1080P 144Hz or 1440P 60Hz? As a PC and Xbox One Player?

[ahmedkhan94]

thread pretty much says it. stuck between upgrading since i, planning on getting a gtx 1070.

never experienced higher than 1080 60hz. I am even fine with 30 fps (BLASPHEMY!) since im used to playing consoles all the time.

I play mostly all games fps and AAA games. and i intend on modding skyrim like crazy. and i am somewhat of a graphics whore, so i tend to put games on max even if the frames go below 60 as long as they dont go below 30, but obviously 60 is what i want.

im just wondering which would be a better upgrade, refresh rate or res. I keep hearing 144hz is a godsend but i dont play actual ranked like gamebattles or anything but i do like to win, so much that i have XIM4 mouse and keyboard adaptor for xbox one.

On one hand i feel like 1080p is a dying breed so its too late to jump on? on the other hand 1440p im afraid i wont be able to achieve max settings (with no AA or nvidia hairworks) for games like witcher 3 and so and future games as i dont want to upgrade my gpu for another 2-3 years then if i get the gtx 1070, and the fact that the standard for resolution seems to be skipping 14440p and going to 4K.



Upgrading my pc has been so torturous. ive even considered watiing for a sale or price drop on 1440p 144hz monitor around 400-500 range but i dont think the gtx 1070 would be able to process that high frames, and by the time a gpu comes out that can do it the prices of those monitors would be cheaper.

SO i went on a rant, but what would you recommend?

 

[Ak74Egy]

The 1070 can do both at ultra in most games, however since you're used to consoles you won't be needing that 144FPS anyway so get the 1440P monitor.

 

[ahmedkhan94]

The 1070 can do both at ultra in most games, however since you're used to consoles you won't be needing that 144FPS anyway so get the 1440P monitor.

Followup question, would a curved ultrawide monitor be something that the 1070 can still max out on settings? or is just normal 1440p better option since they are like around $250 vs the former which is around $800+.

Something like the Acer X34 or Asus PG348Q around the $500-$600 range, without the some of the features like g sync unless there is one that offers it?

 

[fry178]

curved and other things are gimmicks unless your the only one using it and your face is like 1ft away..
and it messes up other things: watch any football/basketball game on it, and look at any lines on the field...

144Hz will only make a difference if you try to lower your input/processing lag mainly for PvP (e.g. MLG).
1440p will ALWAYS make an impact, no matter if im gaming or not.

get something like the Asus PB328Q (new 700, refurb/used around 400).
its 1440p@60/75Hz has a real 10bit panel, flicker free led, "calibrated" out of the box, and any screen that actually would be an "improvement" of this, is either a professional work or gamer screen for +1000$

 

[bystander]

Do you play PC games with a mouse or controller? Mouse users will see more advantages from 144hz. Another benefit of 144hz is it makes tearing far less noticeable if you don't use V-sync, which improves latency.

1440p is useless for your Xbox1, and 144hz is also useless for the Xbox1. I wouldn't be surprised if 1440p makes Xbox1 games look worse than 1080p, due to scaling issues, but Xbox1 may even scale to 1080p a lot, so who knows.

If it were me, I'd go 144hz if you use a mouse when PC gaming, otherwise give the 1440p a try.

 

[fry178]

again, 1440p will always look better. im running a 720p cable box, and it looks better than the 1080p screen (same dpi) i had before.
the screen as more and smaller pixels. that wont change, just because your signal doesnt run at that resolution.

using Nvs fast sync option removes latency issues from using vsync, without tearing. no 144Hz needed.

and have fun using that 144Hz screen when fps drops below refresh rate (unless freesync/gsync is used).

 

[bystander]

again, 1440p will always look better. im running a 720p cable box, and it looks better than the 1080p screen (same dpi) i had before.
the screen as more and smaller pixels. that wont change, just because your signal doesnt run at that resolution.

using Nvs fast sync option removes latency issues from using vsync, without tearing. no 144Hz needed.

and have fun using that 144Hz screen when fps drops below refresh rate (unless freesync/gsync is used).

There is a pretty big difference between a TV signal and a rendered video image. 1080p gaming looks better on a 1080p screen than a 1440p screen. This is pretty well documented from gamers. The part that is unclear is that Xbox1 doesn't always even run at 1080p, so at that point, both are upscaled and 1440p may look better, but the games which are rendered at 1080p, will look better on 1080p.

And 60 FPS at 144hz runs and looks better than 60 FPS at 60hz when V-sync is not used. It looks a lot better. The reason you'd want to do that is low latency and smoother gaming. If you use V-sync, the 144hz monitor can run at 72 FPS perfectly, as well 48 FPS and 36 FPS. You can even run at 120hz instead for 60 FPS gaming if that magic number is so important.

The Xbox1 conversation is pretty meaningless. Neither are going to benefit you there. It's the PC gaming that should really be the determining factor.

 

[fry178]

well any res will look best if signal is native, no matter at what actual resolution.
sure, 1080p@1440p will look a bit softer than on a 1080 screen, but i gain in ppi.

so much, that i can run a 32" (which i have) and get 91ppi, which equals a 24in 1080p screen (not really a gaming size, at least to me)
this much more "detail", i can always see, no matter if the signal res is one lower than native.

 

[bystander]

well any res will look best if signal is native, no matter at what actual resolution.
sure, 1080p@1440p will look a bit softer than on a 1080 screen, but i gain in ppi.

so much, that i can run a 32" (which i have) and get 91ppi, which equals a 24in 1080p screen (not really a gaming size, at least to me)
this much more "detail", i can always see, no matter if the res is one lower than native.

That's why much of the time, 1080p should look better on the Xbox1, unless Xbox1 is being rendered below 1080p, which some games do.

That kind of takes the Xbox1 out of the conversation, as it's a trade off either way. His PC gaming preferences are most likely key here. If he PC games with a controller, he's likely to prefer the 1440p screen. If he games with a mouse, 144hz becomes a lot more appealing. Of course they do make 1440p 144hz screens too.

 

[fry178]

lets say it like that:

i see the 144Hz (vs higher res) the same way i see the "i7 or i5?" question.
if "you" can't answer me the why (you would need one), you dont need it.

the only ppl i personally know that have 144 screens, are all playing FPShooters in PvP mode with a clan.

 

[bystander]

lets say it like that:

i see the 144Hz (vs higher res) the same way i see the "i7 or i5?" question.
if "you" can't answer me the why (you would need one), you dont need it.

the only ppl i personally know that have 144 screens, are all playing FPShooters in PvP mode with a clan.

Do you have a 144hz screen, or have in the past?

I bought a 120hz screen a few years ago. The first thing I noticed was latency was lower, and after a week, realized I stopped getting nausea when gaming. I tested things for a bit, and realized that I get nausea when gaming in 1st person or over the shoulder games at less than 80ish FPS. Then I realized that turning off V-sync, no longer gave me noticeable tearing. This gave me even less latency, and smoother game play most the time. Now, usually after a driver up date, if my monitor drops down to 60hz mode, I immediately see it. Everything is super choppy. The nausea issue does not happen if using a controller, or in isometric view games.

The other issue is that 1440p will take more GPU power to run the same settings. A GTX 1070 won't always handle max settings at 1440p. For me, I could live with that with lowering a few settings, but others seem to find that unreasonable. At 1080p 144hz, you can more easily live with less than ideal FPS.

Anyway, if he uses a controller on the PC, he most certainly would be ok with 60hz and likely prefer 1440p. If he uses a mouse, then there is more chance 144hz may be appealing to him.

 

[fry178]

i personally dont have the problem you experience (and most ppl never will), my best friend runs a 27"/144 ROG (i tried), and i've been playing same games (i play on pc) on 1080p/UHD's@120/240Hz at work.

thats why i rather get a 32"/10bit/1440p, than anything else.
not saying i wont keep a gifted 32" gsync predator ;-)


just cranking everything to max (in game/driver) has a significant impact on fps, but is rarely a (big) improvement in visual quality, over slightly lower/optimized settings.

maxed out, i need to drop to 1080p, to stay around 60fps (Rainbow Siege).
optimized settings (without any visible difference in IQ) allow for 60fps@1440p, plus i gain in detail and sharpness (1440).
i only list what is different between the 2 res

for 1080:
shading high, reflections high, TXAA x2.
for 1440:
shading med (could do high but not all maps), refl med, AA OFF


compare the relevant pics in the guide, i cant see a difference even when looking at the static images for less than 2s, nor will you be able to pick it up in-game.
yet, its enough to run 1440p instead of 1080p, on a gtx1070.
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-graphics-and-performance-guide

 

[Deverick37]

If you are really into graphics and quality looking visuals maybe even consider a nice IPS monitor i use 144hz for games but apparently the IPS is "supposed" to have a better quality image.
correct me if im wrong but if he is shooting for 30-60 fps then i'm not sure he would benefit from having the 144hz

 

[rcald2000]

Personally I choose high resolution over FPS. I own both an Acer 1440p / 165 Hz / IPS / g-sync and a Dell / 3440 x 1440p / 60 Hz / IPS / non-adaptive sync. Both displays cost the same amount of money, $700. I prefer the higher resolution of the Dell, even though the Acer is a much better monitor due to the higher refresh and g-sync capability.

Ideally I'd like to have both, a 100 Hz X34 Predator (3440 x 1440), but it costs about $1300. But if I had to choose between my two monitors, I'd go with the ultrawide 3440 x 1440. Check out how good the screen shots look (below).

 

[bystander]

i personally dont have the problem you experience (and most ppl never will), my best friend runs a 27"/144 ROG (i tried), and i've been playing same games (i play on pc) on 1080p/UHD's@120/240Hz at work.

thats why i rather get a 32"/10bit/1440p, than anything else.
not saying i wont keep a gifted 32" gsync predator ;-)


just cranking everything to max (in game/driver) has a significant impact on fps, but is rarely a (big) improvement in visual quality, over slightly lower/optimized settings.

maxed out, i need to drop to 1080p, to stay around 60fps (Rainbow Siege).
optimized settings (without any visible difference in IQ) allow for 60fps@1440p, plus i gain in detail and sharpness (1440).
i only list what is different between the 2 res

for 1080:
shading high, reflections high, TXAA x2.
for 1440:
shading med (could do high but not all maps), refl med, AA OFF


compare the relevant pics in the guide, i cant see a difference even when looking at the static images for less than 2s, nor will you be able to pick it up in-game.
yet, its enough to run 1440p instead of 1080p, on a gtx1070.
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-graphics-and-performance-guide

You'd be surprised at how many people do get sick with sub 80 FPS. I remember when I played WoW, I knew a lot of keyboard turners (the ones people make fun of), and many of them played that way, because they got sick when using a mouse. Many of those same people couldn't play first person shooters either, for the same reason. Some of those people tried higher FPS per my suggestion, and it helped them. You don't hear it much here, because most people simply choose not to play those games when they first find themselves getting sick. Some will push through until they get used to it.

As to 10bit 1440p, the 10bit aspect won't help in gaming much, as games don't do more than 8bit. The 10bit is more of a professional thing, but yes, 1440p gives a crisper image.

Anyways, it's all a personal choice. Everyone is different.