2k @ 1ms vs 4k @ 4ms

[KingFaris17]

Hi, I'm currently using a 1080p@60Hz monitor, and I'm not completely content as I'm sure my GTX 970 can be pushed (even if ever so slightly) higher than this. Typically, I use my computer for programming and gaming, but I'm not sure whether I'd say 'hardcore' gaming. I mainly play FPS games such as Black Ops 3 and Overwatch but also like games such as Rocket League.
I'm looking for a new monitor that can utilise GTX 970 better, but I'm on a very low budget of only £200-£300. I've found 2 monitors that look like they can do the job for me:

 

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing/pc-monitors/pc-monitors/acer-g277hu-full-hd-27-led-monitor-10071549-pdt.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjwuJu9BRDP_-HN9eXs1_UBEiQAlfW39iJy0sNVjf5g5Lt-x0AOOsSsLEfVjGipCcDavfPz4_IaAuMB8P8HAQ&srcid=198&cmpid=ppc~gg~~~Exact&mctag=gg_goog_7904&s_kwcid=AL!3391!3!75234073699!!!g!110895781940!&device=c&istCompanyId=bec25c7e-cbcd-460d-81d5-a25372d2e3d7&istItemId=pmqwaiitp&istBid=tztx&PLA=1&ef_id=VwAE4wAABSRadDZu:20160807122429:s

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Acer-CB241HQK-23-6-4K2K-LED-IPS-Monitor-UM-UB1EE-001-Resolution-3840-x-2160-/381671955861?hash=item58dd6bdd95:g:K5IAAOSw-4BXYm-b

 

However, I'm not sure which one to choose. The first link has a 1ms response time, which may be useful for FPS games, but the second link has 4K support, though I'm sure a GTX 970 cannot render anything 4K@60FPS so this may not be useful. Should I go with the 2K @ 1ms rather than the 4K @ 4ms because of that 3ms difference (will it be noticeable in FPS games if I'm only playing at 60FPS)?
Another question: Should I go for 1080p@144FPS or go for 2K@60FPS for FPS gaming (overall combined look & feel)

[Morgan MLGman]

GTX 970 can't even max out games at 60FPS at 1080p, let alone anything higher than that. I used a 1440p monitor and a OCd to 1500mhz GTX 970 at my dad's, playing the witcher 3 is a pain, you have to go to medium to get 50FPS+.

 

Get a 1440p Gsync panel and upgrade your GPU. Or a 1440p FreeSync one and get an AMD GPU starting with a 390X or better. (FreeSync monitors are significantly cheaper than GSync ones)

[KingFaris17]

@EnemySp0tt3d So I should use my tight budget on 1080p@144hz rather than 2K@60hz for FPS, right? Thanks, 144hz was always in the back of my mind.

[Octavialicious]

1 minute ago, EnemySp0tt3d said:

For fps games you will greatly appreciate a 1080p 144hz monitor.

Yup. For me the options are always 1080p 144Hz, 2K 144Hz, or 4K. 2K 60Hz isn't worth it tbh

 

since you have a 970, the most viable option is 1080p 144Hz and it would be the best for gaming  

[KingFaris17]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

GTX 970 can't even max out games at 60FPS at 1080p, let alone anything higher than that. I used a 1440p monitor and a OCd to 1500mhz GTX 970 at my dad's, playing the witcher 3 is a pain, you have to go to medium to get 50FPS+.

 

Get a 1440p Gsync panel and upgrade your GPU. Or a 1440p FreeSync one and get an AMD GPU starting with a 390X or better. (FreeSync monitors are significantly cheaper than GSync ones)

Uhm, my GTX 970 maxes Overwatch at 60FPS, and runs Black Ops 3 at really high too (not sure if it's ultra graphics). But I haven't tested newer titles like The Witcher 3. I feel like GTX 970 is still relatively new so I don't think I should spend money on a GPU upgrade, but yeah I may switch to AMD in the future. Thanks.

[Octavialicious]

Just now, EnemySp0tt3d said:

I don't think i'm ever going back to 60hz.... it looks like i'm dragging my balls across glass lmao

Yeah it's nice, but for me I could never step away from 4K. Too much real estate!! I'm scared to try 144Hz because I know it will be awesome. I'm going to wait till 4K 144Hz is a thing  Then I can play sweet 4K 144Hz CSGO lmao

[KingFaris17]

2 minutes ago, Octavialicious said:

Yup. For me the options are always 1080p 144Hz, 2K 144Hz, or 4K. 2K 60Hz isn't worth it tbh

 

since you have a 970, the most viable option is 1080p 144Hz and it would be the best for gaming  

Thanks, I was really ignoring the 144Hz option since I did not think it would be such a 'great' thing. Agreed, GTX 970 is able to do 2K but not at high setting, only medium but I'm sure I can get 144Hz at high settings (not ultra) with it.

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, KingFaris17 said:

@EnemySp0tt3d So I should use my tight budget on 1080p@144hz rather than 2K@60hz for FPS, right? Thanks, 144hz was always in the back of my mind.

2k=1080p...

2k is NOT 1440p

[KingFaris17]

Thanks people, I've decided to get a 1080p 144Hz monitor. Is a GTX 970 able to connect to 2 monitors? I want to use one monitor for gaming and another for youtube/programming.

[19_blackie_73]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

GTX 970 can't even max out games at 60FPS at 1080p, let alone anything higher than that. I used a 1440p monitor and a OCd to 1500mhz GTX 970 at my dad's, playing the witcher 3 is a pain, you have to go to medium to get 50FPS+.

 

Get a 1440p Gsync panel and upgrade your GPU. Or a 1440p FreeSync one and get an AMD GPU starting with a 390X or better. (FreeSync monitors are significantly cheaper than GSync ones)

just sayin: I play gta v with almost max settings @1440p with about 50fps average and its very playable. ON A 970 NON OC'd!

@KingFaris17: to state sth to your topic: you will not see a difference between 1 and 4 ms, my monitor is 8ms and I don't even notice. But a 4k panel isn't a good idea with a 970

[KingFaris17]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

2k=1080p...

2k is NOT 1440p

Are you sure?

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=what is 2k resolution

2K	2,048x[unspecified]

[KingFaris17]

Just now, 19_blackie_73 said:

just sayin: I play gta v with almost max settings @1440p with about 50fps average and its very playable. ON A 970 NON OC'd!

@KingFaris17: to state sth to your topic: you will not see a difference between 1 and 4 ms, my monitor is 8ms and I don't even notice. But a 4k panel isn't a good idea with a 970

Agreed, my non OC GTX 970 can certainly play most games I've played at 60FPS at very high settings.

[KingFaris17]

Just now, EnemySp0tt3d said:

yes you can. 

Thanks once again.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, KingFaris17 said:

Uhm, my GTX 970 maxes Overwatch at 60FPS, and runs Black Ops 3 at really high too (not sure if it's ultra graphics). But I haven't tested newer titles like The Witcher 3. I feel like GTX 970 is still relatively new so I don't think I should spend money on a GPU upgrade, but yeah I may switch to AMD in the future. Thanks.

I had a GTX 970. I game at 1200p (1920x1200, it's 11% more pixels than regular 1080p), the GTX 970 wasn't able to max out AAA titles, my current 290X is more capable of this, not to mention that with a GTX 970 you're heavily limited with VRAM and nothing more than 1080p is recommended for that.

 

Imagine that my current 290X has 4GB of VRAM with the speed of 322.6 GB/s (badwidth).

 

GTX 970 has 3,5GB of VRAM at 196 GB/s and the last 512MB at 28 GB/s. This is a HEAVY bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions that you aim at and it will not be sufficient. Integrated GPUs have VRAM as fast as the last 512MB on the 970. And they use regular, system's DDR3 RAM, and we all know that overclocking RAM increases iGPU performance, so you get the analogy.  Just because it's relatively new doesn't make it good, 290X is two years older and is a faster card. At 1080p, and at 1440p even more due to wide memory bus. If you can get a good deal on a newer 390X with 8GB of memory and got yourself a 1440p, IPS FreeSync monitor, that would be the best solution for you.

[KingFaris17]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

I had a GTX 970. I game at 1200p (1920x1200, it's 11% more pixels than regular 1080p), the GTX 970 wasn't able to max out AAA titles, my current 290X is more capable of this, not to mention that with a GTX 970 you're heavily limited with VRAM and nothing more than 1080p is recommended for that.

 

Imagine that my current 290X has 4GB of VRAM with the speed of 322.6 GB/s (badwidth).

 

GTX 970 has 3,5GB of VRAM at 196 GB/s and the last 512MB at 28 GB/s. This is a HEAVY bottleneck, especially at higher resolutions that you aim at and it will not be sufficient. Integrated GPUs have VRAM as fast as the last 512MB on the 970. And they use regular, system's DDR3 RAM, and we all know that overclocking RAM increases iGPU performance, so you get the analogy.  Just because it's relatively new doesn't make it good, 290X is two years older and is a faster card. At 1080p, and at 1440p even more due to wide memory bus. If you can get a good deal on a newer 390X with 8GB of memory and got yourself a 1440p, IPS FreeSync monitor, that would be the best solution for you.

I'll consider this, thanks.

[KingFaris17]

Edit: Nvm

[WereCat]

2 hours ago, KingFaris17 said:

Are you sure?

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=what is 2k resolution

2K	2,048x[unspecified]

Yes. First Google search in your link confirms my claim.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution