Is 144hz Possible now days?

[BiscuitMassacre]

I recently made a thread here:

Discussing if UltraWide is better is than 144hz.

 

You guys seem pretty mixed. I have decided that 144Hz would probably be the Overall better choice for what I do. The 21:9 looks cooler, and more fun, but it probably isn't the best. 

 

I know for a fact that my GTX970 won't be able to handle the games at 1080p144fps (at least with decent settings.) So I looked at what cards could. And I found was, there isn't much.

 

970 SLI is out because Forza Horizon 3 doens't support it. The 1070 can't run it at more than 115FPS. The 1070 can kind of run SWBF at 145FPS, but its not stable. I am not getting a 1080, just can't afford it. 

 

Yes, I could turn my settings down, but would I want to? Is 144 FPS better than good graphics? 

 

And games will only get harder to run in the future. 

[Aytex]

I said this in a different thread but its just your preference and your eyes.

I've grown up on playing competitive games and love smoothness and can feel the responsiveness of most things so I do enjoy high hz than pixels

even with a 1060 I still play on medium settings cause of responsiveness

(Not sure if anyone else gets this but MSAA seems to give me more delay)

[¨TrisT¨]

If you're doing single player stuff or just casual gaming in general, not caring that much, go for the ultra wide (not that it'll be that easy to run).

If you do a lot of multiplayer, low graphical settings is often better due to effects and such (overwatch is a great example), games are often more optimized than single player console-ported ones. And 144 is really, really good. At least in my opinion way superior. I do 144 myself.

If you go with the ultra wide option, keep in mind that 75hz is way, way better than 60, it's actually a surprisingly great difference.

I don't keep myself in the loop that much anymore so I don't know if there are any decent 75hz 21:9 options out there but it would be ideal.

[johnt]

I think it's more important that you also consider G-sync. I was skeptical at first, but I recently purchased a 100-Hz G-sync 21:9 monitor, and I'm now a believer. While competitive games should be no sweat to get 100-144 fps, getting even 60 fps with ultra settings on my 1070 at 3440x1440 is a bit of a challenge.However, the G-sync really helps keep everything smooth. If you're doing RPG or playing a game just for fun/story, then dipping below 60 fps is very unnoticeable.

 

Yes. It's cheaper to buy a one way ticket to hell. But for smooth gameplay, a G-sync unit is worth the cost.

[¨TrisT¨]

5 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

I wouldn't get 144Hz if it meant going back to TN

I need them colors in my life

The trade off is just hard to justify if you don't play competitive shooters 

I don't think he cares too much for panel type, otherwise he would have said so.

Besides IPS is a bit expensive.

[Gonio]

Even with some lower fps then 144 you still amke us of the fact it is high refresh rate, so the effect on smoothness is still there. Also if you go with a Gsync screen you have the added benefit of that tech (allthough it's effect has diminishing returns the higher your fps is). Also it really depends on the game, but a 1070 is a very good option overall for your needs. You be fine.

 

In general the steps taken on GPU's are currently decent, but it was not that long ago that 1080p Ultra 60 Hz was only for the high end cards.

[Ben_Kyd]

21 minutes ago, BiscuitMassacre said:

I recently made a thread here:

Discussing if UltraWide is better is than 144hz.

 

You guys seem pretty mixed. I have decided that 144Hz would probably be the Overall better choice for what I do. The 21:9 looks cooler, and more fun, but it probably isn't the best. 

 

I know for a fact that my GTX970 won't be able to handle the games at 1080p144fps (at least with decent settings.) So I looked at what cards could. And I found was, there isn't much.

 

970 SLI is out because Forza Horizon 3 doens't support it. The 1070 can't run it at more than 115FPS. The 1070 can kind of run SWBF at 145FPS, but its not stable. I am not getting a 1080, just can't afford it. 

 

Yes, I could turn my settings down, but would I want to? Is 144 FPS better than good graphics? 

 

And games will only get harder to run in the future. 

For CSGO gamers or people that play games wich require the fastest reaction times and most attention and highest fps - that's what 144Hz is for, of you are not into competitive gaming with e-sport titles then 144Hz is not worth it. but get whatever you think you need or want.

[Festive]

6 minutes ago, Ben_Kyd said:

if you are not into competitive gaming with e-sport titles then 144Hz is not worth it. 

False statement. Even in non e-sport games like GTA, 144hz is much smoother than 60. If you have a card that can push at least 100+FPS and you don't do any sort of productivity then there is absolutely NO REASON not to get a 144hz panel.

[SpriteNo5]

I went from a 144hz, 1440 TN panel to IPS 3440*1440 Ultrawide. Get between 40 and 70 FPS now. I'd prefer frames that didn't drop below 50 but I rarely play online anymore and would rather have the eye candy. I'll see if an upgrade to 1080ti (if it ever exists) will give me constant 60 at my resolution @ ultra.

[johnt]

16 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Is IPS colors that much better than TN? I double dare the OP to go to a store to compare both side by side.

The IPS provides much better viewing angles. You know this I'm sure. What people don't realize is just how large a 24, 27, 30, 32, 34, etc. size screens are. While 24-inch might be acceptable for TN panels, at 27-inch and larger you really don't have a choice but to look at some parts of the screen at an angle. Thus your contrast can be seriously diminished and your screen can look very non-uniform. 

[BiscuitMassacre]

36 minutes ago, Aytex said:

I said this in a different thread but its just your preference and your eyes.

I've grown up on playing competitive games and love smoothness and can feel the responsiveness of most things so I do enjoy high hz than pixels

even with a 1060 I still play on medium settings cause of responsiveness

(Not sure if anyone else gets this but MSAA seems to give me more delay)

Delay or lag?

32 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

I wouldn't get 144Hz if it meant going back to TN

I need them colors in my life

The trade off is just hard to justify if you don't play competitive shooters 

 

25 minutes ago, ¨TrisT¨ said:

I don't think he cares too much for panel type, otherwise he would have said so.

Besides IPS is a bit expensive.

I do care. I just don't the know the difference. It can't be that bad can it? 

27 minutes ago, ¨TrisT¨ said:

If you're doing single player stuff or just casual gaming in general, not caring that much, go for the ultra wide (not that it'll be that easy to run).

If you do a lot of multiplayer, low graphical settings is often better due to effects and such (overwatch is a great example), games are often more optimized than single player console-ported ones. And 144 is really, really good. At least in my opinion way superior. I do 144 myself.

If you go with the ultra wide option, keep in mind that 75hz is way, way better than 60, it's actually a surprisingly great difference.

I don't keep myself in the loop that much anymore so I don't know if there are any decent 75hz 21:9 options out there but it would be ideal.

My current monitor and the 21:9 i'd get would be OC'able to 76hz. I have used it, it doesn't really make much difference to me. 

 

Not really interested in OW

25 minutes ago, JohnT said:

I think it's more important that you also consider G-sync. I was skeptical at first, but I recently purchased a 100-Hz G-sync 21:9 monitor, and I'm now a believer. While competitive games should be no sweat to get 100-144 fps, getting even 60 fps with ultra settings on my 1070 at 3440x1440 is a bit of a challenge.However, the G-sync really helps keep everything smooth. If you're doing RPG or playing a game just for fun/story, then dipping below 60 fps is very unnoticeable.

 

Yes. It's cheaper to buy a one way ticket to hell. But for smooth gameplay, a G-sync unit is worth the cost.

Not going to hahppen

14 minutes ago, Ben_Kyd said:

For CSGO gamers or people that play games wich require the fastest reaction times and most attention and highest fps - that's what 144Hz is for, of you are not into competitive gaming with e-sport titles then 144Hz is not worth it. but get whatever you think you need or want.

I am fairly competitive, but I am not going to blame my loss on a monitor.

6 minutes ago, Festive said:

False statement. Even in non e-sport games like GTA, 144hz is much smoother than 60. If you have a card that can push at least 100+FPS and you don't do any sort of productivity then there is absolutely NO REASON not to get a 144hz panel.

well I dont.

[Dark]

Having owned the ROG Swift (144hz, TN. Gsync) and now the Acer X34 (100hz, IPS, Gsync), here's my take--

 

ROG TN panel had great colors, never once did I feel like I was sacrificing picture quality for performance.

 

The X34 is immersive and the experience is that much better when the game supports the native resolution (not all games do).

 

Yes, I can tell the difference between 144hz and 100hz but 100hz is still WAY better than 60hz.

 

I would never outfit a gaming computer with anything less than 100hz if I had the option.

[BiscuitMassacre]

9 minutes ago, JohnT said:

The IPS provides much better viewing angles. You know this I'm sure. What people don't realize is just how large a 24, 27, 30, 32, 34, etc. size screens are. While 24-inch might be acceptable for TN panels, at 27-inch and larger you really don't have a choice but to look at some parts of the screen at an angle. Thus your contrast can be seriously diminished and your screen can look very uniform. 

 

13 minutes ago, SpriteNo5 said:

I went from a 144hz, 1440 TN panel to IPS 3440*1440 Ultrawide. Get between 40 and 70 FPS now. I'd prefer frames that didn't drop below 50 but I rarely play online anymore and would rather have the eye candy. I'll see if an upgrade to 1080ti (if it ever exists) will give me constant 60 at my resolution @ ultra.

 

25 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Look on PCPP, the cheapest IPS 1080p Ultrawide is lower than the cheapest 144Hz display.

IPS expensive? 144Hz is worse.

 

Is IPS colors that much better than TN? I double dare the OP to go to a store to compare both side by side.

 

30 minutes ago, Festive said:

False statement. Even in non e-sport games like GTA, 144hz is much smoother than 60. If you have a card that can push at least 100+FPS and you don't do any sort of productivity then there is absolutely NO REASON not to get a 144hz panel.

 

37 minutes ago, Ben_Kyd said:

For CSGO gamers or people that play games wich require the fastest reaction times and most attention and highest fps - that's what 144Hz is for, of you are not into competitive gaming with e-sport titles then 144Hz is not worth it. but get whatever you think you need or want.

 

48 minutes ago, Gonio said:

Even with some lower fps then 144 you still amke us of the fact it is high refresh rate, so the effect on smoothness is still there. Also if you go with a Gsync screen you have the added benefit of that tech (allthough it's effect has diminishing returns the higher your fps is). Also it really depends on the game, but a 1070 is a very good option overall for your needs. You be fine.

 

In general the steps taken on GPU's are currently decent, but it was not that long ago that 1080p Ultra 60 Hz was only for the high end cards.

 

55 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

I wouldn't get 144Hz if it meant going back to TN

I need them colors in my life

The trade off is just hard to justify if you don't play competitive shooters 

I'd scale my 'competitiveness' to 6/10. 1 being no games and 10 being esports. I am all done for 144hz, but I don't think I can run it, and i'll probably just end up wasting my money because I can't get enough FPS. And people are acting like 21:9 doesn't benefit gamers. It does, it gives gamers more fov (on the games I play) and a more immersive experience. 

 

 

[BiscuitMassacre]

15 minutes ago, JohnT said:

The IPS provides much better viewing angles. You know this I'm sure. What people don't realize is just how large a 24, 27, 30, 32, 34, etc. size screens are. While 24-inch might be acceptable for TN panels, at 27-inch and larger you really don't have a choice but to look at some parts of the screen at an angle. Thus your contrast can be seriously diminished and your screen can look very uniform. 

 

19 minutes ago, SpriteNo5 said:

I went from a 144hz, 1440 TN panel to IPS 3440*1440 Ultrawide. Get between 40 and 70 FPS now. I'd prefer frames that didn't drop below 50 but I rarely play online anymore and would rather have the eye candy. I'll see if an upgrade to 1080ti (if it ever exists) will give me constant 60 at my resolution @ ultra.

 

31 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Look on PCPP, the cheapest IPS 1080p Ultrawide is lower than the cheapest 144Hz display.

IPS expensive? 144Hz is worse.

 

Is IPS colors that much better than TN? I double dare the OP to go to a store to compare both side by side.

 

36 minutes ago, Festive said:

False statement. Even in non e-sport games like GTA, 144hz is much smoother than 60. If you have a card that can push at least 100+FPS and you don't do any sort of productivity then there is absolutely NO REASON not to get a 144hz panel.

 

43 minutes ago, Ben_Kyd said:

For CSGO gamers or people that play games wich require the fastest reaction times and most attention and highest fps - that's what 144Hz is for, of you are not into competitive gaming with e-sport titles then 144Hz is not worth it. but get whatever you think you need or want.

 

54 minutes ago, Gonio said:

Even with some lower fps then 144 you still amke us of the fact it is high refresh rate, so the effect on smoothness is still there. Also if you go with a Gsync screen you have the added benefit of that tech (allthough it's effect has diminishing returns the higher your fps is). Also it really depends on the game, but a 1070 is a very good option overall for your needs. You be fine.

 

In general the steps taken on GPU's are currently decent, but it was not that long ago that 1080p Ultra 60 Hz was only for the high end cards.

 

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

I wouldn't get 144Hz if it meant going back to TN

I need them colors in my life

The trade off is just hard to justify if you don't play competitive shooters 

I also want to mention that I enjoy graphics and color as well. I am not going to lie. My parents won't let me play rated M games. I know, I know. 

 

That being said, the only FPS games I will be playing is SWBF and maybe SWBF2017 when that comes out fall of 2017. Please consider that aswell. Overwatch is an option, but it looks like cancer to me.

 

[Dark]

 

[BiscuitMassacre]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

The game's age rating is not relevant to deciding the monitor. You'll get superior colors from an IPS panel regardless.

If you like graphical detail, cranking up the settings in game will get you that, but at a cost to framerate.

What many people forget is that you won't be playing games all the time on your PC. Vibrant colors is something you can appreciate when watching videos and in all other applications.

 

As I've said before and I will for the last time, go to a store and let your eyes decide. You buying a monitor for the sake of your eyes. Don't make a blind decision based solely on people's recommendations. And again, what is your total budget for upgrades? Give us something solid to work on.

$200 is comfortable. I CAN spend about $200 more, but I REALLY REALLY don't want to.

[PlayStation 2]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

I wouldn't get 144Hz if it meant going back to TN

I need them colors in my life

The trade off is just hard to justify if you don't play competitive shooters 

Eh, I don't mind TN panels at all. Granted, this is OP's choice, but I think TN colors are fine. Washed out is what I like, for whatever reason.

[¨TrisT¨]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Look on PCPP, the cheapest IPS 1080p Ultrawide is lower than the cheapest 144Hz display.

IPS expensive? 144Hz is worse.

 

Is IPS colors that much better than TN? I double dare the OP to go to a store to compare both side by side.

Ehh, sorry, as I said, I haven't kept myself in the loop, and I never really looked too much into IPS options, so I might have gotten a wrong impression.

I never said it wasn't better.

[BiscuitMassacre]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

You can consider the LG 29UM67-P for a IPS ultrawide.

Not the cheapest ultrawide but you'll want it to be at least 29"

Supports Freesync if you happen to ever get an AMD card.

 

Its 60Hz and you can try to OC it to 75Hz but no guarantees.

My U2312HM and U2414H managed to reach 75Hz so its a possibility for sure.

I seen that. I figured the 29UM58-P would be better because it can also get 75Hz and its a bit cheaper. $180 used.

 

I am in no realm going to get an AMD card. Just isn't going to happen lol.

[BiscuitMassacre]

48 minutes ago, Dark said:

 

After watching that, it makes the 21:9 IPS look much more appealing. 

 

Why don't they make 100hz IPS 21:9 1080P? That would be so great.

[BiscuitMassacre]

Just now, huilun02 said:

Yes get that instead. You can then try to OC to 90Hz or higher. 

I don't think so... I think max oc is 76

[BiscuitMassacre]

10 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Its stock refresh rate is already 75Hz. You can do much better than 76Hz for sure. 

Oh I see. That is still a gamble... Best thing I have seen so far.

[BiscuitMassacre]

4 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Its stock refresh rate is already 75Hz. You can do much better than 76Hz for sure. 

After a bit of research, it appears that 75Hz is the max for Nvidia cards. It can go up to 85hz if you have a FreeSync card.

[BiscuitMassacre]

45 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Afaik overclocking works the same regardless of GPU vendor. I don't see why it won't accept a custom resolution. 

Its apparently a 60hz panel, but for some reason, if you have freesync, I an be oced seamlessly and if you are lucky, 85 hz on top of that. A lot people are saying they can't get past 60hz on nvidia.