What Monitor should i get ?

[Mikasa Ackerman]

my 2nd Monitor recently started having some issues with the lighting ( the bottom left corner often goes very dark ) and i thought about getting a new Monitor so it wont matter if that one breaks ( and until it breaks ill have 3 monitors ) , now i often heard how great high refresh rate monitors are , so i thought about getting a Full HD or 1440p 120-144hz Monitor

my 4k gsync monitor will stay my main monitor , but i will probably use the other one for Multiplayer Games , now my question , is it even worth it to get a 1440p one if its only for a few games ? i wa hppy with the 1080p one aswell ( was my porevious main monitor for years)

also is 21:9 1080p worth getting ? i bet that would be great aswell ( but i never used a 21:9 Monitor except 1 time at a store where i played Minecraft on it , was a BIG difference )

so my 2 Questions , 1080 or 1440p ?
and 144hz or a wider Ratio ( or both )

space is no issue i got a large desk

[Monk]

Well what are your system specs ? High refresh 1440p is just as hard as 4k, so if you can't run things maxed out at 4k, you won't be running things at a high refresh 1440p.

[chiefputsilao✖️ping]

questions:
1. what resolution are you happy playing with most of the time?
2. is your hardware decent enough to handle your preferred resolution?
3. is your preferred resolution supported by your favorite games?

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Monk:

Well what are your system specs ? High refresh 1440p is just as hard as 4k, so if you can't run things maxed out at 4k, you won't be running things at a high refresh 1440p.

i have an gtx1080 ti and an i7 6700k , i can run most things at 4k easily

Początkowo opublikowane przez chiefputsi✖✖✖ 上 没什么 老挝:

questions:
1. what resolution are you happy playing with most of the time?
2. is your hardware decent enough to handle your preferred resolution?
3. is your preferred resolution supported by your favorite games?

1) i mostly played with 1080p and 2160p so far , but in some games i played at 1440p on my 4k monitor because the game didnt run well at 4k
2) yes
3) i didnt check that yet , i mostly play Final Fantasy games , Team Fortress 2 , League of Legends ( when im sick and pissed about it) R6 Siege and many others

[EliteGamer]

I use a 1080p 180hz G-SYNC monitor for shooters and 4K 60hz G-SYNC for everything else. Best of both worlds. I wouldn't bother with a 1440p 165hz monitor because most of the time you'll be at 80 - 100 fps on ultra with AA cranked up. That's rather pointless because I don't think there's much difference from 60hz to 100hz anyways. The real difference starts at 120hz and then you get another jump at 144hz and then 180hz. 180 fps feels ultra smooth and a GTX 1080 Ti will do that at 1080p at ultra settings with AA cranked up, so 1080p doesn't look that bad. A GTX 1080 Ti is great for ultra high refresh rate 1080p monitors, you'll get the most out of the monitor and it's great value for money.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Początkowo opublikowane przez EliteGamer:

I use a 1080p 180hz G-SYNC monitor for shooters and 4K 60hz G-SYNC for everything else. Best of both worlds. I wouldn't bother with a 1440p 165hz monitor because most of the time you'll be at 80 - 100 fps on ultra with AA cranked up. That's rather pointless because I don't think there's much difference from 60hz to 100hz anyways. The real difference starts at 120hz and then you get another jump at 144hz and then 180hz. 180 fps feels ultra smooth and a GTX 1080 Ti will do that at 1080p at ultra settings with AA cranked up, so 1080p doesn't look that bad. A GTX 1080 Ti is great for ultra high refresh rate 1080p monitors, you'll get the most out of the monitor and it's great value for money.

thanks alot

so , should i rather get 120 or 144hz ? also , is gsync important for such high refresh rates ?

[EliteGamer]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Andrea-Chan:

Początkowo opublikowane przez EliteGamer:

I use a 1080p 180hz G-SYNC monitor for shooters and 4K 60hz G-SYNC for everything else. Best of both worlds. I wouldn't bother with a 1440p 165hz monitor because most of the time you'll be at 80 - 100 fps on ultra with AA cranked up. That's rather pointless because I don't think there's much difference from 60hz to 100hz anyways. The real difference starts at 120hz and then you get another jump at 144hz and then 180hz. 180 fps feels ultra smooth and a GTX 1080 Ti will do that at 1080p at ultra settings with AA cranked up, so 1080p doesn't look that bad. A GTX 1080 Ti is great for ultra high refresh rate 1080p monitors, you'll get the most out of the monitor and it's great value for money.

thanks alot

so , should i rather get 120 or 144hz ? also , is gsync important for such high refresh rates ?

Yes, I would aim for 144hz and try to get one with G-SYNC if you can.

[76561198399520696]

I think 2560*1080 monitor with 144hz and IPS panel (don't get TN for now) and Gsync is the way to go for you.

Yes, 21:9 does make a lot difference. I mostly play fps games and I feel better playing on 21:9 monitors than 16:9. But make sure your desired games support 21:9 aspect ratio.

[Revelene]

You could check out those 1080p 240hz monitors of you want high refresh rates.

If you want to keep a little resolution, there are 1440p 165hz monitors.

Whatever you get, I'd recommend gsync. Forget about vsync forever.

[Monk]

Początkowo opublikowane przez EliteGamer:

I use a 1080p 180hz G-SYNC monitor for shooters and 4K 60hz G-SYNC for everything else. Best of both worlds. I wouldn't bother with a 1440p 165hz monitor because most of the time you'll be at 80 - 100 fps on ultra with AA cranked up. That's rather pointless because I don't think there's much difference from 60hz to 100hz anyways. The real difference starts at 120hz and then you get another jump at 144hz and then 180hz. 180 fps feels ultra smooth and a GTX 1080 Ti will do that at 1080p at ultra settings with AA cranked up, so 1080p doesn't look that bad. A GTX 1080 Ti is great for ultra high refresh rate 1080p monitors, you'll get the most out of the monitor and it's great value for money.

See I have never seen anyone say this, my experience and pretty much every review ever, along with science backs up the idea of the initial increase in FPS is far more noticeable than the higher, that is to say 60-100 is very noticeable, 100-120 less so and 120+ becomes very hard to notice the difference due to diminishing returns.

As for gsync, it's worth every penny of its premium.
Personally I feel 1440p 144+ monitors are the best option right now, considerably higher clarity than 1080p while still being able to run at higher refresh rates to smooth things out.

4k still isn't really worth it as needing to turn settings down kind of negates the whole point of having better clarity and 60fps should be a minimum to aim for not a goal to reach.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Monk:

Początkowo opublikowane przez EliteGamer:

I use a 1080p 180hz G-SYNC monitor for shooters and 4K 60hz G-SYNC for everything else. Best of both worlds. I wouldn't bother with a 1440p 165hz monitor because most of the time you'll be at 80 - 100 fps on ultra with AA cranked up. That's rather pointless because I don't think there's much difference from 60hz to 100hz anyways. The real difference starts at 120hz and then you get another jump at 144hz and then 180hz. 180 fps feels ultra smooth and a GTX 1080 Ti will do that at 1080p at ultra settings with AA cranked up, so 1080p doesn't look that bad. A GTX 1080 Ti is great for ultra high refresh rate 1080p monitors, you'll get the most out of the monitor and it's great value for money.

See I have never seen anyone say this, my experience and pretty much every review ever, along with science backs up the idea of the initial increase in FPS is far more noticeable than the higher, that is to say 60-100 is very noticeable, 100-120 less so and 120+ becomes very hard to notice the difference due to diminishing returns.

As for gsync, it's worth every penny of its premium.
Personally I feel 1440p 144+ monitors are the best option right now, considerably higher clarity than 1080p while still being able to run at higher refresh rates to smooth things out.

4k still isn't really worth it as needing to turn settings down kind of negates the whole point of having better clarity and 60fps should be a minimum to aim for not a goal to reach.

well im mostly happy with my 4k 60 hz Monitor , i just want something better for games where graphics dont matter as much

[EliteGamer]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Monk:

Początkowo opublikowane przez EliteGamer:

I use a 1080p 180hz G-SYNC monitor for shooters and 4K 60hz G-SYNC for everything else. Best of both worlds. I wouldn't bother with a 1440p 165hz monitor because most of the time you'll be at 80 - 100 fps on ultra with AA cranked up. That's rather pointless because I don't think there's much difference from 60hz to 100hz anyways. The real difference starts at 120hz and then you get another jump at 144hz and then 180hz. 180 fps feels ultra smooth and a GTX 1080 Ti will do that at 1080p at ultra settings with AA cranked up, so 1080p doesn't look that bad. A GTX 1080 Ti is great for ultra high refresh rate 1080p monitors, you'll get the most out of the monitor and it's great value for money.

See I have never seen anyone say this, my experience and pretty much every review ever, along with science backs up the idea of the initial increase in FPS is far more noticeable than the higher, that is to say 60-100 is very noticeable, 100-120 less so and 120+ becomes very hard to notice the difference due to diminishing returns.

As for gsync, it's worth every penny of its premium.
Personally I feel 1440p 144+ monitors are the best option right now, considerably higher clarity than 1080p while still being able to run at higher refresh rates to smooth things out.

4k still isn't really worth it as needing to turn settings down kind of negates the whole point of having better clarity and 60fps should be a minimum to aim for not a goal to reach.

Not true at all. I've only ever seen you say 60 -100 is very noticeable.

If you can't see a difference from 120 fps and 144hz, than you have eyesight problems.

I can see a difference from 30 fps to 60 fps (huge) 60 fps to 100 fps (very small) 60 fps to 120 fps (big) 120 fps to 144 fps (a difference) 144hz to 180hz (small but noticeable) Most people can see the diffrence between 100hz and 144hz. Like I said, if you can't, then you need to get your eyes tested.


Also I don't read reviews anyways since alot of them are biased. Every system and setup performs different. Some hardware gel better than others. It's all about the silicon lottery.

You say 1440p 144+ are the best, but what's the point if you can't get more than 100 fps at ultra settings with AA cranked up? 1440p isn't like 4K where you can have AA turned off, 1440p looks nasty without AA. Also 1080p TN high refresh rate monitors are still the preferred monitors pros use at tournaments. A 1080p 144hz+ would be better suited for high refresh rate gameplay if you want to keep a solid 144+ at ultra. It's just seems a waste of money buying a £700 1440p 165hz monitor to get 80 - 100 fps lol.

1440p doesn't look much better than 1080p. The difference between 1080p and 1440p is alot smaller than it is with 1440p and 2160p. 4K looks way better than 1080p, but 1440p doesn't. I should know, I use 1080p, 1440p and 4K monitors all the time.

I've got a GTX 1080 Ti and game at 4K ultra and I only turn AA off on recent games and still get over 100 fps at 4K ultra on alot of games, some new games like PC2 4K ultra settings no AA 150 fps..... I've got proof of this and videos. Stop saying you have to turn settings down to the point it looks worse than a lower resolution. I play all my games on ultra. Even games set to high will look much better than 1440p as long as it's not the texture graphic option turned down. If the texture option is maxed, then it doesn't matter about most of the other pointless options, even if they're on low the 4K picture will still much better than the 1440p picture...... and especially if the game doesn't have that many graphic options. You clearly sound like you don't like 4K and just talking complete BS about it.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Początkowo opublikowane przez EliteGamer:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Monk:

See I have never seen anyone say this, my experience and pretty much every review ever, along with science backs up the idea of the initial increase in FPS is far more noticeable than the higher, that is to say 60-100 is very noticeable, 100-120 less so and 120+ becomes very hard to notice the difference due to diminishing returns.

As for gsync, it's worth every penny of its premium.
Personally I feel 1440p 144+ monitors are the best option right now, considerably higher clarity than 1080p while still being able to run at higher refresh rates to smooth things out.

4k still isn't really worth it as needing to turn settings down kind of negates the whole point of having better clarity and 60fps should be a minimum to aim for not a goal to reach.

Not true at all. I've only ever seen you say 60 -100 is very noticeable.

If you can't see a difference from 120 fps and 144hz, than you have eyesight problems.

I can see a difference from 30 fps to 60 fps (huge) 60 fps to 100 fps (very small) 60 fps to 120 fps (big) 120 fps to 144 fps (a difference) 144hz to 180hz (small but noticeable) Most people can see the diffrence between 100hz and 144hz. Like I said, if you can't, then you need to get your eyes tested.


Also I don't read reviews anyways since alot of them are biased. Every system and setup performs different. Some hardware gel better than others. It's all about the silicon lottery.

You say 1440p 144+ are the best, but what's the point if you can't get more than 100 fps at ultra settings with AA cranked up? 1440p isn't like 4K where you can have AA turned off, 1440p looks nasty without AA. Also 1080p TN high refresh rate monitors are still the preferred monitors pros use at tournaments. A 1080p 144hz+ would be better suited for high refresh rate gameplay if you want to keep a solid 144+ at ultra. It's just seems a waste of money buying a £700 1440p 165hz monitor to get 80 - 100 fps lol.

1440p doesn't look much better than 1080p. The difference between 1080p and 1440p is alot smaller than it is with 1440p and 2160p. 4K looks way better than 1080p, but 1440p doesn't. I should know, I use 1080p, 1440p and 4K monitors all the time.

I've got a GTX 1080 Ti and game at 4K ultra and I only turn AA off on recent games and still get over 100 fps at 4K ultra on alot of games, some new games like PC2 4K ultra settings no AA 150 fps..... I've got proof of this and videos. Stop saying you have to turn settings down to the point it looks worse than a lower resolution. I play all my games on ultra. Even games set to high will look much better than 1440p as long as it's not the texture graphic option turned down. If the texture option is maxed, then it doesn't matter about most of the other pointless options, even if they're on low the 4K picture will still much better than the 1440p picture...... and especially if the game doesn't have that many graphic options. You clearly sound like you don't like 4K and just talking complete BS about it.

thanks for the detailed coment , i will probbly get a 1080p 144hz Monitor once i can afford it , my 2ndary Monitor will last a few more months hopefully , and btw today i played TF2 in 1080p and it was the same as 4k mostly ( on my 4k monitor) , no real graphical difference , i bet League of Legends is the same , but higher refresh rate will be a major bonus

i am just unsure about gsync yes or no , but since my old Monitor was fine without gsync for 5 years , i guess a 2nd Monitor doesnt need Gsync even if its used for gaming

[Monk]

Looking at your games list rotr the most challenging game you have, that's hardly much of a benchmark to go off of, racing games are incredibly easy to run as are corridor shooters.

Try a large open world modern game like pubg,division, wildlands, the new assassin's creed etc and see how they cope maxed at 4k.

I have always had the same view on refresh rates, the faster you go the harder it is to notice an improvement over the previous 'step'.

In many new actually demanding games 4k isn't really viable at max settings even on a 1080ti.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Monk:

Looking at your games list rotr the most challenging game you have, that's hardly much of a benchmark to go off of, racing games are incredibly easy to run as are corridor shooters.

Try a large open world modern game like pubg,division, wildlands, the new assassin's creed etc and see how they cope maxed at 4k.

I have always had the same view on refresh rates, the faster you go the harder it is to notice an improvement over the previous 'step'.

In many new actually demanding games 4k isn't really viable at max settings even on a 1080ti.

i know thats why i thought about getting a 1080p Gaming Monitor ( my old monitor has 5 ms and isnt made for gaming at all )

[Monk]

I was replying to elite sorry, for a secondary screen there is no need for anything fancy really, but if you want to swap it out for competitive esport type games and you are serious about them,maybe a 240Hz 1080p screen could be ideal.

Gsync is worth every penny once you have used it, I wouldn't want to play on a non gsync screen now I've got used to gsync.

For my secondary and tertiary screens however, they are just basic 1080p IPS panels as they aren't used for gaming.