439651
>Qnix
Why would you ever go for a no-name brand over a tried and true Sony, Samsung, LG, NEC, Dell brand monitor?
It's like you just want your shit to break in 3 months.
>>339174536
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/acer-monitor-umhg0ee001
Send me some porn as a reward
>>339184085
the i5 6500 is just barely better than the 4690 like 5% at most
i have a 4690 and it handles any new game good as fuck
getting a good GPU is better unless you are into recording/streaming
>>339170865
It's worth it if you get it on sale. Those monitors are overpriced as FUCK. I'm waiting until black friday/cyber monday sales to snag one.
>>339174819
Many peoples brains can't differentiate between 60fps and 90fps at a glance. Like they'd have to have the displays RIGHT next to each other to see it. The difference bewtween 30 and 60, however, is incredibly noticeable even to those who can't tell 60 from 90.
And on top of that you'll never be able to appreciate 144fps because the human brain can't differentiate between framerates above 120. This is because while your eyes have a refresh rate of around 1000hz, the nature of your nervous system and brain as well as even your eyes themselves means that the signals take time to prpcess.
>one of my friends says there is no difference between 60hz & 144hz constantly
>one time he plays fucking Hearthstone on my 144hz monitor
>"wow it's so smooth, how do you make it run like that?"
>mfw
>>339177786
Blame marketing, all those "4k" things you see are really 4000x2000 roughly
>>339184261
From what I've found, the 4960 isn't cheaper, unless I compare used prices. Am I just looking at the wrong shit, or is that what you meant? I don't have a problem with buying used btw
>>339170865
the difference is pretty astounding especially in fast or photorealstic games
but driving 120+fps at 2k is gonna take a lot of performance. you'd probably need sli 1080's
better choice is to get either 144hz at 1080p or a normal 2k display, but not both
Once you go for 144hz, there's no coming back
Monitors with lower refresh rates will seem shit after that
and that's bad considering 60hz is a standard pretty much everywhere
<400+ for a good monitor
>costs more than most graphics cards
you could buy a huge ass tv for that price.. why are monitors so pricey?
>>339182690
16:10 is better for general PC use, that extra height helps
And it's closer to the golden ratio
>>339186617
>implying that's a lot
My HP LP2475w cost twice as much when it was new
Is there any notable difference between a 120hz and 144hz monitor? Can the 144hz displays do a 120hz refresh in the offchance your card is too shit to hit a stable 160+ fps?
>>339188537
Not really, but most of the newer panels are 144 Hz, so their other specs might be above those of 120 Hz panels
