How would you rather game?

[Flogger23m]

1440 is what I use and a good middle ground. I like 60 FPS which isn't too hard to get for most SP titles. For MP shooters I like 120 or so.

 

[eidairaman1]

The higher the refresh the better, also at 1080, 1200,1440 or 2K you can crank the details up without it being detrimental on performance.

Also 75hz is far better than 60Hz.

60Hz gives me headaches.

 

[Durvelle27]

4K@120Hz buttery smooth

 

[droopyRO]

2560x1440 at 144Hz. I target a 60 fps framerate in AAA games, thanks to the high refresh rate, tearing is practically zero. I would not go back to a 60/75Hz monitor for gaming, regardless of the framerate i can achieve.

 

[StrayKAT]

4K@120Hz buttery smooth

Dude, tell me your secret.

 

[las]

Very few "HDR" TVs on the market today can pass DisplayHDR testing.

Every single TV with Ultra HD Premium certification - which is the only HDR TV's you should buy - will get VESA's DisplayHDR 1000. Compare the requirements and you'll see.

"Ultra HD Premium" is about peaknits, black level, resolution, 10 bit color depth, color space etc. No TV that can't fulfil those minimum requirements won't get the certification and this certification is like a DisplayHDR 1000 stamp. It was made because there were tons of TV claiming HDR, even tho they were using 8 bit panels and/or didn't have the nits to show HDR properly. PC needed DisplayHDR because HDR was (and still is) a mess on PC monitors.

Ultra HD Premium has nothing to do with HDR standards like HDR10, HDR10+ or Dolby Vision. It's all about panel and hardware.

It is supposed to create clarity for customers, just like DisplayHDR. TV market does not need a guideline like DisplayHDR, because it's already present and have been for a long time now. If it has the logo, HDR experience will be good. DisplayHDR 400 is practially useless, 600 is "bad HDR", 1000 is needed for a decent HDR experience.

That OLED you linked will easily deliver better HDR than any DisplayHDR 1000 monitor - Because it's OLED. Nits requirement is for LCD tech. Please don't compare LCD with OLED. OLED has crazy blacks and contrast, they don't need those peaknits. Because of self emitting pixels.

Ultra HD Premium nits requirement is only 540 nits on OLED. Because black levels are simply night and day difference compared to backlit LCD (also much better than FALD LCD).

VESA's DisplayHDR is for PC ONLY and LCD TECH ONLY.
From their own homepage: "Creating a specification for the PC industry that will be shared publicly and transparently"

VESA simply took Ultra HD Premium requirements for LCD and called it DisplayHDR 1000, then created 400 and 600 for a crappy HDR experience. Probably because monitor manufacturers could call their monitors "HDR". Take a look at member participants on DisplayHDR.org. Hardware and PC monitor manufaturers.

Also 75hz is far better than 60Hz.

Not really... Basicly both are bad. Needs at least 100+ Hz to be much better than 60. I prefer 120 Hz minimum tho.

60 Hz does not give you headache, it was probably the monitor itself; Not flicker free. This can give some people headache.

 

[WhiteNoise]

4k 60Hz every time for me.

 

[MrGenius]

I'm still in the "30fps everywhere bro!" camp. I honestly can't tell the difference with higher framerates. I can tell the difference between 60Hz and 75Hz. But only on my CRT. 60Hz looks like shit compared to 75Hz on that. The flicker is real. 60Hz on my LED TV looks great though(1000% flicker-free). Can't imagine how it could look "better".

But...it could be that my whole world is about to change in these regards. I'm currently in the market for a 144Hz 1440p gaming monitor to go with my RX Vega 64. Because it sounds like "the right thing to do". Hopefully I feel like I've got my money's worth when all that's said and done. I'm sure it'll be nice. But will it be $450+ nice? We'll see...I guess.

 

[StrayKAT]

I'm still in the "30fps everywhere bro!" camp. I honestly can't tell the difference with higher framerates. I can tell the difference between 60Hz and 75Hz. But only on my CRT. 60Hz looks like shit compared to 75Hz on that. The flicker is real. 60Hz on my LED TV looks great though(1000% flicker-free). Can't imagine how it could look "better".

But...it could be that my whole world is about to change in these regards. I'm currently in the market for a 144Hz 1440p gaming monitor to go with my RX Vega 64. Because it sounds like "the right thing to do". Hopefully I feel like I've got my money's worth when all that's said and done. I'm sure it'll be nice. But will it be $450+ nice? We'll see...I guess.

TV is one thing.. Especially if 8 or more feet away. Which is why I can be happy with 60hz too.

 

[theFOoL]

If it were like VR in the Movie Ready Player ONE then I'd game like that but till then a Mouse+Keyboard

 

[Apocalypsee]

I dont have high expectations, as long as it could maintain 60fps at LCD native resolution I'm totally fine with that. My current 980Ti on my 75Hz monitor going to last me at least a couple more years. I love to use IPS display now that I've used to it.

I used Freesync before and I kinda missed it, but you cant deny GPU grunt in gaming. Smoothness is really depends on game (engines). Locked 60fps games like Fallout4 and tear-prone games like Wolfenstein The New Order really benefits from Freesync. Fastsync can offset it but nothing beats hardware implementation.

 

[FireFox]

2560 x 1440 -144Hz.

 

[Vayra86]

1080p for many years now and Im not really bothered with the 'low' resolution. Saw a much greater benefit in pushing high refresh. Sat in front of 1440p, didn't do it for me to give that up. Sat in front of 4K, and I ran away fast. Too much hassle for minor advantage at a tremendous cost.

Add a beefy GPU and you can go all out and still enjoy perfect smoothness and low input lag.

Resolution is overrated for moving images, FPS and fast input is everything, followed by eye candy of the actual content, not some silly spec sheet.

 

[las]

1080p for many years now and Im not really bothered with the 'low' resolution. Saw a much greater benefit in pushing high refresh. Sat in front of 1440p, didn't do it for me to give that up. Sat in front of 4K, and I ran away fast. Too much hassle for minor advantage at a tremendous cost.

Add a beefy GPU and you can go all out and still enjoy perfect smoothness and low input lag.

Resolution is overrated for moving images, FPS and fast input is everything, followed by eye candy of the actual content, not some silly spec sheet.

And that's why I'm on 1440p/IPS/165Hz/Gsync/ULMB, I can push high fps just fine and it looks much better than 1080p, barely any need for AA. On 1080p AA is a must or you'll get aliasing everywhere.

You're talking about fast input etc, yet uses a VA 120 Hz monitor with upto 45ms b2w/w2b transitions? Does not make much sense to me. I had that monitor for a few weeks some years ago and it was a blur-fest in fast paced shooters, even when using BFI or "240 Hz mode" as they like to call it. TFTCentral mentions this in their review.

 

[Komshija]

I'm not some avid gamer and I use my PC for various other tasks. I'm perfectly OK with gaming on 1080p @ 60 Hz, but much more important thing is LCD panel quality, clarity and as low as possible eye strain. That's why I avoid TN, VA, AMVA LCD panels like a plague. Overwhelming majority of gaming monitors have exactly these types of LCD panels. My opinion is that they belong to the history and should stay there.

Anyways, the higher refresh rate, the better, but not at the expense of the panel quality and clarity. I would much rather have 1080p 60 Hz IPS monitor than 1080p 144 Hz TN monitor.

 

[Vayra86]

And that's why I'm on 1440p/IPS/165Hz/Gsync/ULMB, I can push high fps just fine and it looks much better than 1080p, barely any need for AA. On 1080p AA is a must or you'll get aliasing everywhere.

You're talking about fast input etc, yet uses a VA 120 Hz monitor with upto 45ms b2w/w2b transitions? Does not make much sense to me. I had that monitor for a few weeks some years ago and it was a blur-fest in fast paced shooters, even when using BFI or "240 Hz mode" as they like to call it. TFTCentral mentions this in their review.

That's probably because you get off on specs a lot more than I do

its a really great monitor that I would never trade for any other VA that's available today. Along with the 45ms worst case G2G (which happens only in darker tones and I have calibrated around) it is very fast overall. For that drawback you get an independant strobe that is much better than ULMB and some of the best contrast ratios you can find on VA.

 

[las]

That's probably because you get off on specs a lot more than I do

its a really great monitor that I would never trade for any other VA that's available today. Along with the 45ms worst case G2G (which happens only in darker tones and I have calibrated around) it is very fast overall. For that drawback you get an independant strobe that is much better than ULMB and some of the best contrast ratios you can find on VA.

Nah I get off from performance, usually specs matter here. Still I want to maintain decent IQ and 1440p allows for both.

It's not better than ULMB, haha. Who told you? It's BFI, the end. Actully brightness loweres ALOT on that Eizo you have, when BFI is enabled and 1080p on 23.5" no thanks dude.
Good blacks and contrast is the only positive thing i can say about that monitor, nothing a high fps / low input lag gamer usually goes for. Everything else was meh. Viewing angles were complete crap, worst I've seen on a PC monitor I think, worse than TN. Color shifting was insane, even when moving the head IN FRONT of the monitor. It was way too small in terms of panel size and resolution. 120 Hz is on the low side these days, I wouldn't accept less than 144 Hz tbh.
It's not very fast no. It's a VA panel.

I'm not some avid gamer and I use my PC for various other tasks. I'm perfectly OK with gaming on 1080p @ 60 Hz, but much more important thing is LCD panel quality, clarity and as low as possible eye strain. That's why I avoid TN, VA, AMVA LCD panels like a plague. Overwhelming majority of gaming monitors have exactly these types of LCD panels. My opinion is that they belong to the history and should stay there.

Anyways, the higher refresh rate, the better, but not at the expense of the panel quality and clarity. I would much rather have 1080p 60 Hz IPS monitor than 1080p 144 Hz TN monitor.

Most decent 1440p gaming monitors use AHVA panels, which is IPS tech. My PG279Q looks pretty much identical to my U2715 at work, in terms of IQ, which uses a LG AH-IPS panel. I'd never settle with 1080p 60 Hz regardless of panel. Not even if it was OLED or Micro LED haha. That stuff belongs on 12-15 inch laptops.

1080p means endless scrolling when working or surfing, etc. Way too few vertical pixels. 1200p is bare minimum for a desktop monitor.

 

[phill]

My goal is triple 4k @ 120Hz screen setup..

At the moment I'm running triple 1080P @ 60Hz but with everything hitting 100fps or better because of the games I play.. (Dirt 3 at the moment and a lot of it!) I do hope and wish for faster GPU (GTX 1070 SC from EVGA) and a single one at that.. The last few years have been hard on PC upgrades due to custody battles and such like, so something had to give and it was not going to be my daughter...

But moving on.. So hoping for a dual GPU setup that will eventually get near to or surpass the performance I'd like and more so now, just waiting on 4k 120Hz monitors seem to be completely zero or I did see a post about one costing £3000... Slightly not so ideal consider the Dell 3008's I bought at the time cost me £1200 each... But what a desktop... 8064 x 1600 (well, 7680 x 1600 I believe)..

I'm very much looking forward in time

 

[Vayra86]

Nah I get off from performance, usually specs matter here. Still I want to maintain decent IQ and 1440p allows for both.

It's not better than ULMB, haha. Who told you? It's BFI, the end. Actully brightness loweres ALOT on that Eizo you have, when BFI is enabled and 1080p on 23.5" no thanks dude.
Good blacks and contrast is the only positive thing i can say about that monitor, nothing a high fps / low input lag gamer usually goes for. Everything else was meh. Viewing angles were complete crap, worst I've seen on a PC monitor I think, worse than TN. Color shifting was insane, even when moving the head IN FRONT of the monitor. It was way too small in terms of panel size and resolution. 120 Hz is on the low side these days, I wouldn't accept less than 144 Hz tbh.
It's not very fast no. It's a VA panel.

ULMB and Turbo 240 are technically different. Go look up the whitepapers. In short: Turbo 240 inserts black frames twice per frame. ULMB does not.

I don't recognize half of what you're saying there. I do know there are bad batches of the FG2421, but color shift? Barely noticeable except on pure whites. Brightness lowers with strobe obviously, but even with 240hz I run this monitor at 35/100 brightness most of the time and going higher isn't even that pleasant nor does it help my calibration settings. The difference between 120-144hz is negligible. But holding 120 is easier than holding 144, the higher you go the harder it gets. Regardless, it really doesn't matter in practice. Another interesting find about the high G2G on dark tones: it is almost completely GONE when the panel is warmed up. In cold temperatures and even when the room is colder, its a lot more noticeable and goes away after prolonged use. In summertime, I don't EVER see the 'smearing' of dark tones.

Specs versus using this monitor in practice for a longer period of time. I guess that must be it, and I'll leave it at that. Not sure what you're getting at anyway. Do you want a cookie for your hardware choices or something?

Each panel type has its drawbacks is what you seem to fail to realize here:
VA = darker hues are notable slower in G2G. Most VA's are slow altogether. The latter can be eliminated though.
IPS = very limited in contrast ratio, average G2G and average ~ low input lag penalty, vulnerable to IPS glow and backlight bleed
TN = as limited in contrast as IPS and contrast shift at angle, very low input lag penalty, vulnerable to backlight bleed

Its a choice of evils. And no amount of overkill refresh rate or ULMB or Gsync or anything will completely eliminate those. Not on a VA, or IPS, or TN. Don't mistake preference for 'fact' as to which is better.

 

[las]

ULMB and Turbo 240 are technically different. Go look up the whitepapers.

I don't recognize half of what you're saying there. I do know there are bad batches of the FG2421, but color shift? Barely noticeable except on pure whites. Brightness lowers with strobe obviously, but even with 240hz I run this monitor at 35/100 brightness most of the time and going higher isn't even that pleasant nor does it help my calibration settings. The difference between 120-144hz is negligible. But holding 120 is easier than holding 144, the higher you go the harder it gets. Regardless, it really doesn't matter in practice. Another interesting find about the high G2G on dark tones: it is almost completely GONE when the panel is warmed up. In cold temperatures and even when the room is colder, its a lot more noticeable and goes away after prolonged use. In summertime, I don't EVER see the 'smearing' of dark tones.

Specs versus using this monitor in practice for a longer period of time. I guess that must be it, and I'll leave it at that. Not sure what you're getting at anyway. Do you want a cookie for your hardware choices or something?

Each panel type has its drawbacks is what you seem to fail to realize here:
VA = darker hues are notable slower in G2G. Most VA's are slow altogether. The latter can be eliminated though.
IPS = very limited in contrast ratio, average G2G and average ~ low input lag penalty, vulnerable to IPS glow and backlight bleed
TN = as limited in contrast as IPS and contrast shift at angle, very low input lag penalty, vulnerable to backlight bleed

Its a choice of evils. And no amount of overkill refresh rate or ULMB or Gsync or anything will completely eliminate those. Not on a VA, or IPS, or TN.

Nah it's not negligible, I can even see a difference going from 144 to 165 Hz, if the fps follows. I can also see a big improvement going up to 240 Hz, but this is only for 1080p TN, not something I can live with, I have tried it several times tho.
1440p @ 240 Hz will happen later this year. Tons of new gaming panels will come out, many with Mini LED backlight instead of crappy edge lit LED. PC needs HDR too. It's awesome on my OLED TV.

You probably got used to the smearing effect. It's there. I still saw it after hours of playing on the FG2421. It was never good. I remember playing CS:GO, got flashed and it took AGES before I could see anything, because I was in a dark room and screen went 100% white. Smearing all over.
And yep, color shift is happening because of the bad viewing angles, move your head 1 inch to the side, white sitting in front will distort the colors.

Eizo FS2735 is MUCH better than FG2421. FG2421 went EoL for a reason.
Btw IPS has way better contrast and black than TN. So it's not "as limited as IPS" at all. IPS has way more precise colors than VA, this is the reason why professionals prefers IPS over VA for image and video editing.

The best VA panels are used in TV's, not PC monitors. I recently tried Samsung's new QLED VA gaming monitor, C27FG70. Smearing all over in fast paced games, AGAIN up to 45ms b2w/w2b. Unacceptable for (serious) high fps gaming, yet "fine" for some people.

VA is much better for TV/console usage, than PC usage. The VA blur actually helps to disguise the console lower fps and this is also what interpolation does; "melts" images together to create an illusion of smoothness; Motion blur. This is the last thing you would want in a fast paced PC game.

 

[cucker tarlson]

VA has ghosting,smearing and color artifacts, not motion blur. If anything it only makes 30 fps more nauseating.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I would much rather have 1080p 60 Hz IPS monitor than 1080p 144 Hz TN monitor.

Me as well. A beefy GPU that doesn’t need to be replaced every year can max out visuals on this.

 

[las]

Me as well. A beefy GPU that doesn’t need to be replaced every year can max out visuals on this.

A beefy GPU for 1080p/60Hz, joke?

 

[cucker tarlson]

The difference between a healthy mix of high/v.high and all out ultra is visible but not that big and it tanks perfromance like crazy. Difference between 60 fps and +90 fps also requires a lot more gpu resources but it's a lot more noticeable as well.

Look at detail set to 30% and 100%, compare the image.

https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-c...comparison-002-100-percent-vs-30-percent.html

what would you rather have, 100% detail or 25% faster framerate

same goes for those fog/smoke effects that you see in many games

I crank up those only to snap some photos with ansel and that's it, going back to playing the game I go for best performance/looks trade off as I can get.

https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-c...-2/watch-dogs-2-extra-details-performance.png

 

[Vayra86]

Nah it's not negligible, I can even see a difference going from 144 to 165 Hz, if the fps follows. I can also see a big improvement going up to 240 Hz, but this is only for 1080p TN, not something I can live with, I have tried it several times tho.
1440p @ 240 Hz will happen later this year. Tons of new gaming panels will come out, many with Mini LED backlight instead of crappy edge lit LED. PC needs HDR too. It's awesome on my OLED TV.

You probably got used to the smearing effect. It's there. I still saw it after hours of playing on the FG2421. It was never good. I remember playing CS:GO, got flashed and it took AGES before I could see anything, because I was in a dark room and screen went 100% white. Smearing all over.
And yep, color shift is happening because of the bad viewing angles, move your head 1 inch to the side, white sitting in front will distort the colors.

Eizo FS2735 is MUCH better than FG2421. FG2421 went EoL for a reason.
Btw IPS has way better contrast and black than TN. So it's not "as limited as IPS" at all. IPS has way more precise colors than VA, this is the reason why professionals prefers IPS over VA for image and video editing.

The best VA panels are used in TV's, not PC monitors. I recently tried Samsung's new QLED VA gaming monitor, C27FG70. Smearing all over in fast paced games, AGAIN up to 45ms b2w/w2b. Unacceptable for (serious) high fps gaming, yet "fine" for some people.

VA is much better for TV/console usage, than PC usage. The VA blur actually helps to disguise the console lower fps and this is also what interpolation does; "melts" images together to create an illusion of smoothness; Motion blur. This is the last thing you would want in a fast paced PC game.

OK. That's your conviction not mine. All fine. You prefer IPS, I do not. You're still on the 'better/best' road which I think is the wrong one - its *different*. Just as well as a choice of resolution is a 'different' one, with its own advantages and drawbacks. As for Samsung's QLED garbage, its known to be a crappy VA, it doesn't even have a great static contrast which is the main bonus you should be getting. VA monitors that push 5000:1 are extremely rare, much more so if you also want high refresh.

If you really think IPS pushes a meaningful static contrast difference to TN though, you are only deluding yourself. Even the best IPS won't go further than 1200:1, maybe a 1300:1 peak somewhere along that curve. TN pushes a marginally lower static contrast but it is barely noticeable. It doesn't make 1000:1 'bad'. Its just a reality. Its statements like those from you that make me question how much of what you say is actually true. Similar to saying 'I notice the difference between 144 and 165 Hz'. Uhuh. Sure you do. And I'm Superman.