4K at 60Hz or 1440p at 144Hz?

[ZenTheAssassino]

I need to buy a monitor for my computer and I cannot figure out what type of monitor i can buy? 

(My CPU and my GPU can handle 4K at 60fps)

 

People say go for 1440p but my gaming rig is able to run higher resolutions

[Techicolors]

what is your cpu and gpu specifically?

[Oshino Shinobu]

I'd go for 1440p 144Hz. IMO you get a better gaming experience with higher Hz than you do with pure resolution, especially when a lot of textures aren't 4K anyway. I also find 1440p to be more practical for everyday use as 4K, unless it's on a big screen (32"+) is too small without scaling to be considered easily usable. It does have benefits for productivity work though as it gives you more pixel real estate to work with. 

[ZenTheAssassino]

Just now, Technicolors said:

what is your cpu and gpu specifically?

GTX 1080ti and i7 7700k

[WereCat]

1440p 144Hz is so much better gaming experience, 4k 60Hz cannot really compare.

[ARikozuM]

1440@144 hands down.

[LabRat]

the picture might look a little better but 60Hz is 60Hz at the end of the day.

 

[othertomperson]

Always 4K 60hz. I can only tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz in a side by side comparison, while the difference in resolution is like the difference between me having my glasses on, or not.

 

4K 60hz also has drastically lower hardware requirements, both on CPU and GPU.

[LabRat]

12 hours ago, othertomperson said:

Always 4K 60hz. I can only tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz in a side by side comparison, while the difference in resolution is like the difference between me having my glasses on, or not.

 

4K 60hz also has drastically lower hardware requirements, both on CPU and GPU.

You mean the completely opposite of what you just wrote right?

[ARikozuM]

Just now, LabRat said:

You mean the completely opposite of what you just wrote right?

You meant the complete opposite of what you've written, right?

[othertomperson]

10 minutes ago, LabRat said:

You mean the completely opposite of what you just wrote right?

I've used both 1080p 120Hz, and 4K 60hz as my daily driver in the last five years. I absolutely meant what I said.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, ZenTheAssassino said:

I need to buy a monitor for my computer and I cannot figure out what type of monitor i can buy? 

(My CPU and my GPU can handle 4K at 60fps)

 

People say go for 1440p but my gaming rig is able to run higher resolutions

1440p @ 144hz hands down. 4K looks pretty don't get me wrong, but 1440p is a nice sweet spot between high resolution and fast refresh rate. It is visibly better than 1080p, something I didn't think of when I switched, and 144hz is such a change from 60hz I can't believe people still think it can't be noticed. I see it all the time. If they actually come up with a 4K monitor @ 144hz (that's affordable) then perhaps that'll be king, but for now I say 1440p is plenty. 

[Lethalmonk]

54 minutes ago, ZenTheAssassino said:

I need to buy a monitor for my computer and I cannot figure out what type of monitor i can buy? 

(My CPU and my GPU can handle 4K at 60fps)

 

People say go for 1440p but my gaming rig is able to run higher resolutions

most games optimize 4k very well (issues sometimes arrise). depending on ur screen size i highly recommend 1440p at 144hz

[Rhett Quigley]

144hz is smooth

[othertomperson]

Bear in mind that the absolute fastest gaming CPU on the market right now -- the i7 7700k -- will struggle to give you a smooth 120 fps a lot of the time, let alone a constant 144 fps and when a CPU is pushed to its absolutle limit like that frame-time variance tends to go all over the place to the extent that a locked 60 fps at 16.67 ms evenly spaced frames appears smoother.

 

You're also talking about 530,841,600 pixels per second for 1440p 144hz, as opposed to 497,664,000 for 4K 60, which is a drastically higher GPU load. People complain that a 1080 Ti struggles with 4K 60fps in a lot of games -- what do you have that's this much more powerful than a 1080 Ti to handle this much additional load?

[WhiteSkyMage]

I would go for Ultrawide QHD for 75Hz/100Hz monitor. The thing is, after 100Hz, I don't really see a difference myself. There is also no benefit to very high FPS, UNLESS you are only playing competitive games.

Id pick either a 3440x1440p 100Hz monitor or a 3840x1600 75Hz monitor. Again - you WILL see a difference going from 60 to 75Hz, more so than going fro 75Hz to 100Hz and beyond. Honestly, go for 21:9 ultrawide, 16:9 is old stuff...

[LabRat]

Just because a monitor is 144Hz you don't have to expect to get 144fps in each and every game. That's ridiculous. But the majority of the games I play would well be suited for a higher refresh rate monitor. And as stated above, it's smoother than 60, there's no "fade" or pixel "catch up" when you move your mouse around, especially when gaming.

4K looks great, but 1440p looks great too. So in the end it's back to 16:9 vs 16:10. As much as I like 16:10, I've grown very accustomed to smoother gamer play and quicker reactions. Now carry that over to on line gaming.

[Darkseth]

What games do you play?

 

Some don't benefit much more from more than 60 fps. Or let's say, they are perfectly playable in 60 fps.

Others look a HELL LOT smoother in 144 fps (on 144+ Hz).

 

To me, 60 Hz vs. 144 Hz (or 165 Hz in my case) is a Night and Day difference. Even when browsing,s crolling, or just moving the mouse. Get used to 165 Hz here, and Nothing on a 60 Hz monitor will ever feel smooth anymore tbh. All the windows are sluggish, text is producing horrible Ghosting / trailing when beeing moved..

 

The difference is so big for me, i would take TN @ 144+ Hz over the best IPS Panel in the world, if it has only 60 Hz. 

 

 

Your GTX 1080 ti is able to push both. 4k @ 60 fps with maybe minur setting tweaks, or WQHD @ 100-140+ fps.

So what do you prefer? More sharpness / detail but same "smoothness"?

Or more like a LOT more smoothness / response?

[ZenTheAssassino]

On 4/13/2017 at 1:14 PM, Darkseth said:

What games do you play?

 

Some don't benefit much more from more than 60 fps. Or let's say, they are perfectly playable in 60 fps.

Others look a HELL LOT smoother in 144 fps (on 144+ Hz).

 

To me, 60 Hz vs. 144 Hz (or 165 Hz in my case) is a Night and Day difference. Even when browsing,s crolling, or just moving the mouse. Get used to 165 Hz here, and Nothing on a 60 Hz monitor will ever feel smooth anymore tbh. All the windows are sluggish, text is producing horrible Ghosting / trailing when beeing moved..

 

The difference is so big for me, i would take TN @ 144+ Hz over the best IPS Panel in the world, if it has only 60 Hz. 

 

 

Your GTX 1080 ti is able to push both. 4k @ 60 fps with maybe minur setting tweaks, or WQHD @ 100-140+ fps.

So what do you prefer? More sharpness / detail but same "smoothness"?

Or more like a LOT more smoothness / response?

I play the Division, Wildlands and bf games

I like a lot of sharpness and detail that's the thing, but i would probably go with smoothness

[ZenTheAssassino]

On 4/12/2017 at 11:50 PM, othertomperson said:

Bear in mind that the absolute fastest gaming CPU on the market right now -- the i7 7700k -- will struggle to give you a smooth 120 fps a lot of the time, let alone a constant 144 fps and when a CPU is pushed to its absolutle limit like that frame-time variance tends to go all over the place to the extent that a locked 60 fps at 16.67 ms evenly spaced frames appears smoother.

 

You're also talking about 530,841,600 pixels per second for 1440p 144hz, as opposed to 497,664,000 for 4K 60, which is a drastically higher GPU load. People complain that a 1080 Ti struggles with 4K 60fps in a lot of games -- what do you have that's this much more powerful than a 1080 Ti to handle this much additional load?

Division and Wildlands

[maizenblue]

I would lean towards 1440p 144hz, but it could also depend on what kind of gamer you are.

 

If you are into playing FPS shooter games like BF1/4, and like to be competitive, then the higher refresh rate will definitely make a difference. I've never played BF1, but in BF4 I went from a 60hz monitor to a 144hz gsync monitor and it was definitely noticeable. Flying helos in particular was easier with the higher FPS as everything feels more responsive and instantaneous.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is whether you have the money and desire to upgrade your GPU when new games come out that your GPU wont be able to handle at 4k without dialing back settings. 1440p will future proof your GPU better than a 4k monitor will. The 1080ti can BARELY handle 60 fps with ultra and high settings in modern graphically intense games right now, so its a safe bet that it wont be long before must have games are released that it cant handle at 4k.

 

Having said that, I would imagine that games look noticeably better in 4K. It might be a whole different experience, and it has to be exciting to finally be able to game at that resolution.

[Darkseth]

8 hours ago, ZenTheAssassino said:

I play the Division, Wildlands and bf games

I like a lot of sharpness and detail that's the thing, but i would probably go with smoothness

Then i guess, you will have to try both...

 

The thing is, there are people who SWEAR for 4k sharpness / level of detail, and would not trade it against 144 Hz. And are perfectly fine with 60 fps / 60 Hz.

And others don't want to trade 144+ Hz again, and would rather play in 1440p.

 

I think, shooters benefit from more than 60 Hz

[DildorTheDecent]

11 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

I think, shooters benefit from more than 60 Hz

Hugely. Could argue the same for racing games. Anything face paced is a good candidate for 100Hz+ anyway 

[ArduinoBen]

What will you be doing?  Mostly gaming?

 

 

For more casual or intense games, 4K one.  For esports like CS:GO and stuff go for the 144 hertz one.

 

 

Also:

What is your rig like?

Will you be doing professional stuff or video/movie watching on there too?

[Glenwing]

On 4/12/2017 at 8:50 PM, othertomperson said:

You're also talking about 530,841,600 pixels per second for 1440p 144hz, as opposed to 497,664,000 for 4K 60, which is a drastically higher GPU load. People complain that a 1080 Ti struggles with 4K 60fps in a lot of games -- what do you have that's this much more powerful than a 1080 Ti to handle this much additional load?

6.66% = drastically higher load?

 

I guess 1920×1200 is really significantly more difficult to run than 1920×1080 too, because that's an 11.1% increase. Oddly I never noticed much of a difference.