1440 144hz or 4k 60hz?

[Divide Overflow]

Time to consider options for a monitor upgrade, so I'm looking to my TPU brethren for advice.

The biggest trade-off I seem to face is 1440 @ 144hz or 4k @ 60hz.
What are your thoughts and suggestions for a 27" upgrade for mainstream gaming and general use? Is the faster refresh rate generally more desirable than the increased resolution? I'll likely be upgrading to a new release performance tier GPU in fall, so the pixel pushing should be covered.

 

[qubit]

For gaming go for a 144Hz panel every time, regardless of its resolution. You'll really notice the difference.

 

[Beastie]

1440 ifor the win, 4k is limited to 60 hz atm and even if it wasn't there is no single gpu that could drive it atm.

Faster GPUs, high refresh 4k monitors and DP 1.3 are imminent but for now 1440 is best.

 

[GhostRyder]

Time to consider options for a monitor upgrade, so I'm looking to my TPU brethren for advice.

The biggest trade-off I seem to face is 1440 @ 144hz or 4k @ 60hz.
What are your thoughts and suggestions for a 27" upgrade for mainstream gaming and general use? Is the faster refresh rate generally more desirable than the increased resolution? I'll likely be upgrading to a new release performance tier GPU in fall, so the pixel pushing should be covered.

Using both, for gaming I really prefer the 1440p 144hz monitor. 2160p is nice but just had to many issues and was just not as beneficial visual wise over the 1440p monitor where as the 144hz makes a nice difference especially in BF4 for me.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Personally I'd do 1440p 144hz. You get the speed which really is an eyeopening improvement and with 1440p you shouldn't need to mess with scaling.

 

[manofthem]

I'd have to agree with 1440 144hz! Seems lately that the general consensus on 4k gaming is that it's not really worth it without ridiculous funds. Of course, pushing 1440 res at 144hz will take powa too

I just bumped up my 2560.1440 display to 96 hz, and it's fabulous; I bet 100+ is even sweeter. The fluidity over 60fps really is great. As soon as I loaded up a game, I noticed the difference and I loved it.

 

[JrockTech]

I would say go for 144hz. The higher refresh rates are much easier on your eyes.

 

[Jetster]

best result for the $ is 1440. unless you have the cash for both 1440 and 144

But really its about what you want. More desktop or speed

 

[Niteblooded]

Another one for 1440p 144Hz ...and if you can swing it, FreeSync since you are rocking an AMD video card. Though if you think you might switch to an Nvidia card in the future than skip the FreeSync part.

I wouldn't consider 4k/2160p until they come out with a 144Hz panel and that won't happen until DisplayPort 1.3 releases which Polaris and Pascal should have.

 

[qubit]

I wouldn't consider 4k/2160p until they come out with a 144Hz panel and that won't happen until DisplayPort 1.3 releases which Polaris and Pascal should have.

Ditto. I'm waiting until a monitor is available with the capabilities of my BenQ XL2720Z, but all at 4K and I have a PC that can drive it at high frame rates. Main features are 144Hz refresh rate and BenQ motion blur reduction, both killer features. Adaptive sync is optional for me. It's got a few other niceties about it too, which I wouldn't want to lose when I replace it.

 

[medi01]

Uh, I'd bother about TN vs IPS more, as display quality is more than just refresh rate.
And, oh, monitors with wider gamut range are just around the corner, e.g. 99% of Adobe RGB (not to be mistaken with sRGB):

E.g. Philips "quantum dot" (dafuq that means):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10162...f-its-lcd-display-with-quantum-dot-technology

To compare, Adobe RGB covered by current gen monitors (red bar):

 

[Niteblooded]

I am definitely looking forward to quantum dot but they haven't even figured out OLED's issues yet (burn-in, blue pixel durability) so I'm going to give quantum dot some time (most likely 2+ years) to mature before I even consider it.

I too am a fan of IPS panels.

 

[droopyRO]

I just bumped up my 2560.1440 display to 96 hz, and it's fabulous;

Dose it drop frames ? http://www.testufo.com/#test=frameskipping

And, oh, monitors with wider gamut range are just around the corner, e.g. 99% of Adobe RGB (not to be mistaken with sRGB):

Games AFAIK use only sRGB.

 

[trog100]

quite why folks want 4k and 144 hrz i cant figure.. maybe an excuse not to buy into 4K yet perhaps..

nothing is going to get 4K up much past 60 fps so its all academic at the moment..

it will also takes some gpu grunt to get 1440 up into the 144 hrz range as well..

trog

 

[Delish]

Uh, I'd bother about TN vs IPS more, as display quality is more than just refresh rate.
And, oh, monitors with wider gamut range are just around the corner, e.g. 99% of Adobe RGB (not to be mistaken with sRGB):

E.g. Philips "quantum dot" (dafuq that means):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10162...f-its-lcd-display-with-quantum-dot-technology

To compare, Adobe RGB covered by current gen monitors (red bar):

Games never seems to support wide gamut, so you get crazy colorfull games playing with adobe or wider gamut.
I used to run two monitors with adobeRBG for Lightroom & PS, now I swapped one out for a 144Hz gaming screen.
Same story with 10-color, nvidia require a workstation card to support 10-bit in 3d capable apis.

 

[Vayra86]

1440 @120-144hz on an 8 bit native or 8 bit+FRC panel. Avoid 6bit+frc.

No brainer

4K is pointless

Also have a look at VA panels. They do well these days (that is: fast pixel response, sometimes better than quality IPS) and have deeper blacks + No IPS glow. Great for gaming. Bad for professional work/accuracy tho.

And yes don't get worked up about color space, you need sRGB coverage and the rest is irrelevant, again, unless you set up a full professional workflow. You should take a look at big Delta E errors though, because color accuracy does matter to some degree. Some basic calibration should be able remove most of them. Also, a new REC specification is around the corner and will eventually make its way into monitors too, give it 2-4 years and we will also have content for that - at that point sRGB coverage won't cut it anymore but until then, its the 'best' you can get gaming wise.

www.tftcentral.co.uk
^best reviews.

 

[manofthem]

Dose it drop frames ? http://www.testufo.com/#test=frameskipping

It does not

Spoiler

 

[droopyRO]

Cool, my U2713HM skips frames from 65Hz or above.

www.tftcentral.co.uk
^best reviews.

prad.de dose good reviews but in German.

 

[erocker]

Seems as if you'll probably need some beefy future GPU's to achieve the FPS to match the Hz in either situation. Personally I'd take the lower resolution and higher Hz for gaming.

 

[trog100]

Seems as if you'll probably need some beefy future GPU's to achieve the FPS to match the Hz in either situation. Personally I'd take the lower resolution and higher Hz for gaming.

yep.. so would i..

trog

 

[a111087]

For gaming go for a 144Hz panel every time, regardless of its resolution. You'll really notice the difference.

what he said. i got 144hz screen and absolutely love it.

 

[Kanan]

For gaming go for a 144Hz panel every time, regardless of its resolution. You'll really notice the difference.

This. 100 Hz or more, always. Gamers used to play with CRT pannels a while ago, they always had 100 Hz or more, and then they replaced it with the first 60 Hz TFT shits - most serious shooter players pretty quickly returned to their old CRT then, because they didn't want to suck just to have a thinner monitor.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Time to consider options for a monitor upgrade, so I'm looking to my TPU brethren for advice.

The biggest trade-off I seem to face is 1440 @ 144hz or 4k @ 60hz.
What are your thoughts and suggestions for a 27" upgrade for mainstream gaming and general use? Is the faster refresh rate generally more desirable than the increased resolution? I'll likely be upgrading to a new release performance tier GPU in fall, so the pixel pushing should be covered.

I went with a 4k with freesync and I'm very happy I did.

 

[Divide Overflow]

Thanks all. The faster refresh seemed to be the better option to me, but your similar recommendations confirms it.

Seems as if you'll probably need some beefy future GPU's to achieve the FPS to match the Hz in either situation. Personally I'd take the lower resolution and higher Hz for gaming.

I'll be picking up a beefy GPU in the future. Gotta get my rig primed and ready for Star Citizen!

 

[Vayra86]

Thanks all. The faster refresh seemed to be the better option to me, but your similar recommendations confirms it.
I'll be picking up a beefy GPU in the future. Gotta get my rig primed and ready for Star Citizen!

No rig will be ready for Star Citizen...