Display makers creating what we don't need?

[atavax]

I have a 6 year old 27" 144hz 1080p TN panel. Logically with all these displays with higher resolutions and refresh rates and better colors, I was looking into getting a new monitor. Then looking at sites that measure input lag, I realize, they all have worse input lag than my current monitor. Further, I look at the prices, and all the good ones cost like well into 4 figures. Then there is the fact that driving these higher res displays at high rates for online FPS is going to be incredibly expensive and often times impossible.

 

So the prospect is to spend maybe like $2k on a monitor that is worse than my 6 year old monitor in competitive gaming, doesn't create as good picture as a sub $1k TV and is going to be a bitch to play games on at the native resolution and a fps that takes advantage of the high refresh rate of the monitor. Probably causing my to spend twice as much on videocards to drive it. Or, you know, you could spend half as much on a TV with great color and decent input lag, use it for every game you don't need a high refresh rate and great input lag, and use your old TN panel for games you want that high refresh rate and low input lag for. And need to upgrade my videocard half as often because I'm not trying to drive a 4k monitor 120+hz monitor at native resolution and 120+fps

 

I get some people wanting the newest and greatest thing or some people not having the space for two displays, but it seems like the vast majority of gamers would be far better off having a dedicated competitive display and a separate high resolution, good color display.

[Doobeedoo]

There are some rather fast new monitors though, as far as input lag, response time and low ghosting. It's all LCD tech and LCD is slow among other things so.

Another thing, why does everyone think they need to run online fps games at native resolution? You can lower it no? You can get a 4K screen and play like 1080p easy. If you want balanced spec like monitor for a good budget then 1440p 144Hz IPS is a nice option. You can get those fairly cheap too.

[atavax]

23 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

There are some rather fast new monitors though, as far as input lag, response time and low ghosting. It's all LCD tech and LCD is slow among other things so.

Another thing, why does everyone think they need to run online fps games at native resolution? You can lower it no? You can get a 4K screen and play like 1080p easy. If you want balanced spec like monitor for a good budget then 1440p 144Hz IPS is a nice option. You can get those fairly cheap too.

I haven't seen any decent color monitors as fast or faster than old TN panels in terms of input lag. As for native resolution. Either you buy a display with the size to appreciate 4k, in which case, running it at 1080p looks horrible, or you buy a display that is small enough to make 1080p look good but then even if it is capable of 4k, you can't notice the detail of 4k. It also doesn't help things that the type of game you want to play at 1080p 144hz is the type of game you're typically very close to your display for and want higher pixel density for, and the type of game you don't really care about refresh rate of input lag for and want 4k to enjoy the graphics, is the type of game you're typically farther away from your display for.The problem with a 1440p 144hz IPS display is still worse for gaming than an old 1080p 144hz TN and is a giant step backwards in image quality from something like a QLED 4k TV you can get at the same price.

[Doobeedoo]

Just now, atavax said:

I haven't seen any decent color monitors as fast or faster than old TN panels in terms of input lag. As for native resolution. Either you buy a display with the size to appreciate 4k, in which case, running it at 1080p looks horrible, or you buy a display that is small enough to make 1080p look good but then even if it is capable of 4k, you can't notice the detail of 4k. It also doesn't help things that the type of game you want to play at 1080p 144hz is the type of game you're typically very close to your display for and the type of game you don't really care about refresh rate of input lag for and want 4k to enjoy the graphics, is the type of game you're typically farther away from your display for.The problem with a 1440p 144hz IPS display is still worse for gaming than an old 1080p 144hz TN and is a giant step backwards in image quality from something like a QLED 4k TV you can get at the same price.

Well, as far as fastest, there are newer TNs and also 240Hz IPS ones for a better color. 
You can get 4K run desktop and single player games or other online non shooter games, but in shooters just lower it, easy. Also which monitor you have? There are 1440p 144Hz IPS that are actually faster than equal TN ones, like both models from Asus for example. If you'd want the best you'd get a 240Hz anyway. QLED is still not as great as OLED too. 

[atavax]

8 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Well, as far as fastest, there are newer TNs and also 240Hz IPS ones for a better color. 
You can get 4K run desktop and single player games or other online non shooter games, but in shooters just lower it, easy. Also which monitor you have? There are 1440p 144Hz IPS that are actually faster than equal TN ones, like both models from Asus for example. If you'd want the best you'd get a 240Hz anyway. QLED is still not as great as OLED too. 

OLED still has burn in issues which is especially problematic if you use it with PC gaming. Maybe if you upgrade your display every other year it wouldn't be an issue, but if you want to upgrade after improvements in technology justify it instead of because of the short life expectancy of the product you bought, you still need to get an LCD display. I think a large 4k monitor playing at 1080p presents a worse gaming experience than a 1080p gaming monitor at whatever size you consider ideal for a 1080p gaming monitor and a small 4k monitor trying to be ok for playing shooters with is going to present a worse gaming experience for something like cyberpunk 2077 than a relatively low input lag TV.

My monitor is the BenQ XL2720Z

[Doobeedoo]

3 minutes ago, atavax said:

OLED still has burn in issues which is especially problematic if you use it with PC gaming. Maybe if you upgrade your display every other year it wouldn't be an issue, but if you want to upgrade after improvements in technology justify it instead of because of the short life expectancy of the product you bought, you still need to get an LCD display. I think a large 4k monitor playing at 1080p presents a worse gaming experience than a 1080p gaming monitor at whatever size you consider ideal for a 1080p gaming monitor and a small 4k monitor trying to be ok for playing shooters with is going to present a worse gaming experience for something like cyberpunk 2077 than a relatively low input lag TV.

My monitor is the BenQ XL2720Z

I mean yeah OLED has it's issues, mainly why there's almost none as far as monitor aside from those BFGD ones. But really it's the one that can offer the best picture and proper HDR too being per pixel illuminated. Depends how large of a 4K display, there are 27" 4K 144Hz and 1080p will look fine for specific games it's also 1:1 pixel ration. 30" in 1080p mode you'd sit a bit further away, still that's all fine for online shooters anyway. Personally I'd be fine with 27" 4K gaming display for like Cyberpunk 2077 why not. You get dense pixel density and I don't like huge monitors anyway. Especially a TV like what, can't see that on a desk. So not sure why a monitor would be a "worse" gaming experience.

Really when looking at image quality moving from that monitor anything will be better. Even newer TNs though, let alone IPS and higher res like 1440p for example.