4K vs 144Hz vs HDR? [monitors]

[Cakefish]

If I already own the AOC Q3277PQU monitor (1440p/60Hz), what would be the best route to take for a potential upgrade? My current monitor has developed a dead pixel so that’s why I’m considering upgrading (already tried software fixes to no avail).

My hardware is a GTX 1080 and an i7-6700K. I don’t play competitive multiplayer games, only single player games. I use it for watching videos too..

Please give me some advice! I’m lost.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16824011185

Or if you are not made from money the VA panel ultrawide without G-sync:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824011196

There are also various other new VA panel ultrawides that are cheaper then IPS panels but with almost as good colors.
HDR is too new thing still imho, there are almost no games with proper HDR support.
Going full 4K is prob little too much for your rig.

[Duck]

4K isn't worht it at the moment really. It's too hard to run, so 1440p 144hz would be much better for gaming, as it both looks realaly nice and has a smooth experience.

4K is it you have a really high end rig, professional, or just want stuff to look gorgious.

1080p is if you're on a budget, are a competitive csgo player who wants 240hz, or just does simple tasks like web browsing or watching porn.

720p is for schools and 10 year old kids who are still using their parents' laptop from 2004

480p is for them old school guys

120p is the norm for youtube videos in Australia.

[Astraea Kisaragi]

The problem is with high resos that is a different story to use it as screen and different to play. 4K gaming is not possible even with recent hardware in more demanding games.
A quality 1440p IPS screen is what you need. 120 or 144hz.
You can ignore VA screens and I would also ignore PLS of Samsung. IPS is the way to go.

[Cakefish]

Okay so sounds like HDR support isn’t worth investing in yet?

What makes the most noticeable difference in everyday desktop use like Windows UI and web browsing? 4K or 144Hz?

[FeilDOW]

4k gaming is 100% possible with a 1080 ti with AA off and a few settings to high. I would also say HDR is also worth investing in and the monitors are coming out this month. New games are supporting HDR and it looks great on my 4k HDR T.V's, the games I have played that support HDR are ARK, AoM, AC:O, SoW, FF15, Far Cry 4, RE7, ah too many here is a list of supported games so far https://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Special:Ask/-5B-5BCategory:Games-5D-5D-20-5B-5Bhigh_dynamic_range::true-5D-5D-20OR-20-5B-5Bhigh_dynamic_range::hackable-5D-5D/-3FDeveloped-20by/-3FPublished-20by/-3FRelease-20date/-3FAvailable-20on/-3Fhigh_dynamic_range/format%3Dtemplate/limit%3D100/template%3DFeature-2Frow/introtemplate%3DFeature-2Fintro/outrotemplate%3DFeature-2Foutro .

Your rig would be good for 1440p but you would need a 1080 ti to game comfortably at 4k. I would wait for the new monitors to launch this month and see what it will cost for a nice 1440p HDR panel and if they are too expensive i'm sure there will be good sales on current 1440p panels,

[Cakefish]

The thing that gives me reason to consider 4K is the fact that I’m also considering upgrading to the GTX 2080 when NVIDIA announces it later this year.

I also have an iPad Pro and do notice the 120Hz frame rate but also the higher pixel density.

The newly announced no compromise 4K/144Hz/HDR displays are unfortunately a bit too pricey for my liking. I can’t possibly justify spending thousands on one, however much I’d love to.

[Monk]

4k watching a movie, looking g at photos etc is amazing, I still stand by my belief it makes much less of an impact when you are running round in a game, 1440p looks great, and the clarity increase for gaming is not worth giving up higher smoother FPS (you don't need to hit 144 to benefit, and as elite correctly points out 1440p 144 is more demanding than 4k 60, fortunately, you don't need to hit the monitors cap to benefit from higher fps.

This video is a great example of the added fluidity higher FPS brings https://youtu.be/uTaIeNajbXc

On the question of HDR, it looks great and I feel it really adds to the experience, shame it's not more widely available yet.

The ultimate combo is the upcoming 4k 144Hz HDR etc screens, however, they gave the district downside of costing a bloody fortune, along with their not really being anything available that can truly make use of them yet, I would expect you'll need a pair of the next gen xx80ti's to really benefit.

Based on the titan Volta, we can make a few assumptions, the next top end GPU will jump by about 30% over the current 1080ti, , so the xx80 will likely fall in a bit above a 1080ti is now (unless the new cards blow Volta away, which is possible, it is a scientific card after all), and sli 1080ti's won't really make proper use of a high refresh 4k screen in alot of games.

Once 4k 144 is viable, I will most definitely be looking to make the jump, but when games are coming out that push my rig to its limits at 1440p, I fear we are a way off still.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Ursprungligen skrivet av EliteGamer:

Yeah, 4K 144hz HDR is the icing on the cake, but I must admit, I'm also shocked at the price. I expected around £1500 - £2000 , not well over £2000 lol.

Pretty much exactly what I was expecting, that's why I didnt even get exited about those.
It's like the OLED wallpaper TVs, damn nice but 9 people out of 10 cant afford it anyway.

[Monk]

I've not said 80-100 is high refreshing I have said, and repeated this to you every time you bring it up, that the benefits begin to be felt, that the largest vain is the initial increase, which is matamatically correct, so let's not start this again, as to the cost, I am not prepared to drop 2 grand on a monitor until I am happy the vast majority of big AAA games will be running above 120fps maxed out, none of this you don't need AA crap, I want my games truly maxed out no compromises.

While 4k looks great, it's not worth that kind of money to bump the Res, when to me, as good as it looks, while playing, I simply don't notice the difference enough, the HDR etc is as much of a reason for me, but again, the cost can't be justified yet.
As for colour clarity 4k doesn't offer any better colours really, it's down to the individual panel and settings a properly set up and calibrated 1080p will have great colours compared to a 4k one with bad settings.
Now a 4k properly set up, I'll admit will have the best overall.

[Monk]

The colours don't degrade on a monitor at a higher refresh rate unless something is wrong with it, overclocking g a screen can have unwanted side effects, hence they are sold as 165Hz panels not 180, I am guessing this dark colour is a side effect.

Yes, I have said the biggest change is at 100fps from 60, you are cutting the refresh down from 16.6ms to 10ms, it is a huge improvement.
I don't tend to edit what I've said beyond typos and will nearly always add 'edit' at the end for any further comments I added in.

Yes I've said that above 120fps it becomes harder to notice, mathematically I'm backed up on this point of view, doesn't mean I don't prefer higher, the majority of my games I play above 120 FPS.

Likewise I have always said when the hardware exists to run a 4k144 panel I would make the swap, but unless I have said hardware it seems like a bit of a waste of money.

I am unaware quite what you think of my financial situation has to do with, well, anything to be honest.

I've planned to have the cash saved up and set aside for my next upgrade since I finished my current build, this way it's not an issue to upgrade when the time comes.

I'd thought the new screens would come in closer to 1500, I'm clearly wrong so will simply save a bit longer so if the next round of 80ti cards can push it, I'll upgrade, if not, I'll wait, the resolution gain isn't as important to me as the benefit of HDR, I am perfectly happy with my ROG swift for the time being, as you prefer resolution, I prefer refresh.

[FeilDOW]

No one is going to win arguing over personal preferences, some like high refeash rates and others like myself like resolution, but I don't play competitive FPS so my 120hz 1440p monitor just sits here most the time. I have done side by sides with lots of games and always go to the crisp image over FPS.

I'm playing ff15 right now and on my 4k HDR TV it looks amazing tried it on the 1440p IPS 120hz panel and it looks nothing alike, 4k all day long.

[Monk]

Ursprungligen skrivet av FeilDOW:

No one is going to win arguing over personal preferences, some like high refeash rates and others like myself like resolution, but I don't play competitive FPS so my 120hz 1440p monitor just sits here most the time. I have done side by sides with lots of games and always go to the crisp image over FPS.

I'm playing ff15 right now and on my 4k HDR TV it looks amazing tried it on the 1440p IPS 120hz panel and it looks nothing alike, 4k all day long.

Daft thing there is the ppi of your monitor us likely higher than your 4k TV, thus making the 1440p monitor technically, clearer and crisper.

My screen does not get darker swapping from60, 120 and 144 mode,. You don't need to overclock 144, 165 or 240 screens.
If you have overclocked your 165 panel to 180, that is where the issue likely is.

Also, how the hell do you feel you have any idea of how much money I have? I mean, you clearly don't have much, hence you like to show off the inevitable bank loan of notes used to buy your bike all with a pair of fake rolexs on your damn profile as if it means something.

There is a huge ammount of evidence that backs up what my specs are and there is a large difference between being able to afford and justify a purchase.

[Cakefish]

Thanks everyone.

Which of these 24" 144Hz monitors would be best value?

1) Samsung C24FG73 - 24", FHD, VA, 144Hz, FreeSync - £269.99

2) AOC Agon AG241QG - 24", QHD, TN, 165Hz, G-Sync - £419.99

3) Dell S2417DG - 24", QHD, TN, 165Hz, G-Sync - £479.99

My PC: GTX 1080 and i7-6700K

Is the higher resolution and addition of G-Sync of the AOC/Dell monitors worth the 55-77% extra cost over the Samsung monitor bearing in mind the trade off of TN vs VA? I am considering going for the cheaper option and then saving that money ready for when 4K/144Hz/HDR monitors become affordable (by which time I'll have new GPU).

[FeilDOW]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Monk:

Ursprungligen skrivet av FeilDOW:

No one is going to win arguing over personal preferences, some like high refeash rates and others like myself like resolution, but I don't play competitive FPS so my 120hz 1440p monitor just sits here most the time. I have done side by sides with lots of games and always go to the crisp image over FPS.

I'm playing ff15 right now and on my 4k HDR TV it looks amazing tried it on the 1440p IPS 120hz panel and it looks nothing alike, 4k all day long.

Daft thing there is the ppi of your monitor us likely higher than your 4k TV, thus making the 1440p monitor technically, clearer and crisper.

My screen does not get darker swapping from60, 120 and 144 mode,. You don't need to overclock 144, 165 or 240 screens.
If you have overclocked your 165 panel to 180, that is where the issue likely is.

Also, how the hell do you feel you have any idea of how much money I have? I mean, you clearly don't have much, hence you like to show off the inevitable bank loan of notes used to buy your bike all with a pair of fake rolexs on your damn profile as if it means something.

There is a huge ammount of evidence that backs up what my specs are and there is a large difference between being able to afford and justify a purchase.

I have a 27' 4k monitor as well, I was talking more HDR on the TV but people do also say you don't see the benefit of 4k till your on a 55" plus screen, to each his own

I didn't say ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about your wealth Monk, please quote the right person.

[Malygos]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Cakefish:

Thanks everyone.

Which of these 24" 144Hz monitors would be best value?

1) Samsung C24FG73 - 24", FHD, VA, 144Hz, FreeSync - £269.99

2) AOC Agon AG241QG - 24", QHD, TN, 165Hz, G-Sync - £419.99

3) Dell S2417DG - 24", QHD, TN, 165Hz, G-Sync - £479.99

My PC: GTX 1080 and i7-6700K

Is the higher resolution and addition of G-Sync of the AOC/Dell monitors worth the 55-77% extra cost over the Samsung monitor bearing in mind the trade off of TN vs VA? I am considering going for the cheaper option and then saving that money ready for when 4K/144Hz/HDR monitors become affordable (by which time I'll have new GPU).

If you’re going for high refresh rate yes gsync is worth it im highly doubting next gen gpu’s will deliver (k 144fps unless you sli them so i wouldnt even worry about that