Alright guys, I have a question.
I'm in need of a new monitor and I'm thinking of getting one of these new fancy 144hz g sync monitors, however I'm stuck at deciding which resolution panel I should get. Do i:
>get a 1080p TN and run most games at 90-144+hz, and upgrade to 4k next year
Or
>get a 1440p IPS and run most games at 60-90, and keep the monitor for a couple of years
I have a gtx 980 FTW.
>>319449309
I have the same card and the performance drop is not worth it imo, stick to 1080p and wait for 4k to be more accessible.
The resolution bump has a bigger impact on experience than a higher refresh rate.
G-sync also has the strongest affect in the 45-90 FPS range anyway, so you may as well go for the 1440p monitor.
4k isn't viable at all unless you are double or try-SLI'ing top performance cards.
>>319449309
you can turn down graphics and resolution to get stable 144fps you know
Just get a 1080, you can still downsample from 1440 to a 1080 monitor and get results.
>>319449695
Not OP, but I'd much rather run a game on ultra @ 50FPS than having it run on med-high @ 144FPS.
>>319449309
I'd stick with the 1080p now, and upgrade to 4k latter.
My reasoning is, 1440p does look much better than 1080p, but not by THAT much.
So just play the games like you have been, and wait a bit, then make the real leap to 4k and blow your wad when you see that shit.
Also >>319449763 has a point.
>>319449763
>you can still downsample from 1440 to a 1080 monitor and get results.
you mean DSR? it's literally a placebo
>>319449309
>144hz
>g sync
pick one
smooth game or graphicsfag shit
>>319450003
You can have both.
>>319449915
Just because Nvidia gave it a retarded name doesn't mean the technique in general doesn't work. It kills jaggies, undeniably.
>>319449309
>most games at 60-90 1440p
Unless you mean medium-high, then nope, there are probably already a dozen that wont run that well on a 980
>>319449592
>try-SLI'ing
>>319450094
tearing at 144hz is minuscule compared to the 45+ range it's intended for
tearing is even less apparent when you have strobing on. which last time i checked wasn't compatible with g-sync.
basically g-sync is antithetical to all the things high refresh rates bring to the table
>>319449309
1440p IPS is glorious to look at.
4K isn't going to be worth it for quite a long while. 1440p IPS Gsync monitors at 144hz are still expensive. 4K at similar specs and features are going to cost an arm and a leg when they hit the shelves.
I'd say you've got 3 years before 4K really becomes anything beyond enthusiast tier.
>>319451018
A single overclocked 980ti can already keep most games at ultra 4k above 30FPS, doubt the top pascal card and whatever AMD's new stuff is called wont be able to do 4k reliably even on single cards
Or maybe I'm just being hopeful
>>319451198
Sure, if you can stomach slideshow framerates.
Framerate is far more important than resolution.
