Is 4k gaming viable at 144Hz?

[Araleiya]

Hello, I've been using a laptop for pretty much my entire life so I know very little about choosing a monitor that compliments my PC.
I was planning on buying the LG 27GN950-B (3840x2160p 144 Hz) but after asking around I've heard a lot about how hard it is to daily drive 4K.

the build I have is a Ryzen 5900x processor paired with an Asus 6900 xt OC Graphics Card (https://dk.pcpartpicker.com/list/nN4WRT) but even despite how good these parts are I've still been warned that they won't be enough to get an enjoyable experience.
Since AMD don't have DLSS I've been worried that I'm buying something I can't use to its full potential.

Should I buy a less demanding monitor instead?
My second choice would probably be the LG 34GN850 (3440x1440p 144 Hz) but I'm open to suggestions.

[Bigman397]

This is why having variable refresh rate is important - get a display that supports gsync or freesync and then let it ride, you won't be at 144hz but it should much smoother than if you were stuck at 60hz

[Action_Johnson]

Of course it's viable. You probably can get 1000fps in Unreal Tournament on that system.

 

Not everything people play is the latest title. I have hundreds of hours in Half-Life, UT, Titanfall 2, Doom 2016, Far Cry 5, all old games at this point. 

 

Newest game i've played is MSFS, and nothing runs that well.

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, Bigman397 said:

This is why having variable refresh rate is important - get a display that supports gsync or freesync and then let it ride, you won't be at 144hz but it should much smoother than if you were stuck at 60hz

^^^ 100%. Make sure it supports FreeSync and grab it. I have a 4K60 screen even though my 2060 Super can't drive 60fps in all my games, but I'm going to keep that display for years, I'll have a GPU upgrade again later down the line, and it'll end up cheaper than continually getting stepping stone monitors. 
 

8 minutes ago, Araleiya said:

I've heard a lot about how hard it is to daily drive 4K.

I mean, I manage to get playable fps in most titles with the right settings, some I have to drop to 1440p since I have a 27" panel and the pixel density is so high, I don't notice it on much other than text. You won't even have to drop res, there's plenty of games that probably won't get the full 144 if you insist on ultra settings, but you can easily have a super enjoyable experience with those specs for 4K. Dropping to a 1440p monitor would let down your GPU, friend has a 6900XT and runs 1440p144, according to him hardly any games can even max the GPU out at that res/refresh rate with the settings he runs. 

[Araleiya]

16 minutes ago, Bigman397 said:

This is why having variable refresh rate is important - get a display that supports gsync or freesync and then let it ride, you won't be at 144hz but it should much smoother than if you were stuck at 60hz

Both the 27GN950 and the 34GN850 have G-Sync and FreeSync, one is just a 16:9 4K display and the other is a 21:9 1440p display.

[jaslion]

It's doable but of course your system will have a harder time a lot sooner driving a 4k 144hz panel compared to a 1440p one. If you want a 27 inch panel 4k is nearly useless to have so get a 1440p panel from 32 inch on 4k does become a very nice option as otherwise you'll start seeing pixels so basically your choice of monitor size decides the resolution quite quickly.

[Stahlmann]

It heavily depends on the games you play. But that's exactly what FreeSync and 144Hz is for. It allows you to run games that can do it at 144 fps. And when a game is not running at 144Hz, then FreeSync will do it's thing and adjust the refresh rate accordingly so you get a nice and smooth experience no matter what your FPS are. 144Hz on a 4K monitor really gives you options. But with a 6900XT i'd expect 90-100 FPS on average in modern AAA titles at 4K. So your system should easily handle it. At least the 3080 averaged 90 fps in the huge benchmark suite of Hardware Unboxed. The 6900XT should be slightly faster at 4K.