IPS 144hz vs TN 165hz+G-sync

[CrackerGamer]

hey guys i have asked this question already in tom's hardware but the answers were a bit meh.

 

so guys im planning on getting an 1440p monitor cuz im getting an i5-6600k and a GTX 1080 (want this monitor to be 144hz to justify even more buying a 1080)

 but i dont know if g-sync is worth 80 or 100 dollars more over the ips monitor

 this are the monitors:

https://www.amazon.com/Pixio-PX277-Displayport-Monitor-Speakers/dp/B01HPDAF68/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476303310&sr=8-1&keywords=pixio+px277

 and

https://www.amazon.com/Dell-S2417DG-YNY1D-24-Inch-LED-Lit/dp/B01IOO4SGK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476303350&sr=8-1&keywords=dell+s2417dg+monitor

so tell me guys what you think.

 

 

[SeanAngelo]

5 minutes ago, CrackerGamer said:

hey guys i have asked this question already in tom's hardware but the answers were a bit meh.

 

so guys im planning on getting an 1440p monitor cuz im getting an i5-6600k and a GTX 1080 (want this monitor to be 144hz to justify even more buying a 1080)

 but i dont know if g-sync is worth 80 or 100 dollars more over the ips monitor

 this are the monitors:

https://www.amazon.com/Pixio-PX277-Displayport-Monitor-Speakers/dp/B01HPDAF68/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476303310&sr=8-1&keywords=pixio+px277

 and

https://www.amazon.com/Dell-S2417DG-YNY1D-24-Inch-LED-Lit/dp/B01IOO4SGK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476303350&sr=8-1&keywords=dell+s2417dg+monitor

so tell me guys what you think.

 

 

get the IPS monitor. 1440p on 23.8 inches? wtf?

 

27inch 1440p is the sweet spot.

[Techicolors]

yeah, 27 inches is a sweet spot for 1440p. using a 27 inch 1440p monitor right now 

[CrackerGamer]

i dont care about the inches really considering that im gonna be really close to the  monitor due to the space in my room, also the ppi is 123 in the 24 inch one sooooo

 

the real answer it's if i should pay more for the g-sync one 

[thecreativename]

3 hours ago, SeanAngelo said:

get the IPS monitor. 1440p on 23.8 inches? wtf?

 

27inch 1440p is the sweet spot.

I disagree. Sweetspot for 27 inches is 5K. Even 4k doesn't look that good on 27inches, 4k should be on 24 and under.

 

Essentially, 200 PPI on a desktop monitor is the sweet spot.

 

[Antoon45]

If you're planning on getting a 2560 x 1440p monitor with 144Hz I would prefer and recommend going for Asus MG279Q or if you want a more high end monitor I would go for the Asus ROG PG279Q.

 

Then I would recommend IPS over TN unless you're hardcore gamer and you really don't care about viewing angles and better colors other then that take TN panel for response time for gaming. And IPS with 4ms and TN with 1ms I personally wouldn't see a huge difference.

 

Since you're getting a Nvidia graphics card I would go for G-Sync since you benefit more from that then going for a Free-Sync monitor . I'm using the Asus ROG PG279Q at the moment and I have been really satisfied with it so far and I highly recommend it if you want a high end monitor.

 

I saw that you said you're sitting quite close to the monitor and in that case I maybe would go for the TN panel since you wont be seeing from huge viewing angles and then G-Sync would be quite good so maybe Asus MG279Q with TN panel or Asus ROG PG279Q with TN panel would be good for you.

[alexyy]

12 hours ago, SeanAngelo said:

get the IPS monitor. 1440p on 23.8 inches? wtf?

 

27inch 1440p is the sweet spot.

Personally really like 25" 1440p. 

[SeanAngelo]

10 hours ago, thecreativename said:

I disagree. Sweetspot for 27 inches is 5K. Even 4k doesn't look that good on 27inches, 4k should be on 24 and under.

 

Essentially, 200 PPI on a desktop monitor is the sweet spot.

 

27inch is the sweet spot for 1440p at a reasonable distance. i personally think it is.

[thecreativename]

On 10/13/2016 at 3:11 AM, SeanAngelo said:

27inch is the sweet spot for 1440p at a reasonable distance. i personally think it is.

I'm going to consider about 3 feet a reasonable distance, and anything under 200 PPI doesn't look good. 1440p on a 27 inch display is like 100ppi, I wouldn't use a monitor like that even if it was free.

 

The important keyword here is "I". All of these statements apply to me, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, just expressing it.

[PRTI]

First of all, if you want to UTILIZE FULL potential of that GTX 1080

 

GET A I7 6700K, as a 6600k will bottleneck

[SeanAngelo]

27 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

First of all, if you want to UTILIZE FULL potential of that GTX 1080

 

GET A I7 6700K, as a 6600k will bottleneck

benchmarks. please? at least back your sayings up....

[MrAlbertrocks]

On 10/14/2016 at 2:59 PM, keNNySOC said:

First of all, if you want to UTILIZE FULL potential of that GTX 1080

 

GET A I7 6700K, as a 6600k will bottleneck

That's completely false. An i5-6600k will NOT bottleneck a GTX 1080, not even close. And the difference between the i5-6600k and the i7-6700k is extremely small in gaming.  

[PRTI]

45 minutes ago, MrAlbertrocks said:

That's completely false. An i5-6600k will NOT bottleneck a GTX 1080, not even close. And the difference between the i5-6600k and the i7-6700k is extremely small in gaming.  

PLS Dont talk about this topic when you and many others dont know shit @Dackzy Pls show em again

[Dackzy]

9 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

PLS Dont talk about this topic when you and many others dont know shit @Dackzy Pls show em again

ah yes more stupid. Getting pretty tired of this. i5 is god gaming CPU, no need for a i7 blablablablablablablabla.

 

55 minutes ago, MrAlbertrocks said:

That's completely false. An i5-6600k will NOT bottleneck a GTX 1080, not even close. And the difference between the i5-6600k and the i7-6700k is extremely small in gaming.  

10% difference in GTA V when both are OCed and most of the time the i5 just catches up to the i7 when it is OCed to 4.5GHz, who says that you can get that OC? Also that is with maxwell Titan X, not Pascal, so this is basically a 1070. This graph is by digitalfoundry.
You might look at it and think oh that is nothing, well now think about the i7 giving you a more stable FPS, now think about that the i5 when running at 4.5GHz bearly gives the same FPS as a stock 6700k and what if you cannot get your i5 to that, now think about if your CPU goes up to 80-90% or over, then you might get some stuttering. Lastly think about the future.

and then you have this video that shows that at 1080p locked 60 FPS the 6600k at 4.5GHZ has a really hard time with a 1060. We even see 99% in witcher 3 and if you think it will get better in the furture then you are a fool, it will only get worse, when "next gen" games start hitting us in 2-3 years, then that i5 is fucked harder than it already is. Games are getting more and more CPU demanding.

 

And you are talking about a 1080, hah that thing is just one ticket into bottleneck and stutter town. Sure 1440p will help out with the bottleneck, but if you have ever done any kind of bottlenck testing then you would notice that if you have a 10FPS bottleneck at 1080p, then you will have a 4-5FPS bottleneck at 1440p and gone at 4k, BUT the i5 already has that with a 1070 in GTA V. It would be stupid to get a i5 with a 1080, most people keep their system for 3-4 years, so the bottleneck will only grow over time, because games will only become more CPU intensive and just to make this clear games CAN already use over four cores.

All of these game engines can use 8 cores and that was just the ones I found from 10 sec google search.

Unreal Engine 4, Frostbite 3, CryEngine 3, Civilization game engine, Nitrous Engine.

[SaladFingers]

Imho G-Sync is completely useless when you're going for a high refresh rate monitor. Aren't you planning to run it above 100 fps at all times? You're better off enabling ULMB, that's where the magic is at.

 

For your comparison, I'd pick IPS. It has caught up with TN in response times etc, and the color reproduction really stands out. Better viewing angles too, though that's not really important for a desk monitor.

[BrightCandle]

Gsync fixes two fundamental problems with output to monitors that have existed for a long time, 1) tear lines and 2) microstutter caused by inconsistent frame delivery.

 

It is a massive jump in image quality and smoothness. Its more noticeable to the average eye below 60 fps but once you have been using it for several years you'll miss it at 120+ fps as well, its noticeable how much smoother games are when its running. I don't know about those two monitors, if tftcentral.co.uk has reviews then check those out. But the PG278Q v the PG279Q isn't a big difference. I had the former and now I have the later and while the quality issues on the PG278Q ultimately led to the "upgrade" the image quality and colour depth isn't a massive difference in the centre. The main problem with a TN at 27" is that you get colour shift at the extremes of the screen even straight on and that is a sizeable quality drawback with the TN. The PG278Q has excellent colour otherwise but the shift was noticeable.

 

I do recommend gsync unreservedly, its an amazing quality improver and I wont be gaming in the future without it. But TNs at 27" I am not a fan off. I have no idea if either of the two monitors you have selected are even "good".