1 144hz or 2 60hz monitors?

[Stefanus]

Hello there guys, I am buying new gaming rig soon and the only thing have trouble deciding on is whether I should buy one 144hz/1ms monitor (I have my eyes on ASUS LED 24" VG248QE Full HD) or two 60hz/4ms PLS Panel monitors (have my eyes one SAMSUNG LED 23.5" S24F350FHU Full HD).
Now, why would I need two monitors you might ask. It is just so I can play WoW on one and multitask on the other (for example: watch youtube, surf net, chat with friend via skype, face or other social media) while playing games...
Basically 95% of my spare time will be spent playing WoW, if you wonder yourself what games am I mostly gonna be using my monitor for.
Now, what do you guys think and which of those two option you suggest I should go with?

[Bleu42]

144hz all the way all day. If you've got the gpu to get close to those frames it's way worth it. And you can still get a second super cheap monitor to watch YouTube or what have you as well. But yes, getting those frames is absolutely worth it.

[abracmike]

Agree with Bleu42.
The 144hz will pan out way better. You can always add a 2nd, 3rd, etc... monitor later if you want to multitask (could just as well do one of each in your suggestion as an example)

[Stefanus]

Will be getting Gigabyte's gtx1070 paired with i7 6700k 4.0ghz, might overclock it in the future. Yeah, I know what your point is, but considering the game I am only going to be playing is WoW, I am not sure how much of an impact will the 144hz monitor stated above have and is it still worth sacrificing it for two 60hz monitors with PLS panel (is basically Samsung's version of IPS panel)?

[Lathais]

Personally, after having 2 monitors, I don't see how I could live with only one. I would prefer 2 60hz over a single 144hz myself. Later on down the road you could always buy a 144hz and either run 3 monitors or sell off one of the 60hz. I know for some things I do I would love to have a third monitor. Mainly when setting things up for DnD Campaigns. Since we use a touchscreen table and a software, when I am setting everything up it helps to be able to have the map software open on one screen, the PDF open on another and then the tables and things I use to adjust encounters and whatnot open on the third. With 2 monitors, i am always alt-tabbing and looking for the window I need. Of course, I only spend a couple hours a week doing set-up stuff, so it's not that big of a deal, but a third monitor sure would make my life easier. I could be useful sometimes while gaming too. Game on main monitor in middle, movie/TV on one side, guide/forums on the other. Judging by the other 2 responses though, I am odd. However, I think they are wrong all the same, and not just because of my personal preference. Unless you go with some form of adaptive sync, WoW is not gonna be running at 144 FPS a lot of the time, so the extra hz is kinda wasted on WoW.

- - - Updated - - -

Will be getting Gigabyte's gtx1070 paired with i7 6700k 4.0ghz, might overclock it in the future. Yeah, I know what your point is, but considering the game I am only going to be playing is WoW, I am not sure how much of an impact will the 144hz monitor stated above have and is it still worth sacrificing it for two 60hz monitors with PLS panel (is basically Samsung's version of IPS panel)?

If you are primarily playing WoW, do yourself a favor and save some money by getting an i5 instead of an i7 and a GTX 1060 instead of the 1070. The Hyperthreading and additional cache the i7 offers over the i5 will do absolutely nothing for WoW. In fact, due to the core overhead of core virtualization, you'll lose a bit of single threaded performance. Not enough to be really noticeable, but it's there. Due to the CPU limited nature of WoW, you also won't see much of a gain going from a 1060 to a 1070. Both will tank to the same FPS as soon as you hit a CPU limited area.

[Alantor]

Ain't those two monitors the same price? Why don't buy the 144Hz one and the other? Anyway, if you only play WoW I'd get a U2414H or a 27/1440p.

[Deleted]

Why not just go ultrawide?

[the boar]

what do you do in wow? because in a raid you prob wont be going above 50-60fps anyway..

144hz is nice if you play games and have hardware that can use it, but wow.. eh, i'd rather have two monitors.

[PyroXide]

Really like for WoW, I don't see the need. But if you play CS:GO or something I could see going 144hz.

Either way, once you pick a route, you can't ever go back. So in the end what you need is 2 144 hz monitors imo.

[Deleted]

I use https://www.asus.com/uk/Monitors/ROG_SWIFT_PG278Q/ for my gaming needs and my trusty Samsung 1080p 3D LED TV for watching stuff on.

Since going to a 144hz screen at the start of the year, i never want to go back. Playing GoW4 on above ultra settings @1440p and getting 90 FPS is very nice. You really get used to being above 60hz. Also Gsynch is amazing.

[noobj]

144hz is a road that once taken you can never go back.

I cant even stand being on anythig less now it is just too choppy. I used a 120hz one once and even then it didnt feel smooth enough

[Stefanus]

Thank guys for all the responses. I've decided to go with ASUS LED 24" VG248QE Full HD for now and in the future when I decide to buy an extra monitor I will spend a decent amount of cash for it and go for IPS, 1ms, 144hz, ultra HD 27inch (will be making this purchase in 4 or 5 years), but by that time I think that the ASUS mentioned before will be more than enough to satisfy my needs.

[Granyala]

144hz is a road that once taken you can never go back.

You do realize that you need pretty darn overkill GFX setups to even maintain 144 FPS and get any use out of it, right?

Thought about getting the screen @Steik mentioned, but to be perfectly honest: I have no interest in paying 800€ only to be allowed to play "panel lottery".
Also, I doubt that a 1070 is anywhere near enough to get a stable 120FPS in modern titles.

[Maerad]

After you didn't say anything about your setup, here's something I got.

LG 24MP68VQ-P
Screen size: 23.8"/​60.5cm • Resolution: 1920x1080, 16:9 • Brightness: 250cd/​m² • Contrast: 1.000:1 (static), 5.000.000:1 (dynamic) • Response time: 5ms • Viewing angle: 178°/​178° • Panel: AH-IPS • Refresh rate: 75Hz • Connectors: VGA, DVI, HDMI • Other connectors: not available • Ergonomics: not available • VESA: 75x75 (free) • Power consumption: 24W (maximum), 20W (typical), 0.3W (standby) • Special features: LED backlight, flicker-free, slim Bezel, Adaptive Sync/​AMD FreeSync (40-75Hz) • Warranty: two years (Send-In)

Germany 170-180 €. WOuld be an idea if you got an AMD card. It's an awesome IPS Display with freesync from 40-75 Hz (IPS with big freesync ranges are expensive and almost not existent). Well, I got my nitro limited to 74 FPS, runs smooth like hell. Also the display has a matte display, so very low mirror effect.

I wouldn't want any other monitor without freesync again. And 144 hz are only an option, if you have a rig that can actually reach those fps without looking like a 1995 game.

[Shakadam]

2 monitors over 1 any day of the week. It's such a huge QoL improvement.

144hz is nice but if you're playing almost exclusively WoW it's not worth it. Also the monitor you linked is a TN-panel type which is not something I'd ever look at again.

[barrdo]

As others have said, I think the answer revolves around FPS.
If you ever intend to play FPS (Overwatch, CS:Go, etc...) then there should be no question in your mind. The 144hz monitor is a better buy.
If you don't see yourself ever playing FPS, then the PLS panels will have major advantages.

[Acelius]

You do realize that you need pretty darn overkill GFX setups to even maintain 144 FPS and get any use out of it, right?

Thought about getting the screen @Steik mentioned, but to be perfectly honest: I have no interest in paying 800€ only to be allowed to play "panel lottery".
Also, I doubt that a 1070 is anywhere near enough to get a stable 120FPS in modern titles.

It comes pretty damn close. I get between 100-110 fps in Doom on Ultra in 1440p with a 1070 FE and 6700k. It shouldn't have any issues at 1080p.

OT: 144hz doesn't matter if you only play WoW. I have a 144hz monitor but my fps often doesn't reach the heights needed to take proper advantage of the higher refresh rates. It makes a game of CS so much more enjoyable though.

[Lathais]

It comes pretty damn close. I get between 100-110 fps in Doom on Ultra in 1440p with a 1070 FE and 6700k. It shouldn't have any issues at 1080p.

OT: 144hz doesn't matter if you only play WoW. I have a 144hz monitor but my fps often doesn't reach the heights needed to take proper advantage of the higher refresh rates. It makes a game of CS so much more enjoyable though.

Pretty damn close is not anywhere near stable. Pus, that's only one game:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...Gaming/11.html
Less than 60 FPS in Mankind Divided. Nowhere close.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...Gaming/14.html
92 FPS in Fallout 4

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...Gaming/17.html
Getting closer with Hitman, 108.8.


I could go on. Sure, there are some games on there where it's getting slightly over 120.....averaging slightly over 120 is not near the same thing as stable 120. If it averages just over, that means there are dips below and that's not stable. So his statement is correct.

[kail]

You do realize that you need pretty darn overkill GFX setups to even maintain 144 FPS and get any use out of it, right?

Thought about getting the screen @Steik mentioned, but to be perfectly honest: I have no interest in paying 800€ only to be allowed to play "panel lottery".
Also, I doubt that a 1070 is anywhere near enough to get a stable 120FPS in modern titles.

It kills BF1 and Witcher 3. Averaging 109+ frames on BF1 multiplayer, with almost everything maxed (cept for super-sampling).

- - - Updated - - -

I could go on. Sure, there are some games on there where it's getting slightly over 120.....averaging slightly over 120 is not near the same thing as stable 120. If it averages just over, that means there are dips below and that's not stable. So his statement is correct.

You can't assume dips based on average fps. It could be stable 120 or not, either scenario will average 120. Dips can be determined on simply experiencing it or recording the fps over time.

[noobj]

You do realize that you need pretty darn overkill GFX setups to even maintain 144 FPS and get any use out of it, right?.

You do realise you can tell a whole world of difference even if you are not at 144 FPS right ? People who have never used a 144hz panel before will never know the feeling, all they keep saying is "I cant get above 144 fps stable anyways no point for a 144hz screen".

Seriously, get a 144hz panel then you get to talk anything about a 144hz screen, before that your opinion is pretty much useless.