1440p 144hz vs 4K 60hz

[bystander36]

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.

Really? Do you have any proof of that?

 

[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.

You are on to something, I got to play around with gsync and it is crazy. The latency or lag, it just disappears even at frame rates in the 40s. Heck, compared to my old monitor, gsync at 35fps is more resonsive than my old monitor at 50+ fps. It is crazy, man!,!,!

Gta 5 on ultra, my frame rates range from 80 to dips in the 30s, especially in the grass lands.

I cannot believe how smooth it is. I couldn't stand the grass slow downs before, but now, without the frame rate overlay.....I wouldn't ever notice it dropped,

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 retract my statement. I can't believe it, but the latency and input lag are worlds different with gsync.....even at lower fps.

It starts breaking up at the lower 30s (31-32) and high 20s (28-29). The situation is drastically different than 35fps, which seems nothing like gaming at 35fps. Its as responsive as 60fps on my old panel

 

[bystander36]

I retract my statement. I can't believe it, but the latency and input lag are worlds different with gsync.....even at lower fps.

It starts breaking up at the lower 30s (31-32) and high 20s (28-29). The situation is drastically different than 35fps, which seems nothing like gaming at 35fps. Its as responsive as 60fps on my old panel

On a technical standpoint, G-sync does nothing to reduce latency, unless you are comparing it to V-sync. Blurbusters tested this out and found G-sync adds 1-3ms of latency which is pretty minimal.

Now, compare G-sync with a 144hz panel, to a 60hz panel, and you don't have the tearing either and the low latency.

You also cannot forget that monitors themselves may also have added latency unrelated to either tech. Some non gaming monitors can have up to 50 ms of latency.

Don't get me wrong here. I want G-sync too, as you get the best of both worlds.

 

[xthetenth]

I think what happens is that there's some inherent latency to the display process. *Sync doesn't fix that. However, there's also a latency between the frame rendering and the display process starting. This latency is worse than its average magnitude because it's inconsistent. *Sync deals with that, so you get somewhat lower latency, but equally/more importantly, you get consistent latency, so motion is smooth, if delayed.

 

[dave1029]

To me, as long as the game plays smooth, (when I move my mouse, the character moves and there's no noticeable delay) I don't see why anyone would sacrifice IQ for extra frames. Let's be real here, even 2 Titan X's wouldn't push 144 frames max quality @ 1440p. It would get around 100 depending on the game. Yeah that's really smooth. But is lower latency worth half the pixels? If you look at a game in proper 4K, (60 fps with G-Sync/or Freesync if that even works yet) with proper colors, AA OFF (most people don't understand that @ 4K, AA will actually degrade your IQ unless you're above 30" on screen size), there really isn't any competition. Now if you had to make me choose between a 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitor and a normal 4K monitor, I'd go with the G-Sync one. But the XB280Hk is not playing around. And to an above poster, I have played a game @ 1440p with that being the native resolution. It's just not the same. Games come to life @ 4K it's unreal. Would never sacrifice that immersion for minimal increase in fluidity that doesn't improve me playing the game unless it's a first person shooter.

 

[Fox5]

144hz seems really demanding, and it increases the cpu demand as well.
4k only increases the gpu demand, so you can eventually buy enough gpus for any game to run at 4k. The same isn't true of 144hz.

That said, refresh rate is consciously detectable up to around 1000hz, and detectable subconsciously up to around 3000hz.
DSR or other anti-aliasing mechanisms can somewhat make up for lower resolution anyway if you want to drop a few Titan X's in your machine.

 

[ocre]

On a technical standpoint, G-sync does nothing to reduce latency, unless you are comparing it to V-sync. Blurbusters tested this out and found G-sync adds 1-3ms of latency which is pretty minimal.

Now, compare G-sync with a 144hz panel, to a 60hz panel, and you don't have the tearing either and the low latency.

You also cannot forget that monitors themselves may also have added latency unrelated to either tech. Some non gaming monitors can have up to 50 ms of latency.

Don't get me wrong here. I want G-sync too, as you get the best of both worlds.

I am not trying to sell you gsync. But i am telling you, there is something more going on. I am very sensitive to responsiveness lag. I have had many 1080 monitors, my samsung smart TV, some older 1680x1050 monitors that were nice back in their day.
i could tell you without a frame overlay, it was that simple. I could tell just about what the fps was by the responsiveness and lag. I could tell 50fps from 60fps. the lower the frame rate, the less responsive, the less smooth the game felt

But there is something happening with gsync and i cannot explain it. I wasnt expecting it, not in any way. But i promise, there is a massive difference at lower than 60fps. at 35fps gsync, it is responsive and i do not know how. I wouldnt believe myself, heck, just look at my previous post on this thread. I wouldnt believe it but this is for real. Until you see for yourself, i dont think you will get it. But 35 fps is as responsive as 60fps.

I am playing GTA 5 and frame rates jump all over the place. 70, 50, 60, 45, 48,60, 40, 35, 40, 34......
and the input lag and responsiveness are solid the whole time.

i have been stunned by this and started thinking maybe this video, its full of hints that something is happening more at lower frames. There is something amassing going on when you are playing at those frame rates. It really feels like a much faster frame rate.

just watch this for a few minutes.
https://youtu.be/VkrJU5d2RfA?t=4m48s

you really wont get how different it is, i dont think, unless you experience it first hand

 

[ocre]

I think what happens is that there's some inherent latency to the display process. *Sync doesn't fix that. However, there's also a latency between the frame rendering and the display process starting. This latency is worse than its average magnitude because it's inconsistent. *Sync deals with that, so you get somewhat lower latency, but equally/more importantly, you get consistent latency, so motion is smooth, if delayed.

i have no idea, but it is really really dramatic. Unless you never played at sub 60fps and below, then you are gonna be taken back if you try gsync and those frame rates

 

[bystander36]

Double Post

 

[bystander36]

You do have to realize that the new G-sync monitors almost all have much lower latency than most monitors of the past. The low latency aspect you are talking about is more likely a factor of what you were used to was a monitor with poor latency and only 60hz. I had the same reaction to my 120hz monitor when I first started using it, because it had much lower input latency than what I had prior. Blurbuster tests show us that they do not have lower latency as a result of G-sync.

Now I'm also certain you are experience added smoothness as well, without tearing, and having consistent syncing to the time the frames are delivered helps a lot with smoothness. On top of the fact that most these G-sync monitors (the 1440p ones at least), are very low on input latency.

 

[Harry_Wild]

I don't play games; but I love my Dell P2715Q monitor! It the eye candy for reading articles and for watching movies even at the lower resolution of 1080P! But I am hooked on 4K videos now and harder to watch lower resolution stuff!

 

[Pandamonia]

Does the Acer have backlight bleed issues?

 

[Alan2020]

While the 144Hz is more demanding, I think it's the best option for games. After all 1080p@60Hz > 4k@30Hz.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Think about this OP, you can enjoy the very nice resolution of 1440 today at 144hz and in a couple years you can laugh your way into 4K heaven when 4K 120/144hz is here

Holy moly, think about the GPU power required there... :ninja:

 

[Eric1987]

Really? Do you have any proof of that?

Um thats common knowledge....

 

[ocre]

Does the Acer have backlight bleed issues?

on the xb270h i got-
two sides are great (top and bottom) which i never seen before on a TN panel
the left side has minimal, very minor bleed. it is barely there. Then there is the right side......
its not what i would call bad, its just that it stands out because there is almost no noticeable bleed anywhere else. I dont know if you can get a TN monitor with no bleed whatsoever. And this one is pretty good, way better than any i have ever owned and about as good as i ever seen.

The one side stands out, my other panels had bleed on every side and it is something i just grown used to. But this panel, there other sides being practically perfect, it is a shame that the right side isnt.

I think you would have to be nick picky if you called it an issue. The splash screen shows up more than any other dark image or game thus far. Actually, if i pull up some night time pictures it doesnt look like the splash screen bleed. I dont know if that is because of the shade of dark or what.

The one thing that i am really impressed with is the color uniformity. This was something i was worried about. But it is really really good.

others with the same panel find the same thing out.

if you start at the 6th post on this page and read the next few, you will see that the screen does exceptionally well in colors. it by far exceeds anything i expected. http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1086&start=70

I have his color profile and use it for desktop apps and such, but when i game i use one of the monitors presets with minor tweaks of brightness and contrast.

Also, if you read in that thread that there are no RGB adjustments on the panel, they are wrong. It is just not obvious when navigating the menu. Its in the color temp option, arrow over to user and then the enter again, then you can change the R,G, and B settings.

Anyhow, it is a great panel. I got a refurb off amazon for $349. It had all the original plastic sticky cover on the bezels and stand. not a scratch anywhere. Flawless.

I dont think it was ever used before i got it. perhaps it was returned for a damaged screen in shipping or the box got tore or something.

The screen had no smears, smudges, or finger prints. Even the base, it never had been put together.

Anyway, it is large size for a 1080p monitor. So i dont think it is something for everyone. For me.... I couldnt be more impressed with it. It is better than i expected. It just blows me away and is by far one of the most exciting upgrades i have had in years. I like it more than my GTX 980 which now feels like a completely new experience

 

[JeffMD]

... I currently game on a 1080p tv at 60fps... 60fps is more then enough. 4k running 60fps would be just fine. Not that my system would be running anything 4k at 60fps for a while.

 

[bystander36]

Um thats common knowledge....

Common among the clueless.

Read this or Google the topic: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

I personally can tell a pretty big difference up to 85 FPS. It still gets better beyond that, but 85 FPS is the point where it is "good enough". 60 FPS results in me seeing distinct images. Now remember, movies blur everything, in gaming, they don't blur, so the images are a lot easier to distinguish.

 

[Z15CAM]

Wel of course I could do it with 60 to 144Hz QNIX $300 Koran 1440p 27" Samsung PLS Displays powered by OEM PCB's CF 290X's under water.

Definitely not battery tabloid and hungry Desktop Video.

 

[ocre]

You do have to realize that the new G-sync monitors almost all have much lower latency than most monitors of the past. The low latency aspect you are talking about is more likely a factor of what you were used to was a monitor with poor latency and only 60hz. I had the same reaction to my 120hz monitor when I first started using it, because it had much lower input latency than what I had prior. Blurbuster tests show us that they do not have lower latency as a result of G-sync.

Now I'm also certain you are experience added smoothness as well, without tearing, and having consistent syncing to the time the frames are delivered helps a lot with smoothness. On top of the fact that most these G-sync monitors (the 1440p ones at least), are very low on input latency.

I hear what you are saying but i still am confused by the dramatic difference, across the board....
It throws me for a loop. How ever it does it, the effect is pronounced. Lower frame rates feel like much higher frame rates. For years, everything i have experienced is now turned upside down. Anytime frame rate dropped before, in the 40s, I not only felt the sluggishness and more delay in responsiveness, the animation and fluidness also suffered. Not micro stutter, but just the effect of the choppiness as frame rates go down.

The gsync effect is really interesting in the way it just completely changes the feel of everything. Not only is the animation butter smooth, it seems like everything is so much more responsive. It really just feels so much faster. I cannot tell the difference anymore, I can't feel 40fps or 35fps, it feels like super high frame rates.
Then, in games like gta5.....
Frame rates go all over the place in dramatic ways. But these major swings are not the slightest detectable. The animation, the feel, the game engines internal clock.....it all stays perfect.

I guess I wasnt expecting these kind of results.

 

[bystander36]

What I'm saying is,
"Yes, Gsync makes things smoother"
"No, Gsync doesn't reduce latency when compared to normal non-Vsync play"
"The Gsync monitor you are using has much lower latency because of other reasons unrelated to Gsync"
"Low latency does not require Gsync, but you just have not used a low latency monitor prior to the Gsync one"

 

[Eric1987]

Common among the clueless.

Read this or Google the topic: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

I personally can tell a pretty big difference up to 85 FPS. It still gets better beyond that, but 85 FPS is the point where it is "good enough". 60 FPS results in me seeing distinct images. Now remember, movies blur everything, in gaming, they don't blur, so the images are a lot easier to distinguish.

Sorry I [don't agree with you]. You can see up to 85 FPS you must be the only human alive to do that. I can barely see above 40 FPS. IF that.

Profanity isn't allowed in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[bystander36]

Sorry I [don't agree with you]. You can see up to 85 FPS you must be the only human alive to do that. I can barely see above 40 FPS. IF that.

You clearly did not read through the article. Read it, it may enlighten you.

40 FPS is EXTREMELY choppy if you are playing a 1st person game and move your view from right to left. Yet is smooth as can be if playing Civ 5. If your monitor has horrible pixel response, it may also effect what you can notice, as it is blurring the crap out of everything.

Then there is the latency issue that is also effected.

 

[Eric1987]

You clearly did not read through the article. Read it, it may enlighten you.

40 FPS is EXTREMELY choppy if you are playing a 1st person game and move your view from right to left. Yet is smooth as can be if playing Civ 5.

Then there is the latency issue that is also effected.

No its not. I play all my FPS with around that frame rate. And yes I did read the entire article. Mr bionic here. I wish I could see that high of FPS. 40 FPS looks the exact same as 60 to me. Hell if I am on a SSD 30 FPS without stutter looks and feels just fine to me, too. So according to you people can see 144 FPS? LOL. I think people who say 144hz over 60hz 4k hasn't seen 4k. Games look breath taking in 4k. And I get more than enough FPS with my 2x290x's.

 

[bystander36]

Do you think all the people here, who recommend 120-144hz monitors with experience using them are lying to themselves?

Google "how many FPS can the human eye see". Read through the numerous threads:
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...ie=UTF-8#q=how+many+FPS+can+the+human+eye+see

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you play with an IPS monitor with 8+ms response times, which blur the crap out of everything, preventing you from seeing clear responsive images.