1440p 144hz vs 4K 60hz

[moonbogg]

1440p@144hz best
1080p@144hz second best

Anything at or below 60fps, regardless of resolution or gsync is crap for competitive, fast paced games. That's my take. I'd rather go back to 1080p than go 4k and get crap frames. Who cares how good the game looks if its a blurry mess and you can't hit anything.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Pandamonia]

So i got the TN swift and i have to say its awesome.

Colours are good and i havent noticed any loss of fidelity vs my IPS. Its kind of like how a 9/10 women looks amazing as long as you dont put her next to a 10/10 swimsuit model.

The response and Gsync at 100+ FPS is amazing and i really cant think of how i used to play on a blur fest of 6ms IPS.

Just waiting for thr 980ti so i can get rid of SLI and banish problems from the SLi!

 

[JoeRambo]

Yup, once you go fast monitor, you can't go back... I am also on Swift and now on 980TI. Sadly TN's reputation is seriously tainted by now by those disastrous 6bit panels, people should see it in person, hard to fault its colors.

And I can't live without 120+Hz either. Even games like EU4 that supposedly do not benefit from fast FPS are transformed by map scrolling "fluidity" ( <- not native english, i can't find words to describe effect, needs to be seen and compared with 60hz days).

And i feel that 980TI is a must for fluid 1440P, i had oced 780 before, and it was not enough for Witcher 3 or Mordor.

 

[guskline]

Have a GTX980 TI SC below with my BenQ BL3200PT and it is butter smooth.:thumbsup:

 

[Jumpem]

I just went with 1440 @ 144htz and here's why. I just got an Acer XB270HU monitor and a EVGA 980ti Hydro copper GPU. First off the amount of frames your eye can see is irrelevant. Here's an loose analogy, think of it like a high speed camera at a race track. The fast shutter speed makes for real clear pics where you can read Goodyear on the tires. Just like high speed video makes for much better slow motion shots and stills. Even if your eye can only see half the frames They are beautiful clear frames. 144htz looks better for fast moving games. You can even move a text box around on your desktop and still read it something you can't do @ 60htz. Also that speed and clarity is realized on any size monitor where if you ask me any monitor under 30" is a waste for 4K unless you are sticking your face right up to it. Here's a link to 4K distance chart http://www.rtings.com/info/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared. My eyes are about 3-4' from my monitor so 1440P is enough for me given the speed drop I would have had to take to game in 4K Ever notice that the sample video in the stores on the 4K Tv's is only slow moving video clips, no fast pans or action shots. Because 4K lacks the speed to look as good in those situations vs the 1080P sets. Throw in the scaling issues of 4K and lack of content right now and I just don't think it's ready yet. It's all marketing hype. When there are 4K 144htz IPS monitors in a year or 2 then I'll take the plunge and get about a 34" to really see the difference.

You may want to leave the 4K TV discussion out. The difference is immediately clear. There is more and more 4K content becoming available. It is far from marketing hype. 1080i/p also looks noticeably better upscaled.

 

[Jumpem]

I just read the entire thread. At this point I think I want to go 4K G-Sync. The question is whether I can get by with a single 980Ti.

I have never played at more than 60Hz and almost always with v-sync on. For me, FPS is the worst genre and FP is the worst perspective to have in a game. I do make exceptions for FP PRGs such as Fallout or Borderlands. I have no interest in competitive multiplayer FPS which is where most of the high refresh rate support seems to come from.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So what are people going to favour...

I cant decide between fluid fps and higher detail.

144Hz G-Sync IPS any day.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

I simply do not understand the argument that 144Hz is a "gigantic" improvement over 60Hz. I've been gaming on PC for 10 years/3 builds and I honestly can't say the difference is all that noticeable.

In competitive gaming/multiplayer scenarios? Sure but many many gamers are not interested in multiplayer games and prefer single player games. That being said, many many gamers are also very interested in multiplayer PC gaming, so there's that.

And alot of these comments argue that 100Hz+ vs. 60Hz gaming is game over and that the resulting gameplay @ 60Hz is garbage.

Come on, that is an outright lie. Gameplay @ 60Hz is phenomenal and you are lying to yourself if you believe 60Hz results in highly compromised gameplay. Sure you may give yourself a competitive edge, a smoother image, yatayatayata.

But to suggest 60Hz is inferior and that "any real gamer would notice the differences" is just a dumb notion. Real gamers are not just "devoted competitive FPS players", it is everything from sim players to FPS to RTS to indie side scrollers. Gamers are people who play games.

 

[Madpacket]

I simply do not understand the argument that 144Hz is a "gigantic" improvement over 60Hz. I've been gaming on PC for 10 years/3 builds and I honestly can't say the difference is all that noticeable.

In competitive gaming/multiplayer scenarios? Sure but many many gamers are not interested in multiplayer games and prefer single player games. That being said, many many gamers are also very interested in multiplayer PC gaming, so there's that.

And alot of these comments argue that 100Hz+ vs. 60Hz gaming is game over and that the resulting gameplay @ 60Hz is garbage.

Come on, that is an outright lie. Gameplay @ 60Hz is phenomenal and you are lying to yourself if you believe 60Hz results in highly compromised gameplay. Sure you may give yourself a competitive edge, a smoother image, yatayatayata.

But to suggest 60Hz is inferior and that "any real gamer would notice the differences" is just a dumb notion. Real gamers are not just "devoted competitive FPS players", it is everything from sim players to FPS to RTS to indie side scrollers. Gamers are people who play games.

Oh come on, quit misleading people. If you haven't sat down and played a game (any game, not just a FPS) at 120+Hz for a period of 20 minutes or more and then switched back to a monitor that's limited to 60Hz your statements above will appear ridiculous - even to you.

60hz isn't garbage, it's just well, inferior in every way to a high refresh panel (look, feel, feedback, accuracy, input latency more than halved, etc.) This makes gaming much more enjoyable overall. It's not just for competitive reasons.

You may think LCD gaming at 60hz is phenomenal, you may also think driving a Dodge Caravan is phenomenal. Your statements hold no weight and are embarrassing to read.

Anyone looking at buying a new monitor, don't settle. It's the only computer part you'll buy that get's 100% use and will last you on average longer than any other PC component. Why settle?

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Oh come on, quit misleading people. If you haven't sat down and played a game (any game, not just a FPS) at 120+Hz for a period of 20 minutes or more and then switched back to a monitor that's limited to 60Hz your statements above will appear ridiculous - even to you.

60hz isn't garbage, it's just well, inferior in every way to a high refresh panel (look, feel, feedback, accuracy, input latency more than halved, etc.) This makes gaming much more enjoyable overall. It's not just for competitive reasons.

You may think LCD gaming at 60hz is phenomenal, you may also think driving a Dodge Caravan is phenomenal. Your statements hold no weight and are embarrassing to read.

Anyone looking at buying a new monitor, don't settle. It's the only computer part you'll buy that get's 100% use and will last you on average longer than any other PC component. Why settle?

That's just opinion stated as fact, pure and simple. I've owned 1440p 144Hz Freesync, 4K 60Hz G-Sync, and now 21:9 No-Sync.

Refresh rate is alot of hype for people who game competitively and offers little benefit for those who don't.

"inferior in every way to a high refresh panel (look, feel, feedback, accuracy, input latency more than halved, etc.) "

You can try to position your personal preferences as "superior" but you can't dismiss a panel just because its refresh rate is 60Hz.

Dodge Caravan? Poor analogy if someone was to purchase a 144Hz TN panel over a similarly priced IPS/VA 60Hz panel to play singleplayer games. Equivalent to installing a big turbo on a pushrod suspension, FWD hatchback and expecting it to perform like a porsche.

Not everyone has the money for the ONLY 144Hz IPS 1440p panel available or the hardware needed to drive the frames required, and a nice 60Hz panel would do the job just fine with little to no drawbacks.

 

[Madpacket]

"well that's just like your opinion man"

You appear to be claiming my stance on 144Hz being superior to 60Hz is not based on fact, but simply an opinion?

Do you think monitor manufacturers make LCD panels faster than 60Hz for the lolz? Do you really think it's simply marketing?

Haven't you read articles citing why 144Hz makes a world of difference in both look and feel, not only for games, but even while simply on the desktop / browsing / image work?

Do you know what sub 7 second latency feels like compared to 16.6ms? Are these things all in my head, my imagination, or just my opinion?

Input lag is a real issue. Even with the fastest 60Hz panels you're still limited by 16.6 ms of image refresh lag. This lag or latency simply makes gaming less fun. Sure the games look okay (if you vsync or f/g sync them) but you'll feel disconnected from the actions you're performing on the input devices to when those actions appear on the monitor in front of you. This can be solved simply by never using a 144Hz panel and staying in oblivion land.

And then you bring up price. Yes everyone has a limited budget (most of us anyway) but 144Hz Panels (yes even the ugly TN versions) are cheapish now, even at 27". I would take a TN 144Hz panel over a 60Hz IPS / PVA panel for gaming any day. Heck look how much people are paying for the ROG Swift and that's a TN panel.

There is no comparison. If you really consider yourself a gamer you will never want to switch back to 60hz after using 120hz + panels.

I guess you could boil this argument down to you've chosen to take the blue pill, and I've chosen the red pill. No need to argue this point any further.

Choose wisely

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Right on, sounds like you have it all figured out.

 

[Jumpem]

Oh come on, quit misleading people. If you haven't sat down and played a game (any game, not just a FPS) at 120+Hz for a period of 20 minutes or more and then switched back to a monitor that's limited to 60Hz your statements above will appear ridiculous - even to you.

60hz isn't garbage, it's just well, inferior in every way to a high refresh panel (look, feel, feedback, accuracy, input latency more than halved, etc.) This makes gaming much more enjoyable overall. It's not just for competitive reasons.

You may think LCD gaming at 60hz is phenomenal, you may also think driving a Dodge Caravan is phenomenal. Your statements hold no weight and are embarrassing to read.

Anyone looking at buying a new monitor, don't settle. It's the only computer part you'll buy that get's 100% use and will last you on average longer than any other PC component. Why settle?

Buying a high refresh rate monitor is settling. It does force you to settle for lower resolutions.

 

[Madpacket]

Buying a high refresh rate monitor is settling. It does force you to settle for lower resolutions.

Hmm, didn't realize 2560 x 1440 is considered a lower resolution these days.

 

[postmortemIA]

I didn't realize pros use TN panels for image work

 

[Rebel_L]

Hmm, didn't realize 2560 x 1440 is considered a lower resolution these days.

It is certainly lower than 4K, we all get you don't like 60hz, the discussion is about what is the bigger sacrifice, giving up 4K or giving up 144hz refresh. Your preference is obviously clear, why you think other people must all me like you is rather confusing.

 

[Madpacket]

It is certainly lower than 4K, we all get you don't like 60hz, the discussion is about what is the bigger sacrifice, giving up 4K or giving up 144hz refresh. Your preference is obviously clear, why you think other people must all me like you is rather confusing.

I don't think other people must all *be* like me, where did I say that? If you disagree with my recommendations that's fine but state that, don't put words in my mouth.

Hey I'm just hoping to educate potential buyers so they make informed decisions. There's a lot of FUD here about 144hz not being that big a deal but I clearly disagree for obvious reasons and hope others' take into consideration the benefits of high refresh rates over high resolution / 60hz.

I'll bow out of this thread now. For all those with 4K 60hz TN panels, enjoy!

 

[bystander36]

Buying a high refresh rate monitor is settling. It does force you to settle for lower resolutions.

Let's be clear here, if you consider buying a high refresh rate "settling", so is buying a 4k resolution due to "settling" for a lower refresh rate.

The truth is, for many people, neither is considered "settling", because they don't consider it a negative. They choose one or the other based on preferences.

 

[Rebel_L]

I don't think other people must all *be* like me, where did I say that? If you disagree with my recommendations that's fine but state that, don't put words in my mouth.

Hey I'm just hoping to educate potential buyers so they make informed decisions. There's a lot of FUD here about 144hz not being that big a deal but I clearly disagree for obvious reasons and hope others' take into consideration the benefits of high refresh rates over high resolution / 60hz.

I'll bow out of this thread now. For all those with 4K 60hz TN panels, enjoy!

The only FUD I see is from you, like talking about 4K TN panels when you can get nice 4K ips panels. You are dismissing other peoples opinions as invalid and unjustifiable in a very aggressive manner. When you call someone's personal preference invalid you are calling them a liar. If someone says "I cant tell the difference or its not very noticeable", that is not something you can dispute except to call the person (not their opinion) into question.

 

[Headfoot]

But to suggest 60Hz is inferior and that "any real gamer would notice the differences" is just a dumb notion. Real gamers are not just "devoted competitive FPS players", it is everything from sim players to FPS to RTS to indie side scrollers. Gamers are people who play games.

It's extremely easy to notice the difference. If you can't, you have some vision issue. Which is not a judgment of you as a person, it just means you can't perceive at a normal level. Much like how as you age you can't hear as high of frequencies. But it makes no sense for an old guy who can't hear above 13khz to yell at young people for preferring speakers that reproduce all the way up to 20khz.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. It is.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

It's extremely easy to notice the difference. If you can't, you have some vision issue. Which is not a judgment of you as a person, it just means you can't perceive at a normal level. Much like how as you age you can't hear as high of frequencies. But it makes no sense for an old guy who can't hear above 13khz to yell at young people for preferring speakers that reproduce all the way up to 20khz.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. It is.

Where did I say there was no difference? I'm saying the difference is often overstated.

Listen, you guys can preach 144Hz all you want but not all see the value in it. Especially if it comes at the cost of image quality, color accuracy, resolution, monitor selection, or price.

EDIT:
"Which is not a judgment of you as a person, it just means you can't perceive at a normal level."

You may want to pay attention to how you address people, as that may come across as offensive.

 

[AdamK47]

4K @ 60hz with a constant 60 fps while having everything maxed is the way to go.

 

[Rebel_L]

It's extremely easy to notice the difference. If you can't, you have some vision issue. Which is not a judgment of you as a person, it just means you can't perceive at a normal level. Much like how as you age you can't hear as high of frequencies. But it makes no sense for an old guy who can't hear above 13khz to yell at young people for preferring speakers that reproduce all the way up to 20khz.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. It is.

So how common is normal? The eye's in particular run with some neat software enhancements (think of the experiment where people wearing glasses that make everything look upside down eventually adjust to see everything as right side up with the glasses on, and upon the removal of the glasses see everything upside until they adjust back). A quick google search shows that well over half of American adults for instance have corrective lenses (a vision issue of one kind). I don't see numbers listed for the current topic at hand, but judging from the posts it would seem that the number of people who get no or little added benefit from the extra refresh is not insignificant.

Going to your sound example, if the choice was surround sound at 13khz or stereo at 20khz what would your advice be? I would think the best advice would be situational. Have a look at the sources your using, is there any surround sound involved? Have a test listen to speakers, can you hear and difference between the two or is your hearing not sensitive enough? Would you advise someone who has no hearing above 13khz and has sound sources with surround sound to not get the surround system?

I have not seen anyone argue that the refresh rate of a 144hz monitor is not superior to that of a 60hz one, but rather that to them the extra 84hz provides little or no useful benefit and that they would rather have the resolution. Would the advice that makes sense not be to see if you get a benefit out of the extra 84hz before dismissing the benefit of higher resolution?

 

[3DVagabond]

Talk about 1st world problems. lol

Neither is perfect and it depends on what you are doing as to which is better.

Besides, we all know that what really matters is if your 144Hz VRR monitor ghosts below 40Hz. /sarc