1440p or 144hz

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Which is better?

[Daniel Z.]

are you playing CSGO, TF2, or Overwatch

[ARikozuM]

Personally, it depends. I usually prefer things to look as good as possible, so Hz is secondary to color accuracy, motion blur, and sharpness. 

 

Edit: I'm also a triple monitor gamer meaning that seeing more than 60Hz Ultra on any current game is a godsend when it happens.

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

1 minute ago, Daniel Z. said:

are you playing CSGO, TF2, or Overwatch

i play pretty much everything, but nothing competitively 

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, Nickathom said:

i play pretty much everything, but nothing competitively 

then get the 1440p

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, Daniel Z. said:

then get the 1440p

ok, thanks. i have a 480 (overclocked to a 580) though. will it be powerful enough?

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, Nickathom said:

ok, thanks. i have a 480 (overclocked to a 580) though. will it be powerful enough?

for most games yes

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Nickathom said:

i play pretty much everything, but nothing competitively 

Can you get both? Getting 72Hz on a 1440 still feels good. 

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Can you get both? Getting 72Hz on a 1440 still feels good. 

sadly no. things are much more expensive here in canada, and i doubt my 480 can handle that

[Thinkfreely]

Do both.

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, Nickathom said:

sadly no. things are much more expensive here in canada, and i doubt my 480 can handle that

you can OC most monitors with DP

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, Thinkfreely said:

Do both.

too expensive and my  480 cant handle it

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, Daniel Z. said:

you can OC most monitors with DP

What. you can overclock monitors? and what is dp?

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, Thinkfreely said:

Do both.

OP just said that he cant

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, Nickathom said:

What. you can overclock monitors? and what is dp?

dp is displayport. You can overclock the HZ on monitors yes, my VA32AQ is @ 73hz

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, Daniel Z. said:

dp is displayport. You can overclock the HZ on monitors yes, my VA32AQ is @ 73hz

does this also work on tvs? thats what im currently using

[Daniel Z.]

Just now, Nickathom said:

does this also work on tvs? thats what im currently using

idk I have never tried

[Damascus]

11 minutes ago, Nickathom said:

i play pretty much everything, but nothing competitively 

1440p, then OC it

[Thinkfreely]

7 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

OP just said that he cant

Posted before I saw that.

 

Anyways......

 

I have a 1440p monitor and a 4k monitor. I enjoy 4k in games where FPS doesn't matter, and 1440p (165hz) in games where it does. But If I had to pick between higher resolution or higher refresh on the monitor at lower resolution, I would pick higher refresh 100% of the time. 1080p at 144hz looks a damn sight better then 1440p at 30-60 hz.

[inmytaxi]

I have a 144 Hz. When I got it my gaming experience went way up.

 

On the other hand, I hardly notice the extra eye candy when I am playing between high and ultra.

 

Get the faster screen with the faster response. Trust me.

[othertomperson]

19 hours ago, Nickathom said:

ok, thanks. i have a 480 (overclocked to a 580) though. will it be powerful enough?

If it's not you can just turn some settings down. Options menus are amazing things to have.

 

I'd go for higher resolution over higher refresh rate any day. I went from 120 hz 1080p to 60hz 4K and will never ever go back to lower resolution for higher framerate.

[aithos]

15 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

If it's not you can just turn some settings down. Options menus are amazing things to have.

 

I'd go for higher resolution over higher refresh rate any day. I went from 120 hz 1080p to 60hz 4K and will never ever go back to lower resolution for higher framerate.

You're just saying that because you went from the significantly lower resolution to a much higher one and you're ignoring the far BETTER option that would have been both: 1440p 120hz+ w/ULMB.  At 4K you're sacrificing a LOT by going to 60hz, which isn't acceptable at all for gaming unless you are only playing single player (and even then I still don't think it's worth it).

 

I cringe every time I see posts like this because it's like people don't notice the input lag, the delay in positional accuracy, the motion blur, the frame persistence, the jerky motion, etc.  You say you'll never go back to a lower resolution for a higher refresh rate?  Well I'll never go to a higher resolution with a lower refresh rate. 

 

I played on fast CRT monitors that had crisp/clear motion and much better positional accuracy and if you ask me it's foolish to game on anything today that doesn't have at least 120hz and ULMB.  Period.  I don't care what resolution you're at, the combination of those two things is significantly better for overall experience (feel, quality, motion, fatigue, etc) than any other factor and it's the closest you can get to those amazing CRT monitors.

 

My recommendation for the OP is to make sure you have those features and upgrade to a higher resolution when you can afford to do so without compromising on them.  A 1440p IPS with 120hz + ULMB is the best overall gaming experience you can get right now, hands down.  Going to 4k is silly (IMO) when games don't even have native 4K textures and you're sacrificing all the motion, clarity and response in the process.

 

I'd bet that if the guy I'm quoting above gamed on my monitor for a couple months and I offered to let him keep it at the end if he threw his 4K monitor away that he'd end up with a 4K monitor in his trash.

[aithos]

20 hours ago, Nickathom said:

What. you can overclock monitors? and what is dp?

Not really.  The people who are doing that are usually dropping frames, and in the off chance they aren't then they are probably getting significant input lag.  I had a Korean panel overclocked to 110hz (zero dropped frames) and when I switched to a 120hz+ native monitor the difference (even without ULMB) was night and day.  The response time, the lack of input lag made it SIGNIFICANTLY better.

 

Also, people who overclock from 60 to 75-85 is silly... 120hz is the magical number where the difference is substantial.  60hz is 16ms between frames, so even ignoring the motion blur and jerky movement there is a sizable delay in when things update and so the feel/registration in online games is very poor because of positional accuracy (or lack thereof).  When you hit 120hz and cut that in half to 8ms is when those problems start to go away, and adding in ULMB is like the secret sauce to make it amazing.

[othertomperson]

1 hour ago, aithos said:

You're just saying that because you went from the significantly lower resolution to a much higher one and you're ignoring the far BETTER option that would have been both: 1440p 120hz+ w/ULMB.  At 4K you're sacrificing a LOT by going to 60hz, which isn't acceptable at all for gaming unless you are only playing single player (and even then I still don't think it's worth it).

 

I cringe every time I see posts like this because it's like people don't notice the input lag, the delay in positional accuracy, the motion blur, the frame persistence, the jerky motion, etc.  You say you'll never go back to a lower resolution for a higher refresh rate?  Well I'll never go to a higher resolution with a lower refresh rate. 

 

I played on fast CRT monitors that had crisp/clear motion and much better positional accuracy and if you ask me it's foolish to game on anything today that doesn't have at least 120hz and ULMB.  Period.  I don't care what resolution you're at, the combination of those two things is significantly better for overall experience (feel, quality, motion, fatigue, etc) than any other factor and it's the closest you can get to those amazing CRT monitors.

 

My recommendation for the OP is to make sure you have those features and upgrade to a higher resolution when you can afford to do so without compromising on them.  A 1440p IPS with 120hz + ULMB is the best overall gaming experience you can get right now, hands down.  Going to 4k is silly (IMO) when games don't even have native 4K textures and you're sacrificing all the motion, clarity and response in the process.

 

I'd bet that if the guy I'm quoting above gamed on my monitor for a couple months and I offered to let him keep it at the end if he threw his 4K monitor away that he'd end up with a 4K monitor in his trash.

I cringe when I see comments like this, talking to me as if I hadn't just said that I'd used 120hz as my main monitor for a long time before switching back to 60 hz and would 100% make that change again. "That guy" you're quoting did use a monitor like that. It's in the attic with the rest of the junk, replaced by my current monitor. Going from 60 hz to 120 hz is a slightly more fluid image in a side-by-side demo animation (and a placebo at every other time, unless you're a pro gamer), while going from 1080p to 1440p or 2160p is night and day.

 

You're also telling someone who specifically gave the option of 144 hz OR 1440p to get both. Well no shit both is nicer, but that's not how budgets work. Anyone asking this question is unlikely to be looking at G-Sync or Freesync either, making 144 hz even less appealing. (Freesync makes no sense with anything less than a Vega GPU, which conveniently doesn't exist yet, and G-Sync adds enough to the price of the monitor that a better monitor without it would just make more sense)

[aithos]

8 hours ago, othertomperson said:

I cringe when I see comments like this, talking to me as if I hadn't just said that I'd used 120hz as my main monitor for a long time before switching back to 60 hz and would 100% make that change again. "That guy" you're quoting did use a monitor like that. It's in the attic with the rest of the junk, replaced by my current monitor. Going from 60 hz to 120 hz is a slightly more fluid image in a side-by-side demo animation (and a placebo at every other time, unless you're a pro gamer), while going from 1080p to 1440p or 2160p is night and day.

Did you even read what I said?  I pretty clearly stated that you only have the opinion you do because you skipped over 1440p 120hz+ w/ULMB.  Just because you played on a 1080p monitor and didn't think it was better enough to outweigh the GROSS difference in resolution doesn't really mean much.  You would feel the same way about 1440p vs 1080p, and since you clearly haven't used ULMB you really don't even know what you're missing.

 

Also, it's not a placebo.  It's 8-16ms of delay, it's additional input lag, and it is noticeably worse positional accuracy and therefore registration.  You may not realize because when you're playing online games you're attributing more to latency than input lag/delay, but the reality is that "lag" from your network almost never causes issues and it's actually display lag and refresh rate that does it.  Just because you're unaware of the causes doesn't mean it isn't there and noticeable when you eliminate the other issues...

 

Quote

 

You're also telling someone who specifically gave the option of 144 hz OR 1440p to get both. Well no shit both is nicer, but that's not how budgets work. Anyone asking this question is unlikely to be looking at G-Sync or Freesync either, making 144 hz even less appealing. (Freesync makes no sense with anything less than a Vega GPU, which conveniently doesn't exist yet, and G-Sync adds enough to the price of the monitor that a better monitor without it would just make more sense)

No, that isn't what I said at all... again: did you even read what I said?  I said that the OP should FIRST get 120hz+ and ULMB whether that is on a TN 1080p monitor or a 1440p IPS.  Those two features are panel independent and combined they are more important than upscaling to a higher resolution.  I then ALSO said that the OP should then save up until they can afford a 1440p high refresh rate gaming monitor with ULMB.

 

 Oh, and GSync is pointless... you only get a monitor with it for ULMB and you disable GSync because they are mutually exclusive.