Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577

    1440p+ G-Sync monitor

    Hey everyone.

    At the moment I have a Sceptre 50" TV as a monitor and I love it. However, 1080p on such a huge TV causes a visible pixellation if you sit up close (and I do), and 60Hz looks much worse in games than 120Hz, I miss my old laptop's 120Hz screen. Moreover, I play all games at 4K downscaled to 1080p with quite a good performance, I could easily run 1440p at 100+Hz most of the time. So I think I'm missing a lot in gaming, my rig is kind of wasted. The rig itself is 980 GTX + 4790k. My budget is limited to $1200, although I would consider going a bit higher for a better model.

    I decided to get G-Sync since I hate both tearing and input lag. However, G-Sync and 1440p+ combined don't leave much choice. Specifically, I found only two models I would consider buying:

    Acer XB280HK
    4K, 60 Hz, $800
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tem=24-009-658

    ASUS ROG SWIFT
    1440p, 144 Hz, $800
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tem=24-236-405

    I am favoring the Asus one. 1440p roughly gives 2 times the performance of 4K, so I will be able to make effective use of a very high refresh rate. Acer one is great for its picture, but, since it is still 60Hz, it doesn't feel like much of an upgrade to my current TV. I know, 60Hz with G-Sync looks much more fluid than 60Hz without G-Sync, but will it look good compared to 144Hz G-Sync? Since I've never seen G-Sync in action with my own eyes, I would like to hear your opinions guys on whether I need anything more than 60Hz with G-Sync.

    Thanks!

    P.S. If you are going to say that "human eye can't see past 60 FPS", that some people tried to tell me on other forums, please don't bother posting.

  2. #2
    Brewmaster
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Unites States
    Posts
    1,311
    human eye can't see past 60 FPS






    Just kidding.

    Neither are IPS, so it's honestly between 4k/60Hz or 1440p/144Hz. Personally I'd take the 144Hz because I don't think I could live without after having it and 4k only makes games harder to run anyways, but it's a personal choice. If I'm going to live without 144Hz it's going to have to be IPS, and it's not.
    MY RIG
    | Corsair Carbide Air Series 540 White Edition | Intel i5-2500K @ 4.6Ghz CPU | Corsair H100i Cooler | 8GB G.Skill Sniper Series 1866Mhz |
    | 2x EVGA GTX 770 4GB Classified SLI | ASUS Xonar DX Sound Card | Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD | Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD |

  3. #3
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Arbiter View Post
    human eye can't see past 60 FPS






    Just kidding.

    Neither are IPS, so it's honestly between 4k/60Hz or 1440p/144Hz. Personally I'd take the 144Hz because I don't think I could live without after having it and 4k only makes games harder to run anyways, but it's a personal choice. If I'm going to live without 144Hz it's going to have to be IPS, and it's not.
    He-he, nice one.

    That's true, they are TN, but good TN at that: Linus, for example, reviewed both of them and was very pleased with their colors and viewing angles. And, true again, 144Hz is a very strong argument towards the Asus. If there only was a 144Hz 4K monitor... But then, I guess, you would need 4 980-s in SLI to drive that.

  4. #4
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:ぺこ
    Posts
    8,153
    No the viewing angle is still shit, even if Linus doesn't think so...
    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/...ift_pg278q.htm

    You could wait for Acer's offering of the same panel, XB270HU, but it's Acer so ehhh.

    In terms of IPS + high Hz, you can wait for AUO's release of their 2560x1440 AHVA 144Hz panel, whenever that is.

  5. #5
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    No the viewing angle is still shit, even if Linus doesn't think so...
    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/...ift_pg278q.htm
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but why would anyone bother by how much the colors are distorted if you look at the monitor at an angle of 70? I buy the monitor solely for personal use, I won't have anyone sitting in a coach and looking at it from the side.
    I had an ancient 24" TN Acer bought in 2006 (and even then it was not particularly fresh), and, even if I sit up very close to it (like 30 cm away), I could only see a little difference in colors at the very top and very bottom, where normally I don't look anyway. Modern TNs should be much better, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    In terms of IPS + high Hz, you can wait for AUO's release of their 2560x1440 AHVA 144Hz panel, whenever that is.
    I don't need IPS specifically since, like I said, view angles don't matter to me (as long as they are not horrendous, like in very early TN monitors), and colors seem to be highly regarded in these two monitors. Also, I believe, an IPS panes with such specs and low response time would probably cost a fortune.

    My main question is whether G-Sync at 60Hz is enough for a perceived smooth experience, or if higher refresh rate is worth it to prefer 1440p over 4K.

  6. #6
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:ぺこ
    Posts
    8,153
    Thing about TN, whether you care or not, is color shifts even if your head is straight center, whether it matters to you or not is a different thing. It's a nature of TN panels. I have one right next to me as my 2nd monitor and I can tell the color shifts without viewing it at any extreme angle.

    As for pixel response, that'll depend on how it's implemented. There's already IPS at 4.9ms which is comparable to your average TN panel that isn't RTCing/overdrive the living hell out of it. Again this is a 2 factor thing for lag where it's signal process and pixel response.
    Last edited by Remilia; 2014-11-26 at 01:02 AM.

  7. #7
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    Thing about TN, whether you care or not, is color shifts even if your head is straight center, whether it matters to you or not is a different thing. It's a nature of TN panels. I have one right next to me as my 2nd monitor and I can tell the color shifts without viewing it at any extreme angle.
    Well, the color shifts will be there anyway, the question is how much and, as you correctly said, how much one is willing to tolerate it. I personally have never really cared about precise colors and such. I am not one of those guys that look at screenshots and say, "Wow, now that's a real quality". I only care about how the picture looks in motion, how smooth it is, how many jaggies there are...
    Now, if there was an IPS 1440p 144Hz G-Sync monitor, I would take it over TN. But there is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    As for pixel response, that'll depend on how it's implemented. There's already IPS at 4.9ms which is comparable to your average TN panel that isn't RTCing/overdrive the living hell out of it. Again this is a 2 factor thing for lag where it's signal process and pixel response.
    Yes, it seems that IPS matrices become closer and closer in terms of speed and responsiveness to TN ones. Still, I don't think any IPS can have 1ms rate today. Maybe in a few years...

    After doing some more research, I really don't know which one of the two monitors to take. Some people report so called "inversed pixels" in the 144Hz model, although most say it is either unnoticeable or very slim (from the photos I saw, it doesn't seem to be slim, but then that might only be appearing on screenshots due to the way a camera makes a photo). Also the general consensus is that it is harder to drive 1440p at 144Hz than 4K and 60Hz. On the other hand, some people say that G-Sync doesn't help much as one goes below 50 FPS or so, it really shines at 80+FPS (of course, all these things are subjective). The main benefit of the 4K model is pixel density which is approximately 16 times higher than what I have now (2^2=4 comes from the resolution difference and 2^2=4 - from the diagonal size difference), so the picture should be unbelievably crisp (I consider even my picture crisp!). But the drawback is that it is still same 60Hz, even if with G-Sync, and also I will be pretty much stuck with 4K and have to play even most demanding games my PC can't really handle with it, since up-scaled resolution is always much worse than native one.

    I'm thinking of just flipping a coin, literally.

  8. #8
    Warchief Jakexe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    G-Sync is impressive and the asus panel is an amazing TN panel. Horizontal colour shift is minimal but vertical is easily noticed. However it's never bothered me during gaming. As for colours it doesn't have the same intensity of colour that an ips creates, I have 2 ips panels sitting next to my tn and the difference in colour is fairly apparent but not bad by any means.

    G-sync really comes into it's own at 100+hz. The image is impossible to really describe and needs to be seen to be understood but if you have the hardware to run that then you are kind of missing out. (It craps out at under 30fps however).

    Among all that I don't see 4k as a viable option atm. I have one for photo editing and using it for daily tasks is a tedious experience, not to mention even with powerful hardware it still becomes a hit and miss with performance. I'm still in the mindset to avoid 4k for gaming for at least another one or two hardware cycles.

    I picked up the rog swift a few weeks ago and at first I came home thinking it wasn't worth the $1000 but as I've gamed more and more on it, it's become a wise purchase especially if you're a graphics whore like me. I had ceased just stopping in games to admire the view until I got the swift.
    Last edited by Jakexe; 2014-11-26 at 02:32 AM.
    i7 4790K @ 4.7GHz 1.35V || Asus Z97 Hero VII || EVGA GTX 980 Sli (x2) 1455Mhz || 16GB Corsair Vengence 2133mhz || 128GB+500GB SSD (PRO/EVO) || 2TB+4TB WD Blacks || Corsair HX-850W || Custom Water Cooling - xspc ex140 w/ noctua NF-A14 - xspc rx360 - xspc photon 270 w/ D5 - primochill acrylic tubing & ghost fittings -
    Corsair 900D || ASUS ROG Swift || Roccat Ryos MK Pro || Cyborg RAT7/Logitech G700s || BitFenix Recon Fan Controller

  9. #9
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:ぺこ
    Posts
    8,153
    G-sync performs best at 30-60. G-sync is a hinderance at anything below 30. 60+ it becomes negligible.

    It is technically possible to make any monitor with a 1ms response time with very extreme overdrive. This is a dumb idea but you can do it.

    As for what you want to go for, I don't know, both have their draw backs and stuff. What you want out of it is subjective. G-sync isn't something I bother with because it requires full screen mode.

  10. #10
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakexe View Post
    G-Sync is impressive and the asus panel is an amazing TN panel. Horizontal colour shift is minimal but vertical is easily noticed. However it's never bothered me during gaming. As for colours it doesn't have the same intensity of colour that an ips creates, I have 2 ips panels sitting next to my tn and the difference in colour is fairly apparent but not bad by any means.

    G-sync really comes into it's own at 100+hz. The image is impossible to really describe and needs to be seen to be understood but if you have the hardware to run that then you are kind of missing out. (It craps out at under 30fps however).
    Thanks for the input! Many people say that actual 144 Hz plus G-Sync is beyond any imagination. I am favoring this option at the moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakexe View Post
    Among all that I don't see 4k as a viable option atm. I have one for photo editing and using it for daily tasks is a tedious experience, not to mention even with powerful hardware it still becomes a hit and miss with performance. I'm still in the mindset to avoid 4k for gaming for at least another one or two hardware cycles.
    I can't really comment on daily tasks since 4K downscaling (via DSR) works only in games, not on the desktop. However, "4K" performance with my single 980 GTX is very good. I don't play latest shooters and such, so I cannot really know how it would run, say, Crysis 3 maxed out, however all the games I mostly play (Starcraft 2, Heroes of the Storm, Mass Effect and Dragon Age series, Guild Wars 2 and SWTOR) run at 4K, pretty much, very well, with Starcraft 2 dropping to low framerates only on some extreme maps, and with Guild Wars 2 dropping to 30s when there is a lot of grass and water at the same time; all settings are maxed except for shadows that I don't like, and I also use some SweetFX enhancements.

    But, yeah, it is impossible today to run 4K at 120Hz or so, both because of the technological constraints and the power of computer required to do that. So, the question is whether 120Hz at 1440p is better than 60Hz at 4K. I don't really know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakexe View Post
    I picked up the rog swift a few weeks ago and at first I came home thinking it wasn't worth the $1000 but as I've gamed more and more on it, it's become a wise purchase especially if you're a graphics whore like me. I had ceased just stopping in games to admire the view until I got the swift.
    If I might ask, what FPS do you usually have in games? Some people even said that they turned down graphics settings to get consistent 100+ FPS after they bought the Swift since the picture in motion looked insane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    As for what you want to go for, I don't know, both have their draw backs and stuff. What you want out of it is subjective. G-sync isn't something I bother with because it requires full screen mode.
    That's what I'm trying to figure out - what I want. Ideally, I want a 4K monitor at 120Hz, even if without G-Sync. Unfortunately, I can't find any models like this; there are some TVs, but most of them are "faked 120Hz", and those that are not lack cables able to provide such resolution on PC. I gather native 1440p will still look much better than 4K downscaled to 1080p on my TV, especially since my TV is about 2 times as large.

    I think I better go with the Asus model. Still, every time I turn on my old laptop, even though it has a 17" 1080p display, I really enjoy the smoothness its 120Hz display provides. If I game on it a bit and then go back to my TV, I feel as if the picture was a very fast slide show for a while, before I get used to it. If I purchase the Asus one, I will be happy with it. But if I purchase the Acer one, I might wonder for the next 2-3 years what I'm missing by gaming at 60 FPS. I still can play at almost 4K if I want if I use the DSR downscaling to 1440p, it will look worse than native 4K, but probably not by much. Pixel density is still going to be approximately 6.5 times higher than with my current TV, and, since even now I consider the picture very crisp and clear, I will probably be totally happy with the Asus.

    P.S. Does anyone know of a good way to donate computer parts in the US? I've not been here for that long yet and have no idea how it works here. I'd like to donate my TV somewhere as I replace it with the Acer/Asus/other monitor, but many donating organizations seem a bit... sketchy? Sorry for off-topic.
    Last edited by May90; 2014-11-26 at 03:12 AM.

  11. #11
    Warchief Jakexe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by May90 View Post
    If I might ask, what FPS do you usually have in games? Some people even said that they turned down graphics settings to get consistent 100+ FPS after they bought the Swift since the picture in motion looked insane.
    I tend to run all my games at ultra settings with either no AA or low AA settings. Crysis 3 runs at 80, DA:I at 80, CoD:aw at 120, wow at 200+ (open world), sc2 at 100 etc.

    I'm still getting use to the swift (I found out is has 3D too yesterday) but I can see myself adjusting settings to get 100+ on games. CoD:AW with it's faster pace was a huge jump in quality from 60 to 120, not to mention the removal of stuttering and lower latency. Worth noting that it's my first 100+hz monitor as well so i'm still blown away by that aspect of it.
    i7 4790K @ 4.7GHz 1.35V || Asus Z97 Hero VII || EVGA GTX 980 Sli (x2) 1455Mhz || 16GB Corsair Vengence 2133mhz || 128GB+500GB SSD (PRO/EVO) || 2TB+4TB WD Blacks || Corsair HX-850W || Custom Water Cooling - xspc ex140 w/ noctua NF-A14 - xspc rx360 - xspc photon 270 w/ D5 - primochill acrylic tubing & ghost fittings -
    Corsair 900D || ASUS ROG Swift || Roccat Ryos MK Pro || Cyborg RAT7/Logitech G700s || BitFenix Recon Fan Controller

  12. #12
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:ぺこ
    Posts
    8,153
    Well, you can look at NEC PA322UHD if you feel brave enough.
    It's a 4k IGZO panel with 120Hz capability when running at 1920x1080. It's the 1st IPS-type to have 120Hz native.

  13. #13
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakexe View Post
    I tend to run all my games at ultra settings with either no AA or low AA settings. Crysis 3 runs at 80, DA:I at 80, CoD:aw at 120, wow at 200+ (open world), sc2 at 100 etc.

    I'm still getting use to the swift (I found out is has 3D too yesterday) but I can see myself adjusting settings to get 100+ on games. CoD:AW with it's faster pace was a huge jump in quality from 60 to 120, not to mention the removal of stuttering and lower latency. Worth noting that it's my first 100+hz monitor as well so i'm still blown away by that aspect of it.
    Nice, thanks! I have only one 980 GTX so, I guess, I should approximately deduct 40-50% from your framerates - but then I don't have to set all settings on ultra, I almost always play without shadows and ambient occlusion, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    Well, you can look at NEC PA322UHD if you feel brave enough.
    It's a 4k IGZO panel with 120Hz capability when running at 1920x1080. It's the 1st IPS-type to have 120Hz native.
    I don't have so much money to spend on a monitor. 120Hz at 1920x1080 doesn't seem that impressive though, many much cheaper (although non-IPS) monitors offer this.

  14. #14
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:ぺこ
    Posts
    8,153
    I think NEC decided it as an afterthought feature. Their PA series is really good but as it's name is, Professional Arts, which as you can imagine, is not meant for your average consumer.
    It's just something for shits and giggles that I remembered.

  15. #15
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Well, for real laughs, we can always dig out something like this:
    http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN85S9.../dp/B00CMEN95U
    Comments are also quite a good read:

    I was going to fund my daughters wedding in Hawaii, but I figured this Samsung TV would last much longer.
    Watched Twilight on this.

    Movie still looked terrible.
    People!!! Be advised! With the Amazon.com Rewards Visa card you can save $30 off the listed purchase price - $30!!!
    This tv is fan freaking tastic!!!! We are now living in the box it came in but even that is roomy and quite comfy!!!!
    Take my advice and shop around, people. I bought a twelve-pack of these at Costco and saved a hundred grand.
    Just cashed in the kids' college funds and dropped them off at the Army recruiting station. I got the TV, they got a career. I think it worked out well for everyone.

  16. #16
    It makes those abused animal commercials with the sarah mclachlan music playing so much sadder when the one-eyed pug is 4 feet tall.
    Lol. There's some gems in there.

  17. #17
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar:ぺこ
    Posts
    8,153
    Amazon comments scare me.

  18. #18
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Alright, I think I'm going to go with the Swift. I think 1440p should be more than enough on a 27" monitor, and at this resolution I should be able to get relatively stable 100+FPS in games I typically play which, together with G-Sync, should look absolutely awesome. I will probably buy an extra quality DisplayPort cable as people seem to have issues with the one in the box. Some people experience pixel inversion problem, so I think I should consider the possibility of replacement. Luckily, as an Amazon Prime customer, I should be able to return it and get another one for free, should the need arise.

    Thanks for your opinions guys!

    - - - Updated - - -

    You know, I just might change my mind since I found this:
    http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN50HU...pr_product_top
    Looks like a total steal to me: 50" and 4K for the same $800. This way I don't have to sacrifice the diagonal size, and get 4K which I downscale from currently anyway (luckily GeForce 900s series supports HDMI 2.0, so I can get all 60Hz out of it). I think the Acer is out of question: while it has G-Sync, I think 50" is more of a factor for me. The ROG Swift still looks very competitive due to 144Hz, and I would take it without a second though, had it not had so many reported problems on forums (mainly pixel inversion which looks quite horrendous on videos I've seen, but also some people report the screen getting blurry over time; since it was released not that long ago, it is likely that the number of complaints will only increase with time).

    I think what I'm going to do is to wait for the middle of December too see if either of them drops in price. If none, I'll probably go with the Swift hoping that it won't have these problems people describe, but if it does, I will just return it and get a 4K 50" TV instead.

    Anyway, if anyone here has the Swift, could you please confirm that you don't have any vertical lines / weird colors on it? Judging by the Asus forums, seems like almost everyone has those problems, but then the return rate is only like 1/14 and it is clear that only people who have problems post on forums, others just enjoy their monitors, so it is hard to tell how many people actually experience the issues.

  19. #19
    I really wouldnt bother getting a TV as a screen for a computer....

  20. #20
    The Lightbringer May90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeara View Post
    I really wouldnt bother getting a TV as a screen for a computer....
    Have been using a 50" Sceptre bough for $400 for 3 months or so and couldn't be happier (well, could be, otherwise I wouldn't have created this thread ). I've used both TN and IPS monitors before, but I've never seen any monitor with colors even close to this Sceptre (and this is a very low-budget model).

    I think the only reason to even bother getting a real monitor could be better refresh rates or such features as G-Sync. Everything else TV does just as well or better, especially the diagonal size (trust me, gaming on a 50" provides such immersion as I haven't even felt in iMax theaters). Well, response time and input lag are a bit worse for TV, but frankly I can't tell the difference. Maybe for hardcore FPS gamers there is some, but not for me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •