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

[AdahnGorion]

Publicado originalmente por One Vision:

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

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.

No I would not. I have used 60hz prior to 1999... albeit my issue with it stems from the fact, I was used to 50 hz on tv and monitors, further back... But 60 hz in our modern time is not acceptable if you ask me... it strains the eyes like a mad and just give you subpar performance.

If you don´t game or watch movies etc... then maybe for people that use the monitor seldom and for just light usage.

Gaming wise, you would gain more from 144hz 1080 and even more so 1440p, then 60hz 4k... atleast if we talk anything below 32"

[Illusion of Progress]

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

Publicado originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

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.

Yeah, wasn't trying to knock your preferences or anything. Just found it interesting mine are reversed.

Of course, I still have minimum thresholds I wouldn't go below in any category. Namely, IPS, 1440p, and 120 Hz/144 Hz. Going with TN or 1080p, for example, would be a downgrade over my current display. But, say my current one died and I HAD to choose 1440p or 144 Hz in a pinch on a limited budget, I'd go with the former. Would not ever consider TN no matter what. I'd probably drop to 1080p before that and that's saying a lot for me.

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

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

Given the year you're giving, this would be CRT times, and would imply you've stuck with that CRT until 120 Hz LCDs came (unless you had a 75 Hz LCD and are counting that). If so, 60 Hz on an LCD is nothing like 60 Hz on a CRT due to the differences in the way they operate. It's actually down to how much smoother/faster CRTs are; the flicker is caused by the lack of light between refreshes, whereas LCDs don't inherently refresh like that, but are rather static and only update.

[Autumn_]

Publicado originalmente por One Vision:

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

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.

Going to disagree on that one, considering 60hz gives me some of the worst eyestrain and headaches I've ever had in my life.
Changing to 144 (Or rather, anything above 100hz) fixed the issue for me.

[Drystoner]

Publicado originalmente por Autumn_:

Publicado originalmente por One Vision:

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.

Going to disagree on that one, considering 60hz gives me some of the worst eyestrain and headaches I've ever had in my life.
Changing to 144 (Or rather, anything above 100hz) fixed the issue for me.

Eh, overdramatic lol

[AdahnGorion]

Publicado originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

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.

Yeah, wasn't trying to knock your preferences or anything. Just found it interesting mine are reversed.

Of course, I still have minimum thresholds I wouldn't go below in any category. Namely, IPS, 1440p, and 120 Hz/144 Hz. Going with TN or 1080p, for example, would be a downgrade over my current display. But, say my current one died and I HAD to choose 1440p or 144 Hz in a pinch on a limited budget, I'd go with the former. Would not ever consider TN no matter what. I'd probably drop to 1080p before that and that's saying a lot for me.

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

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

Given the year you're giving, this would be CRT times, and would imply you've stuck with that CRT until 120 Hz LCDs came (unless you had a 75 Hz LCD and are counting that). If so, 60 Hz on an LCD is nothing like 60 Hz on a CRT due to the differences in the way they operate. It's actually down to how much smoother/faster CRTs are; the flicker is caused by the lack of light between refreshes, whereas LCDs don't inherently refresh like that, but are rather static and only update.

Indeed. I think it was abit funny and don´t get me wrong, I fully respect your opinion and what you like.. (we are all unique after all)

We actually agree a lot with threadshold it seems, I would also have atleast 144 hz, IPS and 1440p.. so well.. (not all can afford that, but I can, thus my "high" standards)
Indeed I had a 100hz CRT back in 99´ But that was another age and my memory and bias, might also impact what I write (obviously)


I guess my point is, that once you go 144hz, IPS and 1440p.. it is hard to return to ie. a 1080p or TN monitor for that matter.... just like a lot of other things in life.

Publicado originalmente por Autumn_:

Publicado originalmente por One Vision:

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.

Going to disagree on that one, considering 60hz gives me some of the worst eyestrain and headaches I've ever had in my life.
Changing to 144 (Or rather, anything above 100hz) fixed the issue for me.

Indeed. eyestrain is high for me on low hz.. But well.. we could debate many things..

[Autumn_]

Publicado originalmente por One Vision:

Publicado originalmente por Autumn_:

Going to disagree on that one, considering 60hz gives me some of the worst eyestrain and headaches I've ever had in my life.
Changing to 144 (Or rather, anything above 100hz) fixed the issue for me.

Eh, overdramatic lol

I'm not being over dramatic.
It would cause me lots of pain, and 144hz fixed it for me.

I can look at a 60hz monitor for a few moments, to about 15 mins, but if it's half an hour or more, that eye strain and headache come back, I can't use 60hz panels.
There is no 'week to adjust to it's, because I had it for like 5 years.

Some people just can't use 60hz.

[Illusion of Progress]

Publicado originalmente por Darkie:

I guess my point is, that once you go 144hz, IPS and 1440p.. it is hard to return to ie. a 1080p or TN monitor for that matter.... just like a lot of other things in life.

Oh, I definitely believe it. When my CRT was going bad and I had to move to LCD (above 60 Hz wasn't really yet a thing then like it is now, and especially if you wanted good colors and viewing angles, IPS isn't as fast as TN), one of the first things I noticed was cursor blue on the desktop (and, by extension, less smoothness). The next was the aggressive AG coating. Those two things aside, I don't have any complaints. 1920 x 1200 isn't what it once was, but it was great back then, and still okay today (it served as the perfect intermediary resolution IMO, but I digress).

That said, I did exactly what I said others were doing (which often got me responses of denial on their part). I "settled", but the difference is, I admit it. To be honest, even modern LCDs are "settling" in some regards relative to what we had with good CRTs (of course, there's a LOT they also improved upon).

But, yeah, I definitely know 60 Hz can be low to some people. In some games, if I get a constant 60 FPS most of the time, even the drops to the upper 40s or 50s are somewhat bothersome (might be because the particular example I'm thinking of, Minecraft, is one where I use triple buffering which adds more input delay?). But, I just wanted to clarify that 60 Hz on a display from the 1990s (most likely a CRT) isn't the same as 60 Hz on an LCD. CRTs had visible flicker below 75 Hz to 85 Hz for most people. LCDs don't operate in a way to where this happens in the same way, regardless of refresh rate.