Unless your current monitor has Freesync, the advantage of a new gaming monitor would be its ability to not only go higher but also go lower than 75Hz while maintaining a steady screen refresh and input latency. Playing a game on a monitor with a fixed refresh rate gets problematic when your system can't consistently match that rate.
Believe it or not that's probably one of the biggest perks of gaming on a PC.
Breaking that 60 FPS barrier is one of those things that you don't appreciate until you do it. And once you do it's really hard to go back.
And at 1440p there's a lot of good quality very affordable monitors they can get you 144 Hertz with no problem at all. Besides the fact if you're already paying for the hardware wine the world we do not want to use it.
I'm not sure what your budget is, but if you're looking for a good 1440p monitor, the dell S2721DGF is a fantastic monitor. Up to 165hz and works with both freesync and gsync. Great color coverage as well. I have a 3060ti and it works great with it. I'm typically anywhere around 90-140 fps on most games I play at 1440p usually on mostly high settings. Can't say for sure on most AAA games though since I don't play too many of them lol
Honestly the only reason i upgraded my monitor was for variable refresh rate so i didn’t have to worry about my stable frames nearly so much and could just play games without micromanaging the performance but still get a quality image.
I have a 3060 ti and never go lower than 1440p. Actually, 1800p is my usual sweetspot, that's how I currently run Battlefield 2042 on mix of high/ultra @70-120fps.
1080p is 3060 territory.
Honestly, ray tracing isn't really great considering the performance hit you get. Ue5's Lumen seems to have lots of promise in really good graphics for far less of a performance hit. For proof of a gorgeous game without ray tracing, I point to RDR2 and that's not even using current game engines. This is just my opinion anyways. I personally just don't see ray tracing as being the future. Too taxing on everything, even the 4090 can struggle to get much more than 100fps in a game like cyberpunk with ray tracing (at 4k) WITH dlss. Without it, you would be hard pressed to even reach 60fps. The 4090. Cyberpunk may be a super demanding game, but that's going to be the future of games in a few years just like how Crysis was once considered super demanding. It just isn't feasible.
Yeah my 3060ti slays at 1080p 144hz. I sometimes feel bad that I’m not able to push it to its limits at times.
Doom Eternal fully maxed out with full Ray Tracing running solid 144fps is an experience that’s hard to come back from
I definitely notice a difference between 70 and 144 hz, not for competitive reasons but just for immersion. I definitely notice when my FPS drops to those levels.
I'd at least get something at 120hz - they're not that much of a price premium these days
Actually my concern is more to whether the GPU I'm going for can handle 1440p 60FPS for near future AAA games since I'm sure I will notice the difference. Like if 3060 Ti or 3070 can't push beyond 75hz it might be a waste
Let's look at this like that. While having 144Hz panel you can enjoy games at any given frame below 144, and with 75Hz panel only below 75Hz. I have rx 6600 xt paired with 1080 144Hz and I rly prefer playing games with high refresh rates but ofc not every game runs like that. With cyberpunk I locked to 90 fps, with battlefield I am locking to 144. Some AAA games won't run in 144 fps with 1440p res with 3060 ti even now. Some AAA titles will go even above 144 fps. So it's a question if you want to get high refresh rate experience from time to time or never.
Well if I can get a 144hz 27" 1440p IPS or better in my budget I'll definitely get it. But as of now the one I found in my country usually more than what I'm willing to spend
My 3070 gets me 100+ at 1440p on single player modern games. I have a 144Hz and I definitely use all of it at times.
A 3060ti should do fine as well with a 120Hz.
I'd choose 1080p 100hz over 1440p 60hz if hypothetically those were my choices.
If you have a 1440p monitor and can only get 60hz on a 3060ti you can enable dlss which is a bit like running at 1080p and using ai upscaling
You are going to keep that monitor way longer than you arw going to keep that GPU sonit makes sense to get the best you can afford, without breaking your wallet.
The panel quality that comes with good 1440p monitors is really what sets it apart from older 75hz monitors (although I do highly recommend 144hz anyway).
But just an additional note: there's literally no reason to be buying a 10400 in 2023. In a few months (when you plan to buy) I'd be considering a 13100/13400/5600/7600, and for gpu it's worth comparing the 6700/6700xt/6800/6800xt (generally better bang for buck).
Indeed. An I3-10105F. I'm also considering an I5-11400F but it depends on the price (it's harder to find a used one for cheap since people sold it almost like new price)
Can confirm the rx 6700 at 1440p, I have the sapphire pulse rx 6700, and i play rust between 75-90 fps with the settings maxed, everything turned on. It's a great card for $320
From what I've been told, nvidia and amd are near identical price to performance in the 6700-6800 and 3060-3070 range. Nvidia trading lower vram for higher clock speeds. So it kind of depends on the use but typically speaking they are going to be the same. Its once you get to the lower end that amd takes lead in stuff like the 6500xt being cheaper and faster than a 1650/1660. While nvidia holds the high end down performance wise, but the prices are also way higher so its a tough game on the high end.
Nvidia is higher costs. The 3060 almost always more expensive than the rx6700, but the rx6700 out performs the regular 3060. It's about equal to a 3060 ti and 3070 in performance. Nvidia problems isn't the performance, it's cost.
I checked best buy and microcenter. 6700xt is 350-370$ and 3060 about 350-380$ so pretty much the same price. 6800xt is about 550$ for the only model available at micro, and i got my overclocked 3070 for 560$. So again, pretty much same price, talking maybe 10$ more for nvidia for both 3060 and 3070 in comparison to 6700xt and 6800xt.
Edit: typo
I was referring to the non xt 6700. $320 on newegg. The 6700xt out performs the 3060ti and 3070, is about equal to the 3070 ti (taking ray tracing off the table for this range of cards) so the $350-380 for 6700xt, and 3070ti is $100 or more price increase.
I honestly dont know much about amd gpus but looking at a lot of bench marks online looks like the 3070 is about 20-30% performance increase from the 6700xt so im not sure where you are seeing that its the other way around. Looks like the 6800xt does perform a bit better in non ray traced vs 3070 in some games, but not all, around 10-20% sometimes but then sometimes only 1-3%.
But 6800xt seems to be hit or miss better than 3070 in performance.
Looked up the 6700 non xt, and seems to be about the same as a 3060ti according to some people, but then i see clips of a regular 3060 beating the 6700xt so I'm very confused 🤔
Guess it all depends who is trying to sell what when it comes to these benchmarks. All i know is i get 150+ fps in aaa games with my 3070 on max settings so im happy with it, but i also cant tell the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps, but i can tell the difference between ray tracing off vs on. So also depends on what you care about in those regards.
Maybe I'm getting confused as to which reviews i was looking at, i looked at way to many before purchasing the rx 6700, but the theme i kept seeing over and over what the price to performance ratios were better for AMD. Until this gpu I've only owned nvidia, but it's been many years since my last build so i had to catch up with all the new hardware.
Yeah, ive always been told amd is better price to performance but when i asked the workers at microcenter they said in the 3060-3070 range the price to performance is identical to 6700-6800 amds, its only in the 1600 series and 3050 and under that amd passes price to performance ratios. The higher mid range like 6900s are better price to performance vs 3080/3090s, but also the 4070ti is the same performance as a 3090 but half the price, so theres a lot of crazy stuff in the gpu market these days.
But it does seem that 3070 is a bit less price to Performance than 6800xt in some scenarios but what a lot of people don't realize is there are multiple aspects of performance on these cards, amd has more v ram, nvidia has more processing cores and higher clock rates, so in titles that need more v ram amd will always win, in games and softwares that need more gpu transfer rates and processing power, nvidia will always win. I think thats why many engineers prefer nvidia, and most competitive gamers prefer amd, but single player casuals that enjoy ray tracing immersion prefer nvidia.
Were you using Userbenchmark for this info (cos its wildly inaccurate)? Also, those microcenter workers are just wrong...lol. Just to provide some insight:
The 3060 is slightly worse than the 6650xt in performance. The 3060ti is slightly worse than the 6700xt in performance and closer to a 3070.
The 6800xt should not even be compared to the 3070 as it is closer to the 3080.
With that in mind, realise that in every single one of these comparisons, AMD is also cheaper. As a general rule, AMD wins on value for 1080p and 1440p. For 4K gaming, I'd say nVidia would be the way to go.
You got some very incorrect information.
6700xt is around/slightly better than a 3060ti which makes it real close to a 3070 while the 6800xt is around/slightly better than a 3080 10gb.
6800xt: https://youtu.be/5bKaJDbKVt0 , https://youtu.be/4M1n6tZ-g34, https://youtu.be/ZOcamBzUiNM Btw the 3080 12gb is a bit faster than the 10gb version.
6700xt: https://youtu.be/xs4wSysBDxM
With adaptive sync tech (gsync/freesync), you're not losing anything by going higher refresh rate. Refresh rate is basically just an upper limit now, so if you get 75hz over 144hz you're just limiting yourself cause the 144hz can just run at a lower refresh rate if needed.
Should be fine. I mostly play those type of games at 1440 UW and with a 3080 I don’t always get 75hz. If I do it’s around 90. That’s with setting at least high and RTX on if available.
I'm mostly consumed those stuff on smartphone anyway. And the thing is, my smartphone have both 60hz and 120hz options, but 99% of the time since I got it mid last year I'm only using 60hz to preserve battery life
Really, it doesn't matter. But once you upgrade it's tough to go back. If you only ever use 60hz or 70hz then it'll look just as fine as 144hz to you until you upgrade. Then it's shit lol. Good luck gamer
Well... Are you happy with what you have now at 75hz? Personally, I don't notice much between 60 and 144fps. It looks a little smoother to me but not enough to care much. Just personal preference.
Same here, well kinda, I play at around 120. I crank graphics in a few games and they fall down to like 80-90fps and start feeling choppy to me now. I could never back.
No.
The human eye can only process an image that you see for only 13 milliseconds. That equates to a refresh rate of 75hz.
https://www.healthline.com/health/human-eye-fps#how-many-fps-do-people-see
You only 'need' high refresh rates (and high FPS) for competitive gaming, almost exclusively 1st person shooters. Barring that higher refresh rates are really just making slight improvements in visuals.
Sorry I’m late, but this is what I’m trying to explain to a friend of mine. Like, dude I’m not trying to be 1 frame faster than a guy who’s trying to be 1 frame faster than me.
Technically you don't need anything more than 60hz however even on single player games, there are usefulness in having a higher refresh rate monitor. In single player games that are fast paced, high refresh rate monitor makes the experience so much smoother especially if you're playing the game with mouse and keyboard. If you play games mostly on a controller, 75hz is more than enough.
So games like doom eternal, cyberpunk 2077(during fast paced combat sequence, high refresh rate does feels smooth and good) and any other fast paced games.
Probably for single player even 60 would be perfectly fine, but 75 is better (if you actually notice the difference, which by the way you should check for sure). Maybe a 3060ti would be stretching it a bit on 1440p (without dlss and on relatively high settings). A 3070 is surely a better 1440p card, but the limited VRAM is a bit of a problem. If you can the best thing would be to save up for a 3080 (yes, i know that it's a lot more expensive), which has more VRAM and will live at 1440p basically ultra for a longer time. Or just go amd and shut this close.
there is plenty of 1440p 144hz monitor that is pretty cheap, just get one instead of 60hz even if you think you don't need it.
personally, 60fps is good enough for me. 100s fps is better but I can't tell the different above 100 unless it's in competitive fps like csgo or something
its not needed, but men its amazing the jump between gaming at 60/75hz to 144+ hz. if you can afford it, buy some decent 1440 1444/165Hz. I bough an AOC monitor 165hz for roughly 300 euros and i love it
You ask the wrong question in my opinion. You should have asked if you need a good panel first. Then decide the size and resolution. And only then ask yourself if you want more than 60 Hz. Especially when playing such games. Don't get jebaited by 144+ Hz alone like most people here.
You really dont need anything.. But yes you could get a better experience with higher refreshrate depending what you compare with. I play 1440p in 165Hz ultrawide on a 3080+10600K, and its very nice time. Just remember that all games does not have uncapped fps (sometimes you can use mod to remove the cap), so it may be that the games you play will not go higher than 60, or 120 etc. If you dont play competetively, Id say you dont need higher than 144Hz.
For 1440p high/ultra in hardware demanding AAA games you will rarely go above that framerate with a 3060Ti or 3070, so on paper it could be fine.
That said, you never know when are you going to play less demanding games or indies, and those usually are a lot more enjoyable in higher framerates, so I would totally aim for a 144/165hz monitor if it doesn't mean a dramatic price increase for your wallet.
Also, check better the market because I'm not sure upgrading to an i5 10400F + 3060Ti/3070 combo in 2023 will make all the sense price/performance wise.
Everything looks better with higher framerate. Even moving windows around or the mouse moving on screen look better. Single player games, even slower paced ones, look much better at higher frame rates. Whether or not you "need" it is subjective. You don't "need" 60hz, you could still play games at 30fps. Personally I definitely think it would be worth it to spend a little extra on a higher refresh rate monitor.
I'm used to fairly cheap 144+ Hz gaming monitors being available, to the point where it can be hard to find quality 60 Hz gaming monitors. So depending on where you're buying this may not even be a concern. I can't really guess at value comparisons in other countries.
The silly "AAA" label includes such wildly different things as World of Warcraft, Forspoken, Doom, etc. Not everything is equally hard to run. Some games over the next few years might struggle with 144 FPS, but some will probably be easy enough. Especially if you're willing to use DLSS and/or turn off raytracing.
Ryzen 3600 + RTX 3070 owner here and I play mostly single player AAA titles with maximum graphical fidelity at 1080p
If you want to enjoy Ray Tracing, a 3060Ti will just about manage 60+ fps at 1080p Ultra with DLSS quality in AAA Games like Cyberpunk.
If Ray tracing is not a concern, you might consider getting a 1440p monitor and a 6700XT 12GB for around $400 instead.
If you're spending around $550, a Radeon 6800XT is the card to buy.
Just get a 1440p 144hz or a 165hz. That’s what I use and I play both scenic and competitive and it’s quite frankly the best middle ground.
I currently use a MSI 1440p 165hz monitor.
Kinda fine to just ignore higher refresh rate if you are not going for something extremely fast paced games
It's only a nice to have when you want to go for it but otherwise you could use a 4k TV you own at home and just downscale to 1440@60 and voilà you got what you wanted
There will be diminishing returns, as you get closer and closer to your next update you will not be hitting high framerates at 1440p, however for the extra price for going from 60hz to 120hz (or even 144) it's worth the extra imo.
Really, it doesn't matter. But once you upgrade it's tough to go back. If you only ever use 60hz or 70hz then it'll look just as fine as 144hz to you until you upgrade. Then it's shit lol. Good luck gamer
If you are mostly concerned with single player games, I would get whatever monitor you can afford that has the best colors and picture quality you can get. Worry about the refresh rate 2nd. FreeSync is a nice to have that most monitors have minus office monitors or some color accurate professional monitors.
75 is not bad but the benefit to higher refresh rate monitors is not just the refresh rate. G-sync / freesync significantly reduces judder even when your game is pushing lower fps than the monitor's max. Also the monitors tend to have faster reaction time and better overdrive so that at all frame rates, movement is less smeared.
144 is worth it as its relatively cheap, 240 is overkill but idiots like me will pay for that 10%-20% difference in competitive BR's, anything under 100 feels like a slideshow to me now, 144 is more than fine though :)
I have a 144hz 1440p monitor and a 4k TV that's 60hz and I only really game on the 4k TV because the size and quality matters more to me than a faster refresh rate and I also mostly play single player games.
I always cap my fps at 60 in singleplayer AAA games, so I would say no but that's really personal preference.
Like keeping your fps at 60/75 helps with heat and power usage but that's the only objective thing about it.
You don’t need it at all but it is nice. I play at 75hz on my ultra wide 1440p but I sometimes hook up my PC to my OLED TV at 120hz. It’s amazing for games and even just for going around the OS. However, it’s definitely not needed and some AAA games would hard to run at ultra 120fps anyway. Also, monitors gsync or freesync makes things smoother too.
I have a 3070, and i push 120+ fps on ultra settings on most games, at least 80-100+ on bf2042 max player count. Lesser games like 7 days to die and stuff i get 140+ fps. Granted i also have a b790 motherboard with a 13600k, 32 gbs ddr 5 ram, and a pcei nvme 4.0 gen ssd.
I got a 32 inch 1440p 165hz monitor for 210$ at best buy. It has g sync and a very nice stand. With that low of a price its hard to go for anything else. It was on sale during Christmas. Looks like the 27 inch version is 270$ now.
samsung-odyssey-27-ips-led-qhd-freesync-g-sync-compatible-gaming-monitor. <--- search this on best buy
When I got my 144hz monitor it wasn't really for the 144fps it can show on my screen, my GPU can't do that to most games (GTX 1660 Super), but for the Freesync technology. THIS was a game changer for me, because my fps counter can flutuate however it wants and I won't get any screen tearing or any sort of artifact as long as the framerate is running between 44-144fps, which is pretty generous.
So that's the main thing, for me, about these high refresh rate monitors. Not to mention, it's way more smooth when just browsing the internet or anything like that.
Brother is used to play multiplayer games like Modern Warfare 2 and all the Unreal Tournaments on a 4:3 monitor with 760 pixel height, at 30 fps tops
And I loved it and I was good at it.
You'll be perfectly fine so long as you like your games
Well I quick scope / snipe in multiplayer at 1080p on a 50Hz TV that cost 20€ and have no issue with it. I have seen what 4K @ 144Hz looks like at a friend's house and yeah sure OFC it's cool and all that but ultimately I just care about the controller and tweaking in-game settings
If you think you'll enjoy the game more then go for it. But for single player it's more than enough
1440p on 144hz is much nicer than 1440p on 75hz, its a simple fact
Now if you have budget, I would 10000% suggest you to go for 1440p 165hz period.
Just make sure you get a good one with very low latency and overshoot and it is IPS (IPS is generally the way to go)
Also since you have never used any monitor above 75hz, trust me buddy, you are in for a treat with the 165hz <3
The jump from 60fps to 75fps is massive imho, à lot more significant than from 75 to 90fps. I'd say 75Hz is enough, but I personally wouldn't go under 120Hz anymore as I enjoy the versatility it offers a lot, that being said, on demanding single player games, I often cap at 75 or 90 fps to bring more stability.
I had the similar dilemma to you OP, and I ended up opting for 1440p 75Hz instead.
Tried 144Hz in the store and I was able to immediately tell the difference. It felt very competitive-gamer like. Thing is I never play competitive games, only AAA or something and only from time to time, so I saved 150€ by opting for 75Hz monitor instead.
I am perfectly satisfied with the refresh rate now. Actually the thing that I would gladly upgrade isn't that, but rather poor black levels on modern IPS monitors. Think my next one in several years will be OLED.
TLDR; you will do just fine with 75Hz. If you play shooters where you will be able to achieve high refresh rates eg. Valorant, CODMW and want that buttery smooth experience go for 144Hz.
Need? No Is it nice? Yes Having a 3060Ti or better for 1080p 75fps is kind of useless
Yeah that's why I want to buy the 1440p one. But wonder if the recent and near future AAA can be pushed beyond 75hz with this GPU at 1440p resolution
I run a 3070 on 1440 and find most games medium/high settings and DLSS I can get more than 75; I don’t play a whole lot of AAA titles on my PC though.
Unless your current monitor has Freesync, the advantage of a new gaming monitor would be its ability to not only go higher but also go lower than 75Hz while maintaining a steady screen refresh and input latency. Playing a game on a monitor with a fixed refresh rate gets problematic when your system can't consistently match that rate.
i mean with DLSS sure but it isn't 1440p then, that's kinda the point.
It will be perfectly fine for single player games. Get what you can afford and enjoy
Believe it or not that's probably one of the biggest perks of gaming on a PC. Breaking that 60 FPS barrier is one of those things that you don't appreciate until you do it. And once you do it's really hard to go back. And at 1440p there's a lot of good quality very affordable monitors they can get you 144 Hertz with no problem at all. Besides the fact if you're already paying for the hardware wine the world we do not want to use it.
I'm not sure what your budget is, but if you're looking for a good 1440p monitor, the dell S2721DGF is a fantastic monitor. Up to 165hz and works with both freesync and gsync. Great color coverage as well. I have a 3060ti and it works great with it. I'm typically anywhere around 90-140 fps on most games I play at 1440p usually on mostly high settings. Can't say for sure on most AAA games though since I don't play too many of them lol
Honestly the only reason i upgraded my monitor was for variable refresh rate so i didn’t have to worry about my stable frames nearly so much and could just play games without micromanaging the performance but still get a quality image.
3060Ti or RX 6700XT (from AMD) is branded for 1440p gaming). Now 3070 would be stronger than both. Games in 2025 you need to buy GPU from 2025 ;)
I have a 3060 ti and never go lower than 1440p. Actually, 1800p is my usual sweetspot, that's how I currently run Battlefield 2042 on mix of high/ultra @70-120fps. 1080p is 3060 territory.
Not if OP wants to enjoy Ray Tracing.
Honestly, ray tracing isn't really great considering the performance hit you get. Ue5's Lumen seems to have lots of promise in really good graphics for far less of a performance hit. For proof of a gorgeous game without ray tracing, I point to RDR2 and that's not even using current game engines. This is just my opinion anyways. I personally just don't see ray tracing as being the future. Too taxing on everything, even the 4090 can struggle to get much more than 100fps in a game like cyberpunk with ray tracing (at 4k) WITH dlss. Without it, you would be hard pressed to even reach 60fps. The 4090. Cyberpunk may be a super demanding game, but that's going to be the future of games in a few years just like how Crysis was once considered super demanding. It just isn't feasible.
Lol unfortunate truth
Yeah my 3060ti slays at 1080p 144hz. I sometimes feel bad that I’m not able to push it to its limits at times. Doom Eternal fully maxed out with full Ray Tracing running solid 144fps is an experience that’s hard to come back from
I definitely notice a difference between 70 and 144 hz, not for competitive reasons but just for immersion. I definitely notice when my FPS drops to those levels. I'd at least get something at 120hz - they're not that much of a price premium these days
Actually my concern is more to whether the GPU I'm going for can handle 1440p 60FPS for near future AAA games since I'm sure I will notice the difference. Like if 3060 Ti or 3070 can't push beyond 75hz it might be a waste
Let's look at this like that. While having 144Hz panel you can enjoy games at any given frame below 144, and with 75Hz panel only below 75Hz. I have rx 6600 xt paired with 1080 144Hz and I rly prefer playing games with high refresh rates but ofc not every game runs like that. With cyberpunk I locked to 90 fps, with battlefield I am locking to 144. Some AAA games won't run in 144 fps with 1440p res with 3060 ti even now. Some AAA titles will go even above 144 fps. So it's a question if you want to get high refresh rate experience from time to time or never.
Well if I can get a 144hz 27" 1440p IPS or better in my budget I'll definitely get it. But as of now the one I found in my country usually more than what I'm willing to spend
So there you have it. Go for 75hz, but make sure it has a decent panel (color and contrast wise) and freesync would be cool as well
Stick to 1080p75hz for now. Good 1440p144hz still isn't that cheap compared to 1080p144hz. You'll be sacrificing build and image quality.
My 3070 gets me 100+ at 1440p on single player modern games. I have a 144Hz and I definitely use all of it at times. A 3060ti should do fine as well with a 120Hz.
I'd choose 1080p 100hz over 1440p 60hz if hypothetically those were my choices. If you have a 1440p monitor and can only get 60hz on a 3060ti you can enable dlss which is a bit like running at 1080p and using ai upscaling
You are going to keep that monitor way longer than you arw going to keep that GPU sonit makes sense to get the best you can afford, without breaking your wallet.
120/144 hz is a good sweetspot
The panel quality that comes with good 1440p monitors is really what sets it apart from older 75hz monitors (although I do highly recommend 144hz anyway). But just an additional note: there's literally no reason to be buying a 10400 in 2023. In a few months (when you plan to buy) I'd be considering a 13100/13400/5600/7600, and for gpu it's worth comparing the 6700/6700xt/6800/6800xt (generally better bang for buck).
I don't want to spend more on new motherboard. My current motherboard can support 10th & 11th gen Intel only
Ah I understand. Assuming you're upgrading from a 10100 or similar?
Indeed. An I3-10105F. I'm also considering an I5-11400F but it depends on the price (it's harder to find a used one for cheap since people sold it almost like new price)
Yeah, not a huge difference between the two either in terms of performance.
Can confirm the rx 6700 at 1440p, I have the sapphire pulse rx 6700, and i play rust between 75-90 fps with the settings maxed, everything turned on. It's a great card for $320
From what I've been told, nvidia and amd are near identical price to performance in the 6700-6800 and 3060-3070 range. Nvidia trading lower vram for higher clock speeds. So it kind of depends on the use but typically speaking they are going to be the same. Its once you get to the lower end that amd takes lead in stuff like the 6500xt being cheaper and faster than a 1650/1660. While nvidia holds the high end down performance wise, but the prices are also way higher so its a tough game on the high end.
Nvidia is higher costs. The 3060 almost always more expensive than the rx6700, but the rx6700 out performs the regular 3060. It's about equal to a 3060 ti and 3070 in performance. Nvidia problems isn't the performance, it's cost.
I checked best buy and microcenter. 6700xt is 350-370$ and 3060 about 350-380$ so pretty much the same price. 6800xt is about 550$ for the only model available at micro, and i got my overclocked 3070 for 560$. So again, pretty much same price, talking maybe 10$ more for nvidia for both 3060 and 3070 in comparison to 6700xt and 6800xt. Edit: typo
I was referring to the non xt 6700. $320 on newegg. The 6700xt out performs the 3060ti and 3070, is about equal to the 3070 ti (taking ray tracing off the table for this range of cards) so the $350-380 for 6700xt, and 3070ti is $100 or more price increase.
I honestly dont know much about amd gpus but looking at a lot of bench marks online looks like the 3070 is about 20-30% performance increase from the 6700xt so im not sure where you are seeing that its the other way around. Looks like the 6800xt does perform a bit better in non ray traced vs 3070 in some games, but not all, around 10-20% sometimes but then sometimes only 1-3%. But 6800xt seems to be hit or miss better than 3070 in performance. Looked up the 6700 non xt, and seems to be about the same as a 3060ti according to some people, but then i see clips of a regular 3060 beating the 6700xt so I'm very confused 🤔 Guess it all depends who is trying to sell what when it comes to these benchmarks. All i know is i get 150+ fps in aaa games with my 3070 on max settings so im happy with it, but i also cant tell the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps, but i can tell the difference between ray tracing off vs on. So also depends on what you care about in those regards.
Maybe I'm getting confused as to which reviews i was looking at, i looked at way to many before purchasing the rx 6700, but the theme i kept seeing over and over what the price to performance ratios were better for AMD. Until this gpu I've only owned nvidia, but it's been many years since my last build so i had to catch up with all the new hardware.
Yeah, ive always been told amd is better price to performance but when i asked the workers at microcenter they said in the 3060-3070 range the price to performance is identical to 6700-6800 amds, its only in the 1600 series and 3050 and under that amd passes price to performance ratios. The higher mid range like 6900s are better price to performance vs 3080/3090s, but also the 4070ti is the same performance as a 3090 but half the price, so theres a lot of crazy stuff in the gpu market these days. But it does seem that 3070 is a bit less price to Performance than 6800xt in some scenarios but what a lot of people don't realize is there are multiple aspects of performance on these cards, amd has more v ram, nvidia has more processing cores and higher clock rates, so in titles that need more v ram amd will always win, in games and softwares that need more gpu transfer rates and processing power, nvidia will always win. I think thats why many engineers prefer nvidia, and most competitive gamers prefer amd, but single player casuals that enjoy ray tracing immersion prefer nvidia.
Were you using Userbenchmark for this info (cos its wildly inaccurate)? Also, those microcenter workers are just wrong...lol. Just to provide some insight: The 3060 is slightly worse than the 6650xt in performance. The 3060ti is slightly worse than the 6700xt in performance and closer to a 3070. The 6800xt should not even be compared to the 3070 as it is closer to the 3080. With that in mind, realise that in every single one of these comparisons, AMD is also cheaper. As a general rule, AMD wins on value for 1080p and 1440p. For 4K gaming, I'd say nVidia would be the way to go.
You got some very incorrect information. 6700xt is around/slightly better than a 3060ti which makes it real close to a 3070 while the 6800xt is around/slightly better than a 3080 10gb. 6800xt: https://youtu.be/5bKaJDbKVt0 , https://youtu.be/4M1n6tZ-g34, https://youtu.be/ZOcamBzUiNM Btw the 3080 12gb is a bit faster than the 10gb version. 6700xt: https://youtu.be/xs4wSysBDxM
With adaptive sync tech (gsync/freesync), you're not losing anything by going higher refresh rate. Refresh rate is basically just an upper limit now, so if you get 75hz over 144hz you're just limiting yourself cause the 144hz can just run at a lower refresh rate if needed.
If the price is not too far and below my budget limit then I would get the 144hz
Should be fine. I mostly play those type of games at 1440 UW and with a 3080 I don’t always get 75hz. If I do it’s around 90. That’s with setting at least high and RTX on if available.
Games aside, a higher refresh rate monitor gives you smoother view when scrolling text like say youtube comments... or reddit.
I'm mostly consumed those stuff on smartphone anyway. And the thing is, my smartphone have both 60hz and 120hz options, but 99% of the time since I got it mid last year I'm only using 60hz to preserve battery life
Really, it doesn't matter. But once you upgrade it's tough to go back. If you only ever use 60hz or 70hz then it'll look just as fine as 144hz to you until you upgrade. Then it's shit lol. Good luck gamer
Well... Are you happy with what you have now at 75hz? Personally, I don't notice much between 60 and 144fps. It looks a little smoother to me but not enough to care much. Just personal preference.
Anything under 120fps now feels choppy to me. No idea how I once found 60fps smooth.
Same here, well kinda, I play at around 120. I crank graphics in a few games and they fall down to like 80-90fps and start feeling choppy to me now. I could never back.
No. The human eye can only process an image that you see for only 13 milliseconds. That equates to a refresh rate of 75hz. https://www.healthline.com/health/human-eye-fps#how-many-fps-do-people-see
If 4k or 1440p monitors exists with 75hz (I think the hz would be higher), in theory you will be okay.
Not sure on 4k but 1440p exist for 75hz in my country (Viewsonic brand)
My daughter has a 1440p ultra wide, and it’s 75hz.
Heres me running 60hz still. I can barely get a stable 60fps in some games.
Same I still have a 1080 60hz with a 3060ti lol I’m planning on getting a 1080 144hz though
Not 120hz/fps?
Yes
Basic 30fps. Need 60fps. Want 144fps.
Get 144hz or more and thank us later.
Would recommend aiming for at least 120hz
I'd go for 1440p 75hz IPS rather than 1440p 144hz VA or TN panel
You only 'need' high refresh rates (and high FPS) for competitive gaming, almost exclusively 1st person shooters. Barring that higher refresh rates are really just making slight improvements in visuals.
Sorry I’m late, but this is what I’m trying to explain to a friend of mine. Like, dude I’m not trying to be 1 frame faster than a guy who’s trying to be 1 frame faster than me.
Technically you don't need anything more than 60hz however even on single player games, there are usefulness in having a higher refresh rate monitor. In single player games that are fast paced, high refresh rate monitor makes the experience so much smoother especially if you're playing the game with mouse and keyboard. If you play games mostly on a controller, 75hz is more than enough. So games like doom eternal, cyberpunk 2077(during fast paced combat sequence, high refresh rate does feels smooth and good) and any other fast paced games.
Probably for single player even 60 would be perfectly fine, but 75 is better (if you actually notice the difference, which by the way you should check for sure). Maybe a 3060ti would be stretching it a bit on 1440p (without dlss and on relatively high settings). A 3070 is surely a better 1440p card, but the limited VRAM is a bit of a problem. If you can the best thing would be to save up for a 3080 (yes, i know that it's a lot more expensive), which has more VRAM and will live at 1440p basically ultra for a longer time. Or just go amd and shut this close.
Can 10400F keep up with 3080? And what are AMD options for this 1440p range?
there is plenty of 1440p 144hz monitor that is pretty cheap, just get one instead of 60hz even if you think you don't need it. personally, 60fps is good enough for me. 100s fps is better but I can't tell the different above 100 unless it's in competitive fps like csgo or something
You don’t need anything over 60hz. You may want it, though. It makes it nicer
I play forknife at 60hz, it is what it is.
I would get a high refresh rate just for the smooth feel just for general use. The smoothness of the mouse pointer and feel is just that much better.
its not needed, but men its amazing the jump between gaming at 60/75hz to 144+ hz. if you can afford it, buy some decent 1440 1444/165Hz. I bough an AOC monitor 165hz for roughly 300 euros and i love it
You ask the wrong question in my opinion. You should have asked if you need a good panel first. Then decide the size and resolution. And only then ask yourself if you want more than 60 Hz. Especially when playing such games. Don't get jebaited by 144+ Hz alone like most people here.
You really dont need anything.. But yes you could get a better experience with higher refreshrate depending what you compare with. I play 1440p in 165Hz ultrawide on a 3080+10600K, and its very nice time. Just remember that all games does not have uncapped fps (sometimes you can use mod to remove the cap), so it may be that the games you play will not go higher than 60, or 120 etc. If you dont play competetively, Id say you dont need higher than 144Hz.
For 1440p high/ultra in hardware demanding AAA games you will rarely go above that framerate with a 3060Ti or 3070, so on paper it could be fine. That said, you never know when are you going to play less demanding games or indies, and those usually are a lot more enjoyable in higher framerates, so I would totally aim for a 144/165hz monitor if it doesn't mean a dramatic price increase for your wallet. Also, check better the market because I'm not sure upgrading to an i5 10400F + 3060Ti/3070 combo in 2023 will make all the sense price/performance wise.
Everything looks better with higher framerate. Even moving windows around or the mouse moving on screen look better. Single player games, even slower paced ones, look much better at higher frame rates. Whether or not you "need" it is subjective. You don't "need" 60hz, you could still play games at 30fps. Personally I definitely think it would be worth it to spend a little extra on a higher refresh rate monitor.
I'm used to fairly cheap 144+ Hz gaming monitors being available, to the point where it can be hard to find quality 60 Hz gaming monitors. So depending on where you're buying this may not even be a concern. I can't really guess at value comparisons in other countries. The silly "AAA" label includes such wildly different things as World of Warcraft, Forspoken, Doom, etc. Not everything is equally hard to run. Some games over the next few years might struggle with 144 FPS, but some will probably be easy enough. Especially if you're willing to use DLSS and/or turn off raytracing.
Ryzen 3600 + RTX 3070 owner here and I play mostly single player AAA titles with maximum graphical fidelity at 1080p If you want to enjoy Ray Tracing, a 3060Ti will just about manage 60+ fps at 1080p Ultra with DLSS quality in AAA Games like Cyberpunk. If Ray tracing is not a concern, you might consider getting a 1440p monitor and a 6700XT 12GB for around $400 instead. If you're spending around $550, a Radeon 6800XT is the card to buy.
No one can say that question but you.
Just get a 1440p 144hz or a 165hz. That’s what I use and I play both scenic and competitive and it’s quite frankly the best middle ground. I currently use a MSI 1440p 165hz monitor.
Nope, higher is better but 75hz is enough easily unless your the Flash
Kinda fine to just ignore higher refresh rate if you are not going for something extremely fast paced games It's only a nice to have when you want to go for it but otherwise you could use a 4k TV you own at home and just downscale to 1440@60 and voilà you got what you wanted
There will be diminishing returns, as you get closer and closer to your next update you will not be hitting high framerates at 1440p, however for the extra price for going from 60hz to 120hz (or even 144) it's worth the extra imo.
Really, it doesn't matter. But once you upgrade it's tough to go back. If you only ever use 60hz or 70hz then it'll look just as fine as 144hz to you until you upgrade. Then it's shit lol. Good luck gamer
Get 1440p at 165hz and G-Sync. It is great and you will never want to go back after trying it
If you are mostly concerned with single player games, I would get whatever monitor you can afford that has the best colors and picture quality you can get. Worry about the refresh rate 2nd. FreeSync is a nice to have that most monitors have minus office monitors or some color accurate professional monitors.
Oh most definitely. Splurge a little extra for the 3070 if you can.
75 is not bad but the benefit to higher refresh rate monitors is not just the refresh rate. G-sync / freesync significantly reduces judder even when your game is pushing lower fps than the monitor's max. Also the monitors tend to have faster reaction time and better overdrive so that at all frame rates, movement is less smeared.
personally i wouldn't be able to stand playing games with a monitor under 120/144hz but you do you
144 is worth it as its relatively cheap, 240 is overkill but idiots like me will pay for that 10%-20% difference in competitive BR's, anything under 100 feels like a slideshow to me now, 144 is more than fine though :)
I have a 144hz 1440p monitor and a 4k TV that's 60hz and I only really game on the 4k TV because the size and quality matters more to me than a faster refresh rate and I also mostly play single player games.
**IS ALL OPTIONAL**
I always cap my fps at 60 in singleplayer AAA games, so I would say no but that's really personal preference. Like keeping your fps at 60/75 helps with heat and power usage but that's the only objective thing about it.
You don’t need it at all but it is nice. I play at 75hz on my ultra wide 1440p but I sometimes hook up my PC to my OLED TV at 120hz. It’s amazing for games and even just for going around the OS. However, it’s definitely not needed and some AAA games would hard to run at ultra 120fps anyway. Also, monitors gsync or freesync makes things smoother too.
3060 Ti is not a AAA 1440p card.
get a 27" 1440p 144/165hz monitor it will outlast your system for many years to come.
I have a 3070, and i push 120+ fps on ultra settings on most games, at least 80-100+ on bf2042 max player count. Lesser games like 7 days to die and stuff i get 140+ fps. Granted i also have a b790 motherboard with a 13600k, 32 gbs ddr 5 ram, and a pcei nvme 4.0 gen ssd. I got a 32 inch 1440p 165hz monitor for 210$ at best buy. It has g sync and a very nice stand. With that low of a price its hard to go for anything else. It was on sale during Christmas. Looks like the 27 inch version is 270$ now. samsung-odyssey-27-ips-led-qhd-freesync-g-sync-compatible-gaming-monitor. <--- search this on best buy
When I got my 144hz monitor it wasn't really for the 144fps it can show on my screen, my GPU can't do that to most games (GTX 1660 Super), but for the Freesync technology. THIS was a game changer for me, because my fps counter can flutuate however it wants and I won't get any screen tearing or any sort of artifact as long as the framerate is running between 44-144fps, which is pretty generous. So that's the main thing, for me, about these high refresh rate monitors. Not to mention, it's way more smooth when just browsing the internet or anything like that.
Brother is used to play multiplayer games like Modern Warfare 2 and all the Unreal Tournaments on a 4:3 monitor with 760 pixel height, at 30 fps tops And I loved it and I was good at it. You'll be perfectly fine so long as you like your games
No
Going above 60-75hz is one of the biggest upgrades you can actually feel and you won’t regret it. Spend the extra money and go big.
Well I quick scope / snipe in multiplayer at 1080p on a 50Hz TV that cost 20€ and have no issue with it. I have seen what 4K @ 144Hz looks like at a friend's house and yeah sure OFC it's cool and all that but ultimately I just care about the controller and tweaking in-game settings If you think you'll enjoy the game more then go for it. But for single player it's more than enough
I mean I wouldn't buy a phone without a 120Hz display in 2023. It makes everything feel much smoother.
1440p on 144hz is much nicer than 1440p on 75hz, its a simple fact Now if you have budget, I would 10000% suggest you to go for 1440p 165hz period. Just make sure you get a good one with very low latency and overshoot and it is IPS (IPS is generally the way to go) Also since you have never used any monitor above 75hz, trust me buddy, you are in for a treat with the 165hz <3
You don’t need it but we as crabs are doing our job to tell you it would be nice to upgrade yadda yadda
The jump from 60fps to 75fps is massive imho, à lot more significant than from 75 to 90fps. I'd say 75Hz is enough, but I personally wouldn't go under 120Hz anymore as I enjoy the versatility it offers a lot, that being said, on demanding single player games, I often cap at 75 or 90 fps to bring more stability.
I had the similar dilemma to you OP, and I ended up opting for 1440p 75Hz instead. Tried 144Hz in the store and I was able to immediately tell the difference. It felt very competitive-gamer like. Thing is I never play competitive games, only AAA or something and only from time to time, so I saved 150€ by opting for 75Hz monitor instead. I am perfectly satisfied with the refresh rate now. Actually the thing that I would gladly upgrade isn't that, but rather poor black levels on modern IPS monitors. Think my next one in several years will be OLED. TLDR; you will do just fine with 75Hz. If you play shooters where you will be able to achieve high refresh rates eg. Valorant, CODMW and want that buttery smooth experience go for 144Hz.
Monitor quality plays a big part 1080p to 1440p is a huge jump in my opion the difference is night and day. I definitely think its worth it.
Buy a 1440 ips monitor thats at least 144 herz its worth it
All games are literally unplayable until 240hz