IPS or 1ms 144hz for overall immersion?! Help!

[iFatRain]

*Will my overall gaming (and general viewing) experience (Single players and FPS alike) Be more improved by the fuller colors of an IPS or the responsiveness of 1ms and 144hz of a 'Gaming' Monitor

Detailed Background

So I'm hoping I've come to the right place in choosing to decide my new moitor. I've heard good things about the community here!

To start off I'll give some back story. Recently my monitor died. It was a hand me down from my older brother. Nothing fancy. It was a Westinghouse LCM-19w4c, which is a 1440x900 Native Display, Likely a TN panel (couldn't find anywhere that said 100% sure.), 8ms response time and other now outdated specs. So as you can see pretty much everything will be an improvement for me.

I've done some research on my own into different mointor types and if anything I've made my decision harder. I was originally decided on a 1ms 144hz 24in from Acer. However after looking into it, the better picture quality of an IPS or PLS really jumped out at me. I thought hey 144hz and 1ms would be AMAZING for me and a HUGE improvement. Not to mention 1080p and better colors would also be better even if still on a TN panel. Then I saw that I could get 1440p on IPS or a nice PLS or something pretty for a similar price point or a tad bit higher (around the 200$ area for 144hz 1ms stuff). And Now I cant decide on what I want and with such a HUGE centerpiece to my overall gaming experience I hope you all can give me ideas and really narrow it down.

I also wanted to note that I did look into those 'amazing korean monitors' but a sturdy stand, good looks, and also a reliable dealer/manafacturer so I think I have mostly eliminated those from my options unless you can convince otherwise.

CPU Specs

Here are some CPU specs however important or they may or may not be:

CPU: AMD FX-8350 Stock Speeds with Hyper 212 EVO on a Sabertooth 990FX R.2

GPU: Currently a PNY GTX 650 2G *BUT* I am planning on getting a GTX 970 VERY shortly or at the same time as my monitor purchase

RAM: 8GB G.Skill Sniper @ 1866

OS: Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit

ALSO MY CASE IS THE ARTIC WHITE CORSAIR VENGANCE C70 AND I LOVE THE DOMINANT WHITE TO BLACK COLOR SCHEME

- Ask if you need something else that could help

Typical Usage for Monitor

I plan on using this for Gaming, Movies, Photo/Movie Editing and General Use for many years to come

I do play FPS like BF4 but I also enjoy games such as Batman, and Tomb Raider ect(Things with great graphics and interesting storylines)

So while higher Hz would be great for something like BF4, I think great color would also make a game look better graphically, and come in more use overall as outside of high motion FPS game I dont see a NEED for high hz monitors and low refresh rates. 5ms and 60hz sounds plently livable on BF4 coming from 8ms at 60hz and still doing great.

ANYWAYS, Thanks and I'll try to help if you guys need! PS. Budget for the monitor should try its best to not exceed $300

Quick Bullet Points for the lazy @Geekazoid here ya go--

-Under $300 (Unless $350ish is well justified)

-Help me decide between IPS or PLS or a TN

-Similarly help determine if I want 144hz and 1ms or better color panels

-Uses include Gaming BUT will be used for movies and editing SO best all around usage

**Am coming from 1440x900 19in 8ms and 60hz**

Edited November 18, 2014 by iFatRain

[iFatRain]

I wouldn't mind spending near the $350 range if it was worth it

[Geekazoid]

@iFatRain, can you condense what you're after into just a small bullet point list please? I'm too lazy to read the wall of text.

[TBNRunity]

You could go for the benq xl2420z. It may be a tn panel but it is most definitely one of the best display tn panels. And it also had 144hz and 1ms response time. It costs 350$ but it's your choice if you want to spend that much. There could also could be some deals in the future for it

[iFatRain]

The BenQ you mentioned seems excessive and like I could get a better overall product for $350

[CostcoSamples]

choosing the perfect monitor is an impossible task. abandon all hope!  

[iFatRain]

I don't want perfect I want one that best fits my situation, and I'm torn between what will be better since I've only had crap.

[Janne]

only way to know it is by trying it. i prefer resolution over refresh rate

[danoedel97]

go with IPS. The lower FPS makes it more cinematic.... In all seriousness, unless you are playing FPS exclusively and competitively the extra frames won't make a difference. IPS however would provide MUCH better colors.

[coen113]

Go ips. For editing its much better. And if you've never had 144 hz, you don't miss it. And i doubt you will be able to run 144 fps all the time

[GloriousPain]

assuming you can actually run at 144fps  fairly often then yes, only time I wouldn't is if doing a 3x monitor config (especially if for simulators) and also depending on your graphics card setup as with Nvidia having less color accuracy in my experience I really think Nvidia+TN were made for eachother Radeon cards having 10bit color (which is fairly accurate based on my tests btw) and working best at high resolutions has led me to the conclusion they are made for high res, IPS screens... Granted you don't have to  follow that that's just something I've noticed in the last few generations of graphics cards (since HD 6000 and GTX 500 series(es))  

[iFatRain]

assuming you can actually run at 144fps  fairly often then yes, only time I wouldn't is if doing a 3x monitor config (especially if for simulators) and also depending on your graphics card setup as with Nvidia having less color accuracy in my experience I really think Nvidia+TN were made for eachother Radeon cards having 10bit color (which is fairly accurate based on my tests btw) and working best at high resolutions has led me to the conclusion they are made for high res, IPS screens... Granted you don't have to  follow that that's just something I've noticed in the last few generations of graphics cards (since HD 6000 and GTX 500 series(es))  

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1694755

Went ahead and found an article for it, but just common sense would tell you that there should be no difference in color quality of two different brands of cards.

 

 From Nvidias support page "NVIDIA Geforce graphics cards have offered 10-bit per color out to a full screen Direct X surface since the Geforce 200 series GPUs. Due to the way most applications use traditional Windows API functions to create the application UI and viewport display, this method is not used for professional applications such as Adobe Premiere Pro and Adobe Photoshop. These programs use OpenGL 10-bit per color buffers which require an NVIDIA Quadro GPU with DisplayPort connector. A small number of monitors support 10-bit per color with Quadro graphics cards over DVI. For more information on NVIDIA professional line of Quadro GPUs, please visit:"

 

I also wanted to note, that it wouldn't even make a difference if you didn't have a 10bit monitor. Just as while, running a game at 150fps would be awesome, you don't really get the full benefit if your limited by only 60frames a second on your monitor, ie 60hz

[GloriousPain]

Went ahead and found an article for it, but just common sense would tell you that there should be no difference in color quality of two different brands of cards.

I also wanted to note, that it wouldn't even make a difference if you didn't have a 10bit monitor. Just as while, running a game at 150fps would be awesome, you don't really get the full benefit if your limited by only 60frames a second on your monitor, ie 60hz

 Personal testing has showed a difference and I knew Geforce cards have 10 bit color too  but in my experience their colors just haven't been quite as accurate and I more or less just forgot to mention that and yes I have a 144hz and 10Bit Monitor at work actually and have done testing granted not too much but in my experience it's just the way things have turned out (tested 280x, 290, 295X2, 770, and Titan Black) and found on average the Radeon cards had better color accuracy (only the 290 did worst than the TitanBlack)

[iFatRain]

 Personal testing has showed a difference and I knew Geforce cards have 10 bit color too  but in my experience their colors just haven't been quite as accurate and I more or less just forgot to mention that and yes I have a 144hz and 10Bit Monitor at work actually and have done testing granted not too much but in my experience it's just the way things have turned out (tested 280x, 290, 295X2, 770, and Titan Black) and found on average the Radeon cards had better color accuracy (only the 290 did worst than the TitanBlack

What monitor do you have that has 144hz and 10bit? 10Bit requires a panel other than TN, and 144hz is almost strictly TN?

[GloriousPain]

What monitor do you have that has 144hz and 10bit? 10Bit requires a panel other than TN, and 144hz is almost strictly TN?

No no no no I have multiple monitors sadly those are all work monitors I don't have models on hand and I'm taking the next couple months off for holidays I have a 144hz TN and a 10Bit PLS both are either Asus or Acer  

[iFatRain]

Do you prefer the 144hz or the PLS that you use. Do you think if your not playing an FPS game, you would prefer to play it on the TN or the PLS screen? and why?

[VulsaviiK]

I don't want perfect I want one that best fits my situation, and I'm torn between what will be better since I've only had crap.

 

Which can be hard to answer, best we can do is educate you and let you make a decision.

 

1ms, 5ms and 8ms, aren't quite the monitors input lag. This is called the G2G (Grey-to-Grey) time, I can't remember exactly how this works but it's basically the time it take for the panel itself to change colours. Overall display lag is this, plus the time it takes for a monitor to process a signal. Typically, monitors with faster panels, and higher refresh rates also have much faster processing, so the overall display lag for a monitor like say, and Asus VG248QE comes out to around 4.5ms of overall input lag, which works out to be around a quarter of a frame for a monitor running at 60Hz.

 

For gaming, this responsiveness, combined with the higher refresh rates that come along with some of these monitors, feels brilliant. Everything is super responsive, the animation is extremely fluid. The part where TN panels, which is what these lower lag, high refresh monitors use, is there downside. For gaming, I think the colours are fine, and in my opinion, someone is more likely to notice the higher fresh rate than the more accurate colours.

 

For editing however, you'll want an IPS display. Especially if you're editing photos, you'll want that colour accuracy. An IPS display is fine for gaming, but, at least in my opinion, the fact they don't feel as responsive is not as good. Hell, you might not notice it, but I certainly do, which is why I opted for a 144Hz monitor.

 

So, that's what you have to make your decision. 

 

 

go with IPS. The lower FPS makes it more cinematic.... In all seriousness, unless you are playing FPS exclusively and competitively the extra frames won't make a difference. IPS however would provide MUCH better colors.

 

Right, the lower FPS makes it "more cinematic". So I'm sure you're just fine with a frame-cap of 24fps then? Since that's what they use in cinema

[iFatRain]

To follow that up, I literally just got done looking at a friends monitor which was the VG248QE and I couldn't tell the difference between the 1ms 144hz and my old 8ms 60hz aside from the fact it looked just a tad bit smoother overall (which may be because he runs a better g card than I currently do. So since I haven't been on something fast would it just be better to forgo getting that so I can enjoy the color and movie viewing quality of an IPS? Since it will still likely be faster than what I'm used to?

[CostcoSamples]

To follow that up, I literally just got done looking at a friends monitor which was the VG248QE and I couldn't tell the difference between the 1ms 144hz and my old 8ms 60hz aside from the fact it looked just a tad bit smoother overall (which may be because he runs a better g card than I currently do. So since I haven't been on something fast would it just be better to forgo getting that so I can enjoy the color and movie viewing quality of an IPS? Since it will still likely be faster than what I'm used to?

Yeah maybe. But beware the input lag! I bought a PVA panel a few years ago, with the same trade off you are considering. Turns out the one I bought had over 100ms of input lag, which I noticed right away.

Most panels have pretty good response time now days, but many still suffer from high input lag. Even some of the high end IPS monitors have a lot. Make sure you check the review sites!

[noremac258]

I just purchased a Benq xl2411z which is a 144hz TN panel. And I can tell the difference, but it's not game changing/ or that much of an improvement. That includes the blurbusters tool and tweaks. I also have a Samsung 24 inch PLS panel monitor. And honestly I'm going to go and return the Benq. The colours are insanely washed out to the point where I don't even like looking at the monitor lol So if you're like me and you don't play games in a competitive league, buy an IPS or PLS panel, especially if you watch movies, you'll love yourself later. Also quick note; both monitors are calibrated to an extent with ICC profiles, giving both the best colours that they are capable of.

[iFatRain]

What do we think about this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009590 ?

[Geekazoid]

What do we think about this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009590 ?

Well, you know what I said in the PM, don't ya?