GPU for Gaming at 144Hz 1080p High Details

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
Some of the 1080p144hz TNs are not as bad as you'd think. Specifically the Nixeus VUE24 is quite nice and reasonably priced
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,511
29,091
146
Edit: I have heard that next year generation of CPUs might have the same socket a i5 6500. Therefore why dont I simply go for gtx 1070 + 144Hz Display. And when new CPUs come out just replace my i5 for the newest one? Like that I wont have bottleneck anymore. What are your thoughts of that?

Probably this. It requires less thinking and, quite frankly, that is a valuable thing.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
I will warn you that the AMD brigade will try their best to sell you the 480 but you seem smart enough to see the numbers for yourself.

I have HD7970, various RX 480s, R9 390, R9 295X2 and 3x GTX 1070s. GTX1070 is not worth $380 compared to a $180 RX 480 4GB for 1080p gaming no matter how much you spin it. The only reason 1070 even looks good right now is because of how awfully overpriced 1080 and Titan XP are and due to lack of competition from AMD. Otherwise, the GTX1070 should have been $329 MSRP like the 970 and that in itself was overpriced considering GTX970 is just a $199 GTX560's successor. NV literally doubled the price of GP104 x60 card and rebadged/marketed it as a fake x70 card. GTX1070 is only 45-50% faster than an AIB RX 480 despite more than double the price. It's especially not worth the $ when paired with a stock i5 since those high FPS that professional reviews with 4.5Ghz Skylake CPUs show are not going to be what the gamer experiences with a 3.3Ghz i5.

Remember don't buy a 4GB card no matter what anyone says because you WILL regret it. Good luck and happy gaming.

There is nothing wrong with buying a stop-gap GTX1060/RX 480 card for 1080p gaming. Since 144Hz gaming cannot be achieved with a stock i5 6500, what exactly is the point of spending $380 on a GPU whose performance will never be realized? By the time the OP upgrades to an i7 processor in 2 years, there will be a card 40-60% faster than GTX1070 for $400.

Some of the 1080p144hz TNs are not as bad as you'd think. Specifically the Nixeus VUE24 is quite nice and reasonably priced

In my opinion, many gamers who have used 27-35" VA/IPS gaming monitors would never go back to game on a tiny 24" TN panel. What's the point of fast refresh rates when all the colours, blacks and whites are all of poor quality and you have to suffer gaming on such a tiny screen? A high quality larger screen monitor benefits in media, games, productivity, web browsing consumption, etc. A low quality small screen size high refresh rate small screen size TN panel has limited appeal as it's not a well-rounded choice outside of fast FPS gaming.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...894154&cm_re=PX277-_-9SIAB714894154-_-Product
$390
  • Pro Gaming Monitor
  • 27 inch WQHD 2560 x 1440 Resolution with IPS technology
  • 144Hz refresh rate and AMD FreeSync
  • 4ms response rate, Multi Input Port
  • Please refer to Warranty & Return Policy page
Going with this ^ monitor and if budget doesn't allow downgrading for 2 years to a GTX1060/RX 480 over GTX1070 is preferably imho than buying a 1080P 24" TN 144Hz panel with a GTX1070. In 2 years, the GTX1070 is outdated, but that 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS monitor is still going to be good.
 
Last edited:

Snarf Snarf

Senior member
Feb 19, 2015
399
327
136
It depends on your main gaming focus RS. For a lot of competitive gamers 27" and above are too big to run games in fullscreen. The ability to see everything on screen without having to use peripheral vision is incredibly important if you're seeking every competitive advantage you can get in twitch games.

I run a 27" WQHD at home but play most of the games in windowed 1080p so I can see the full minimap and stay aware without having to move my eyes off the center of the action. Productivity-wise the extra size and image quality is amazing though.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Just gonna chime in with some WOW numbers. Game is ridiculously CPU bottlenecked right now. To the point you will be doing a lot of <40 FPS gaming if you use Ultra (Level 10) settings. And the game is definitely not capped at 100 FPS, probably the reviewer didn't move the slider because you caneasily hit the slider 200 FPS cap without even trying in some areas. (Or if you really want to warm your room up, set it to no lock)

I got a GTX 1080 and my monitor is 3440x1440, so I just sent the render scale to 1.5x and I get me some damn good AA, my FPS is still basically dependent on my CPU not choking but it looks nicer ahah. The person that did those benches and got 100 FPS probably didn't travel into Val'Sharah where the foliage/shadow levels/draw distance will MURDER your FPS. Your card will be cruising at 20-30% GPU load while you get <30 FPS.

For WoW, if you get a beefy GPU up the render scale. No reason why you should settle for CPU bottlenecked FPS and jagged edges.

EDIT: Why is RS derailing with US prices? OP isn't even buying in the states!?
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Oh man, I'm actually looking at the results for those WoW results. Seems they benched the scripted entry portion of Legion? Anyways, GTX 1060 faster than Fury X? I'm just going to assume this is driver overhead issue? Now I really want to see how this affects Radeons when you get into zones like Val'sharah because your CPU is basically bent over backwards.
 

Justforcause

Member
May 12, 2014
107
5
81
First of all thank you all for your help. I am glad we came to a conclusion.

Second as RussianSensation said the display is the most crucial part as one can easily last up to 5-10 years. However, on the Czech market there are very very few 27'' 1440p 144Hz displays with IPS. And if there are, they are waaaay to expensive. As an example Acer XB271HU Predator goes for 739 dolallrs which is ridiculous (that is decent 24'' 144hz TN display + gtx 1070). Displays that fulfill the requirements are here and are only 5 altogether. And anyway I think that 27'' would be way too big for my needs of gaming. Yet I will still go check out some to a store and see for myself. So getting 27'' in the Czech Republic is rather impossible unless you are on a really high budget.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
Being an nVidia user the relative lack and higher pricing of Gsync displays is upsetting. Why don't they just adopt Freesync?
 

Thinker_145

Senior member
Apr 19, 2016
609
58
91
IPS isn't all that much better than 8-bit TN, don't fall for the IPS hype. In 5 years time all current monitors would be a pile of garbage in front of the HDR/OLED offerings. So this isn't exactly a great time for a long term monitor purchase. This obviously shouldn't stop you from buying a high end monitor if you can afford one but I am just saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tg2708

tg2708

Senior member
May 23, 2013
687
20
81
I want to get the pg279q for higher refresh rate but I don't know if I should keep my current monitor and wait for HDR.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
IPS isn't all that much better than 8-bit TN, don't fall for the IPS hype.

This is completely false, even a bad IPS is better than a good TN panel. You may not notice if you only game or surf the net but as soon as you start editing photos or video and look at them side by side with a TN and IPS monitor you will quickly realize just how bad the colors and blacks are on TN panels. MVA is a good middle ground but TN is just bad for true color definition and IMO should only be used as a gaming monitor not for any productivity where true color definition is important.
 

Thinker_145

Senior member
Apr 19, 2016
609
58
91
This is completely false, even a bad IPS is better than a good TN panel. You may not notice if you only game or surf the net but as soon as you start editing photos or video and look at them side by side with a TN and IPS monitor you will quickly realize just how bad the colors and blacks are on TN panels. MVA is a good middle ground but TN is just bad for true color definition and IMO should only be used as a gaming monitor not for any productivity where true color definition is important.

Yes this thread is talking about gaming.

And I am sorry did you just say that TN has bad blacks in relation to IPS? TN actually has superior black uniformity and the contrast is the same as IPS which actually makes their black performance superior than IPS. One of the great misconceptions that IPS has good or even respectable black performance.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
Yes this thread is talking about gaming.

And I am sorry did you just say that TN has bad blacks in relation to IPS? TN actually has superior black uniformity and the contrast is the same as IPS which actually makes their black performance superior than IPS. One of the great misconceptions that IPS has good or even respectable black performance.

Newer IPS Displays with panels like the new LG LM250WQ1 AH-IPS have great blacks, as good as top tier TN's. The IPS Dell U2515H for example has a black depth of 0.11 cd/m2. While the highly acclaimed and very expensive Asus PG278Q a TN panel has a black depth of 0.14 cd/m2, Making its blacks brighter than the IPS panel.

MVA panels are what truly have great blacks.
 

Thinker_145

Senior member
Apr 19, 2016
609
58
91
Newer IPS Displays with panels like the new LG LM250WQ1 AH-IPS have great blacks, as good as top tier TN's. The IPS Dell U2515H for example has a black depth of 0.11 cd/m2. While the highly acclaimed and very expensive Asus PG278Q a TN panel has a black depth of 0.14 cd/m2, Making its blacks brighter than the IPS panel.

MVA panels are what truly have great blacks.
What does black depth have to do with anything? You do know it varies with brightness? The minimum value is often useless as nobody uses a monitor on minimum brightness. Hence contrast is the actual figure which matters.

The big problem with IPS is not the contrast but the IPS glow. That makes them easily the worst panel in terms of black performance regardless of contrast.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
In my opinion, many gamers who have used 27-35" VA/IPS gaming monitors would never go back to game on a tiny 24" TN panel. What's the point of fast refresh rates when all the colours, blacks and whites are all of poor quality and you have to suffer gaming on such a tiny screen? A high quality larger screen monitor benefits in media, games, productivity, web browsing consumption, etc. A low quality small screen size high refresh rate small screen size TN panel has limited appeal as it's not a well-rounded choice outside of fast FPS gaming.
.

I dont think its so cut and dry. I game primarily on (3) Dell u2415h which is a glossy 60hz IPS model which is very well reviewed for image quality. IPS glow ruins the darks on IPS, so darks vs darks TN isn't appreciably worse (its just bad in a different way e.g. banding). The colors are certainly better on the IPS. But the fluidity of the 144hz with FreeSync easily outweighs it in my mind. That's having actively used both of these, side by side, on the same games at the same time. Some of the TN panels are okay in terms of IQ. Not outstanding but not terrible either. Like that Nixeus VUE24 I mentioned. Nowhere near as bad as older TNs but of course not as good as modern VA or IPS for color reproduction. But you can get a VUE24 for $250 which is insane considering its got 144hz refresh rate, 30-144hz Freesync range, and a special sort of TN panel that has better than average off angle viewing. I dont know that there even is an IPS model with out of the box 30-144hz refresh, and the good IPS panels are easily ~$400. The good VA panels even more expensive than that.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
What does black depth have to do with anything? You do know it varies with brightness? The minimum value is often useless as nobody uses a monitor on minimum brightness. Hence contrast is the actual figure which matters.

The big problem with IPS is not the contrast but the IPS glow. That makes them easily the worst panel in terms of black performance regardless of contrast.

Those reading were at the brightness that gave the best color calibration not minimum. Go do some reading on TFT central.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
I dont think its so cut and dry. I game primarily on (3) Dell u2415h which is a glossy 60hz IPS model which is very well reviewed for image quality. IPS glow ruins the darks on IPS, so darks vs darks TN isn't appreciably worse (its just bad in a different way e.g. banding). The colors are certainly better on the IPS. But the fluidity of the 144hz with FreeSync easily outweighs it in my mind. That's having actively used both of these, side by side, on the same games at the same time. Some of the TN panels are okay in terms of IQ. Not outstanding but not terrible either. Like that Nixeus VUE24 I mentioned. Nowhere near as bad as older TNs but of course not as good as modern VA or IPS for color reproduction. But you can get a VUE24 for $250 which is insane considering its got 144hz refresh rate, 30-144hz Freesync range, and a special sort of TN panel that has better than average off angle viewing. I dont know that there even is an IPS model with out of the box 30-144hz refresh, and the good IPS panels are easily ~$400. The good VA panels even more expensive than that.

Yeah a buddy has the Vue 24", its great for the money, i just wish it wasnt $400 here in canada or id probably buy one for a dedicated gaming monitor. My Dell U2515H is great for productivity and isnt bad for gaming with either but having A sync would be a bonus.
 

Thinker_145

Senior member
Apr 19, 2016
609
58
91
Those reading were at the brightness that gave the best color calibration not minimum. Go do some reading on TFT central.
Still doesn't matter if the actual brightness is not the same on both monitors. For all intents and purposes the contrast on modern IPS and TN panels is the same 1000:1.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
Shoot, you're lucky if your non-VA panel can even hit 1000:1 real measured contrast. A lot of them start topping out at 700-800.
 

Rifter

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,522
751
126
Shoot, you're lucky if your non-VA panel can even hit 1000:1 real measured contrast. A lot of them start topping out at 700-800.

Alot of the newer IPS and TN for that matter will hit 1000:1 if you properly calibrate them. The thing is most people dont bother to calibrate.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
641
126
Alot of the newer IPS and TN for that matter will hit 1000:1 if you properly calibrate them. The thing is most people dont bother to calibrate.
I checked in at TFT central and it does look like high-end IPS has crept up to the 1k mark on calibrated contrast, which is pretty impressive. Still looks dumpy compared to the new VA panels in monitors hitting 3000. Even dumpier when you think new midrange TV's on VA even without array backlighting (like the Samsung KS8000 I just got) can hit nearly 7000:1 contrast.

But still, certainly an improving situation
 

Thinker_145

Senior member
Apr 19, 2016
609
58
91
Even 800:1 contrast is fine if the screen is actually uniform. Even 3000:1 won't do IPS too much good as the corner glow could potentially make things even worse when the contrast between center and corner of the scene becomes so huge.

As far as black performance is concerned the only thing IPS shines in is shadow detail.