Would love your expertise/opinions on 1440p gaming monitor or 1080p with this rig

[Wendyclear]

Hi there. I'm upgrading to this soon: iBUYPOWER Gaming PC Desktop 9200 i7-8700K 6-Core 3.7 GHz |Liquid Cooled| GeForce GTX 1070 Graphics | 16GB DDR4| 1TB HDD | 240GB SSD | Windows 10 Home 64-bit | WiFi| VR Ready | Black | Light Up Case

Ok so I need a monitor to go with this bad boy. I'v been reading off and on all day about monitors, but my head is starting to spin. I'm currently rolling with some old Asus 60hz 1080p 2ms monitor I bought back in 2011 I think. I've never experienced gaming past 1080p 60hz. I've read that the jump to 144hz (and 1440p as well) is incredible. My question is, for this particular rig, should I get a monitor at 1080p 144hz g sync, or make the move to 1440p 144hz g sync? And does it have to be g sync because of the geforce? Is 240hz an option with this rig - I don't want to have to turn settings down, though. I'd also like to transition to DisplayPort, and have an hdmi slot as well on the monitor for my PS4.

As for the games I play, I'm about to get back into WoW and would love to max that game out for once in my life. I play all Blizzard games except Hearthstone, really. I play Battlefield 1, and am also going to try Hunt:Showdown (I know it's early access with performance tweaks going on). I have Sniper Elite 4 as well. FPS games are my bread and butter, though. Might also try Pubg.

Ok guys, thanks in advance for your input. I'm pretty in the dark about this stuff, and just browsing forums and monitors isn't helping. Hopefully one of you can lead me to some monitor choices to consider, and reasons to go along.

I was looking at these. Are these good finds or nah?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0733YCKM5...v_ov_lig_dp_it

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01C05C1OK...v_ov_lig_dp_it

[Fascinate]

https://www.amazon.com/Dell-S2417DG-...s=dell+s2417dg

I put in a ridiculous amount of research about a year ago before i made my monitor purchase, it does not get better than this monitor for under 400. Its the pinnacle of overwatch gaming, if your into that title.

[Bigbazz]

I'm in a similar situation. I've been playing on a 24inch 1080p 2ms Samsung since 2010, but quite fancy the idea of moving up to 27-28 inch screen with higher refresh rate and resolution, not sure whether 120hz or 144hz, not sure whether 1440p or 4K, not sure whether HDR.. It's all a bit confusing as to which route to go down to be honest, the last thing I want though is to be in the situation of dialing back the resolution on a higher resolution screen to find usable performance, and to then have it look like whipped vaseline, in turns of a blurry picture lacking clarity.

Seeing 1ms response times is surprising though, things have really come along.

[pansertjald]

If you go 1440p, then 24/25" is to small. 27" is the sweet spot for 1440p

[Fascinate]

If you go 1440p, then 24/25" is to small. 27" is the sweet spot for 1440p

Eh dont know where this nonsense started but 1440p actually looks better at 24", higher DPI=crisper text and images. Your desk size is going to be more of a factor in deciding what size to go with, but many people find 27" too large for a PC monitor.

There are 5.5" phones with 1440p resolution, lets stop with the nonsensical recommendations.

[Artorius]

120Hz is better than 144Hz for media consumption if you watch 30fps content often. (144 isn't divisible by 30, which means it'll produce pull-down and create judder as a side-effect. 120Hz works well for 24fps and 30fps content without any judder created by heterogeneous frame repetition).

Also, higher DPI without DPI scaling obviously does make everything smaller than intended. QHD at 24" is probably still manageable but the resolution is closer to "correct" ("correct" being 96 PPI) at 27" (that's be 108.79 PPI, which is still denser than the reference, which means things would be slightly smaller than intended) if you're not using DPI scaling. I would definitely not recommend DPI scaling on Windows unless you can do it at 200% though, floating point values (125%, 150% and 175%) don't work as well and your mileage may vary.

This doesn't really matter when you can scale things correctly regardless of pixel density though, like in modern programs or basically in any game ever. Phones can go crazy with resolution despite the small display size without weird inconsistencies because everything is fairly recent and coded in a way that takes pixel density into account before drawing anything into the screen. Windows is old, and there are parts of it that come from a time which high-density displays didn't exist. A time which people would do pixel-perfect software since everything was 96 DPI anyway.

It has gotten way better in the last 5 years or so, and by now I think most things work fine. But don't be surprised to see some inconsistent scaling every now and then.

[callipygoustp]

I bought an Acer Predator about a year ago, Acer Predator XB241YU bmiprz 23.8-inch WQHD (2560x1440) NVIDIA G-SYNC Monitor (Display Port & HDMI Port, 144Hz), and while I've been happy in general with it, I do wish I had gone with a Dell monitor for one reason: the Dell warranty is much better than the ACER. The first monitor I received from Amazon had a capacitor issue about 60 days after purchase. Acer required me to send it in and wait on a fix. Luckily, Amazon was much more accommodating and replaced it for free even though I was well past the standard 30 day return/replace window. Long story short, the monitor Fascinate linked above looks to be exactly the same thing as the monitor I have, slightly cheaper, but with a much better warranty period and policy.

With regards to 24" vs 27", I did test out the different sizes, and for me, as someone else mentioned, the 24" was noticeably crisper. I didn't expect a difference of ~0.02mm in the pixel pitch to be noticeable, but, for text it was. I do A LOT of coding at home for work and that slight fuzziness would drive me crazy over time. Maybe I didn't have the 27" inch configured properly. *shrug*

[Fascinate]

I use 125% on mine everything works perfectly. For a while the twitch desktop app did not scale right, but the latest update fixed it. That and some monitoring software tools were the only problems ive ever seen at 125%.

Also if you watch movies on your PC, a 120/144hz panel is not what you are looking for.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh just to add for the OP, i have only a 1060 and i can adjust settings to get nearly 165 fps in most titles. Destiny 2 is the only one i couldnt get at or above 100 fps at all times so a 1070 is perfectly adequate for 1440p/165hz.

I had a 1080ti strix but sold it for 1100 bucks, thanks miners!

[pansertjald]

Eh dont know where this nonsense started but 1440p actually looks better at 24", higher DPI=crisper text and images. Your desk size is going to be more of a factor in deciding what size to go with, but many people find 27" too large for a PC monitor.

There are 5.5" phones with 1440p resolution, lets stop with the nonsensical recommendations.

Maybe for you, but not for me. I would NEVER EVER switch my Acer Predator xb271hu for a 24" model.

[Fascinate]

Maybe for you, but not for me. I would NEVER EVER switch my Acer Predator xb271hu for a 24" model.

Thats wonderful and im happy for you, but dont go around telling people 24" 1440p is too small lol. I also tried both sizes like callipy and text was that much crisper on the 24" model.

[Artorius]

Also if you watch movies on your PC, a 120/144hz panel is not what you are looking for.

60Hz will produce judder in 24 fps content, and judder means mismatched motion from uneven content frame persistence.

When you need to somehow display more or less 24 frames per second (23.976 actually) on a 60Hz display, you need to repeat frames since 24 obviously isn't the same as 60. But you can't just repeat all the frames consistently for the same number of refreshes (5 frames for 120Hz panels (5*24=120), 6 frames for 144Hz panels (6*24=144)) since 60 isn't divisible by 24 (60/24=2.5, and you can't repeat a frame for half a refresh).

In this scenario, what players do is send half the frames 2 times, and the other half 3 times. If odd frames are repeated for 2 refreshes and even frames for 3 refreshes, you end up with (2+3)/2 = 2.5, which is exactly 60/24.

However, if you're repeating half your frames 3 times instead of 2 times, you're displaying them for 50% longer than the other half, and creating motion unevenness that wasn't intended.

This phenomenon can be represented visually:









Or, for even better understanding, a video:



There is a reason TVs nowadays are pretty much all 120Hz, and that's because it's the refresh rate that works the best across a wide range of content. Repeating each frame 5 times in a row doesn't create any motion problems, unlike repeating half of them for 50% longer.

[pansertjald]

Thats wonderful and im happy for you, but dont go around telling people 24" 1440p is too small lol. I also tried both sizes like callipy and text was that much crisper on the 24" model.

It is to small

[Fascinate]

60Hz will produce judder in 24 fps content, and judder means mismatched motion from uneven content frame persistence.

When you need to somehow display more or less 24 frames per second (23.976 actually) on a 60Hz display, you need to repeat frames since 24 obviously isn't the same as 60. But you can't just repeat all the frames consistently for the same number of refreshes (5 frames for 120Hz panels (5*24=120), 6 frames for 144Hz panels (6*24=144)) since 60 isn't divisible by 24 (60/24=2.5, and you can't repeat a frame for half a refresh).

In this scenario, what players do is send half the frames 2 times, and the other half 3 times. If odd frames are repeated for 2 refreshes and even frames for 3 refreshes, you end up with (2+3)/2 = 2.5, which is exactly 60/24.

However, if you're repeating half your frames 3 times instead of 2 times, you're displaying them for 50% longer than the other half, and creating motion unevenness that wasn't intended.

This phenomenon can be represented visually:









Or, for even better understanding, a video:



There is a reason TVs nowadays are pretty much all 120Hz, and that's because it's the refresh rate that works the best across a wide range of content. Repeating each frame 5 times in a row doesn't create any motion problems, unlike repeating half of them for 50% longer.

Im not even talking about judder here, im talking about 120/144hz monitors being terrible movie consumption devices because their main purpose in life is gaming. Even VA 144hz monitors (which are inferior gaming monitors to a good TN) have bad contrast ratios, not only that they usually have TERRIBLE uniformity issues with backlight bleed. TV's get away with bad VA panels because of local dimming, something that has not hit the monitor market......yet.

- - - Updated - - -

It is to small

Its noticeably sharper, 123ppi vs 108. If you are saying a 24" monitor is too small in general thats personal preference, many FPS players find 24" to be perfect tho.

[ossyc]

Imo the best 1080P G-Sync you can get is this :


Acer Predator 24" XB252Q 240Hz 1ms Full HD G-Sync Gaming Monitor- You have best of both worlds, hit 100+ and also 144+ future proof

[Artorius]

Last gen VA panels from Samsung reach 5000:1 contrast ratios without local dimming, and they don't even sell TVs with real local dimming anymore simply because it's not needed (and also because it created halo problems). They still have edge-lit local dimming in recent models, which help with letterboxes, but apart from that it's a pretty "just there because why not" feature now.

FALD would perhaps still be good in some content, but it also makes the sets bulkier, and bulky TVs don't sell unless they're extremely amazing. For reference, see Plasmas.

[Fascinate]

240hz isnt the jump like 60hz>120 is.

The dell gsync panels are 165hz 1440p, all 240hz monitors are 1080p. I personally wouldnt trade resolution for the 165hz>240hz, although some pro overwatch players probably would. 1080p just looks too jaggy once you are used to 1440.

- - - Updated - - -

Last gen VA panels from Samsung reach 5000:1 contrast ratios without local dimming, and they don't even sell TVs with real local dimming anymore simply because it's not needed (and also because it created halo problems). They still have edge-lit local dimming in recent models, which help with letterboxes, but apart from that it's a pretty "just there because why not" feature now.

FALD would perhaps still be good in some content, but it also makes the sets bulkier, and bulky TVs don't sell unless they're extremely amazing. For reference, see Plasmas.

Eh almost every (good) led tv set on the market has fald, you seem to be a bit behind on your TV stuff artorius Again FALD isnt just for contrast, its benefits are just as much for panel uniformity. This is the reason you do not want a 120/144hz monitor as a movie watching device, they just aren't manufactured with that as a priority.

[Evildeffy]

I've seen considerably less backlight uniformity issues from VA panel monitors than IPS panel monitors.

Unless you're referring to specifically curved panels in which case it's not the VA panels fault but the actual fault of the curved build itself.

VA panels aren't bad at all, exaggerating a little bit there of them being worse than TN (something I wholly disagree with).

[Fascinate]

TN is a superior gaming panel than VA, that isnt up for debate its pixel response times cannot be matched by VA. Every single overwatch pro uses a TN panel, there is a reason for this.

[ossyc]

[QUOTE=Fascinate;49045479]240hz isnt the jump like 60hz>120 is.

The dell gsync panels are 165hz 1440p, all 240hz monitors are 1080p. I personally wouldnt trade resolution for the 165hz>240hz, although some pro overwatch players probably would. 1080p just looks too jaggy once you are used to 1440.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I personally use an Acer Pred x34 3440x1440 Gsync 100HZ for single player and the 240Hz Pred for multi - but this is very expensive

1080P on a 24 isn't jaggy. It's only jaggy if you go to a bigger screen i.e pixels spread across a larger screen area

[Fascinate]

[QUOTE=ossyc;49045503]

240hz isnt the jump like 60hz>120 is.

The dell gsync panels are 165hz 1440p, all 240hz monitors are 1080p. I personally wouldnt trade resolution for the 165hz>240hz, although some pro overwatch players probably would. 1080p just looks too jaggy once you are used to 1440.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I personally use an Acer Pred x34 3440x1440 Gsync 100HZ for single player and the 240Hz Pred for multi - but this is very expensive

1080P on a 24 isn't jaggy. It's only jaggy if you go to a bigger screen i.e pixels spread across a larger screen area

It is absolutely jaggy once you see a 24" at 1440....in fact i had a 21.5" 1080p screen before this and even that looked jaggy in comparison.