1440p 144hz vs 4K 60hz

[Jumpem]

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

It's not 3840 x 2160 or 3440 x 1440. Which is what I would consider high resolution now.

 

[Madpacket]

Sorry said I was done but one more thing 😊

It's not just about higher refresh rates. It's about input latency that actually makes the biggest difference here. 90Hz is enough for most people but the input latency is in the order of 10ms. When bumped up to 144hz input latency drops to sub 7 seconds and if the G2G transitions can keep up you're getting a much better experience compared to the lagfest 16.6ms 60hz monitors.

So even if you're vision impared and can't see more than 60Hz you should definitely benefit from reduced input latency. This makes gaming (especially competitive) much easier. It also really benefits older emulated games that were deaigned during the CRT days. Indy games also benefit a ton from reduced input latency like Super Meat Boy or VVVVVV, basically any game that requires precise timing.

This debate is more than just 60 vs 144hz. Or screen resolution differences.

Just something to keep in mind.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Sorry said I was done but one more thing 😊

It's not just about higher refresh rates. It's about input latency that actually makes the biggest difference here. 90Hz is enough for most people but the input latency is in the order of 10ms. When bumped up to 144hz input latency drops to sub 7 seconds and if the G2G transitions can keep up you're getting a much better experience compared to the lagfest 16.6ms 60hz monitors.

So even if you're vision impared and can't see more than 60Hz you should definitely benefit from reduced input latency. This makes gaming (especially competitive) much easier. It also really benefits older emulated games that were deaigned during the CRT days. Indy games also benefit a ton from reduced input latency like Super Meat Boy or VVVVVV, basically any game that requires precise timing.

This debate is more than just 60 vs 144hz. Or screen resolution differences.

Just something to keep in mind.

Right, you still seem to think that all anyone does with their build/monitor is play games and that all monitor specs should follow this notion.

Many people build with gaming in mind but spend far more time web browsing, video/audio editing, or other productivity related activities.

Please list the advantages a 1440P 27" 144Hz G-SYNC monitor has over a 4K 28"-32" 60Hz or 34" 21:9 Ultrawide 60Hz in regards to productivity and other leisure activities.

Also many review sites state any monitor that maintains an average input latency of 16ms or less at 60Hz (1 frame of lag) is suitable for COMPETITIVE gaming. Not to mention there are many gamers who could care less about leaderboards and rare gun skins, many enjoy a good story over mindless point and shoot.

From TFTCentral's review on the Acer XR341CK:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xr341ck.htm
Lag Classification

To help in this section we will also introduce a broader classification system for these results to help categorise each screen as one of the following levels:
Class 1) Less than 16ms / 1 frame lag at 60Hz - should be fine for gamers, even at high levels

Class 2) A lag of 16 - 32ms / One to two frames of lag at 60Hz - moderate lag but should be fine for many gamers. Caution advised for serious gaming and FPS

Class 3) A lag of more than 32ms / more than 2 frames of lag at 60Hz - Some noticeable lag in daily usage, not suitable for high end gaming

Not to mention the fact that many people don't care about competitive gaming all that much and would rather have a larger, higher resolution display instead. So no, 16.6ms is not a "lag fest". Especially if you are not obsessed with FPS shooters.

 

[Madpacket]

Right, you still seem to think that all anyone does with their build/monitor is play games and that all monitor specs should follow this notion.

Many people build with gaming in mind but spend far more time web browsing, video/audio editing, or other productivity related activities.

Please list the advantages a 1440P 27" 144Hz G-SYNC monitor has over a 4K 28"-32" 60Hz or 34" 21:9 Ultrawide 60Hz in regards to productivity and other leisure activities.

Also many review sites state any monitor that maintains an average input latency of 16ms or less at 60Hz (1 frame of lag) is suitable for COMPETITIVE gaming. Not to mention there are many gamers who could care less about leaderboards and rare gun skins, many enjoy a good story over mindless point and shoot.

From TFTCentral's review on the Acer XR341CK:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xr341ck.htm
Lag Classification

To help in this section we will also introduce a broader classification system for these results to help categorise each screen as one of the following levels:
Class 1) Less than 16ms / 1 frame lag at 60Hz - should be fine for gamers, even at high levels

Class 2) A lag of 16 - 32ms / One to two frames of lag at 60Hz - moderate lag but should be fine for many gamers. Caution advised for serious gaming and FPS

Class 3) A lag of more than 32ms / more than 2 frames of lag at 60Hz - Some noticeable lag in daily usage, not suitable for high end gaming

Not to mention the fact that many people don't care about competitive gaming all that much and would rather have a larger, higher resolution display instead. So no, 16.6ms is not a "lag fest". Especially if you are not obsessed with FPS shooters.

Please go read the third post of this thread by the OP. This discussion isn't about productivity so quit trying to change the goal posts here.

I've already listed the advantages of 144hz 1440P numerous times so I'd rather not repeat myself but I guess I will as you're still not getting it. Since you went off topic I'll list a couple of new ones that I don't think have been mentioned yet.

Watching movies on a 60Hz monitor you can suffer from the 3:2 pulldown effect as 60hz is not divisible by the movies native frame rate. This leads to "judder" during panning shots and can be very distracting. 120hz+ monitors can avoid the juddering because the native frame rates of movies can be evenly divided by the higher frame rates. More info here:

https://vanillavideo.com/blog/2013/refresh-rates-explained-60hz-120hz-more

Also, VSR is an option and works pretty well on older games and newer cards but with newer games like with a 4K monitor you need massive GPU power to drive these higher resolutions.

And then there's stereoscopic 3D gaming which personally I don't care about but some people do. This can't be done with 60hz panels.

While we're off topic there are better monitors for productivity and value than the Acer gaming monitor you cited. Heck, 3 decent 24" IPS/SPVA displays would give you similar or better productivity for roughly half the price. Ones that tilt 90 degrees can assist with productivity.

Please cite for me a few examples from your statement "Also many review sites state any monitor that maintains an average input latency of 16ms or less at 60Hz (1 frame of lag) is suitable for COMPETITIVE gaming".

You've misread or misconstrued the article you cited. The article says nothing about competitive gaming, just states "high levels", whatever that means. It also states "less than 16ms" is good enough, not maintaining an average of 16ms.

The onus is really on you to list list the gaming advantages of large 4K 60hz or 21:9 panels like the Acer XR341CK (which I admit looks great for casual gaming from that article) over something half the price like the Asus MG279Q.

Also read the conclusion of the article you cite. It states this monitor is "...Clearly it's aimed at gamers". This monitor also runs up to 75Hz (apples and oranges now) which may not sound much faster than 60hz but that's a fairly significant difference (25% faster) at least from a blurriness aspect. I just hope you don't have an Nvidia card as they suffer from weird RTC overdrive issues but of course you can wait for the $150-200 more G-Sync version however now you're approaching $1300+ for a gaming monitor...

Anyway it's a good monitor and has amazing pixel response times and input lag with no overshoot if using freesync so it should be more than adequate to handle 75Hz for casual or non competitive gaming. It's a shame it can't handle higher refresh rates as panel could easily manage 120Hz. I wouldn't touch it if I owned an Nvidia card though.

As for the classifications of lag. I agree with the author's assessment that "less" than 16ms is fast enough for fast paced gaming (which is what I've been saying) however gaming at 60hz (or to a lesser degree 75hz) even with just one frame of lag you're still inheriting all the negative aspects that comes along with that refresh rate (blurriness, eye fatigue, etc).

It's really simple, higher refresh rates, very fast G2G with little to no overshoot and low input latency is a huge benefit while gaming. If you're running at 60hz and playing fast paced games you're at a significant disadvantage over someone with low input latency and high enough screen refresh rates to keep up with that input latency. If knowing that you'll be at a significant disadvantage doesn't bother you then great, go 60Hz and ignore this post!

Oh and if you're pretending you can't see the difference between refresh rates and have access to both types of panels give this test a shot ;D

http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

 

[bystander36]

From a personal standpoint, 60hz is tolerable, but 85hz and above is where I need to be. At least for any mouse driven first person or over the person game. That includes RPG and FPS among any others that share that characteristic. The latency and smoothness at less than 85hz/FPS results in my feeling nauseated. Even if I did not get nauseated from it, clearly my body can recognize a difference, or I would not get nauseated.

A FPS rate on a game that meets my requirements feels worlds better. I do not care about competitive gaming, only my own personal gaming.

 

[Pedro27]

I have Benq 24" 144hz FHD display for playing CS:go ... the best 400$ i spend