144 Hz Monitors and a lot of Questions

[Dragonfly]

I'm going to start this off quickly and say that I have a GTX 1070 on the way and my TN 59Hz monitor doesn't seem very fitting of it, imo. As such, I've been looking into 144hz monitors and looking up all types of stuff on Google and I've come out rather confused thanks to the huge variance in responses. I'll list my questions based on how important they are to me.

1) I mindlessly blew a lot of cash on the GTX 1070, so what's the best budget 144hz 1080p monitor?

2) Are G-Sync/Freesync really that important? Also, I heard somewhere that Nvidia cards work with Freesync, but I'm pretty sure that they don't, right?

3) Is Nvidia Lightboost actually good at reducing motion blur?

4) Do HD, FHD, and UHD really matter when I'm picking a budget monitor?

5) Should I really blow cash over IPS rather than TN?

Thanks.

[ARikozuM]

I prefer resolution to frame-rate since I'm an RTS and RPG player primarily. If you like shooters, you can go with a 144hz monitor instead.

[Dragonfly]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I prefer resolution to frame-rate since I'm an RTS and RPG player primarily. If you like shooters, you can go with a 144hz monitor instead.

The latter category applies to me, so I'll take your advice lol.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Dragonfly said:

The latter category applies to me, so I'll take your advice lol.

Are you able to afford a 1440@144 monitor?

[Dragonfly]

56 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Are you able to afford a 1440@144 monitor?

I burned most of my money on the 1070, so no.

[ARikozuM]

What genres do you play?

[SeanAngelo]

2 hours ago, Dragonfly said:

I'm going to start this off quickly and say that I have a GTX 1070 on the way and my TN 59Hz monitor doesn't seem very fitting of it, imo. As such, I've been looking into 144hz monitors and looking up all types of stuff on Google and I've come out rather confused thanks to the huge variance in responses. I'll list my questions based on how important they are to me.

1) I mindlessly blew a lot of cash on the GTX 1070, so what's the best budget 144hz 1080p monitor?

2) Are G-Sync/Freesync really that important? Also, I heard somewhere that Nvidia cards work with Freesync, but I'm pretty sure that they don't, right?

3) Is Nvidia Lightboost actually good at reducing motion blur?

4) Do HD, FHD, and UHD really matter when I'm picking a budget monitor?

5) Should I really blow cash over IPS rather than TN?

Thanks.

1. Asus VG248QE

2. depends if you're willing to pay extra for it

3. no idea

4. depends if you can drive it, talking about UHD.

5. I personally prefer IPS for better colours

[Technous285]

Freesync Monitor + Nvidia card is like having a 100/120/144Hz monitor with plain old VSync instead of the adaptive refresh technologies.

I'm actually using an Acer XG270HU (27" 1440p144Hz Freesync) with 2x GTX980Ti's, and I'm running the system as if I've got a 1440p120Hz monitor with VSync in most games just fine (mainly because I didn't find it worth dropping upwards of $1000 AUD for a 27" 1440p144Hz GSync monitor).

 

As for the whole HD, FHD, QHD, UHD, that's shorthand to refer to 720p (HD), 1080p (FHD), 1440p (QHD) & 2160p/4K (UHD) resolution monitors & screens.

[Dragonfly]

41 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

What genres do you play?

Mostly shooters and some LoL.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Dragonfly said:

Mostly shooters and some LoL.

Go for high refresh rates. 1080@144 will do you more than high res.

[Dragonfly]

1 minute ago, Technous285 said:

Freesync Monitor + Nvidia card is like having a 100/120/144Hz monitor with plain old VSync instead of the adaptive refresh technologies.

I'm actually using an Acer XG270HU (27" 1440p144Hz Freesync) with 2x GTX980Ti's, and I'm running the system as if I've got a 1440p120Hz monitor with VSync in most games just fine (mainly because I didn't find it worth dropping upwards of $1000 AUD for a 27" 1440p144Hz GSync monitor).

 

As for the whole HD, FHD, QHD, UHD, that's shorthand to refer to 720p (HD), 1080p (FHD), 1440p (QHD) & 2160p/4K (UHD) resolution monitors & screens.

Alright, thanks for the info on the G-Sync stuff and the HD shorthands. That actually helps a lot because I couldn't get one answer on that online.

8 minutes ago, SeanAngelo said:

1. Asus VG248QE

2. depends if you're willing to pay extra for it

3. no idea

4. depends if you can drive it, talking about UHD.

5. I personally prefer IPS for better colours

Is there any alternative to the VG248QE? Everybody refers to it like the Holy Grail of budget 144hz monitors lol.

[SeanAngelo]

Just now, Dragonfly said:

Alright, thanks for the info on the G-Sync stuff and the HD shorthands. That actually helps a lot because I couldn't get one answer on that online.

Is there any alternative to the VG248QE? Everybody refers to it like the Holy Grail of budget 144hz monitors lol.

you look.

http://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=192001080&H=144,240&sort=a8&page=1

[lettuce head]

1 hour ago, Dragonfly said:

Mostly shooters and some LoL.

with a main difference being the ips vs tn and the price/input lag compared to color and viewing angles... you kind of have to take the input lag from the monitor with a grain of salt, as there isn't a standardized test for it so it could be different from different companies. I personally cant tell the difference between 1ms and 4ms advertised, but the colors were very very noticeable (and I play way too much cs:go). I went from 1080p tn at 60hz to 1440p ips at 60hz moving to an ultrawide soon hopefully). from what I have heard, the refresh rate is significantly more noticeable than a raise in resolution but that, like most things here, is personal preference. bear in mind that 1440p 60hz is 1.77x as many pixels as 1080p 60z, while 1080p 144hz is 2.4x as many frames per second, so 1080p 144hz should be tougher to drive and harder on the cpu than 1440p.

if you use the computer purely for gaming, id get a 144hz ips panel at 1080p without g-sync/freesync.

G-sync comes at a solid premium and makes less of a difference the higher your frames are, law of diminishing returns and whatnot. I don't think (at least on a gtx 1070) that g-sync is worth the premium at 1080p, as you'll be able to push very high frame rates almost 100% of the time. If you do go with g-sync though, make sure to check what fps range is supported. sometimes it can be as small as between 45-75 or as large as 45-144.

[scottyseng]

3 hours ago, Dragonfly said:

I burned most of my money on the 1070, so no.

Curious, what 1070 did you buy and for how much?

 

Yeah, I would recommend a 144Hz screen if possible, I'm pretty sure that 1070 will output more than 60fps constantly for games.

 

As for IPS vs TN, you will see a notable color improvement with IPS, but TN is quicker / cheaper. I've also heard good things about that ASUS monitor mentioned above for budget 144Hz screens.

[Dragonfly]

18 hours ago, lettuce head said:

with a main difference being the ips vs tn and the price/input lag compared to color and viewing angles... you kind of have to take the input lag from the monitor with a grain of salt, as there isn't a standardized test for it so it could be different from different companies. I personally cant tell the difference between 1ms and 4ms advertised, but the colors were very very noticeable (and I play way too much cs:go). I went from 1080p tn at 60hz to 1440p ips at 60hz moving to an ultrawide soon hopefully). from what I have heard, the refresh rate is significantly more noticeable than a raise in resolution but that, like most things here, is personal preference. bear in mind that 1440p 60hz is 1.77x as many pixels as 1080p 60z, while 1080p 144hz is 2.4x as many frames per second, so 1080p 144hz should be tougher to drive and harder on the cpu than 1440p.

if you use the computer purely for gaming, id get a 144hz ips panel at 1080p without g-sync/freesync.

G-sync comes at a solid premium and makes less of a difference the higher your frames are, law of diminishing returns and whatnot. I don't think (at least on a gtx 1070) that g-sync is worth the premium at 1080p, as you'll be able to push very high frame rates almost 100% of the time. If you do go with g-sync though, make sure to check what fps range is supported. sometimes it can be as small as between 45-75 or as large as 45-144.

I was really confused as to how important G-Sync was, but yeah I guess it's not that important. I'll look into 144hz IPS panels, but they really don't come nearly as cheap as TN panels, lol.

17 hours ago, scottyseng said:

Curious, what 1070 did you buy and for how much?

 

Yeah, I would recommend a 144Hz screen if possible, I'm pretty sure that 1070 will output more than 60fps constantly for games.

 

As for IPS vs TN, you will see a notable color improvement with IPS, but TN is quicker / cheaper. I've also heard good things about that ASUS monitor mentioned above for budget 144Hz screens.

It was a Zotac AMP! Extreme Edition 1070 and I got it for around $350 on a sale. I managed to get my eyes on an IPS monitor and I'm not going to lie, it looks nice, but they're so damn expensive.

[scottyseng]

1 hour ago, Dragonfly said:

It was a Zotac AMP! Extreme Edition 1070 and I got it for around $350 on a sale. I managed to get my eyes on an IPS monitor and I'm not going to lie, it looks nice, but they're so damn expensive.

Oh really nice. I got a used MSI Gaming 1070 for $330.

 

Yeah, IPS isn't cheap. I remember I paid $300ish for my ASUS 25" 1440p display (plain 60Hz...I'm not much of a gamer).

[Earnhardt]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 6:23 PM, Dragonfly said:

 

Bought the Benq XL2720Z about a month ago,Very Happy with it.

[idxearo]

TN Panels are lame but not all are bad. 

IPS is the best in terms of quality (colors) but 144hz IPS is expensive. You aren't going to find IPS 144hz at any affordable price. 

You should buy LED.

Do not buy a cheap IPS monitor for gaming. While being defaulted to 60hz (which isn't a bad thing) they suffer some bad response times, most times resulting into some odd motion blur. 

The Asus Swift and Acer Predator are the top tier gaming monitors but they aren't without flaws. A rule of thumb is that high performance items endure some serious workloads and over time it is common to run into some issue. Rare, and minor for many people, but if you are on a tight budget this may not be your playground. 

 

I would say just buy a cheap 144hz Monitor without any Sync technology. When you add "sync" into the marketing, be sure to add like 200$ to the price. 

Those sync technologies are meant to remove screen tearing. I have an AOC G2460PQU (which has no sync) @144hz and I barely notice any tearing. I use DVI to get the 144hz and has VESA mounting which was something I needed. 

 

To even enjoy 144hz, or any Sync technology, all games must be run at Full Screen as well. 

[lettuce head]

2 hours ago, idxearo said:

 

at 144hz, its generally hard to notice the screen tears anyways personally, and so many people run games on false windowed, but it adds sooooooooooooooooo much input lag, with vsync and false windowed mode on, you can see almost 100ms response times in addition to added vram being used.

[idxearo]

12 hours ago, lettuce head said:

at 144hz, its generally hard to notice the screen tears anyways personally, and so many people run games on false windowed, but it adds sooooooooooooooooo much input lag, with vsync and false windowed mode on, you can see almost 100ms response times in addition to added vram being used.

 

I'll be honest, I don't notice any screen tearing at all so I agree with you. 

If you want to take advantage of 144hz, you would need your game to be full screen. In windowed mode (including borderless), the GPU resources are shared and the game will actually look choppy on 144hz even if you had some large framerate. This is in addition to the worse response time as you mentioned. The only game this has no relevance to is Forza Horizon 3 which uses some advanced direct X feature I know little of

[KCmetro]

On 12/6/2016 at 11:14 PM, lettuce head said:

I went from 1080p tn at 60hz to 1440p ips at 60hz moving to an ultrawide soon hopefully). from what I have heard, the refresh rate is significantly more noticeable than a raise in resolution but that, like most things here, is personal preference. bear in mind that 1440p 60hz is 1.77x as many pixels as 1080p 60z, while 1080p 144hz is 2.4x as many frames per second, so 1080p 144hz should be tougher to drive and harder on the cpu than 1440p.

if you use the computer purely for gaming, id get a 144hz ips panel at 1080p without g-sync/freesync.

G-sync comes at a solid premium and makes less of a difference the higher your frames are, law of diminishing returns and whatnot. I don't think (at least on a gtx 1070) that g-sync is worth the premium at 1080p, as you'll be able to push very high frame rates almost 100% of the time. If you do go with g-sync though, make sure to check what fps range is supported. sometimes it can be as small as between 45-75 or as large as 45-144.

I'm currently shopping for a monitor, aiming for at least 100Hz, and 1440p, along with IPS. There's also PLS, which is supposed to be better.

Why do you say to not get g-sync/freesync?

One of my monitor dilemmas is choosing if I'll go that route.

I have an nvidia card (gtx1070) so it would be pointless to get a freesync monitor unless everything else was great about it.

What did you mean about g-sync and the low fps?

On 12/7/2016 at 0:27 AM, scottyseng said:

I'm pretty sure that 1070 will output more than 60fps constantly for games.

 

As for IPS vs TN, you will see a notable color improvement with IPS, but TN is quicker / cheaper. I've also heard good things about that ASUS monitor mentioned above for budget 144Hz screens.

1070's limited only when using 8K, otherwise fps gets high.

I recently saw a video comparing IPS to TN, holy cow IPS is so much better.

On 12/7/2016 at 5:59 PM, Dragonfly said:

I was really confused as to how important G-Sync was, but yeah I guess it's not that important. I'll look into 144hz IPS panels, but they really don't come nearly as cheap as TN panels, lol.

Give it time, if you haven't purchased it yet, before getting the monitor.

There's a lot to consider and it's the 1 thing you look at 99% of the time you do anything with the computer. It's kind of a big deal.

Get IPS.

I'm currently stuck choosing from:

https://pcpartpicker.com/user/KCmetro/saved/#view=myGLkL

 

[treeroy]

On ‎07‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 1:23 AM, Dragonfly said:

I'm going to start this off quickly and say that I have a GTX 1070 on the way and my TN 59Hz monitor doesn't seem very fitting of it, imo. As such, I've been looking into 144hz monitors and looking up all types of stuff on Google and I've come out rather confused thanks to the huge variance in responses. I'll list my questions based on how important they are to me.

1) I mindlessly blew a lot of cash on the GTX 1070, so what's the best budget 144hz 1080p monitor?

2) Are G-Sync/Freesync really that important? Also, I heard somewhere that Nvidia cards work with Freesync, but I'm pretty sure that they don't, right?

3) Is Nvidia Lightboost actually good at reducing motion blur?

4) Do HD, FHD, and UHD really matter when I'm picking a budget monitor?

5) Should I really blow cash over IPS rather than TN?

Thanks.

Adaptive sync is not that important. I use a 144Hz monitor, and never have tearing issues, I find vsync fine for the most part. The monitor has freesync but I can't use it since I don't have an AMD card - I really don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

An Nvidia card will "work with freesync" in the sense that it will work with the monitor perfectly normally. But it will not be able to use the feature of Freesync. And vice versa for Gsync.

Your resolution is up to you... if you are on a budget and can't get a 1440p monitor then that's that. It's no big deal especially if you are not getting a very large monitor. 1080p is fine, and means 144fps will be easier to hit in newer games.

 

And yes IPS is a thousand times better than TN, if you are able to then I would choose that. My TN panel has very poor colour reproduction and viewing angles are very bad.

[lettuce head]

9 hours ago, KCmetro said:

I'm currently shopping for a monitor, aiming for at least 100Hz, and 1440p, along with IPS. There's also PLS, which is supposed to be better.

Why do you say to not get g-sync/freesync?

One of my monitor dilemmas is choosing if I'll go that route.

I have an nvidia card (gtx1070) so it would be pointless to get a freesync monitor unless everything else was great about it.

What did you mean about g-sync and the low fps?

 

what i mean about the low fps and g-sync is that it is where g-sync shines. g-sync is worth it if you have lower frame rates, as any dip in fps will be very noticeable. If you are running, lets say, a 1080p 144hz panel with a gtx 1080, you're going to annihilate the monitors refresh rate and even if you were to dip below 144hz, you (probably) wouldn't notice it and g-sync wouldn't be helping you. g-sync is helpful with your hardware, as a gtx 1070 wont max out a 1440p 144hz monitor on intense games, it'll lock it at around 75-120 depending on what youre doing. i would say its a wise investment in your case, as you wont be buying another montior for quite a long time with how intensive 144hz 1440p is.

[KCmetro]

7 hours ago, lettuce head said:

what i mean about the low fps and g-sync is that it is where g-sync shines. g-sync is worth it if you have lower frame rates, as any dip in fps will be very noticeable. If you are running, lets say, a 1080p 144hz panel with a gtx 1080, you're going to annihilate the monitors refresh rate and even if you were to dip below 144hz, you (probably) wouldn't notice it and g-sync wouldn't be helping you. g-sync is helpful with your hardware, as a gtx 1070 wont max out a 1440p 144hz monitor on intense games, it'll lock it at around 75-120 depending on what youre doing. i would say its a wise investment in your case, as you wont be buying another montior for quite a long time with how intensive 144hz 1440p is.

I didn't think about that... not buying another monitor for a long time. The 24" 1080p that I have now, while definitely not as good as the $700 monitor in my list, it's still working and I have had it for a very long time. There's no telling how long any monitor would last, but I would definitely hope that such an expensive one would last a long time.

 

I thought people more into FPS went for g-sync, and FPS games are very fast paced, so if sync tech is all about the slower motions, why is it important?

 

My purpose is going to be mostly games like Star Citizen, with large cinematic scopes, with scenery, but if there's fast-paced action, great. I'm all about open-world games, exploration, discovery. Actually, I would like to compile a list of games like that, but have had no luck so far.

 

It all boils down to G-Sync being expensive. I might be able to budget it in, but would really like to find a lower priced alternative with like specs.

 

I was going to get a monitor soon, like this week, but I might wait 'til closer to Christmas to get one, although I don't know what day's best for that.

 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, KCmetro said:

I thought people more into FPS went for g-sync, and FPS games are very fast paced, so if sync tech is all about the slower motions, why is it important?

The screen waits for your GPU to render the frame before switching.