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

[mimizukari]

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

[r.linder]

With a Titan, better off with 240Hz 1080p or 1440p 144Hz.

My main display is an XG248Q; 1080p 240Hz TN, and I enjoy it. If color isn't an issue for you, there's no problems with it.

[rezo]

Why not go with 240hz 1440p? Your pc is severly underused if you play 1080p even at 240hz. Might as well go 4k 144hz or 1440p 240hz otherwise you just wasted a ton of money on your pc.

[AdahnGorion]

Ursprungligen skrivet av rezo:

Why not go with 240hz 1440p? Your pc is severly underused if you play 1080p even at 240hz. Might as well go 4k 144hz or 1440p 240hz otherwise you just wasted a ton of money on your pc.

That would be a waste, 144-165hz however would be fine for 1440p.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

I would just look at 240hz if staying on 10800 but want a modern gen screen. Otherwise step up to 1440p @ 144, 165, or 240

[rezo]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Darkie:

Ursprungligen skrivet av rezo:

Why not go with 240hz 1440p? Your pc is severly underused if you play 1080p even at 240hz. Might as well go 4k 144hz or 1440p 240hz otherwise you just wasted a ton of money on your pc.

That would be a waste, 144-165hz however would be fine for 1440p.

A waste? he owns the fastest gaming gpu you can currently buy. Not getting the most out of it would be a waste.

[AdahnGorion]

Ursprungligen skrivet av rezo:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Darkie:

That would be a waste, 144-165hz however would be fine for 1440p.

A waste? he owns the fastest gaming gpu you can currently buy. Not getting the most out of it would be a waste.

I think the 240 hz (I have seen very few) for 1440p is bad quality on other aspects, thus the 144/165 ratio is better and 4k can be a thing as well.. but if he only cares about "competitive FPS games" then the entire system is overkill and pointless, so I reckon that is not the issue.

1080 is a utterly waste for him as well.... 1440p should be minimum.

[mimizukari]

Have none of you played modern titles on ultra settings? Red Dead 2 for instance hits 90-105 on average at 1080p, Borderlands 3 sometimes dips below 144... At any rate i'm looking for 144-165, can't reach 240 fps in the games I choose to play, except for Dota 2.

only way i'd look at 1440p in current gen is if I NVlinked.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MHdeDv9bqI

[rezo]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Kurumi Tokisaki:

Have none of you played modern titles on ultra settings? Red Dead 2 for instance hits 90-105 on average at 1080p, Borderlands 3 sometimes dips below 144... At any rate i'm looking for 144-165, can't reach 240 fps in the games I choose to play, except for Dota 2.

only way i'd look at 1440p in current gen is if I NVlinked.

Yeah, but whats the point in having the fastest gpu but running 1080p? Just get a 240hz monitor for esports games like csgo and siege but have the higher resolution for more singleplayer games which are all about graphics. its the mix between the two. Your gpu and cpu will be under utilised due to the lower resolution.

[Autumn_]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Kurumi Tokisaki:

Have none of you played modern titles on ultra settings? Red Dead 2 for instance hits 90-105 on average at 1080p, Borderlands 3 sometimes dips below 144... At any rate i'm looking for 144-165, can't reach 240 fps in the games I choose to play, except for Dota 2.

only way i'd look at 1440p in current gen is if I NVlinked.

So why get a G-sync monitor if you hardly go below refresh rate?

Doesn't make sense to me - if you're constantly above refresh rate, you can't utilise G-sync, so it's wasted money.

You can get G-sync 240hz panels, and have the benefits in those few games you get <144fps in, and the ones you get >144fps in.
It literally is a win win.

Unless money was an issue for you, I don't see why you would get a 1080p144hz panel over 1440p144hz or 1080p240hz.

Edit ;

Ursprungligen skrivet av rezo:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Kurumi Tokisaki:

Have none of you played modern titles on ultra settings? Red Dead 2 for instance hits 90-105 on average at 1080p, Borderlands 3 sometimes dips below 144... At any rate i'm looking for 144-165, can't reach 240 fps in the games I choose to play, except for Dota 2.

only way i'd look at 1440p in current gen is if I NVlinked.

Yeah, but whats the point in having the fastest gpu but running 1080p? Just get a 240hz monitor for esports games like csgo and siege but have the higher resolution for more singleplayer games which are all about graphics. its the mix between the two. Your gpu and cpu will be under utilised due to the lower resolution.

CPU, underutilised....what?
If you're pushing higher FPS (like that caused by low resoluions like 720p and 1080p), you're going to increase CPU load.

[rezo]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Autumn_:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Kurumi Tokisaki:

Have none of you played modern titles on ultra settings? Red Dead 2 for instance hits 90-105 on average at 1080p, Borderlands 3 sometimes dips below 144... At any rate i'm looking for 144-165, can't reach 240 fps in the games I choose to play, except for Dota 2.

only way i'd look at 1440p in current gen is if I NVlinked.

So why get a G-sync monitor if you hardly go below refresh rate?

Doesn't make sense to me - if you're constantly above refresh rate, you can't utilise G-sync, so it's wasted money.

You can get G-sync 240hz panels, and have the benefits in those few games you get <144fps in, and the ones you get >144fps in.
It literally is a win win.

Unless money was an issue for you, I don't see why you would get a 1080p144hz panel over 1440p144hz or 1080p240hz.

Edit ;

Ursprungligen skrivet av rezo:

Yeah, but whats the point in having the fastest gpu but running 1080p? Just get a 240hz monitor for esports games like csgo and siege but have the higher resolution for more singleplayer games which are all about graphics. its the mix between the two. Your gpu and cpu will be under utilised due to the lower resolution.

CPU, underutilised....what?
If you're pushing higher FPS (like that caused by low resoluions like 720p and 1080p), you're going to increase CPU load.

Sorta true but not in his situation; his cpu will be under-utilisied in most games. Do remember the only games he will get high fps which exceeds 150fps or 240fps would be games such as csgo, siege minecraft or whatever and those games will only use 20-30% of his cpu at most due them not using majority of his cores (10c 20t).

Like pubg uses 22-25% cpu at 180+ fps
Witcher 3 uses around 35% at 100 fps.

Also do look at GPU usage and in games like Hitman 2 its under 60%, Witcher 3 its around 70% and thats with a 2080 ti not RTX titan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BT5AhzKYYE

Granted it gives him leeway for streaming and whatever else he plans on doing with his rig but his gpu will certainly be underused at that resolution due to being 'bottlenecked' by his cpu. Most titles will use 4-6 cores, some using even less such as in CSGO causing his GPU usage to be far less than 100%. If he ran 1440p he would get similar framerate, maybe a little less but still have the added benefit of higher resolution.

OP if I were you, id get 1440p 240hz. Its a no brainer, It will be far smoother than 1440p 144hz and you dont get a performance penalty over 1440p 144hz so I dont see why youd get that over 240hz unless the cost is the issue.

1080p is dying anyway and its becoming much easier to run 1440p and in your case you own literally the fastest gaming gpu on the market, most people with a 2080 ti run 1440p 144hz or even 4k 144hz.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Ursprungligen skrivet av rezo:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Darkie:

That would be a waste, 144-165hz however would be fine for 1440p.

A waste? he owns the fastest gaming gpu you can currently buy. Not getting the most out of it would be a waste.

Well if you have a 2080 Super or Ti, yea 1080p would be waste. 1440p at around 165hz would be a much better way to go.

[r.linder]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Bad 💀 Motha:

Ursprungligen skrivet av rezo:

A waste? he owns the fastest gaming gpu you can currently buy. Not getting the most out of it would be a waste.

Well if you have a 2080 Super or Ti, yea 1080p would be waste. 1440p at around 165hz would be a much better way to go.

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

[mimizukari]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Escorve:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Bad 💀 Motha:

Well if you have a 2080 Super or Ti, yea 1080p would be waste. 1440p at around 165hz would be a much better way to go.

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.

[r.linder]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Kurumi Tokisaki:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Escorve:

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.

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.

It's pretty much guaranteed that if you drop useless settings like MSAA that have little to no real visual change for a massive FPS hit, your frames get a huge increase. Just by disabling MSAA I can get more frames with a 5700 XT, but go ahead and waste thousands more because you want maxed out settings.