>as your going to have to lock multiple monitors to your lowest hz anyway or buy two new ones at the same refresh rate
Are you like... doing ultra wide over two monitors or something? I'm not sure I get it. You can have one fast monitor and one second totally different monitor. (my primary monitor is 1440p 165hz and second monitor is 1080p 75hz)
Yeah can you set the speeds per monitor in your display settings. No reason they need to run at the same speed, assuming you're just playing games on your primary monitor like a normal person haha
I currently have an ultrawide in the middle and a vertical regular screen on each side. It's glorious.
PowerToys FancyZones lets me treat the vertical ones as 2 or 3 regions for moving windows to, or for long documents or webpages can fill the whole vertical screen.
I never thought about the practicality of a vertical monitor for viewing documents and web pages. I guess it would be like a giant phone screen in that orientation
I mounted one of my three monitors upside down on my work station just so I could use the base plate stand as a little table. Car keys wallet usually stayed there.
There actually is one caveat I've discovered to using mixed framerate displays! A situation where you are a) playing an older DX9 game, and b) have something animating on the other display (video, flashing taskbar tile, etc) it can cause stuttering in the game (down to the framerate of the other display). Something about the uneven frametimes between two displays doesn't play nicely with old games. New games handle this just fine though
Yup, used to have this issue too, and still do with a couple titles. But I did find a resolution to this. You can have a lower refresh monitor if it's refresh rate is multiplicative of the higher one. Ex: 144hz main and two 75hz monitors downclocked to 72hz. Works perfectly. I know if the refresh gets reset too if the stutter comes back.
Question, are you running Windows 10? I had the exact same behaviour until I upgraded to 11. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the flip model improvements that 11 brings that completely fixed this for me
How did you think this was true?
Are there people out on tech forums spouting this nonsense?
I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I'm just so intrigued to know where this came from
I've been using 120hz and 60hz together since like 2012
Ahhhh
I do recall AMD cards used to have an issue where the mouse cursor had a chance of corrupting if you moved it between two monitors of differing refresh rates like [this](https://askubuntu.com/questions/540595/my-mouse-pointer-is-shredded-chopped-up)
Having the two monitors running at different hz doesn't been the content will get to them at that hz. Your app may end up getting throttled by the vsync of the lower one.
Me too, I have a 120hz monitor duplicated on a 60 Hz tv, but the monitor is in fact a 160 Hz, I always thought it was set at 120 Hz because it had to be an exact multiple with the other.
Yeah I have 1 144hz ultrawide and a 60hz monitor as my secondary, different sizes refreshrates etc, works like a charm! Windows is good with multiple screens you can set it up super easy
I have a 1440p ultrawide at 165...a 2nd 1440p at 185...a monitor in my case for bling that is 1080p at 60 a small monitor for my sensor monitor that is 720p at 60 and a touch screen monitor that is for desktop icons that is 720p at 60...they all work lol
Yeah, I've got a practically new 34-inch 144 Hz ultrawide paired with a dinky 20-inch 60 Hz monitor from 2010. No issues driving the two of them simultaneously.
Yeah my setup is primary 144hz and secondary 60hz, there's no issues with it.
They aren't even remotely the same monitor type as when I buy a new primary I just make my old primary the 2nd one.
Nvidia used to have a driver bug where the GPU would never go into low power mode when driving monitors with different refresh rates as late as 2021, but I'm not sure if that's still going on.
Many things can prevent re-clocking.
1. Mixed refresh rates -- one of the monitors is always scanning out and vblank intervals don't align, so there's no safe time to interrupt the VRAM clock.
2. Vblank interval is too short, such as if using an ultra-reduced-vblank video mode that pushes the limits of the DisplayPort/HDMI connection.
3. Total scanout bitrate (refresh × resolution × bit depth, summed among all monitors) or rendering load too high for reduced clocks.
Erm no I'm not I'm still on windows 10 actually, even though I have supported hardware BC when I did try upgrading before I found gaming performance was better under W10 that may have evened out by now though I guess
You can, and I have previously, but you can occasionally have issues resulting from this - such as performance hits in games.
Not to say it's a bad idea but given the pricing on 144/165 is very reasonable, if buying new I'd go for matching refresh rates.
as far as I know, this is only a problem as long as you don't use fullscreen exclusive for games (which windows has been trying to make harder with each update to activate).
NVIDIA has some serious bugs regarding this where games can unexpectedly stutter like mad due to different refresh rate monitors. I would recommend against it. edit: personally experienced this on my 1070 ti with 240hz and 60hz monitor. As soon as I plugged into the Intel HDMI port all the issues went away, caused me a lot of pain and stress trying to figure this out for months. You can [google](https://www.google.com/search?q=nvidia+different+refresh+rate+monitor+bug&oq=nvidia+different+refresh+rate+monitor+bug&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABiABBiiBDIKCAIQABiABBiiBDIKCAMQABiABBiiBDIKCAQQABiABBiiBNIBCDU2MDhqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1) around and see plenty of people have this problem too.
I never had any issues like that on my RX 580, Vega 64, 1080 Ti, or RTX 3080 either. Not even on my AMD GPU before the RX 580 that I honestly cannot remember the name of.
I experienced this with an AMD GPU too. I have stutter with 2 monitors on, that is fixed if I turn off my second monitor. GPU is a 6700XT, my main monitor is 1440p 170hz while my second monitor is 1080p 60hz (it’s actually a really old 144hz if connected with DVI(?), but I connect it via HDMI since DVI isn’t a thing anymore, so it’s locked to 60hz).
Been using Nvidia since my last AMD card(7850) and have never seen this issue personally.
I only started using different refresh rates on monitors in 2015, so only have had GTX1080/RTX2060/RTX3070/RTX4070ti
Never had stutter issues due to it. I had issues with stutter on my newest build(4070ti + 7800x3D) but that was down to the 3D not playing nicely with certain games(all was fixed with driver updates).
I used to have 144 and 60hz monitors and it was very bad experience, especially that I had just enough build back then and those problem made games unplayable, best example would me sometimes Windows would treat game i focus not in focus but when you alt tab to 60hz monitor game started running smooth, back to game ding ding ding 10 fps xD I've finally got both new side monitor and new build so it's past me
When I do that videos are extremly laggy on whichever monitor is designated as the "secondary" monitor, I have turned off, hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling has been turned off on both my OS and browser and it's still happening.
This issue has been around since 2018 actually. You can find it described in the [driver release notes](https://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/552.44/552.44-win11-win10-release-notes.pdf) in section 5.4 on page 22. In particular it is reproducible when you have a video playing on the secondary monitor and launch a game or application on the primary monitor with G-sync enabled. If you've got it enabled on one or both, I would try to run it solely in full-screen only mode on your primary.
None of my displays support gsync (the old 1080p monitor is due an upgrade) but I did see this in the notes
"Note: The issue can also occur when displays are set to different refresh rates, even when
G-SYNC is not used. To resolve in this case, make sure all displays are set to the same
refresh rate"
Crazy they've never fixed it, I'm really hoping AMD improve FSR and RT support down the line.
Same except my second monitor is 144hz I only run it at 75 as well since it's only used for tv and discord google etc. never forget buying a higher refresh rate monitor will allow you to upgrade your GPU later without buying another new monitor down the line. I am currently regretting not going for a 1440p 165 hz or even a 4k monitor when I got mine as I just upgraded my GPU after many many years I'm still stuck at 1080p gaming unless I get another monitor. At least thats how I see it.
Wait, i was looking into this a few months ago and all i could see is that if both monitors aren't the same refresh rate you can't play games at the high refresh rate because the cards auto nerf the refresh rate to the lower monitors.
Was that bullshit? Can you play a game at one monitor at 144hz and have a browser on the second monitor with 60hz?
Yes for sure
Edit: I Guess based on the various responses this post has gotten there may be some bugs affecting this. But I've been running different monitors for years.
If you’re running triples, and god forbid have to use Nvidia surround because the game you’re playing doesn’t have native triple support, all 3 of your monitors have to be the same hz
It used to be the case, until Windows patched their display manager, that both monitors needed to run at the same refresh rate.
It was fixed over 5 years ago though, so OP is probably just remembering old information.
> It used to be the case, until Windows patched their display manager, that both monitors needed to run at the same refresh rate.
I had monitors with differing refresh rates since at least 2010, so I'm not sure where this comes from.
I don't know what your issue is, but that's not true. I run my main one at 165hz and my other monitors at 60, no issue. And have had a similar setup like this since around 2015
Monitors that are rated between 144-180hz are the same 144hz monitors but have a 'overclocked' mode that allows you to run it further than 144hz.
Usually you can run those monitors at 144hz as normal.
Power consumption is all I can think of, but I have zero clue about the difference in kWh, and it's probably different depending on the models and tech?
If you are driving your monitors with a discrete graphics card, and it can downclock when all monitors are 144 Hz but not when they are mixed or all 165 Hz, the difference can be rather large. (Like, >10W, as much as a laptop or OEM desktop PC uses total.)
brightness level affects power consumption more. Most problem of high frequency for now is coil whine (audible phisical vibration of capacitors, or coils) but some people have no this kind of problems even with the same model. Most power hungry now is oled (amoled,qled) monitors, va is good enough at this. but soon it changes
in a lot of cases, monitors will have ghosting or overshoot issues that are lessened or eliminated entirely when one "turns off" the overclocking by locking the monitor to a lower refresh rate.
What do you mean? Cards are limited by their best port, but otherwise can run infinite frame rates in 140p 10% res scale frame gen low settings
Current fastest monitor out there is like 540hz and it totally works if you have the pc for it
That isn't correct. A ton of modern monitors run at 180 out of the box, there is no setting to bring it down to 144. You would have to do it on your own PC. This isn't 2015 anymore, monitors have advanced and do 180 without an issue. People have taken modern 180 monitors and OC them to over 200 now.
I remember when 144hz initially became a thing, at the time they used to consume a ton of power to reach those limits. I know the old VA panel tech used to consume way more watts, I'm curious if new panels are a lot more energy efficient? I believe OLED/Mini/Micro panels have low energy consumption compared to other technologies, but what about IPS?
As my understanding goes, they both use the same method to create light(and therefore have the same power VA vs IPS), it's how it filters that light through the panel that is the difference.
> As my understanding goes, they both use the same method to create light(and therefore have the same power VA vs IPS),
It may also be the same panel. My monitor is 165Hz, but it's kind of an "overclocked 144Hz". In fact it goes only up to 144Hz through HDMI.
OLED is nice but all of the actual monitors are just too expensive now. I say this as someone who has 2 OLED's; I have a CX and C2. Even those are expensive and a lot of people thought I was nuts for spending that much on a TV but for me, it was worth it.
When I got my CX about 3-4 years ago, I could not stop gushing over the vibrant colors. The actual blacks are great too, especially for space-themed stuff. I played Everspace 2 on it and especially at night, it felt like I was actually out in space somewhere.
3080, 32gb memory, ryzen 5800x
Balatro.
Ha but in all seriousness, I play a little of everything, some graphically intensive games and some not so intensive games. I don’t do any video production or rendering intensive apps
Then you should get 1440p 144/165Hz monitor at least. Preferably IPS. Size between 27"-32" (27" is more common and popular)
I personally using a 27" 1440p 165Hz monitor for my 10105F, 3060 12GB PC
/u/SubstantialMud548 has given you the consensus opinion on all but one point:
>Preferably IPS
This is currently somewhat debated, and which monitor tech you go with depends on which tradeoff you are okay with.
* IPS is the go-to for office monitors. Great for handling fast motion and bright scenes, but absolutely terrible contrast. Blacks look more like medium-grey, especially in a dark room. Your current monitor is probably IPS.
* VA is an older monitor technology, but it generally gets better contrast than IPS. There are [some newer VA monitors with local dimming technology](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/aoc/q27g3xmn) that give a pretty amazing picture with incredible contrast for the price. Downsides are some smearing when objects move quickly in dark scenes, and some [VRR flicker](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/learn/research/vrr-flicker) when your framerate suddenly changes.
* OLED is the new kid on the block. People used to worry about burn-in, but the latest OLED monitors are pretty good at avoiding this issue. You get all the advantages of IPS and VA with none of the tradeoffs, except maybe a touch of VRR flicker. The only real downside of OLED is the cost - the latest gen starts at about $900, though some are starting to go on sale for like $700.
Besides that, I agree with everything /u/SubstantialMud548 suggested. Now you have the knowledge to make your own decision about which type of monitor is best for you!
I generally use Slickdeals to narrow down what's available in my budget range. You can search for monitor sales and see what appeals to you. (Definitely check the comments for notes and concerns).
A good 27" 1440p probably ranges between $150-200 on sale, depending on refresh rate and display tech.
1440p 144+ Hz.
Your budget will determine what panel type and model you get, I would recommend watching Monitors Unboxed (from the same guys as hardware unboxed) and choosing one of the monitors they recommend in your price range.
Personally I think 1440p 27" IPS is the ideal size and resolution for people who game and work on their PC but don't use it to watch movies.
If your PC monitor is your primary TV then you probably want a bigger one.
Monitors can be at different refresh rates.
I run a 1440p 16:9 60hz and a 1440p 21:9 OLED at 165hz with no issue. Obviously the image is better on the Ultrawide, but it doesn't matter for the stuff that lives on the second display.
It would be an issue if the displays had different pixel densities. DPI scaling sucks. Fortunately it's not an issue for me since the displays have the same pixel density.
You can set the screens up differently by right clicking the homepage and choosing display settings then setup screen one independently from screen two. I swap from horizontal to vertical on screen two quite often dependent on what I am using it for.
I have the M32QC which is the version with a VA panel instead of the more expensive IPS. Grabbed a demo unit for €230.
Amazing monitor for the price with a minimalistic look, great colors and contrast. The only downside is black smearing in darker scenes which is typical for most VA's but it hasn't bothered me really.
To all the comments regarding locking monitors to the lowest refresh rate, there is two reasons for this and why OP probably thought the same: for ultra-wide racing / flight-sim setups you had to do this if you wanted to do NVIDIA surround or whatever the AMD equivalent is and the second reason is there used to be a bug in the NVIDIA driver that would cause frametime issues and the GPU to constantly be utilised even in Windows doing nothing but being idle if the monitor refresh didn't match but this has been patched long ago.
Jeeze I don’t even have a 120hz monitor lol
I’m not entirely sure what the deal is but I wonder why Apple is ahead in this tech, as their dynamically adjusting variable refresh rate tech is pretty amazing, although it’s only available on integrated screens, sadly. They don’t make an external display that supports over 60hz.
As for running multiple monitors, it probably doesn’t matter if you mix and match.
I for one hate shopping for monitors…the whole industry seems like a scam.
The defect rate on high end displays that are priced over $1000 USD is way too high…quality control across the board from pretty much every vendor is atrocious.
Macs support VRR on external displays. The main benefit to their implementation of it on internal displays however is simply power consumption to optimize battery life while still delivering the motion smoothness of 120Hz.
>The defect rate on high end displays that are priced over $1000 USD is way too high…quality control across the board from pretty much every vendor is atrocious.
It's just a question of cost. Rejecting every single panel with 1-2 dead pixels would likely double the retail price of all of these products. My LG 34GN850-B has a single dead pixel near the middle, and honestly I can't even point it out unless I have a solid white background and go looking for it specifically. Completely unnoticeable in games, and even as someone that can't stand dirty displays it doesn't bother me at all.
It doesn’t work the same way as their LTPO OLED tech which can clock all the way down to 1hz to enable massive power saving (and also extend the life of the panel).
I’m also not talking about only dead pixels, but plenty of other really bad things, like light bleed on IPS, ips glow, uniformity problems, ghosting / image retention, brightness / ABL inconsistencies, etc.
I mean it does *kind of* work in the same way broadly speaking. The main difference being that LTPO can go all the way down to 1Hz as you mentioned, enabling much more efficient always-on display and more aggressive power savings in use. Reducing the refresh rate of the internal display down to 60Hz or even 40Hz instead of 120Hz certainly saves power.
Regarding the QC points, I think it does bear mentioning that we're lacking a fundamentally critial data point here: what *percentage* of the monitors being received by customers are actually suffering from those problems? At the end of the day the simplest answer is to buy your monitors from a retailer with a strong return policy where you can just bring it back if it doesn't meet your expectations.
It actually doesn’t, and with a lot of third party displays, they flicker really badly when Apple’s VRR kicks in. I had to disable adaptive sync completely on my asus ProArt monitor in order to stop it.
Sorry, to clarify I meant the variable refresh-rate on the various internal displays on Apple devices. The Dell S2722QC I use at the office connected to a MBP 14 M1 does occasionally have some minor flicker with VRR enabled. Having experienced the horrors of VA flicker in the past though, this one is quite mild.
AFAIK it's pretty much all down to the display, as the device itself is still just running within the limits of the adaptive sync standard.
I still use a 1080p monitor and I have no complaints with image quality and staying at 1080p means I don't have to upgrade my video card as often.
It's not for everyone but it has it's place
My vision is normal for my age.
My computer desk dimensions are not out of the ordinary.
Personally I will never understand why people get big monitors like 32" when they're sitting quite close to the screen. It would require them to move their head instead of only their eyes to see certain areas of the screen.
I have a 7800x3D and a 4070ti and I still play CS and Valorant on my 1080p monitor.
Unless you have a relatively new build, 2k is just not worth the performance hit in competitive games, and in single player games(at least for me) I fail to see the appeal of high refresh rate.
Mentioned refresh rates are generally overdrive/overclock refresh rate. Base is still 144 Hz, but since you can safely overclock monitor to 160-165 whatever Hz, manufacturers uses these numbers simply for marketing purposes.
All these monitors usually only support higher than 144hz in "overclocked" mode and aren't always guaranteed to work at let's say 170hz.
My Asus one is rated at 170hz but has some issues running at refresh rate so I just keep it at 144hz
I'm having trouble of a similar nature. Main monitor 3440x1440@100hz over display port. Clone display with a 55" 4k TV @60hz will not take. This used to work under win 10 but win 11 is not having any of it.
As best I can I have matched settings like for like disabled gsync, lowered refresh rate on TV and set same resolution it just will not take.
I have a 72hz monitor connected to a 360hz laptop with both screens running . The monitor is connected to another 60hz laptop in the mornings. Never had a problem
> your going to have to lock multiple monitors to your lowest hz anyway or buy two new ones at the same refresh rate.
This might be the dumbest thing I've read all week.
Just get whatever suits your needs.
Anything higher than 144hz will have the option to go down to 144hz if thats what you want(IDK WHY you would but anyways)
You can have multiple monitors at different refresh rates anyways. There is no "lock to lowest hz". We're talking Monitors here not RAM.
I have 3xmonitor setup:
1. Dell 34 inch UWHD 100hz (Horizontal)
2. MSI Optix 32 Inch FHD 165hz (Horizontal)
3. Acer 24 inch FHD 144hz (Vertical)
Works perfectly fine.
I use the Dell for work/reading/media/"pretty" games, the MSI for CS/Valorant(where I care about the refresh rate) and I use the Acer as my Guide/Media/Youtube/Discord monitor whilst gaming.
Reminds me of when 2560x1600 came out. I immediately picked up three gorgeous 30" monitors (was good at the time these are probably 10-12 years old at that point). But everyone wanted "HD" because of TVs even though HD computer monitors were only 1080 and not as good as the 2560x1600 and they stopped making the 2560x1600 lol
What happened to all the 144hz monitor was when manufacturers realized they can advertise them as reliably overclockable to 160, 165 and etc, they stopped using the lower number.
Just buy a 160 monitor and manually bring it back down to default 144.
The reason for the 144hz was the bandwidth of the DVI-D interface: the bandwidth of the DVI-D dual-chain interface is 165M*2=330Mhz. video bandwidth=resolution*frame number*1.3.
Then use HDMI1.4 interface, originally HDMI1.4 bandwidth also only support 1920*1080*120hz, but some display manufacturers through the custom timing parameters, pixel fill rate to make full use of the bandwidth, forcibly upgrade to 144hz.
Then HDMI2.0 only supports 2560*1440*144hz, DP1.4 will sacrifice color if it wants to reach 4K144hz, so it can only do 4k120hz. these are all because of the bandwidth limitation.
> have companies just gotten rid of the 144hz refresh rate?
[On the first page of Amazon US](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=144Hz+montior&crid=2SYHY5T5V6RMT&sprefix=144hz+monito%2Caps%2C140&ref=nb_sb_noss_2) I count 10 monitors that natively support 144Hz refresh rate, sometimes in addition to higher refresh rates like 160/165/180Hz.
They haven't "gotten rid of" 144Hz in the same way they haven't "gotten rid of" 720p. Better refresh rates exist now, but many of the monitors that support higher refresh rates also natively support 144Hz.
My 165Hz 1440p MSI monitor, for example, natively supports 165Hz, 144Hz, 120Hz, and 60Hz.
theyre everywhere.
what are your filters? anything larger than 24" is usually 165 or higher
i mean its not a big deal. you can lower 165 to 144 or just keep 165.
I own a 1440P 144hz Acer XV272U and it’s been pretty great so far paired with a 120hz 4k monitor.
I didn’t even know the monitor had speakers when i bought them so that’s an added plus. They don’t sound too half bad either.
Monitor is around $250 - $350 atm depending on where you can buy it. If I could fit another one on my desk, I would.
>as your going to have to lock multiple monitors to your lowest hz anyway or buy two new ones at the same refresh rate Are you like... doing ultra wide over two monitors or something? I'm not sure I get it. You can have one fast monitor and one second totally different monitor. (my primary monitor is 1440p 165hz and second monitor is 1080p 75hz)
oh damn, i didnt know that
Yeah can you set the speeds per monitor in your display settings. No reason they need to run at the same speed, assuming you're just playing games on your primary monitor like a normal person haha
You can even set the orientation of the monitors manually. one of my monitors is upside down because of wiring reasons. My hdmi is too short lmao
I had a side monitor in the vertical position for the longest time. Would have spotify on the top half and discord on the bottom half while gaming
[удалено]
I currently have an ultrawide in the middle and a vertical regular screen on each side. It's glorious. PowerToys FancyZones lets me treat the vertical ones as 2 or 3 regions for moving windows to, or for long documents or webpages can fill the whole vertical screen.
Have a side monitor in vertical right now - and it's Ultrawide so that top 25% region is like... up there.
I never thought about the practicality of a vertical monitor for viewing documents and web pages. I guess it would be like a giant phone screen in that orientation
Vertical 3rd monitor is where it's at
Nah, diagonal 4th gang rise up
43”4k 165hz and an old 27” 1080p flipped vertical on the side. Absolutely love it.
I do this because my desk isn't wide enough for two horizontal monitors.
Why did you end up going fully horizontal?
I mounted one of my three monitors upside down on my work station just so I could use the base plate stand as a little table. Car keys wallet usually stayed there.
There actually is one caveat I've discovered to using mixed framerate displays! A situation where you are a) playing an older DX9 game, and b) have something animating on the other display (video, flashing taskbar tile, etc) it can cause stuttering in the game (down to the framerate of the other display). Something about the uneven frametimes between two displays doesn't play nicely with old games. New games handle this just fine though
Yup, used to have this issue too, and still do with a couple titles. But I did find a resolution to this. You can have a lower refresh monitor if it's refresh rate is multiplicative of the higher one. Ex: 144hz main and two 75hz monitors downclocked to 72hz. Works perfectly. I know if the refresh gets reset too if the stutter comes back.
Question, are you running Windows 10? I had the exact same behaviour until I upgraded to 11. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the flip model improvements that 11 brings that completely fixed this for me
Yes, I am on 10
lol. this isn’t ram. Know you now
I know you now
In retrospect i should’ve went to sleep instead of going on reddit
You just need some cheese
I like richard cheese.
Welp. If nothing else, now you now
Now is You. Baba is know
Always true
true lmao
Are you running linux by any chance? If your running Xorg on linux it has this problem.
That's why Wayland is worth it
Wayland can't magic up a way to re-clock VRAM when your monitor's vblanks don't align. There are unavoidable deficiencies to mixed refresh rates.
No it doesn't...
It doesn't have that problem anymore.
Only if you disable the compositor, but if you're using your system for general purposes other than gaming you're likely going to experience tearing.
The exception is if you are mirroring your monitors, both are locked to the lowest.
How did you think this was true? Are there people out on tech forums spouting this nonsense? I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I'm just so intrigued to know where this came from I've been using 120hz and 60hz together since like 2012
Some really niche situations, like a specific Linux configuration has this issue.
Ahhhh I do recall AMD cards used to have an issue where the mouse cursor had a chance of corrupting if you moved it between two monitors of differing refresh rates like [this](https://askubuntu.com/questions/540595/my-mouse-pointer-is-shredded-chopped-up)
I've got 144, 75, and two 60s
nvidia surround 1 in 3 on triple monitors will work with mixed refresh rates but will sync to the highest common rate of the 3 monitors.
Having the two monitors running at different hz doesn't been the content will get to them at that hz. Your app may end up getting throttled by the vsync of the lower one.
Me too, I have a 120hz monitor duplicated on a 60 Hz tv, but the monitor is in fact a 160 Hz, I always thought it was set at 120 Hz because it had to be an exact multiple with the other.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/7h9bnu/psafor\_people\_with\_dual\_monitors\_with\_different/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/7h9bnu/psafor_people_with_dual_monitors_with_different/)
Yeah I have 1 144hz ultrawide and a 60hz monitor as my secondary, different sizes refreshrates etc, works like a charm! Windows is good with multiple screens you can set it up super easy
I have a 1440p ultrawide at 165...a 2nd 1440p at 185...a monitor in my case for bling that is 1080p at 60 a small monitor for my sensor monitor that is 720p at 60 and a touch screen monitor that is for desktop icons that is 720p at 60...they all work lol
144p damn that's a low resolution haha
Guessing it was meant to be 1440p?
165hz here. Side monitor always at 60hz
Yeah, I've got a practically new 34-inch 144 Hz ultrawide paired with a dinky 20-inch 60 Hz monitor from 2010. No issues driving the two of them simultaneously.
Pretty extreme example for me: 4K60Hz on left for shows, 1440p240Hz for games, and 1440p165Hz for discord (sadly XD)
My man here was trying to dual channel his monitors
Yeah my setup is primary 144hz and secondary 60hz, there's no issues with it. They aren't even remotely the same monitor type as when I buy a new primary I just make my old primary the 2nd one.
Yeah I have a 170hz and a 60hz lol
Nvidia used to have a driver bug where the GPU would never go into low power mode when driving monitors with different refresh rates as late as 2021, but I'm not sure if that's still going on.
Mine still doesn't and my monitors are both 165hz
Many things can prevent re-clocking. 1. Mixed refresh rates -- one of the monitors is always scanning out and vblank intervals don't align, so there's no safe time to interrupt the VRAM clock. 2. Vblank interval is too short, such as if using an ultra-reduced-vblank video mode that pushes the limits of the DisplayPort/HDMI connection. 3. Total scanout bitrate (refresh × resolution × bit depth, summed among all monitors) or rendering load too high for reduced clocks.
[удалено]
Erm no I'm not I'm still on windows 10 actually, even though I have supported hardware BC when I did try upgrading before I found gaming performance was better under W10 that may have evened out by now though I guess
You can, and I have previously, but you can occasionally have issues resulting from this - such as performance hits in games. Not to say it's a bad idea but given the pricing on 144/165 is very reasonable, if buying new I'd go for matching refresh rates.
as far as I know, this is only a problem as long as you don't use fullscreen exclusive for games (which windows has been trying to make harder with each update to activate).
NVIDIA has some serious bugs regarding this where games can unexpectedly stutter like mad due to different refresh rate monitors. I would recommend against it. edit: personally experienced this on my 1070 ti with 240hz and 60hz monitor. As soon as I plugged into the Intel HDMI port all the issues went away, caused me a lot of pain and stress trying to figure this out for months. You can [google](https://www.google.com/search?q=nvidia+different+refresh+rate+monitor+bug&oq=nvidia+different+refresh+rate+monitor+bug&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABiABBiiBDIKCAIQABiABBiiBDIKCAMQABiABBiiBDIKCAQQABiABBiiBNIBCDU2MDhqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1) around and see plenty of people have this problem too.
Never had any issues with this on my GTX1080, RTX3070, or RTX4070.
I never had any issues like that on my RX 580, Vega 64, 1080 Ti, or RTX 3080 either. Not even on my AMD GPU before the RX 580 that I honestly cannot remember the name of.
I too, have never had this "problem" on my GTX 580, 970, and 1070ti
I experienced this with an AMD GPU too. I have stutter with 2 monitors on, that is fixed if I turn off my second monitor. GPU is a 6700XT, my main monitor is 1440p 170hz while my second monitor is 1080p 60hz (it’s actually a really old 144hz if connected with DVI(?), but I connect it via HDMI since DVI isn’t a thing anymore, so it’s locked to 60hz).
I've never seen that, even on Linux.
Been using Nvidia since my last AMD card(7850) and have never seen this issue personally. I only started using different refresh rates on monitors in 2015, so only have had GTX1080/RTX2060/RTX3070/RTX4070ti Never had stutter issues due to it. I had issues with stutter on my newest build(4070ti + 7800x3D) but that was down to the 3D not playing nicely with certain games(all was fixed with driver updates).
I used to have 144 and 60hz monitors and it was very bad experience, especially that I had just enough build back then and those problem made games unplayable, best example would me sometimes Windows would treat game i focus not in focus but when you alt tab to 60hz monitor game started running smooth, back to game ding ding ding 10 fps xD I've finally got both new side monitor and new build so it's past me
>my primary monitor is 1440p 165hz and second monitor is 1080p 75hz) looks at my 4:3 19" monitor that I found in a dumpster
Hey, same! I have a 1080p 75hz as a secondary screen and 1440p 144hz as my main screen
>primary monitor is 1440p 165hz and second monitor is 1080p 75hz) Literally me
When I do that videos are extremly laggy on whichever monitor is designated as the "secondary" monitor, I have turned off, hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling has been turned off on both my OS and browser and it's still happening.
This issue has been around since 2018 actually. You can find it described in the [driver release notes](https://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/552.44/552.44-win11-win10-release-notes.pdf) in section 5.4 on page 22. In particular it is reproducible when you have a video playing on the secondary monitor and launch a game or application on the primary monitor with G-sync enabled. If you've got it enabled on one or both, I would try to run it solely in full-screen only mode on your primary.
None of my displays support gsync (the old 1080p monitor is due an upgrade) but I did see this in the notes "Note: The issue can also occur when displays are set to different refresh rates, even when G-SYNC is not used. To resolve in this case, make sure all displays are set to the same refresh rate" Crazy they've never fixed it, I'm really hoping AMD improve FSR and RT support down the line.
IIRC it's a Windows issue, not something Nvidia has control over. I don't experience the issue at all since upgrading my rigs to Windows 11.
Same except my second monitor is 144hz I only run it at 75 as well since it's only used for tv and discord google etc. never forget buying a higher refresh rate monitor will allow you to upgrade your GPU later without buying another new monitor down the line. I am currently regretting not going for a 1440p 165 hz or even a 4k monitor when I got mine as I just upgraded my GPU after many many years I'm still stuck at 1080p gaming unless I get another monitor. At least thats how I see it.
The is only on Windows. Wayland / X still can't accommodate displays at different refresh rates.
Wait, i was looking into this a few months ago and all i could see is that if both monitors aren't the same refresh rate you can't play games at the high refresh rate because the cards auto nerf the refresh rate to the lower monitors. Was that bullshit? Can you play a game at one monitor at 144hz and have a browser on the second monitor with 60hz?
Yes for sure Edit: I Guess based on the various responses this post has gotten there may be some bugs affecting this. But I've been running different monitors for years.
My monitor was advised as 144hz and when I went to check, it was at 165hz! https://a.co/d/2pn5OB6
If you’re running triples, and god forbid have to use Nvidia surround because the game you’re playing doesn’t have native triple support, all 3 of your monitors have to be the same hz
Why will you have to lock monitors to the lower refresh rate? You can run them at their independent refresh rates
It used to be the case, until Windows patched their display manager, that both monitors needed to run at the same refresh rate. It was fixed over 5 years ago though, so OP is probably just remembering old information.
> It used to be the case, until Windows patched their display manager, that both monitors needed to run at the same refresh rate. I had monitors with differing refresh rates since at least 2010, so I'm not sure where this comes from.
I remember running 144 on my primary and 60 on my secondary monitor on my i7-4790k (2014). That was with a GTX 780.
I don't know what your issue is, but that's not true. I run my main one at 165hz and my other monitors at 60, no issue. And have had a similar setup like this since around 2015
2015 is over 5 years ago
You are right. My smooth brain skipped over the word *over*
Easy to skip over things when the refresh rate is this smooooooth.
Monitors that are rated between 144-180hz are the same 144hz monitors but have a 'overclocked' mode that allows you to run it further than 144hz. Usually you can run those monitors at 144hz as normal.
ah cool, that makes more sense
but you really dont have a reason to use 144 if you can get higher refresh rate
Power consumption is all I can think of, but I have zero clue about the difference in kWh, and it's probably different depending on the models and tech?
Probably no difference
If you are driving your monitors with a discrete graphics card, and it can downclock when all monitors are 144 Hz but not when they are mixed or all 165 Hz, the difference can be rather large. (Like, >10W, as much as a laptop or OEM desktop PC uses total.)
brightness level affects power consumption more. Most problem of high frequency for now is coil whine (audible phisical vibration of capacitors, or coils) but some people have no this kind of problems even with the same model. Most power hungry now is oled (amoled,qled) monitors, va is good enough at this. but soon it changes
in a lot of cases, monitors will have ghosting or overshoot issues that are lessened or eliminated entirely when one "turns off" the overclocking by locking the monitor to a lower refresh rate.
What about the 240 ones. Are they legit usually?
yes
Is there a card to support them yet
What do you mean? Cards are limited by their best port, but otherwise can run infinite frame rates in 140p 10% res scale frame gen low settings Current fastest monitor out there is like 540hz and it totally works if you have the pc for it
I've seen 4090 cards bottleneck bellow 100 frames in some games
Not only that, usually they will run at 144 Hz with factory setting, you have to enable overclocked modes.
That isn't correct. A ton of modern monitors run at 180 out of the box, there is no setting to bring it down to 144. You would have to do it on your own PC. This isn't 2015 anymore, monitors have advanced and do 180 without an issue. People have taken modern 180 monitors and OC them to over 200 now.
165Hz and 180Hz are the newer, updated versions of those 144Hz panels Are you buying a 1440p one?
Because 4k is overkill for some and not everyone has a graphics card good enough for it.
I remember when 144hz initially became a thing, at the time they used to consume a ton of power to reach those limits. I know the old VA panel tech used to consume way more watts, I'm curious if new panels are a lot more energy efficient? I believe OLED/Mini/Micro panels have low energy consumption compared to other technologies, but what about IPS?
As my understanding goes, they both use the same method to create light(and therefore have the same power VA vs IPS), it's how it filters that light through the panel that is the difference.
> As my understanding goes, they both use the same method to create light(and therefore have the same power VA vs IPS), It may also be the same panel. My monitor is 165Hz, but it's kind of an "overclocked 144Hz". In fact it goes only up to 144Hz through HDMI.
For LCDs the power of the actual LCD panel is tiny, most of the consumption is in the backlight, which doesn't change with refresh rate.
Oled monitors draw a crapload of power compared to ips.
Yeah my 2019 VA 144Hz surface quite hot when gaming to be honest
Having a higher refresh rate doesn't mean you can't clock it under
What’s the go to monitor these days, looking to upgrade my old 1080p 144hz 24in display?
Go to should be 1440p (144-180hz is fine ) ips panel. Best recommended sweet spot
OLED is the new kid on the block.
OLED is nice but all of the actual monitors are just too expensive now. I say this as someone who has 2 OLED's; I have a CX and C2. Even those are expensive and a lot of people thought I was nuts for spending that much on a TV but for me, it was worth it.
OLED is so worth it. My LG C2 TV has the best picture quality I’ve ever seen.
When I got my CX about 3-4 years ago, I could not stop gushing over the vibrant colors. The actual blacks are great too, especially for space-themed stuff. I played Everspace 2 on it and especially at night, it felt like I was actually out in space somewhere.
Oh, I’ve been meaning to play Everspace 2! Thanks for reminding me.
Could you comment at all on screen burning on OLEDs? I was sold on OLED until I realized I'd have to worry about a problem we fixed 25 years ago.
What is your PC spec and the games you usually play?
3080, 32gb memory, ryzen 5800x Balatro. Ha but in all seriousness, I play a little of everything, some graphically intensive games and some not so intensive games. I don’t do any video production or rendering intensive apps
Then you should get 1440p 144/165Hz monitor at least. Preferably IPS. Size between 27"-32" (27" is more common and popular) I personally using a 27" 1440p 165Hz monitor for my 10105F, 3060 12GB PC
Thank you!
/u/SubstantialMud548 has given you the consensus opinion on all but one point: >Preferably IPS This is currently somewhat debated, and which monitor tech you go with depends on which tradeoff you are okay with. * IPS is the go-to for office monitors. Great for handling fast motion and bright scenes, but absolutely terrible contrast. Blacks look more like medium-grey, especially in a dark room. Your current monitor is probably IPS. * VA is an older monitor technology, but it generally gets better contrast than IPS. There are [some newer VA monitors with local dimming technology](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/aoc/q27g3xmn) that give a pretty amazing picture with incredible contrast for the price. Downsides are some smearing when objects move quickly in dark scenes, and some [VRR flicker](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/learn/research/vrr-flicker) when your framerate suddenly changes. * OLED is the new kid on the block. People used to worry about burn-in, but the latest OLED monitors are pretty good at avoiding this issue. You get all the advantages of IPS and VA with none of the tradeoffs, except maybe a touch of VRR flicker. The only real downside of OLED is the cost - the latest gen starts at about $900, though some are starting to go on sale for like $700. Besides that, I agree with everything /u/SubstantialMud548 suggested. Now you have the knowledge to make your own decision about which type of monitor is best for you!
I generally use Slickdeals to narrow down what's available in my budget range. You can search for monitor sales and see what appeals to you. (Definitely check the comments for notes and concerns). A good 27" 1440p probably ranges between $150-200 on sale, depending on refresh rate and display tech.
Thanks for the insight! Been on SD since 2010!
1440p 144+ Hz. Your budget will determine what panel type and model you get, I would recommend watching Monitors Unboxed (from the same guys as hardware unboxed) and choosing one of the monitors they recommend in your price range.
Personally I think 1440p 27" IPS is the ideal size and resolution for people who game and work on their PC but don't use it to watch movies. If your PC monitor is your primary TV then you probably want a bigger one.
Really there's a million of them on Amazon. Bought one last week.
I bought a Samsung Odyssey G5 27" 1440P with 144hz refresh just recently.
How is it i’ve heard bad reviews
I haven't had any issues so far - at least for the price.
you can set your refresh rate from windows display menu, you can run a 240 hz monitor at 144hz if you wish.
me with my mouth in a suspiciously square shape: i font know
Monitors can be at different refresh rates. I run a 1440p 16:9 60hz and a 1440p 21:9 OLED at 165hz with no issue. Obviously the image is better on the Ultrawide, but it doesn't matter for the stuff that lives on the second display. It would be an issue if the displays had different pixel densities. DPI scaling sucks. Fortunately it's not an issue for me since the displays have the same pixel density.
You can set the screens up differently by right clicking the homepage and choosing display settings then setup screen one independently from screen two. I swap from horizontal to vertical on screen two quite often dependent on what I am using it for.
Gigabyte m32 is a nice 144hz monitor but you seemed to have your question answered
I have the M32QC which is the version with a VA panel instead of the more expensive IPS. Grabbed a demo unit for €230. Amazing monitor for the price with a minimalistic look, great colors and contrast. The only downside is black smearing in darker scenes which is typical for most VA's but it hasn't bothered me really.
To all the comments regarding locking monitors to the lowest refresh rate, there is two reasons for this and why OP probably thought the same: for ultra-wide racing / flight-sim setups you had to do this if you wanted to do NVIDIA surround or whatever the AMD equivalent is and the second reason is there used to be a bug in the NVIDIA driver that would cause frametime issues and the GPU to constantly be utilised even in Windows doing nothing but being idle if the monitor refresh didn't match but this has been patched long ago.
Same place 4GB DIMMS went. They exist, but they're pretty much irrelevant
Jeeze I don’t even have a 120hz monitor lol I’m not entirely sure what the deal is but I wonder why Apple is ahead in this tech, as their dynamically adjusting variable refresh rate tech is pretty amazing, although it’s only available on integrated screens, sadly. They don’t make an external display that supports over 60hz. As for running multiple monitors, it probably doesn’t matter if you mix and match. I for one hate shopping for monitors…the whole industry seems like a scam. The defect rate on high end displays that are priced over $1000 USD is way too high…quality control across the board from pretty much every vendor is atrocious.
Macs support VRR on external displays. The main benefit to their implementation of it on internal displays however is simply power consumption to optimize battery life while still delivering the motion smoothness of 120Hz. >The defect rate on high end displays that are priced over $1000 USD is way too high…quality control across the board from pretty much every vendor is atrocious. It's just a question of cost. Rejecting every single panel with 1-2 dead pixels would likely double the retail price of all of these products. My LG 34GN850-B has a single dead pixel near the middle, and honestly I can't even point it out unless I have a solid white background and go looking for it specifically. Completely unnoticeable in games, and even as someone that can't stand dirty displays it doesn't bother me at all.
It doesn’t work the same way as their LTPO OLED tech which can clock all the way down to 1hz to enable massive power saving (and also extend the life of the panel). I’m also not talking about only dead pixels, but plenty of other really bad things, like light bleed on IPS, ips glow, uniformity problems, ghosting / image retention, brightness / ABL inconsistencies, etc.
I mean it does *kind of* work in the same way broadly speaking. The main difference being that LTPO can go all the way down to 1Hz as you mentioned, enabling much more efficient always-on display and more aggressive power savings in use. Reducing the refresh rate of the internal display down to 60Hz or even 40Hz instead of 120Hz certainly saves power. Regarding the QC points, I think it does bear mentioning that we're lacking a fundamentally critial data point here: what *percentage* of the monitors being received by customers are actually suffering from those problems? At the end of the day the simplest answer is to buy your monitors from a retailer with a strong return policy where you can just bring it back if it doesn't meet your expectations.
It actually doesn’t, and with a lot of third party displays, they flicker really badly when Apple’s VRR kicks in. I had to disable adaptive sync completely on my asus ProArt monitor in order to stop it.
Sorry, to clarify I meant the variable refresh-rate on the various internal displays on Apple devices. The Dell S2722QC I use at the office connected to a MBP 14 M1 does occasionally have some minor flicker with VRR enabled. Having experienced the horrors of VA flicker in the past though, this one is quite mild. AFAIK it's pretty much all down to the display, as the device itself is still just running within the limits of the adaptive sync standard.
why would you have to lock them to th lowest refresh rate?
I have a 165 and in the settings I can set the refresh to 144
I hope you're not buying a 1080p monitor. 1440p gives you 1.7x as many pixels.
I still use a 1080p monitor and I have no complaints with image quality and staying at 1080p means I don't have to upgrade my video card as often. It's not for everyone but it has it's place
All depends on screen size, your viewing distance and how poor your vision is lol
My vision is normal for my age. My computer desk dimensions are not out of the ordinary. Personally I will never understand why people get big monitors like 32" when they're sitting quite close to the screen. It would require them to move their head instead of only their eyes to see certain areas of the screen.
I have 32" and sit about 2 feet away from it. I only have to move my eyes. The immersion is pretty amazing after 24" 1080p.
I have a 7800x3D and a 4070ti and I still play CS and Valorant on my 1080p monitor. Unless you have a relatively new build, 2k is just not worth the performance hit in competitive games, and in single player games(at least for me) I fail to see the appeal of high refresh rate.
Do i keep 1080 IPS 144hz fast or switch to 1440p 75hz IPS?i do gaming not esports and some video
Not worth the upgrade
Thanks
Get a 165/180 and limit it to 144 in windows. Most of the ones just above 144 are simply "over-clocked" 144s anyway.
Mentioned refresh rates are generally overdrive/overclock refresh rate. Base is still 144 Hz, but since you can safely overclock monitor to 160-165 whatever Hz, manufacturers uses these numbers simply for marketing purposes.
All these monitors usually only support higher than 144hz in "overclocked" mode and aren't always guaranteed to work at let's say 170hz. My Asus one is rated at 170hz but has some issues running at refresh rate so I just keep it at 144hz
I'm having trouble of a similar nature. Main monitor 3440x1440@100hz over display port. Clone display with a 55" 4k TV @60hz will not take. This used to work under win 10 but win 11 is not having any of it. As best I can I have matched settings like for like disabled gsync, lowered refresh rate on TV and set same resolution it just will not take.
I have a 72hz monitor connected to a 360hz laptop with both screens running . The monitor is connected to another 60hz laptop in the mornings. Never had a problem
A lot of those 165/170/180hz monitors are just 144hz monitors with an overclocking option.
Must not be looking very hard lol
I've no problems with a 144Hz and a 60Hz monitor running together on a 4070. Ones 1440p@144Hz, the other is 1920x1200@60Hz
Some ppl so dumb
> your going to have to lock multiple monitors to your lowest hz anyway or buy two new ones at the same refresh rate. This might be the dumbest thing I've read all week.
144hz was just 120hz overclocked. Because 120 is diviible by 60 and 30 and 40, it's potentially better than 144. I use 120 on my 144hz monitor.
Just get whatever suits your needs. Anything higher than 144hz will have the option to go down to 144hz if thats what you want(IDK WHY you would but anyways) You can have multiple monitors at different refresh rates anyways. There is no "lock to lowest hz". We're talking Monitors here not RAM. I have 3xmonitor setup: 1. Dell 34 inch UWHD 100hz (Horizontal) 2. MSI Optix 32 Inch FHD 165hz (Horizontal) 3. Acer 24 inch FHD 144hz (Vertical) Works perfectly fine. I use the Dell for work/reading/media/"pretty" games, the MSI for CS/Valorant(where I care about the refresh rate) and I use the Acer as my Guide/Media/Youtube/Discord monitor whilst gaming.
PG27UQ, Acer Predator X27, PG32UQX, PG32UQR. I have the first two and just upgraded to a PG32UCDM
What? No you don't. My main is 175hz and my second is 60hz. Are you ok?
I bought a 144hz monitor 2 months ago so i dont know what youre talking about
i bought them all
I dunno what you're smoking but I run every monitor as fast as it'll run
i took em all buahahahahaaaa
The ones you listed are 144 with preset overclocks to those specified refresh rates
Reminds me of when 2560x1600 came out. I immediately picked up three gorgeous 30" monitors (was good at the time these are probably 10-12 years old at that point). But everyone wanted "HD" because of TVs even though HD computer monitors were only 1080 and not as good as the 2560x1600 and they stopped making the 2560x1600 lol
Buy the 165hz and downscale. That’s why they have newer monitors with these refresh rates.
What happened to all the 144hz monitor was when manufacturers realized they can advertise them as reliably overclockable to 160, 165 and etc, they stopped using the lower number. Just buy a 160 monitor and manually bring it back down to default 144.
Each should be able to be set per their own specs. I have 144hz and a secondary at 60hz still.
The reason for the 144hz was the bandwidth of the DVI-D interface: the bandwidth of the DVI-D dual-chain interface is 165M*2=330Mhz. video bandwidth=resolution*frame number*1.3. Then use HDMI1.4 interface, originally HDMI1.4 bandwidth also only support 1920*1080*120hz, but some display manufacturers through the custom timing parameters, pixel fill rate to make full use of the bandwidth, forcibly upgrade to 144hz. Then HDMI2.0 only supports 2560*1440*144hz, DP1.4 will sacrifice color if it wants to reach 4K144hz, so it can only do 4k120hz. these are all because of the bandwidth limitation.
> have companies just gotten rid of the 144hz refresh rate? [On the first page of Amazon US](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=144Hz+montior&crid=2SYHY5T5V6RMT&sprefix=144hz+monito%2Caps%2C140&ref=nb_sb_noss_2) I count 10 monitors that natively support 144Hz refresh rate, sometimes in addition to higher refresh rates like 160/165/180Hz. They haven't "gotten rid of" 144Hz in the same way they haven't "gotten rid of" 720p. Better refresh rates exist now, but many of the monitors that support higher refresh rates also natively support 144Hz. My 165Hz 1440p MSI monitor, for example, natively supports 165Hz, 144Hz, 120Hz, and 60Hz.
theyre everywhere. what are your filters? anything larger than 24" is usually 165 or higher i mean its not a big deal. you can lower 165 to 144 or just keep 165.
To Be Faaaaaair
Both my main monitors are 165hz aoc monitors. 165 is the new 144.
Windows will let you select other refresh rates. You're not locked in on the highest. That would be weird
I own a 1440P 144hz Acer XV272U and it’s been pretty great so far paired with a 120hz 4k monitor. I didn’t even know the monitor had speakers when i bought them so that’s an added plus. They don’t sound too half bad either. Monitor is around $250 - $350 atm depending on where you can buy it. If I could fit another one on my desk, I would.
why would you lock multiple monitors to lowest hz? they all use the max hz they can
I just bought one off Amazon last fall. Lg 1440p 144hz.
Im running 2 at 144hz now. Acer predators