24'' 1440p 144hz monitors?

[SHREDDER]

Do they exist? Iam trying to find one but i can not so far. Or are there only 60 hz at that size? If there is not one then i will buy the DELL 24'' P2416D 1440P 6 MS IPS LED DVI VGA HDMI but some friends has suggest me that since i am playing mostly action games and fighters(as you can see from my steam profile) it will better form me to get a 144 hz one. But ny desk dont have enough space for anything bigger than 24''. Iam currently ona 21,5'' 1080p 60 hz monitor. So does monitors like these exist? If not are there any plans for the future? Is the DELL 24'' P2416D 1440P 6 MS IPS LED DVI VGA HDMI the best 1440p 24'' monitor currently avaliable?

[Zireth]

You want a 1ms response time 6ms will fail you on many games. Also depends on hardware to run 1440p a gtx1070 will do 60hz a 1080 will do 144hz

[Revelene]

引用自 Lady Of Trades And Spades：

You want a 1ms response time 6ms will fail you on many games. Also depends on hardware to run 1440p a gtx1070 will do 60hz a 1080 will do 144hz

Common misconception that the advertised 1ms vs 6ms is instantly better.

To further understand the full situation, you have to understand that the latency advertised is normally GTG (gray to gray).

While this is important to be lower for less ghosting, this does not mean the overall input latency is better. In fact, there are many 1ms TN panels getting beaten in overall latency by higher GTG latency IPS panels.

[SHREDDER]

引用自 Lady Of Trades And Spades：

You want a 1ms response time 6ms will fail you on many games. Also depends on hardware to run 1440p a gtx1070 will do 60hz a 1080 will do 144hz

DELLP2416D is 6 ms however i dont have any issues in games. My previous monitor LG22MP55 was 5 ms 1080p and before that i had a 2ms 19'' 1280x1024. I didnt notice any difference between game response going from 2 to 5 and to 6 ms but the improvement in graphics and image quality going from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080 and fron 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 was huge, Imagine how huge the jump will be if i decide to skip 4k and go straight to 8k(firsr 8k monitors comign next years but we will need titan xl pasal sli and core i7 5960x or better for them).

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Consider all the screen specs; however that GTG timing, that's the last thing I'd even look at; most of those are fictitious specs anyways when it comes to that timing. In the end it's the Res, Refresh and the overall features and screen quality that counts for the most part. GTG, 1ms vs 5ms; it won't really matter.

[not cheezy]

there is an a 1440p 144hz 24" monitor: https://www.amazon.de/AOC-AG271QX-Monitor-Displayport-h%C3%B6henverstellbar/dp/B01LT04C30/ref=s9_simh_gw_g147_i2_r?pf_rd_m=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF&pf_rd_s=&pf_rd_r=KCYM6HWZYNN84XSZF62K&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=31e89994-24c5-4f2a-aa69-5e32e91703a1&pf_rd_i=desktop&th=1

[Ocelote.12]

I know about three models:

1) AOC AG241QX (23.8", 1440p, TN, 1ms, 146Hz, FreeSync support)
2) AOC AG241QG (23.8", 1440p, TN, 1ms, 165Hz, G-Sync support, is noticeably (+35% or +150$) more expensive than #1 because of G-Sync)
3) DELL S2417DG (23.8", 1440p. TN, 1ms, 165Hz, G-Sync support, costs nearly the same as #2)

I don't know for sure, but they all probably use the same LCD matrix model of some unknown to me manufacturer.

P.S. I wonder what's that in G-Sync that makes a 150$ difference? An option for a monitor that costs as much as a regular standard FullHD monitor? (I know what G-Sync technically does but I still do not understand why is it so expensive?)

[WarmedxMints]

引用自 Manul：

I know about three models:

1) AOC AG241QX (23.8", 1440p, TN, 1ms, 146Hz, FreeSync support)
2) AOC AG241QG (23.8", 1440p, TN, 1ms, 165Hz, G-Sync support, is noticeably (+35% or +150$) more expensive than #1 because of G-Sync)
3) DELL S2417DG (23.8", 1440p. TN, 1ms, 165Hz, G-Sync support, costs nearly the same as #2)

I don't know for sure, but they all probably use the same LCD matrix model of some unknown to me manufacturer.

P.S. I wonder what's that in G-Sync that makes a 150$ difference? An option for a monitor that costs as much as a regular standard FullHD monitor? (I know what G-Sync technically does but I still do not understand why is it so expensive?)

G-Sync modules are supplied by Nvidia I believe so the manfacturer has to pay for that and the liscense hence the extra cost. It would be nice if Nvidia would bring these costs down but until they actually have some competition for their high ends cards, they have no reason too.

Hopefully soon we will finally have a compeitive market in comsumer GPU's but I fear AMD will only bring their new cards up to spec with current technology and then Nvidia will just release their next generation cards and blow the current tech out of the water.

[Karas]

引用自 Horus：

You're dead wrong.

A higher resolution is only useful if you can see each pixel, and individual pixels are important.

A 27", 2560x1440 monitor achieves this. A 24" with such resolution would have pixels too small to see.

A 970 is a decent card. However, if you play mostly action games, the time resolution is a *LOT* more important than the horizontal and vertical resolutions.

Also, there is something called anti-aliasing which emulates a higher resolution on a lower-resolution screen.

Most games look better at 1080p with anti-aliasing than at 1440p without.

Having a high resolution for the sake of having a high resolution doesn't do anything for you, not at the current ones, and especially not while playing fast-paced games.

Take it from someone who has been through the whole 60hz/120hz (or 144hz) argument every which way: you're MUCH better off with a high refresh rate screen.

What kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is this? Do you know what pixel density is?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yea bad logic for sure; cmon folks, our Phones are full 1080p

So saying you can't see 1440p well enough just because the screen is physically smaller is complete non-sense.

[Horus]

引用自 BMGaming：

Yea bad logic for sure; cmon folks, our Phones are full 1080p

So saying you can't see 1440p well enough just because the screen is physically smaller is complete non-sense.

Thank you.

How many fast-paced shooters do you play on your phone?

引用自 Karas Rider：

引用自 Horus：

You're dead wrong.

A higher resolution is only useful if you can see each pixel, and individual pixels are important.

A 27", 2560x1440 monitor achieves this. A 24" with such resolution would have pixels too small to see.

A 970 is a decent card. However, if you play mostly action games, the time resolution is a *LOT* more important than the horizontal and vertical resolutions.

Also, there is something called anti-aliasing which emulates a higher resolution on a lower-resolution screen.

Most games look better at 1080p with anti-aliasing than at 1440p without.

Having a high resolution for the sake of having a high resolution doesn't do anything for you, not at the current ones, and especially not while playing fast-paced games.

Take it from someone who has been through the whole 60hz/120hz (or 144hz) argument every which way: you're MUCH better off with a high refresh rate screen.

What kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is this? Do you know what pixel density is?

Do you know what refresh rate is?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Overall though it tends to be like this for most part:

around 24 inch and below = 1080p (16:9)

above this area = 1440p or 2160p (16:9); but this so few, ranging from around 27 - 30 inch

around 27-32+ inch range; either some sort of UltraWide (21:9) varient; or 4K / 2160p

so there really are not alot of options when it comes to "available sizes for 1440p while being 16:9 ratio"

[SHREDDER]

Well going from 21,'5 1080p to this 24'' 1440p i saw big improvement on image/graphics quality so yes it was worth it