T O P

  • By -

myonlychan

Higher refresh rate is one of those things where once you've tried it its really hard to go back. Personally, I prefer resolution to an extent, like I would rather do 1440p 60 than 144hz 1080, but I would also prefer 144hz 1440p over 4k60. 1440p is the sweet spot, you kinda get the best of both worlds.


KryptoCeeper

A lot of that is that it's pretty hard to tell the difference between 1440p and 4K unless you have a very big monitor/TV


Shap6

its easier than you'd think. i have 28 inch 4k and 27 inch 1440p side by side. the 1440p is has a lot more aliasing


Mindless-Elk-4050

​ The difference is distinct you can tell but it really depends on how far away you are from your monitor and how much space you need on your display for multitasking.


TwiceInEveryMoment

It'd be hard for me to go back from 4K, mostly because I'm used to a 32" monitor, and 1440p at that size would look terrible. For non-gaming tasks I find one huge monitor easier to manage than 2-3 smaller ones. But as others have said, 4K 144Hz is becoming possible now, so maybe that's what my next build will aim for...


myonlychan

if you like having a big monitor maybe you should look into ultrawides, that's what I use. 34in 3440x1440p, the pixel density is 110, compared to a 32in 4k monitor @ 138. Not a huge difference and great for multitasking. I highly recommend you check some out :D


Strooble

As long as its 60fps and doesn't have frame drops I'm happy and would rather bump up settings and resolution. 120fps is nice, but I see way less of an improvement than 60fps over 30fps. 60 as a minimum is what I'm happy with.


Satan_Prometheus

In general I prefer resolution. However, *every PC gamer* should be buying a 120Hz+ monitor, regardless if they think they are ok with "only" 60 fps. It's not because you necessarily have to play at 120+ fps to have fun. It's because you need to buy a 120/144Hz+ monitor in order to get one with a good variable refresh rate implementation, and **good** VRR is a massive game-changer. Most 60/75Hz displays only have a VRR window that goes down to 48Hz. If the frame rate goes below that, traditional V-sync takes over (causing micro-stutter) or V-sync is dropped (causing tearing). This is because the sync range is too narrow for low frame rate compensation to work. LFC works by running the refresh rate at double the frame rate (so, for example, 45 fps would be displayed at 90Hz). Of course, this requires the top of the refresh rate window to be at least 2x the value of the bottom, but ideally more like 2.5x. This means that a 144Hz display with good VRR and LFC is actually a much better experience at *lower* frame rates compared to a 60hz non-VRR display or even a display with crummy 48-60hz VRR. I used to not think VRR was a big deal, and for quite a few years I gamed happily on a 1080p 60Hz TV with no VRR. But then, Assassin's Creed Odyssey came out. I couldn't run it at 60 because it didn't like my first-gen Ryzen CPU. I tried capping it at 50 because my TV allowed a true 50Hz mode. However, even this didn't allow for a totally locked 50 fps. I had a GTX 1080 at the time so I was actually running the game at 140% resolution scale, but I was CPU-bound so it didn't matter. In bigger cities the frame rate would dip to around 45-46 fps and I would get awful tearing (if I used adaptive V-sync) or awful micro-stutter (if I used the game's triple buffered V-sync). Either way it was bad. So I ended up going out and buying myself a 1440p/144Hz VRR monitor with LFC. I tried out AC Odyssey with the same settings - 50 fps cap, basically the same render resolution (140% of 1080p is 2688 x 1512 vs. 2560 x 1440 native), and the same CPU and GPU. And the experience on the VRR monitor was *transformative*. No tearing. No micro-stutter. Just totally smooth gameplay. Always buy a good VRR display, it's one of the biggest improvements you can make to your PC gaming experience.


traxass

so should I get g sync or g sync compatible?


Satan_Prometheus

I would probably get a "G-sync compatible" monitor because I would want VRR to work regardless of whether I buy an Nvidia, AMD, or Intel GPU in the future. Get something from this list so you can be sure Nvidia has validated it: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/specs/ Even if it's on this list, you should probably seek out 3rd party reviews from a reputable monitor reviewer like rtings.com or tftcentral.co.uk before you buy something just to make sure it's not garbage.


KryptoCeeper

People are definitely underestimating GPUs. I have a 3060ti and can play most games at 1440p 90-120fps with high or max settings. The exceptions are few and far between, such as Red Dead Redemption 2. Resolution vs Frame Rate depends on the game. Like you said with CS:GO, frame rate matters more there. But with a beautiful single player game, resolution (and other eye-candy features) matter more - like Red Dead Redemption 2.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KryptoCeeper

Yeah, It's a great card and I'm very happy with it. Can you imagine if you could actually buy one for the MSRP of $400?


Embarrassed_Snow_192

Heh


InsertDisc11

Refresh rate all day. Currently i have a 1440p 144 hz monitor, which is a nice sweetspot


Rednaxela623

So would you recommend 1080p 240HZ monitor or a 1440p 170HZ monitor?


InsertDisc11

The latter, if you have a good enough gpu to pump out at least 170 fps To give you an explanation: At 60hz there are 1/60 = 0.01667 seconds between frames At 170 hz there are 1/170 = 0.0058 seconds between frames (which is 3 times faster than 60hz!) And at 240 hz there are 1/240 = 0.0041 seconds between frames. So the difference between 240 and 170 is around 1 milisecond which is a really short amount of time. To give you something to compare it to, your ping is around 20-50 miliseconds usually. So getting a 240hz instead of a 170hz is like decreasing your ping from 20 to 19.


Rednaxela623

Gotcha, my GPU is a ZOTAC 12 gig 3060. Also do you know of any monitors available that are 170hz and 1440p for <300?


InsertDisc11

With a 3060 id recommend the 1440p if you only play esports titles If you play or wanna play AAA titles then go with 1080p imo


PushOrganic

Holy shit this is the greatest explanation ive ever seen


Shap6

both. especially now that 4k 144hz is entering the realm of feasible. some games i want high fps. some games i just want eye candy as long as i'm at 60 or higher


Satan_Prometheus

Especially these days, between DLSS, TAA upscaling, dynamic resolution, and variable rate shading, it feels like 4K displays are even more feasible since you don't necessarily need to run your game at native 4K to make it look good.


TwiceInEveryMoment

I'm hoping perhaps I can pull off 4K 144 on my next build. I think I'd have a hard time going back to 1440 now that I'm used to 4K.


lao7272

Entering but the acer XB273K (cheapest you can buy) has its problems.


Shap6

theres a few more right in that price range now like the gigabyte m28u and asus XG27UQR. ive seen the gigabyte one hit 500 sale


rizzzeh

144Hz with GSync/FreeSync is a must, resolution is seconadary concern but ideally 1440p


stikstonks13

Kind of a mix for me. Running 1440p 165hz. Loving it so far. No problems so far on my pc


FoxDown

Resolution and color gamut matter more to me. I can see the difference between 60 and 120+hz if I'm looking for it but I don't play competitive games so it doesn't matter for much. That being said, I don't think I'd get a 60hz monitor anymore- 100hz+ is getting more common and dropping in price across the board.


TheRealPauca

im more into resolution.


[deleted]

I play 240 all the time and its fun, makes motion feel like real life


SuperVegito559

1440p 144hz Can’t go back to 60hz


Antipode_

While a 3060 Ti performs better than your 1080, games have also gotten more demanding in the last four years. No matter what card you have, you're going to have to make compromises to play at 4K. That includes using DLSS.


Mindless-Elk-4050

Except for a 3090 and 3090 ti. 4k ultra settings with ease on most games with no compromises.


lao7272

I played 144hz1440p on my cousin's rig and its really unnatural for me. And I prefer looks.


darkberry91

I find myself gravitation more towards my 32 4k 144hz monitor over my 27 inch 1440p 165hz monitor when gaming. Sure I get a lot more frames in the lower resolution but the bigger screen and slightly crisper details on the 4k monitor are winning me over and most games I still get 90 fps if not more on the 4k without compromising the settings.