New monitor buying time, drop some steamy wet knowledge all up on my chest.

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

I moved from a 970 to a 980ti once I bumped to 1440p. The 970 was struggling to run the Witcher 3 at high at 30fps but the 980ti cruises on everything at 60fps.

One thing... there is an upgrade in visuals with a 1440p monitor at 27 inches but I don't think it's worth it. In hindsight I wish I'd stayed at 1080p and gone for a 144hz monitor instead.

Go for 1440p if its 32 inch+ IMO. Otherwise stay at 1080 and get a high refresh rate.

[LEKIS]

Get the $380 BenQ and buy a better graphics card than a 960. That's just my personal preference, personally while I think those higher res monitors are great, I don't think it's necessary to achieve fantastic visuals. Maybe my eyes suck, but games look good enough to me on 1080p maxed out, plus I feel if you get a 960 it wont be long before you're struggling to run games at 2560x1440 on max settings. Where as on the other hand, a better graphics card, like at least a 970 4gb, will have you running games on good settings at 1080p for a lot longer.

Of course this is all my own opinion, I am sure others will differ.

^I would follow this ^


The 970 is OK (Had one myself), try to go for the 980ti and you will shit your pants.

980ti and sufficient CPU = 140 FPS on BF4 on ultra settings in 1080p for exampel

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

^I would follow this ^


The 970 is OK (Had one myself), try to go for the 980ti and you will shit your pants.

980ti and sufficient CPU = 140 FPS on BF4 on ultra settings in 1080p for exampel

More than that.

[LEKIS]

More than that.

Well with AA activated.

[Leshma]

What's use of 144Hz monitor if you can't keep stable 144 fps most of the time in new games? Also you need Gsync monitor if you use nVidia GPU.

I personally don't give a fuck about input lag, refresh rate and such "gaming" features. My dream monitor is some ultrawide beast, as big as it gets.

[Sir_Hans]

From what I've heard from other people say: Even if you aren't getting 144+ frames per second, 144hz or 120hz is still a very large improvement over a 60hz if you are running somewhere between 60fps-100fps.
Also input lag will actually go down if you run more than 60fps on a 120hz or 144hz as compared to a 60hz monitor.

Haven't tested it myself but this is what majority of reviewers have said.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

I'm not sure if this is qualified on a technical basis, but after experiencing what HUGE difference moving from a vga to dvi cable made I bet you will notice 144Hz even without playing a game, right?

[Xant]

I'm not sure if this is qualified on a technical basis, but after experiencing what HUGE difference moving from a vga to dvi cable made I bet you will notice 144Hz even without playing a game, right?

Yes. Even just moving stuff around on the desktop, there is a massive difference in smoothness.

[Angantyr]

You know that monitor was actually in my top 5 choices before I narrowed it down some... It is very affordable, but what really caught my eye was that it ranks #2 on displaylag.com's input lag ranking chart!
http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/  (though their ranking is kind of biased because they test games w/ a 1080/60hz output, so on a 144hz monitor it will actually have more input lag running at 60hz than it would running at 120 or 144hz) Still it's gotta have really good input lag for what it is to rank high on the chart... 1080/60hz/ips

And I agree it does have a very nice aesthetic design.
How is it with like ghosting/blurring during fast FPS'ers like a battlefield or call of duty type game?
I think I narrowed it out of my choices because the 60hz and especially the 5ms response time seemed like it would be a downgrade from my current monitor even if the input lag was much less.

The closest I come to that type of game is Arma and that isn't very close. But I think it has a great picture and very good colors. I mainly bought the monitor because of its design, I'm an aesthetic, and the fact that it had in-built audio from Bang&Olufsen, so I could free up my desk from my speakers (my pc is in the middle of my apartment and I want it to look neat and tidy). It also had good stats and had gotten some good reviews, and it has great anti-reflection (usually pretty sunny in my living room during Summer).

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

Based on that website my TV has 17ms response time. That's... really good.

[Rhekimos]

From what I've heard from other people say: Even if you aren't getting 144+ frames per second, 144hz or 120hz is still a very large improvement over a 60hz if you are running somewhere between 60fps-100fps.
Also input lag will actually go down if you run more than 60fps on a 120hz or 144hz as compared to a 60hz monitor.

Haven't tested it myself but this is what majority of reviewers have said.

This is true. Whatever the computer sends to the monitor will appear faster on higher frequency monitor.

A 60 fps monitor would update itself every 1s/60fps=0.01666... seconds.
And a 120 fps monitor would update itself every 1s/120fps=0.00833... seconds.
Similarly for a 144 fps monitor: 1s/144fps=0.006944... seconds.

The jump from 60hz to 120hz is large in latency as well, in fact exactly double.


More on important monitor properties:

Fluidity of motion: Try turning in any first person shooter. The difference between 60hz and 144hz is easily perceptible. So getting a 144hz vs 60hz monitor will definitely improve this. Having a more fluid image definitely helps with aiming.

Clarity of motion: This has two components, depending on what content you are watching. In games without motion blur, a higher frame rate and an impulse driven display (impulse vs sample and hold) mean that while you are turning/moving, each succinct frame will be perfectly sharp. A 144hz LCD monitor is an improvement upon 60hz, however even a 60hz monitor that is impulse driven will have sharper images than the 144hz, since there are no sample and hold artifacts.

Input delay: This is the most underrated and un-specified feature of monitors. Response time is how long it takes for a pixel to turn from say white to black to white again. However, the time from when you click a button to when the result is displayed on your screen is called Input delay. Most monitors do not state their input delay. Even a monitor with 120hz + Impulse driven is UNPLAYABLE with 200-300ms of input delay. CRTs have no input delay (or at least negligible for the sake of this argument), whereas LCDs/LEDs take a digital signal and have to process the signal - adding about 20-100ms of delay on consumer grade monitors.

Also more good info: https://pcmonitors.info/articles/factors-affecting-pc-monitor-responsiveness/

[Sir_Hans]

I think I am leaning towards one of the two BenQ's...
There seems to be a lot more complaints from people w/ the ROG Swift's quality control... bleeding, dead pixels, excessive motion blur on the monitors seem to cause people to have to RMA it more often.

And the differences between G-sync and Freesync seem to be pretty minimal... I do like the sound of motion blur reduction option in the ROG Swift, but I found out you cant have the motion blur reduction boosty thing enabled while G-sync is enabled, it's one or the other.

Also the BenQ's low blue light for less eye strain sounds like something I could love <3

I'm going to wait til black friday sales... see If I can find them ultra cheap on newegg, amazon or something.

Still not sure whether to get the 2560x1440 or 1920x1080 BenQ... I want the increase resolution but I'm afraid I'm going to get bad frame rates in games even when graphics are set to medium or low. Some games already dip below 60fps on ultra settings on my current monitor that is 1080... but on the other hand If i go with the 1080 BenQ it's like the only thing I'm getting is better response time, refresh rate, input lag for about $370... Must ponder harder before black friday...

[The_Bloody_Nine]

CRTs have no input delay (or at least negligible for the sake of this argument), whereas LCDs/LEDs take a digital signal and have to process the signal - adding about 20-100ms of delay on consumer grade monitors.

Yay, let's all go back to Röhre!

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

Stick with 1080 for now unless its 32"+ the difference isn't significant enough. Gsync has a big price bump too so keep that in mind.

[Rhekimos]

Yay, let's all go back to Röhre!

Heh, neither they or I are advocating going back to CRTs but it's a fact that some of the features of tube tech are hard to match with liquid crystals. LCDs need techniques like response time compensation which can cause graphical errors like ghosting to get near to how fast tubes were naturally.

Some ghosting:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login