Best 1080p 144-165Hz monitor with G-Sync compatibility?

[mimizukari]

topic. my current monitor is getting dead pixels and I'ma need to upgrade.

[mimizukari]

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

again, the games I play can't hit target framerates above 144, the only one that can is Dota 2 @ 240FPS, but all modern games are 144 or below, again, 3 prime examples: red dead redemption 2 can dip to 90, stable around 105~, fallout 76 can dip to 90, and borderlands 3 can dip below 144.

With a Titan RTX at 1080p? I call BS, because I had a 2080 and it had no problems maintaining over 120 FPS. Even a 5700 XT can do 144 flawlessly with certain useless settings like heavier AA dropped.

I have TITAN RTX so i can max every setting, and of course all ray tracing settings to max if applicable as well. I don't want to negotiate and lower any setting, 144 is not something a lot of modern games reach.

[r.linder]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

With a Titan RTX at 1080p? I call BS, because I had a 2080 and it had no problems maintaining over 120 FPS. Even a 5700 XT can do 144 flawlessly with certain useless settings like heavier AA dropped.

I have TITAN RTX so i can max every setting, and of course all ray tracing settings to max if applicable as well. I don't want to negotiate and lower any setting, 144 is not something a lot of modern games reach.

That's a pretty awful excuse. There are tons of settings that have little to no difference visually but just demolish performance, like MSAA.

For example, GTA V's MSAA setting at the maximum halves my framerate, literally. Disabling it allows me to stay above 144 FPS consistently with a 5700 XT, a GPU that costs around 5~6 times less. I don't give a that it's not the maximum settings because I don't need the maximum settings, nobody does. Isn't worth it if it won't perform as well as you want it to.

[Magma Dragoon]

As of 6 months ago when I was looking at monitors, the AOC 24G2 was the best 1080p 144hz monitor on the market. Such amazing specs for just $180 that it sells out in less than an hour whenever Amazon gets stock.

[Azza ☠]

Try get 1440p - IPS panel - 165Hz refresh rate with G-SYNC:
(best for gaming performance and eye candy quality, a sweet spot)

Acer Predator XB271HU
or
ASUS ROG PG279Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LTHr96NueA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAL1-8i1AKI

---

Retina display - when the human eye can't count between pixels
(calculated by a viewing distance of 3 feet <> monitor size <> resolution)

1080p resolution - 19 to 24 inch monitor (max 27 inches)
1440p resolution - 27 to 32 inch monitor (max 36 inches)
UltraHD 4K resolution - at least 32 inches

---

Resolution 1440p has 70% more pixels than 1080p and can run extremely well at very high to ultra settings with a GTX 1080 (designed for that sweet spot) or better. A real G-SYNC module (not just G-SYNC Compatible) would also smooth over any frame drop(s), which is the entire reason for getting it.

You could even run an Acer Predator x27 4K monitor with G-SYNC HDR (also known as G-SYNC Ultimate) smoothly, but around 60 FPS+ on that graphics card (recommend a RTX 2080 Ti minimum however if going 4K and a G-SYNC module is a must have in this case).

Unless you seriously want to go old school CS:GO hardcore pro gaming styles at 1080p resolution, then consider the BenQ XL series monitors. You miss out on quality and just go pure performance. Only suggest this if a pro competitive gamer e-Sports.

[mimizukari]

Magma Dragoon님이 먼저 게시:

As of 6 months ago when I was looking at monitors, the AOC 24G2 was the best 1080p 144hz monitor on the market. Such amazing specs for just $180 that it sells out in less than an hour whenever Amazon gets stock.

i'll look into that.

[rezo]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

Escorve님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah but this guy seems to think otherwise
Just let him make dumb choices, he has no problem wasting money

again, the games I play can't hit target framerates above 144, the only one that can is Dota 2 @ 240FPS, but all modern games are 144 or below, again, 3 prime examples: red dead redemption 2 can dip to 90, stable around 105~, fallout 76 can dip to 90, and borderlands 3 can dip below 144.

Yes... but there is no loss having a 240hz over 144hz just the difference in cost.

Your mindset doesnt make sense, for example my setup cant technically cant run my 1440p 144hz monitor but in the games where I do benefit from the high refresh rate (csgo siege etc) i can easily exceed 200-300 fps. But in games where I can only hit 70-80 fps it still feels much smoother at 144hz than if I had just gotten a 60hz monitor.

So your logic of only getting a 144hz panel because you can only get that fps doesnt make sense, just get a 240hz monitor, it'll still feel smoother at 144fps than if you had a 144hz monitor. and in the occasions where you do exceed 144fps you wont get screen tearing and itll be smoother than 144hz.

90 fps looks smoother at 240 hz than at 144hz. Theres no loss at all from getting a 240hz over 144hz panel

1080p shouldnt even be in the question, you will only utilise less than 20% of your pc running it.
around 50% of your gpu and like 20-30% of your cpu. You literally own what most people can dream of yet you're wasting it entirely on a cheap monitor 1080p monitor yet you spend £2500 on a gpu.

[mimizukari]

rezo님이 먼저 게시:

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

again, the games I play can't hit target framerates above 144, the only one that can is Dota 2 @ 240FPS, but all modern games are 144 or below, again, 3 prime examples: red dead redemption 2 can dip to 90, stable around 105~, fallout 76 can dip to 90, and borderlands 3 can dip below 144.

Yes... but there is no loss having a 240hz over 144hz just the difference in cost.

Your mindset doesnt make sense, for example my setup cant technically cant run my 1440p 144hz monitor but in the games where I do benefit from the high refresh rate (csgo siege etc) i can easily exceed 200-300 fps. But in games where I can only hit 70-80 fps it still feels much smoother at 144hz than if I had just gotten a 60hz monitor.

So your logic of only getting a 144hz panel because you can only get that fps doesnt make sense, just get a 240hz monitor, it'll still feel smoother at 144fps than if you had a 144hz monitor. and in the occasions where you do exceed 144fps you wont get screen tearing and itll be smoother than 144hz.

90 fps looks smoother at 240 hz than at 144hz. Theres no loss at all from getting a 240hz over 144hz panel

1080p shouldnt even be in the question, you will only utilise less than 20% of your pc running it.
around 50% of your gpu and like 20-30% of your cpu. You literally own what most people can dream of yet you're wasting it entirely on a cheap monitor 1080p monitor yet you spend £2500 on a gpu.

Doesn't running a lower refresh rate than your monitor often look choppy/not as good? I've seen tons of complaints of people who have 144Hz monitors and can't stand 60 FPS for instance. (although I guess the games I play on 60FPS lock aren't bad)


also plenty of games utilize full 80-100% GPU, I don't know why people keep saying they don't. On the CPU end though most of you are correct, most games will not pass 20-30% usage.

[rezo]

no it doesnt look choppy, you can turn on vsync if it is.

If its sub 60/72 fps then it can look choppy at 144hz but thats purely because its getting to very low framerate. but getting 150 fps on a 240hz panel will still look very smooth and much smoother than at 144hz.

You can get 240+ fps on dota 2 easily at 4k. You get 240fps at 1080p only because the game doesnt use most of your pc performance. I guarantee if you download msi afterburner and get the onscreen overlay youd see your gpu will be pegged at around 40-50% and your cpu stuck at around 20-30% usage. The game will be limited by your single core performance of your cpu and thus bottleneck your gpu. Running a higher resolution will barely effect your FPS due to your gpu being underutilised. Seeming all you play is Dota 2 you might as well get a 4k 144hz panel so you still have the fancy graphics of 4k for your non competitive titles you play but the high refresh rate for more 'competitive' and fast pace titles you play.

A simple google will find a GTX 1080/i7 6800k or a 980 ti/i7 7700k can reach a near 120fps at 4k max. Your pc is far faster and you can definitely hit near 240 fps at 4k.
Plus you dont even need to hit 240hz for the game to look smooth. Even if you get like 190-220 fps itll look very smooth and far better than if you get a 1080p 144hz panel.

Honestly Im just trying to help, theres no point wasting such a good system on a 1080p panel, get a nice 27 inch 4k or 1440p panel and youd see a huge improvement over a measly 1080p 24 inch panel.
Most of my friends who run 1440p 144hz only have a 2060 to 2070 super but run all the games they play just fine. You dont need 144fps on every single player triple A title you play as thats unrealistic, you only really benefit from 144hz from more fast pace esports titles where reaction time and speed is important and all those games are easy to run.

If you care so much about 144hz you might as well get a second graphics card to see a consistent 144fps because theres no point limiting yourself to 1080p.

I feel like you have MSAA turned up to the max which is probably why you just hit 144fps in most titles, just turn that off or get a higher resolution monitor and youd get near 144fps. most people with lower GPUS like a 2080 can easily hit 144fps in 1080p

[Autumn_]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

rezo님이 먼저 게시:

Yes... but there is no loss having a 240hz over 144hz just the difference in cost.

Your mindset doesnt make sense, for example my setup cant technically cant run my 1440p 144hz monitor but in the games where I do benefit from the high refresh rate (csgo siege etc) i can easily exceed 200-300 fps. But in games where I can only hit 70-80 fps it still feels much smoother at 144hz than if I had just gotten a 60hz monitor.

So your logic of only getting a 144hz panel because you can only get that fps doesnt make sense, just get a 240hz monitor, it'll still feel smoother at 144fps than if you had a 144hz monitor. and in the occasions where you do exceed 144fps you wont get screen tearing and itll be smoother than 144hz.

90 fps looks smoother at 240 hz than at 144hz. Theres no loss at all from getting a 240hz over 144hz panel

1080p shouldnt even be in the question, you will only utilise less than 20% of your pc running it.
around 50% of your gpu and like 20-30% of your cpu. You literally own what most people can dream of yet you're wasting it entirely on a cheap monitor 1080p monitor yet you spend £2500 on a gpu.

Doesn't running a lower refresh rate than your monitor often look choppy/not as good? I've seen tons of complaints of people who have 144Hz monitors and can't stand 60 FPS for instance. (although I guess the games I play on 60FPS lock aren't bad)


also plenty of games utilize full 80-100% GPU, I don't know why people keep saying they don't. On the CPU end though most of you are correct, most games will not pass 20-30% usage.

You're getting a G-sync (compatible) display, so what does it matter what the refresh rate it, it will always match your FPS.
So in the games where you have ~70 FPS, you have 70hz. In games where you have 144FPS, you have 144hz, in games where you get 240FPS, you will get 240hz.
(Example only counts if you have a 240hz G-sync panel)

So, if money is no issue, then why buy a 144hz panel, when you can get a 240hz panel, and benefit in EVERY situation?

[Monk]

The times where your gpu isn't at 95%+ is where your cpu is too slow, as I've mentioned before, you should overclock it.

As for a monitor, I'm with everyone else, I'd go 1440p 144/165 or, hell, you can afford it, look at a big high refresh ultra wide or 4k panel.

At desktop distances, you really shouldn't be suffering with 1080p with your system and 100-120fps will get you a really smooth experience with severe diminishing returns beyond that and, learn to drop some pointless settings, msaa for example isn't really noticeable (especially above 4x) but cripples performance.

[r.linder]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

rezo님이 먼저 게시:

Yes... but there is no loss having a 240hz over 144hz just the difference in cost.

Your mindset doesnt make sense, for example my setup cant technically cant run my 1440p 144hz monitor but in the games where I do benefit from the high refresh rate (csgo siege etc) i can easily exceed 200-300 fps. But in games where I can only hit 70-80 fps it still feels much smoother at 144hz than if I had just gotten a 60hz monitor.

So your logic of only getting a 144hz panel because you can only get that fps doesnt make sense, just get a 240hz monitor, it'll still feel smoother at 144fps than if you had a 144hz monitor. and in the occasions where you do exceed 144fps you wont get screen tearing and itll be smoother than 144hz.

90 fps looks smoother at 240 hz than at 144hz. Theres no loss at all from getting a 240hz over 144hz panel

1080p shouldnt even be in the question, you will only utilise less than 20% of your pc running it.
around 50% of your gpu and like 20-30% of your cpu. You literally own what most people can dream of yet you're wasting it entirely on a cheap monitor 1080p monitor yet you spend £2500 on a gpu.

Doesn't running a lower refresh rate than your monitor often look choppy/not as good? I've seen tons of complaints of people who have 144Hz monitors and can't stand 60 FPS for instance. (although I guess the games I play on 60FPS lock aren't bad)


also plenty of games utilize full 80-100% GPU, I don't know why people keep saying they don't. On the CPU end though most of you are correct, most games will not pass 20-30% usage.

G-Sync syncs the refresh rate with your framerate, my dude... It won't matter if you drop down below 100 FPS on a 240Hz panel, it'll sync as long as G-Sync/FreeSync's Enhanced Sync is enabled.

Also, utilization for GPUs has nothing to do with the card being wasteful or not; all it means is that the system is properly utilizing the GPU. A Titan RTX is still a huge waste for 1080p when it was designed for 4K, and a weaker GPU like a 2070 SUPER or 5700 XT can do 1080p 144Hz no problem, you just don't want to drop settings that make little/no difference, like MSAA above 2~4x. MSAA 8x literally takes your GPU and puts it in crutches.

[REX2700]

ok

[Magma Dragoon]

Kurumi Tokisaki님이 먼저 게시:

Doesn't running a lower refresh rate than your monitor often look choppy/not as good? I've seen tons of complaints of people who have 144Hz monitors and can't stand 60 FPS for instance. (although I guess the games I play on 60FPS lock aren't bad)

Most monitors have an overdrive setting that is best for their max refresh rate and a lower one that is better for 60hz. Monitors with a G-sync module can vary overdrive with refresh rate, but they cost more, still depend on the performance of the panel (ie if a color transition can't be achieved at any overdrive level without overshoot the module won't fix that), and how well the manufacturer tunes the variable overdrive.