Monitor for the 1080TI

[dv8t]

Alright so I was going to originally buy a 1080p 144 hz monitor and just get a 4k at a later stage but read some posts online and thinking about it, it just seems stupid so I'll either go for the 4k now or 1440p, need advice. Going to be using it mainly for gaming.

 

- How important is response time, is there a huge difference between 1 and 5 ms?
- Freesync/Gsync/Adaptive sync? Is this a must for a gaming monitor?

 

Just generally need some guidance in terms of what I should be looking at as I honestly have no clue anymore.

 

pricepoint-wise/specs wise/1440 60/144hz

 

Money isn't an issue but don't want to be blowing stupid money on this, if i'm going to upgrade in a year or so.

 

 

Thanks

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, dv8t said:

- How important is response time, is there a huge difference between 1 and 5 ms?

Response time is a largely pointless metric now because there's no standard. Even then, humans can't discern any difference at 4ms.

3 minutes ago, dv8t said:

- Freesync/Gsync/Adaptive sync? Is this a must for a gaming monitor?

If you cannot guarantee frame rates above the refresh rate and you want no tearing, you should get a G-Sync monitor. Otherwise it's not important.

 

[dv8t]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Response time is a largely pointless metric now because there's no standard. Even then, humans can't discern any difference at 4ms.

If you cannot guarantee frame rates above the refresh rate and you want no tearing, you should get a G-Sync monitor. Otherwise it's not important.

 

 

hmm, so I take it I would need gsync as I doubt i'd be going over 144 fps on ultra setts with the 1080ti @ 1440p 

[tom_w141]

@dv8t PG348Q Best monitor i've ever owned/used.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, dv8t said:

 

hmm, so I take it I would need gsync as I doubt i'd be going over 144 fps on ultra setts with the 1080ti @ 1440p 

If you expect your performance to be below the refresh rate most of the time, get G-Sync.

 

I think that's clearer for what I mean.

 

EDIT: Oh, you got it, never mind.

[dv8t]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If you expect your performance to be below the refresh rate most of the time, get G-Sync.

 

I think that's clearer for what I mean.

 

EDIT: Oh, you got it, never mind.

 

Yeah, no I understood, so what you're saying is I dont particularly need to worry about Response time 

[dv8t]

3 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

@dv8t PG348Q Best monitor i've ever owned/used.

That looks amazing.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, dv8t said:

Yeah, no I understood, so what you're saying is I dont particularly need to worry about Response time 

Yeah, pretty much.

[dv8t]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Yeah, pretty much.

 

Alright, I'll just have to make sure it has Gsync and 144hz and Im sorted. Thanks

[Raz Ghost]

I personally don't see the point of 144hz, 120hz is more than good enough with 100hz being the minimum I would go for. I would also make sure it's a IPS panel seeing as how you're spending all that money anyway you'd be stupid not to.

[dv8t]

3 minutes ago, Raz Ghost said:

I personally don't see the point of 144hz, 120hz is more than good enough with 100hz being the minimum I would go for. I would also make sure it's a IPS panel seeing as how you're spending all that money anyway you'd be stupid not to.

Thankyou. Any suggestions you have in mind? Pref 27 inch

[Princess Luna]

My advice goes to an ultrawide 1440p 100hz G-Sync like the Asus ROG line up.

[tom_w141]

3 minutes ago, dv8t said:

Thankyou. Any suggestions you have in mind? Pref 27 inch

 

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

My advice goes to an ultrawide 1440p 100hz like Asus ROG line up.

PG348Q is Ultrawide and looks great at 100Hz, I really don't think you can tell the difference much over 100. 60-100 yes I can tell.

 

I returned a 144Hz monitor before getting this monitor btw

 

Also you really can't beat an IPS monitor, man the colours...

[Princess Luna]

5 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

.

I love my 29UM68-P and I will certainly upgrade it to the Acer X34 or Asus ROG PG348Q next year... Ultrawide IPS monitors are the future

[tom_w141]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I love my 29UM68-P and I will certainly upgrade it to the Acer X34 or Asus ROG PG348Q... Ultrawide IPS monitors are the future

Just don't buy it used or refurbished. Asus had bad quality control regarding backlight bleed on these Dec 2016 and prior. If the manufacturing date is after that you should be good to go. Got mine in feb 2017 no issues, looks great.

[HelplmChoking]

PG348Q all the way.

[IceCold008]

Any good 1440p g-sync 144hz monitor. Sweet Spot. Good Graphics and decent frames. 4k yea your getting better graphics but your frames will suffer with only one gtx1080ti if you want to hit over 60fps at max settings. Depending on the games you play. 

[foamygopher]

Acer Predator XB271HU would fit the bill nicely!

[aithos]

15 hours ago, dv8t said:

- How important is response time, is there a huge difference between 1 and 5 ms?
- Freesync/Gsync/Adaptive sync? Is this a must for a gaming monitor?

No, and because you don't typically know how they are measuring response time it isn't very important as long as it isn't higher than 5ms.  The much more important number is the refresh rate and whether the panel (pcb) has input lag or not and if so: how much. 

 

FreeSync and GSync are both completely pointless if you're going to have a 1080ti, because they only benefit you when you can't maintain a reasonable FPS and with that card there isn't a game you won't be able to play with good FPS in the next 3-5 years minimum.

 

Quote

Just generally need some guidance in terms of what I should be looking at as I honestly have no clue anymore.

 

pricepoint-wise/specs wise/1440 60/144hz

This is going to be fairly lengthy so I apologize, but frankly I'm tired of seeing people who say "60hz is good enough"...

 

First things first: if a monitor is less than 120hz it isn't worth considering for games.  I don't want to make this a whole rant but unless you only play single player games then 60hz is complete garbage, and anyone who says different simply hasn't spent any real time playing games on a better monitor.  Aside from motion blur and jerky movement the bigger issue with a low response time is poor positional accuracy, which for lack of a better term affects registration in online games.

 

What I mean is this: let's say you're playing an FPS and an enemy is running across your screen...

 

60hz:   X - - - -  - X - - - - -  X - - - - - - X - - - - -  X

120hz: X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X

 

Now let's consider what happens when you aim at and attempt to shoot said enemy.  First, you need to aim by placing your crosshair and then you need to shoot and wait for the server to tell your client whether you hit or not.  So the reality is that when you aim at the top player model (let's say the second X) the actual position of the player according to the server could be anywhere between the first and third X even without considering latency and input lag. 

 

So the benefit of a higher refresh rate is that not only do you get better information that allows you to more accurately place your crosshair because the information being displayed on your screen is more in line with the server, but you also minimize the impact of latency and input lag.  The result?  You will get better registration and the game will FEEL better. 

 

Ever played an online FPS like CSGO and you SWEAR you shot the guy before he shot you?   A lot of people blame lag for that, and input lag can be to blame, but rarely is ping the problem if you're playing on an appropriate connection.  The real issue is that between a slow refresh rate (60hz is 16ms between frames) and input lag (up to 30ms on some panels, particularly a problem with 60hz IPS monitors) they aren't shooting where the server has determined the hit box is.

 

Keep in mind: even if the model is only a little off it skews the result pretty heavily because if the model is shifted right a few millimeters it means your effective target is much smaller because you are only aiming at the left side of the hit box. 

 

I've been gaming online since the late 90s and I spent a fair amount of time playing competitive CS 1.6 and Source.  When I first started playing I was on a nice 19" CRT monitor, and as soon as I switched to an LCD my registration and the overall feel of the game dropped significantly.  It wasn't until getting higher refresh rate monitors (and now ULMB) that I finally feel that playing an FPS or other online game is as good as it was on the old CRT monitor. 

 

Speaking of which: ULMB is the absolute "tits" to put it crudely.  LCD monitors suffer from what is called frame persistence, meaning that the image that is drawn remains on the screen until a new frame replaces it.  That's why the response time isn't very important, because it's a measure of gray to gray and not a full pixel transition... the companies are assuming you're going to be going from frame to frame and not from blank screen to full frame.

 

What ULMB does is flash the backlight, essentially inserting a "clear" screen and then going to black.  It wipes the frame out immediately after it's drawn and forces every frame to be drawn fresh.  That may not sound like a big deal... but it is.  Frame persistence is what is largely responsible for motion blur and while speeding up the refresh rate lowers the amount you'll get, but clearing the frames pretty much eliminates it.  It makes everything that moves on your screen SIGNIFICANTLY more crisp/clear and also is far less fatiguing on your eyes as well.  I will never own another monitor without it (as a primary gaming screen anyway).

 

I know this is long, but if you want my recommendation here is the quick and dirty:

 

Get something that's 1440p, it's a high enough resolution that you'll be perfectly fine for MANY YEARS since games are still 5+ years from even using native textures over 1080p (everything is currently being post-processed and upscaled from compressed textures).  Make sure it is at least 120hz and has ULMB (or an equivalent depending on brand, since ULMB is nVidia's term for what used to be called Lightboost).

 

If you have the budget the Asus PG279Q is the best monitor out there.  While the PG348Q looks sexy I wouldn't personally want to drop back down to 100hz (120hz is 8ms between frames and any slower is bad) or have to give up ULMB just to get the ultra-wide UNLESS you mostly play single player games.  In which case... knock yourself out!

 

[dv8t]

On 21/04/2017 at 3:36 PM, aithos said:

No, and because you don't typically know how they are measuring response time it isn't very important as long as it isn't higher than 5ms.  The much more important number is the refresh rate and whether the panel (pcb) has input lag or not and if so: how much. 

 

FreeSync and GSync are both completely pointless if you're going to have a 1080ti, because they only benefit you when you can't maintain a reasonable FPS and with that card there isn't a game you won't be able to play with good FPS in the next 3-5 years minimum.

 

This is going to be fairly lengthy so I apologize, but frankly I'm tired of seeing people who say "60hz is good enough"...

 

First things first: if a monitor is less than 120hz it isn't worth considering for games.  I don't want to make this a whole rant but unless you only play single player games then 60hz is complete garbage, and anyone who says different simply hasn't spent any real time playing games on a better monitor.  Aside from motion blur and jerky movement the bigger issue with a low response time is poor positional accuracy, which for lack of a better term affects registration in online games.

 

What I mean is this: let's say you're playing an FPS and an enemy is running across your screen...

 

60hz:   X - - - -  - X - - - - -  X - - - - - - X - - - - -  X

120hz: X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X - - X

 

Now let's consider what happens when you aim at and attempt to shoot said enemy.  First, you need to aim by placing your crosshair and then you need to shoot and wait for the server to tell your client whether you hit or not.  So the reality is that when you aim at the top player model (let's say the second X) the actual position of the player according to the server could be anywhere between the first and third X even without considering latency and input lag. 

 

So the benefit of a higher refresh rate is that not only do you get better information that allows you to more accurately place your crosshair because the information being displayed on your screen is more in line with the server, but you also minimize the impact of latency and input lag.  The result?  You will get better registration and the game will FEEL better. 

 

Ever played an online FPS like CSGO and you SWEAR you shot the guy before he shot you?   A lot of people blame lag for that, and input lag can be to blame, but rarely is ping the problem if you're playing on an appropriate connection.  The real issue is that between a slow refresh rate (60hz is 16ms between frames) and input lag (up to 30ms on some panels, particularly a problem with 60hz IPS monitors) they aren't shooting where the server has determined the hit box is.

 

Keep in mind: even if the model is only a little off it skews the result pretty heavily because if the model is shifted right a few millimeters it means your effective target is much smaller because you are only aiming at the left side of the hit box. 

 

I've been gaming online since the late 90s and I spent a fair amount of time playing competitive CS 1.6 and Source.  When I first started playing I was on a nice 19" CRT monitor, and as soon as I switched to an LCD my registration and the overall feel of the game dropped significantly.  It wasn't until getting higher refresh rate monitors (and now ULMB) that I finally feel that playing an FPS or other online game is as good as it was on the old CRT monitor. 

 

Speaking of which: ULMB is the absolute "tits" to put it crudely.  LCD monitors suffer from what is called frame persistence, meaning that the image that is drawn remains on the screen until a new frame replaces it.  That's why the response time isn't very important, because it's a measure of gray to gray and not a full pixel transition... the companies are assuming you're going to be going from frame to frame and not from blank screen to full frame.

 

What ULMB does is flash the backlight, essentially inserting a "clear" screen and then going to black.  It wipes the frame out immediately after it's drawn and forces every frame to be drawn fresh.  That may not sound like a big deal... but it is.  Frame persistence is what is largely responsible for motion blur and while speeding up the refresh rate lowers the amount you'll get, but clearing the frames pretty much eliminates it.  It makes everything that moves on your screen SIGNIFICANTLY more crisp/clear and also is far less fatiguing on your eyes as well.  I will never own another monitor without it (as a primary gaming screen anyway).

 

I know this is long, but if you want my recommendation here is the quick and dirty:

 

Get something that's 1440p, it's a high enough resolution that you'll be perfectly fine for MANY YEARS since games are still 5+ years from even using native textures over 1080p (everything is currently being post-processed and upscaled from compressed textures).  Make sure it is at least 120hz and has ULMB (or an equivalent depending on brand, since ULMB is nVidia's term for what used to be called Lightboost).

 

If you have the budget the Asus PG279Q is the best monitor out there.  While the PG348Q looks sexy I wouldn't personally want to drop back down to 100hz (120hz is 8ms between frames and any slower is bad) or have to give up ULMB just to get the ultra-wide UNLESS you mostly play single player games.  In which case... knock yourself out!

 

Thank you, for the extremely detailed response, I read over everything you said and actually came to a decision, I ended up going for the Predator xb271HU - 165 Hz, GSync, IPS, 1440p. I did prefer the look of the 29q but for the additional cost and the amount of bad reviews the product got about quality control I swerved it. Thanks again bud.

[aithos]

On 4/25/2017 at 0:39 PM, dv8t said:

Thank you, for the extremely detailed response, I read over everything you said and actually came to a decision, I ended up going for the Predator xb271HU - 165 Hz, GSync, IPS, 1440p. I did prefer the look of the 29q but for the additional cost and the amount of bad reviews the product got about quality control I swerved it. Thanks again bud.

You're welcome, and you'll love that monitor.  Just make sure you disable GSync in your driver settings and enable ULMB and set your refresh rate accordingly (which is likely 120hz the same as the Asus).  I'm not sure if you can do that through the OSD or if it's in the drivers with that monitor, but Google should be able to tell you

 

For future reference though: take anything you see in reviews about "quality control" with a grain of salt when it comes to major companies and high-end releases.  The "issues" are grossly overstated and honestly which brand you buy has no impact at all when they all use the same panels coming from the same factory (which in this case are literally the same). 

 

Some people just get unlucky and have unreasonable expectations of perfection because of the high price point, but that isn't how technology or hardware releases work... most are perfectly fine and a few get bad ones.  For that matter, a lot of people don't understand the difference between IPS glow and backlight bleed because all they have ever had is a TN panel...

 

I bought my monitor the day of release and it showed up absolutely perfect, no dead pixels, no bleed, no problems at all. 

 

In any case, enjoy your badass new monitor!   

[dv8t]

1 hour ago, aithos said:

You're welcome, and you'll love that monitor.  Just make sure you disable GSync in your driver settings and enable ULMB and set your refresh rate accordingly (which is likely 120hz the same as the Asus).  I'm not sure if you can do that through the OSD or if it's in the drivers with that monitor, but Google should be able to tell you

 

For future reference though: take anything you see in reviews about "quality control" with a grain of salt when it comes to major companies and high-end releases.  The "issues" are grossly overstated and honestly which brand you buy has no impact at all when they all use the same panels coming from the same factory (which in this case are literally the same). 

 

Some people just get unlucky and have unreasonable expectations of perfection because of the high price point, but that isn't how technology or hardware releases work... most are perfectly fine and a few get bad ones.  For that matter, a lot of people don't understand the difference between IPS glow and backlight bleed because all they have ever had is a TN panel...

 

I bought my monitor the day of release and it showed up absolutely perfect, no dead pixels, no bleed, no problems at all. 

 

In any case, enjoy your badass new monitor!   

Thanks bud, appreciated!