1440p 144hz vs 4K 60hz

[bystander36]

The only answer: try both and see which you prefer. This is largely a personal preference. Personally, and in my experience with others in general, 4K @ 60Hz, it's not even a contest. I feel like I'm reiterating the same argument from 6+ years ago when 2560x1600p monitors were first becoming a thing for gamers; back then it was 1080p @ 120/144Hz vs 2560x1600p. Presently, I've yet to see someone physically sit down behind a proper 4K gaming setup and not say something along the lines of "holy crap, my life is a lie." I feel like the lower res/higher FPS answer is just a cop out because people don't understand the alternative. Nothing makes a game come alive like higher resolution; higher FPS is nice, but I'm not sure where the equation of "lower FPS = no fluidity" came from - games can be perfectly fluid at lower FPS, it's a frametime consistency thing more than the number itself. Also, good luck finding a CPU that can churn out 144FPS in many modern games.

It might make you go "Wow!" when you first see a 4k screen, but the shine will wear off. Added fluid motion just makes me feel a lot better while playing games that are mouse driven and 1st person view or over the shoulder viewed. Your hand motions give much snappier responses to the action in the game, and if you turn your view side to side, 60 FPS/hz is still quite choppy, though you can get used to it.

For longer term use, many of us prefer 85hz or higher. To a few of us, 60hz is not tolerable due to simulator sickness.

 

[dave1029]

It might make you go "Wow!" when you first see a 4k screen, but the shine will wear off. Added fluid motion just makes me feel a lot better while playing games that are mouse driven and 1st person view or over the shoulder viewed. Your hand motions give much snappier responses to the action in the game, and if you turn your view side to side, 60 FPS/hz is still quite choppy, though you can get used to it.

For longer term use, many of us prefer 85hz or higher. To a few of us, 60hz is not tolerable due to simulator sickness.

I don't know then, because I still go "holy crap" whenever I fire up a game on my 4K monitor. If I turn it down to 1440p to get more frames, I think "this looks like garbage." But maybe G-Sync is what is giving me the illusion of the fact I don't need to go over 60 fps. Maybe my 60 fps is smoother than your 60 fps.

 

[bystander36]

I don't know then, because I still go "holy crap" whenever I fire up a game on my 4K monitor. If I turn it down to 1440p to get more frames, I think "this looks like garbage." But maybe G-Sync is what is giving me the illusion of the fact I don't need to go over 60 fps. Maybe my 60 fps is smoother than your 60 fps.

G-sync doesn't fix the latency of lower FPS.

Have you considered that not everyone shares your opinion? Have you considered that for some, 60 FPS has too high of latency and lacks the smoothness they prefer?

 

[dave1029]

G-sync doesn't fix the latency of lower FPS.

Have you considered that not everyone shares your opinion? Have you considered that for some, 60 FPS has too high of latency and lacks the smoothness they prefer?

I've never had a problem with latency at 60fps. Doesn't some of that have to do with your monitor? Mine is 1ms.

 

[bystander36]

I've never had a problem with latency at 60fps. Doesn't some of that have to do with your monitor? Mine is 1ms.

Not everyone is the same. And my monitor is also 1ms, and I do not play with v-sync. 120hz does help hide the tearing.

 

[biostud]

I don't know then, because I still go "holy crap" whenever I fire up a game on my 4K monitor. If I turn it down to 1440p to get more frames, I think "this looks like garbage." But maybe G-Sync is what is giving me the illusion of the fact I don't need to go over 60 fps. Maybe my 60 fps is smoother than your 60 fps.

Non native resolution always look like crap.

 

[biostud]

Dp.

 

[Kenmitch]

144Hz would be my vote. I prefer higher fps than eye candy to some extent. Read about the benefits many times thinking it was a placebo effect.

Recently switched when my 60Hz Samsung took a dump. Thanks to BestBuy extended warranty I'm sporting a 144Hz monitor now. V-Sync off tweaking settings to achieve 100fps or so is nice! I won't be going back to 60Hz that's for sure. Sadly only 1080p tho. Not sure if I'll move to 1440p anytime soon due to the costs involved.

 

[Headfoot]

I have a 3x1080p set up. My bro has a 144hz 1080p set up. Got a buddy who uses a 1440p @100hz IPS (Overlord Tempest).

I'd have to say if I had to choose between 3x1080p and 144hz1440p I would still take 3x1080p. So immersive and a lot of in-game benefits in that you can just see more than other people can.
That being said, the high refresh rate looks absolutely fantastic, so smooth. Even moving the cursor around is wildly different. Once you get a high refresh rate or multi-monitor gaming you'll never be able to go back, so get used to buying high end GPUs!

If I had to choose between 1440p144hz and 4k I'd go with the high refresh rate 1440p144hz

 

[xeledon20005]

+1

+1

 

[Jacky60]

All I can add is that 4k on 40 inches at 60hz is way better than 1440 27ins at 60hz. Go big or go home.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I really like the fluidity of 120hz or more, but quite frankly maintaining that frame rate is a nightmare, some games just aren't capable of it not just because of GPU limitations but CPU, which is even worse because there's not a lot you can turn down to lower the load on the CPU, and it's not something you can double up on easily like with SLI/Crossfire, overclocking aggressively helps.

Both have similar requirements in terms of GPU horsepower though, one is half the number of pixels as the other but rendering twice as fast, I'll probably stick to higher def panels all else being equal. 60fps min is quite usable, i'd argue that most of the benefit for 120hz or above is for competative gamers, I don't think the increase in fluidity really benefits singleplayer games enough to warrant the cost.

 

[CP5670]

I would take the 144hz option any day. I generally prefer smooth and fluid motion over better still images, and am willing to drop down settings to get that. I do spend a lot of my gaming time with older games though, where a constant 120fps or 144fps can be easily attained.

I'll only be interested in 4K when 4K 120-144hz displays come out, which is going to be a while as the DP/HDMI standards on current video cards don't even support that.

 

[Headfoot]

Yeah it is important to note you need a beastly CPU max overclocked to really get the benefit out of a high refresh rate monitor.

 

[bystander36]

Yeah it is important to note you need a beastly CPU max overclocked to really get the benefit out of a high refresh rate monitor.

While true to an extent, it doesn't take 120-144 FPS to make a high refresh monitor worth it. Even 85 FPS is markedly better.

 

[moonbogg]

1440@144hz. Easy choice.

 

[cbn]

1440p hands down.

 

[Elfear]

Pros and cons to both. I went from a 30" 1600p monitor to a 28" 4k and the difference was very noticeable in some games but not so much in others. Modded Skyrim looked absolutely stunning with the high-res textures but an overclocked 290 didn't have enough grunt for playable frames. Borderlands 2 didn't look that impressive because the game is built around cartoony low-res graphics.

During the same time period I bought a 144hz 24" 1080p monitor with Lightboost as a secondary monitor. For fast-paced games like Borderlands 2 the fluidity was amazing. No ghosting or motion blur. Input lag was unnoticeable from my perspective and the motion clarity made for a more immersive experience.

For games with higher resolution textures and already impressive graphics, 4k looks amazing IF you have the GPUs to push it. Personally I think the 1440p 144hz option is the best for now if you don't have a massive GPU budget.

 

[ocre]

I don't know then, because I still go "holy crap" whenever I fire up a game on my 4K monitor. If I turn it down to 1440p to get more frames, I think "this looks like garbage." But maybe G-Sync is what is giving me the illusion of the fact I don't need to go over 60 fps. Maybe my 60 fps is smoother than your 60 fps.

If you are dropping the resolution on your 4k monitor to 1440p, it doesn't make your monitor a 1440p. You are just running out of your native resolution, which looks bad.

Run a game in windowed mode at 1440, that is what 1440 looks like on a monitor with the same pixel density as your 4k.

It really has nothing to do with the resolution. It is the pixel density that matters. How many pixels per sq inch.

As for high frame rate/Hz gaming, try running your games at 1440 in windowed mode and see if you can feel the extra responsiveness. The higher the frame rate, the more responsive. It doesn't work like you think. 1ms response time your panel claims is not the bottleneck. The game engine is running n a circle and the internal clock is tied to the frame rate. If you are gaming at a steady 60fps, there is 16ms between each frame. It is a 16ms loop, there is no getting around it. At 120fps, it is an 8ms loop. The game scans inpits and responds 2times as fast.

You may not be sensitive to the lag but it is there. If you re gaming at 4k, chances are you aren't even at 60fps all the time.

 

[B-Riz]

The only answer: try both and see which you prefer. This is largely a personal preference. Personally, and in my experience with others in general, 4K @ 60Hz, it's not even a contest. I feel like I'm reiterating the same argument from 6+ years ago when 2560x1600p monitors were first becoming a thing for gamers; back then it was 1080p @ 120/144Hz vs 2560x1600p. Presently, I've yet to see someone physically sit down behind a proper 4K gaming setup and not say something along the lines of "holy crap, my life is a lie." I feel like the lower res/higher FPS answer is just a cop out because people don't understand the alternative. Nothing makes a game come alive like higher resolution; higher FPS is nice, but I'm not sure where the equation of "lower FPS = no fluidity" came from - games can be perfectly fluid at lower FPS, it's a frametime consistency thing more than the number itself. Also, good luck finding a CPU that can churn out 144FPS in many modern games.

Good points.

I am in the same boat right now; I like the 1080p 144Hz Asus monitor, but I prefer 1920x1200, and keep going between the 2...

Though I really *want* a 2560x1600 120 / 144 panel.

 

[Headfoot]

While true to an extent, it doesn't take 120-144 FPS to make a high refresh monitor worth it. Even 85 FPS is markedly better.

Takes a pretty modern overclocked CPU to hit 85 fps in new titles these days given how slow CPUs are getting faster. My buddy can't crack 85ish on a 2500k @ 4.6 with all settings at medium in BF4 @ 1440p100hz on TriX 290 @ 1050 core. He only hits the 100 fps mark when hes walking down a hallway with no objects and no other players.

greater than 60hz is not for people with anything worse than max overclock Sandybridge K CPUs

 

[Pandamonia]

Takes a pretty modern overclocked CPU to hit 85 fps in new titles these days given how slow CPUs are getting faster. My buddy can't crack 85ish on a 2500k @ 4.6 with all settings at medium in BF4 @ 1440p100hz on TriX 290 @ 1050 core. He only hits the 100 fps mark when hes walking down a hallway with no objects and no other players.

greater than 60hz is not for people with anything worse than max overclock Sandybridge K CPUs

I was wondering if the CPU bottlenecks most high end games before the 144hz cap....

 

[tweakboy]

Lol at that res you have all games should be `150fps at all times...

 

[bystander36]

Takes a pretty modern overclocked CPU to hit 85 fps in new titles these days given how slow CPUs are getting faster. My buddy can't crack 85ish on a 2500k @ 4.6 with all settings at medium in BF4 @ 1440p100hz on TriX 290 @ 1050 core. He only hits the 100 fps mark when hes walking down a hallway with no objects and no other players.

greater than 60hz is not for people with anything worse than max overclock Sandybridge K CPUs

It really depends on the games, but my point is that it isn't as bad as many make it out to be, who believe that 120 FPS is required.

 

[Eric1987]

144Hz is pointless IMO. Can't see anything above 60 FPS anyways. Plus your GPU would have to pull ultra high frames at a low res. I'd rather get 50 FPS at 4k then 120 FPS at 1440p.