1440p vs 144hz monitor

[McWaffles]

Hello folks, I'm looking to replace both of my older 21.5" monitors with newer 24" monitors. I'm limited to the 24" due to desk space availability and needing two monitors for work. Since my older ones have a decent amount of edge around them, the newer 24" monitors really only add about 1/2" each (horizontally).

So my real question. I'm finding that for my budget I'm trying to keep myself under $200 per monitor and wanting to go with 24" IPS monitors (I think). In order to keep it under $200, it looks like I'm really needing to choose 1440p with 75hz Freesync or 1080 with 144hz. For reference, the games I play are typically RPGs, single player, or co-op style games (or WoW). I don't really ever play competitive shooters.

In most of my research, most sites list the best "gaming" monitors under $200 as 1080 and 144hz but is this due to them assuming we need the 144hz for those competitive games? Obviously, I'd love to have both 1440 and 144hz but for now it's looking like I'll have to choose and wanted to get some feedback on what folks thought would be best for me?

Thanks in advance for any feedback

[A&A]

1440P better details

144Hz if you have more fps than that you will feel your games smoother

[AdahnGorion]

In my opinion, hz (atleast 144hz) first, then resolution, then type (ips/va/ta) then gimmicks (hz boost, audio, desgin, free/g sync)

But most people can easily get a good 1440p 144hz monitor.

[Autumn_]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

In my opinion, hz (atleast 144hz) first, then resolution, then type (ips/va/ta) then gimmicks (hz boost, audio, desgin, free/g sync)

But most people can easily get a good 1440p 144hz monitor.

G-sync/Freesync isn't a gimmick though.
And neither is 'factory overclocking' (since that's just higher refresh rate, something you said you value over all else)

[Keith]

Miss Ann Thrope님이 먼저 게시:

On a 24" display, 1080p would probably suffice. I know a lot of people tend to prefer 1440p on 27" monitors, but the difference may not be as noticeable on that smaller screen.

It depends how far away from the monitors you're sitting. I have two 24" monitors, one at 1080p and the other at 1440p. The improved sharpness at 1440p is noticeable.

[Pocahawtness]

Autumn_님이 먼저 게시:

You won't squint at text on a 24 inch 1440p monitor -- there is windows scaling which makes all text and UI elements larger.

I have no issue with 100% scaling (default) and 70-80% scaling in browsers or other programs.

You still have to manage settings and cap FPS to benefit from Freesync, just like G-sync.

Each to their own, but it never seemed logical to me to get a higher resolution monitor and then use scaling. I know it has some benefit but it seemed rather a daft way of doing things if you are on a budget.

There's nothing wrong with capping FPS if your monitor can run at 144Hz. Only a purist would disagree.

[AdahnGorion]

Autumn_님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

In my opinion, hz (atleast 144hz) first, then resolution, then type (ips/va/ta) then gimmicks (hz boost, audio, desgin, free/g sync)

But most people can easily get a good 1440p 144hz monitor.

G-sync/Freesync isn't a gimmick though.
And neither is 'factory overclocking' (since that's just higher refresh rate, something you said you value over all else)

I list it there, as it is an extra feature (I use gsync myself, so I am not hating on it btw!) but if you had to choose, I would just say the others are important

Hz boosting, can give unstablity, etc.. (ofc it is not working properly) is my experience, thus listed in the same spot. My argument also says (as long as you have 144 hz, it does not matter) unless you are a avid FPS gamer, that only play those and maybe earn money on it.. but then you would go for a high hz 1080 TN panel..... but for balanced usage, the above is what I think.

I personally think (if you sit close to the monitor / an arm lenght) then 27-32" 1440p is the sweet spot.

[AdahnGorion]

Miss Ann Thrope님이 먼저 게시:

On a 24" display, 1080p would probably suffice. I know a lot of people tend to prefer 1440p on 27" monitors, but the difference may not be as noticeable on that smaller screen.

I agree that going below 27" for a 1440p is not ideal. But if the 1440p is 27-32" and the 1080p similar or lower, then there is a huge difference.. on 1440p-4k basically nothing.. (atleast not in that " or if you sit close) and even more so, not worth it if we factor in power cost and hz etc.

[McWaffles]

Thanks so much for all the feedback guys. I've been looking around based on the advice here and decided to aim for a 27" 1440 with 144hz for my primary (gaming monitor) and keeping one of my older 1080 60hz monitor as a 2nd (or really 3rd with the laptop) monitor for work.

Like you guys said, best of both worlds there by basically doubling my budget

A couple follow up questions. I really need to use Display Port for a 1440 monitor, right? I ask because I'm using a KVM switch to go between the monitors with my desktop and the work laptop and it's just HDMI so I think I'll need to just switch that one manually between the two instead.

Also, will my rig run 1440p well in most games? (Ryzen 5 3400G, 32G RAM, and RX 580) Will I really need to wait until I can get a better graphics card to really crank things up at 1440?

[Monk]

Yeah, you won't be getting the best out of a 1440p 144 panel with that setup unless you really drop settings, the cpu is too slow for high refresh and the gpu is a bit lacking for 1440p these days.

On a plus, a decent screen remains good for far longer than a gpu or cpu does so you'll be ready when you upgrade the rest of the system.

[Autumn_]

｢C❤️A｣ Pocahawtness님이 먼저 게시:

Autumn_님이 먼저 게시:

You won't squint at text on a 24 inch 1440p monitor -- there is windows scaling which makes all text and UI elements larger.

I have no issue with 100% scaling (default) and 70-80% scaling in browsers or other programs.

You still have to manage settings and cap FPS to benefit from Freesync, just like G-sync.

Each to their own, but it never seemed logical to me to get a higher resolution monitor and then use scaling. I know it has some benefit but it seemed rather a daft way of doing things if you are on a budget.

There's nothing wrong with capping FPS if your monitor can run at 144Hz. Only a purist would disagree.

Scaling is perfectly fine thing to do, getting text the right size, pictures to fit fine, etc.
What is not okay is seeing pixels, 1440p@24inch is fine for that, it removes a majority of visible pixels.
Changing text size by resolution at different sizes is, frankly, dumb.

I'm advocating for always capping FPS, not the other way.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Autumn_님이 먼저 게시:

G-sync/Freesync isn't a gimmick though.
And neither is 'factory overclocking' (since that's just higher refresh rate, something you said you value over all else)

I list it there, as it is an extra feature (I use gsync myself, so I am not hating on it btw!) but if you had to choose, I would just say the others are important

Hz boosting, can give unstablity, etc.. (ofc it is not working properly) is my experience, thus listed in the same spot. My argument also says (as long as you have 144 hz, it does not matter) unless you are a avid FPS gamer, that only play those and maybe earn money on it.. but then you would go for a high hz 1080 TN panel..... but for balanced usage, the above is what I think.

I personally think (if you sit close to the monitor / an arm lenght) then 27-32" 1440p is the sweet spot.

You listed It as a gimmick, not as a feature.

I haven't read anything about factory overclock settings being unstable, they wouldn't sell them as it if it couldn't.

The sweet spot is per-person;
I have TERRIBLE eye sight, past arms length is a constant blur, I can't read thing, things smear into each other, but I use my monitor ar arms length, and 1440p@24 inch still isn't enough, I can see pixels, I see jaggies. Not all of the time but enough to frustrate me. I want a higher resolution.
The ideal point is where you can't see pixels, not some 'sweetspot.'
Why do you think phones keep increasing in resolution? 300, 500, or more, PPI, that's not just marketing, it actually improves picture quality, removes aliasing, improving the picture by removing pixels.

[Illusion of Progress]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

In my opinion, hz (atleast 144hz) first, then resolution, then type (ips/va/ta)

I'm the reverse of that.

[AdahnGorion]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

In my opinion, hz (atleast 144hz) first, then resolution, then type (ips/va/ta)

I'm the reverse of that.

I would be as well, if I was doing game/video editing etc (IPS then is the only option) and then higher res.. But well.. to each his own, depends on needs.

[Drystoner]

1440p any day of the week. While 144 hz feels extra smooth, 60 is smooth enough, and I much prefer having a sharper image.

[AdahnGorion]

One Vision님이 먼저 게시:

1440p any day of the week. While 144 hz feels extra smooth, 60 is smooth enough, and I much prefer having a sharper image.

60 hz would give me headacke. I have not had 60 hz since 1998

[Drystoner]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

One Vision님이 먼저 게시:

1440p any day of the week. While 144 hz feels extra smooth, 60 is smooth enough, and I much prefer having a sharper image.

60 hz would give me headacke. I have not had 60 hz since 1998

You say that, but if you use it for a couple weeks you'll get used to it. That's exactly what I did when going from 1080p 144hz to 4k 60hz.