-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
1440p 60fps vs 1080p 144hz for gaming?
- Thread starter Exile20
- Start date
Eduardboon
Member
Civilization is NOT smooth in 144hz. Even with gsync. Somehow panning the map just stutters. So it depends on the type of games you play. Strategies are better at 60hz vsynced. Shooters are better at 144hz vsync off
Smooth Operator
Member
144Hz (except for fighting games, obviously). All day.
So i'll pick 1080p/144Hz
So i'll pick 1080p/144Hz
ALLseeingEYE
Member
I think the questions are,
- What specs does your PC have?
- What do you prefer, smoothness or Image quality?
One thing to consider is, I doubt most games you play will use that full 144hz, you will probably see closer to a fluctuating 90-120, as where if you have the right rig, you might see a more consistent 60fps at 1440p on modern AAA games. The reason for this is, high framerate depends on a lot of factors, including what components you have, and how well optimized the game itself is for those components.
I'd probably choose 1440p, depending on your rig, since you will likely have a consistently higher image quality, and most devs likely optimize their games for 60fps and not 144hz.
Cookie Dough
Member
Another vote for frame rate over resolution. 1440p is great but its benefits aren't usually as noticeable as those of high refesh rate monitors. Also the ability to make use of higher refresh rate screens is one of the biggest advantages of PC gaming and should not be overlooked.
Darkangel
Member
I'm in a shitty situation with my dual 1920x1200 TN monitors from 2008.
If I get a 144hz 1080p TN monitor then I'm downgrading my resolution and screen real estate. If I get a 144hz 1440p TN monitor then I will need something like a GTX1070 to run it properly.
Maybe I should just bite the bullet and accept the 16:9 downgrade. I want to get an RX480 so freesync would be nice (G-sync is too expensive).
If I get a 144hz 1080p TN monitor then I'm downgrading my resolution and screen real estate. If I get a 144hz 1440p TN monitor then I will need something like a GTX1070 to run it properly.
Maybe I should just bite the bullet and accept the 16:9 downgrade. I want to get an RX480 so freesync would be nice (G-sync is too expensive).
From experience 144hz and G-Sync is an eye-opener that only continues to impress over time.
However, it's a bit double edged as it's at the point for myself where dropping to ~60 FPS is actually physically frustrating when playing games.
Additionally with the Neo and Scorpio along with the wider display industry as a whole pushing for a 4K standard I would expect that 60 FPS high resolution displays are going to get much cheaper over time.
However, it's a bit double edged as it's at the point for myself where dropping to ~60 FPS is actually physically frustrating when playing games.
Additionally with the Neo and Scorpio along with the wider display industry as a whole pushing for a 4K standard I would expect that 60 FPS high resolution displays are going to get much cheaper over time.
adamantypants
Member
As someone who basically never plays competitive shooters, 1440p60 >>>> 1080p144. I'll take IQ over high fps any day of the week. Last 3 PC games played: The Witness, Beseige, and MGSV. Tell me those need 144hz.
At one point I had a 1080/144hz panel and I returned it 2 days later because the IQ was just ass on it. This was years ago though, before IPS 144hz panels. For my money though, I'd 100% buy a higher quality panel than a faster panel.
At one point I had a 1080/144hz panel and I returned it 2 days later because the IQ was just ass on it. This was years ago though, before IPS 144hz panels. For my money though, I'd 100% buy a higher quality panel than a faster panel.
This is so false and I already left a video for anyone to see why. You're fps and hz matching are ideal. Yet even if you don't have the fps to match your refreshrate, due to how flat panels work with sample and hold you see the images much quicker even at the same FPS. If you don't get that then do not respond cause you're spreading fud and keeping gamers in a purgartory they might leave if they had a direct experience.
Literally lets spell this out for a certain crowd spewing this crap.
The same monitor which is Asus PG278Q is ran at different refreshrates with uncapped fps ingame which is north of 260fps. You can't inject resolution in to the debate because it's the same. Now the two refreshrates are captured by 500fps camera which can clearly see more within the same amount of time than we can see. Again keeping it technical to avoid human biases in this discussion. There's no debate about which one smoother, if you want to debate then you need your eyes or sensibilities checked. The benefit is there, so no you don't need your fps to match your refreshrate to enjoy what is being seen.
Where's is that adam sandler gif about making everyone dumber cause it's needs come out each time this response is made about high refreshrate monitors. You can debate how much people will like the smoothness factor but you're outright off the mark in the way the monitors can benefit you and how.
1. You gain from the refreshrate itself due to lower sample and hold. Only way this doesn't apply is if you're on crt or plasma.
2. You gain from the ingame fps being able to match.
You want both ideally as a gamer, you're saying there's is no gain if the fps don't match that is FALSE PERIOD. This isn't preference either this is how the real works with your eyes, the fps in your game and the refreshrate of your monitor at the time.
I'm also with others you can have both. There's no ideal or practical way to enjoy what you mention which is 90+, 100p+ frames with 1440p/4k currently it's impossible single or multi setup and that's with titan x on pascal the benchmarks are out. You will still enjoy having a smoother image, if someone doesn't like that they should get a better return policy instead of taking a very misguided view like that seriously.
digitalrelic
Banned
Best monitor I ever bought.
It's a beautiful display, and it's the one I own, but let's be honest... This is the ultimate right now:
strangecloud
Member
I am looking to ascend into pc gaming before my first child is born. Looking to either go ultra wide 1440p 100hz or 1080p 144hz. I'm leaning towards less HZ but curious what others think for my first gaming pc.
then why bother with a 144hz monitor?
Peotical Injection
Member
How about 3840x2160 at 60HZ with Gsync? I love my monitor.
I need a new videocard, waiting for the 1080ti. Hoping that hits 4k at 60FPS maxed out.
I need a new videocard, waiting for the 1080ti. Hoping that hits 4k at 60FPS maxed out.
Tangoownage
Member
Get an Acer x34
Athreous
Member
Hmm cuz it's good for most games? o.o
adamantypants
Member
This is probably the real answer; provided it's not a TN panel
The color whore is strong in this one.
Sorry I've yet to see one flat panel touch some of the gdm-fw900 I owned or calibrated. This is said as much by most people who ever had the grace of that beauty with anything video based be it interactive or not. Flat panels are garbage except for brightness and geometry. Color range, pixel persistence aka motion blur or ghosting, input lag, low refreshrates, fixed refreshrates and even color space are more problematic than the weight or curve of crts. I ltierally didn't have to think of that shit as teen now I do and even worse as some like lister mention you aren't gonna find one without those issues being how they should be for gamers.
IPS can call me when it gets to 2ms and doesn't cost more than gpu north of 650$. They say team green vs team red. Team smooth vs team fidelity right here. I had bought two of the sony I mentioned used for less than 300$ pathetic you cannot get better overall quality in a monitor than what we had with crts. Just like routers being overpriced monitors are way overpriced for their value these days.
All in good taste. Another day gaffers blizzard games be calling me.
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
Athreous
Member
Hellshingu
Member
Best monitor I ever bought.
Worst purchase I ever made. Went through 3 of them for multitude of issues (that are well documented) before just getting the Predator xb271hu that was flawless.
OP if you can afford it get a 1440p 144hz+ monitor if you have the horsepower to run it. If not you can get a decent 1080p 144hz monitor for around $300 that will last you until your rig is powerful enough for highers resolutions with high frame rates.
Slick Butter
Member
Depends on the kind of game. I have to switch between my monitors per game (I have one HRR 1080p and one 60Hz 1440p). I will play FPS and racing games on my HRR, but GTAV, Civ, or Dark Souls on my my 1440p.
However, there's a bigger difference between my monitors: the color. The 1080p is a particularly bad TN panel and the 1440p is a particularly good IPS. If the 1080p had much better color than it does, I would play more games on it.
However, there's a bigger difference between my monitors: the color. The 1080p is a particularly bad TN panel and the 1440p is a particularly good IPS. If the 1080p had much better color than it does, I would play more games on it.
CarbonFire
Member
Yup this, but wake me when a single card capable of driving current gen games at that res and refresh rate and a monitor with those specs can be purchased together for less than $2k
righthandmouse
Banned
Looks fine. I was playing around with my consoles on the dell and they look better to me than on my Sony TV. Ips monitors are amazing.
Ban Puncher
Member
Curved screen? Aspect ratio for weirdos? Nope nope nope. Dual screen 4 LYFE.
Full disclosure - The first one I got had to be replaced because of serious backlight bleed.
But the replacement was flawless. Have had it for three weeks now and bought a 1070 to compliment it. Fantastic.
SunBroDave
Member
Indeed. The X34 is still unmatched imo.
digitalrelic
Banned
They admitted to problems with launch units & offered a free exchange to anyone with issues:
http://edgeup.asus.com/2016/03/17/on-backlight-bleed-with-the-rog-swift-pg279q-gaming-monitor/
Hawk269
Member
Titan X Pascal would fit the bill perfectly. You can wait to see if they actually release a 1080ti.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
1080p 144hz, but a capable 24" and higher low lag S-PVA or AHVA-IPS with an A-TW polarizer doesn't exist. So the only options for me are 60hz or high end CRT
thelastcrusader
Banned
I prefer 1440p. Refresh rate so far hasn't hit me that hard
Apoleptica
Banned
1080p 144 hz is the better choice imo if it also has g-sync, also perfect for downsampling.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
1080p/144Hz for me.
When I upgraded to that standard of monitor I thought about 21:9 and 1440p but I soon realised that I don't have the desk space for anything bigger than 24" and I've got 2.5GB of 1080p wallpaper that would scale nicely to 4K, so I wouldn't have to start collecting it again if I move to a 4K monitor in the future.
When I upgraded to that standard of monitor I thought about 21:9 and 1440p but I soon realised that I don't have the desk space for anything bigger than 24" and I've got 2.5GB of 1080p wallpaper that would scale nicely to 4K, so I wouldn't have to start collecting it again if I move to a 4K monitor in the future.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Yep, I still have mine but decided to go larger due to Nvidia and ATI scrapping analog video. I'm considering hooking it back up even though I will need a converter, which would severely limit resolution and hz.
Lately, I've already went through about 6 flat panel monitors so far to try and find something that I can live with. I don't have $2000 to blow on a high end monitor that still won't beat my FW900. So far the only thing I've found for a decent budget price is the older S-PVA panels Samsung made.
Some do look really good, not CRT level but good enough, and had true 3000 to 1 contrast ratios and 100%+ color gamuts. The only real issues with them was lag and resolution/hz. There's also the high end Eizo's that usually have the IPS filters but those things are just too expensive. I haven't had a chance to see any of the MVA panels though. For now it's S-PVA & 60hz until some good budget friendly OLED's come out. Come to think of it, the older apple cinema displays look pretty nice too.
The issue with any of the older tech like S-PVA is you have to track down hardware revisions to find the best ones, or firmware updates, and that can prove very difficult with older panels and ebay. Then you have other things like dead pixels and aging. It's pretty depressing IMO.
On the positive side, basic calibration is much easier on with flat panels. Just need DisplayCal and a decent coclorimeter.
FunkyDealer
Banned
1440p downsampled to 1080p @ 60FPS.
It's a great AA solution IMO.
Edit: oh, monitor? 1080p with a good IPS panel. I'm on the lookout for one with freesync myself.
It's a great AA solution IMO.
Edit: oh, monitor? 1080p with a good IPS panel. I'm on the lookout for one with freesync myself.
So of course my monitor is delivered this morning and I keep thinking about this stupid thread. I found this monitor which seems to be a great price with good reviews. The only negative I see is that it's a TN monitor.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-27-led-gsync-monitor-black/5293502.p?id=bb5293502&skuId=5293502
Worth returning the one I bought to get it?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KYCSRSG/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-27-led-gsync-monitor-black/5293502.p?id=bb5293502&skuId=5293502
Worth returning the one I bought to get it?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KYCSRSG/?tag=neogaf0e-20
metareferential
Member
1440p@144hz+gsync (and 120hz lightboost).
It's the only answer.
That is until we can get a 21:90 200hz 4k gsync and lightboost VA or OLED panel.
There's no going back from 100+hz and variable refresh rates.
It's the only answer.
That is until we can get a 21:90 200hz 4k gsync and lightboost VA or OLED panel.
There's no going back from 100+hz and variable refresh rates.
Kudo
Member
I use my PS4/PS3 with Dell U2715H and they look fine. PS3 looks bit blurry but native 1080p games on PS4 are joy to play, I prefer playing on my monitor rather than TV as you can see lot more details when you sit closer.