[SOLVED] 144 Hz 1440p vs 60/75hz 4K monitor question

[George3356]

Hey guys!

I was asking for help here recently and in the end I bought a 144 hz 1440P monitor along with Ryzen 3600 and I also have GTX 1070 TI GPU.

The 144hz was recommended as I was told it was such an improvement over 60hz in smoothness of movement etc.

BUT - what happened. I usually like to play games on the best settings. So for example in Witcher 3 on ultra at 1440p I get around 60-80 hz - so I don't reach the levels of 144fps (that is why I have the 144hz monitor is that correct? - to be able to get 144 fps? - is that linked?). And to be honest, I don't perceive such an improvement in the 144 fps vs. 60 fps for exmaple - of coourse it seems smoother, but I have to decrease the textures etc. to get that high fps and then the game looks worse.

So I am still considering - should I maybe rather return the monitor and get a new one - either a 60/75 hz monitor at half the price or at the same price get a 4K monitor at 60Hz...?

What do You guys think given my situation?

I bought this one:
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-c32jg56-d5652111.htm#recenze

and I am considering either a cheaper (1/2 price) 75 hz monitor:
https://www.alza.cz/32-aoc-q3279vwfd8-d5454189.htm

or same price for exampel this - but 4K:
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-u32j590-d5521553.htm


Any opinions very welcome!!


George

 

[Isokolon]

Hi George,

you won't get near 60fps on a 4k screen with a 1070Ti if you like highish settings

now for the other two... well, that's a question of budet. personally that Samsung display is a rather nice one. usually you use your displays for longer than your graphics card. your 1070Ti might not hit 144fps in every game (although you start noticing a difference once you go >90fps) but your next card surely will.

if you're on a tight budget and need the money for something else, then by all means return it and get the 75Hz screen.

 

[George3356]

Hi pal,

thx a ton for Your answer, much appreciated and You are right.

I chose the 1440P 144Hz panel in the end, however this one:
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-c32hg70-d5088175.htm

hopefully it is a good choice and better than the G56. (in an older thread someoen suggested that for the 10percent price increase HDR is a fine thing + I need the height adjustments.

Have a nice day,
George

 

[gondo]

Ok the FPS the game is capable of producing is based on horsepower and the programming of the game. Some games like the Witcher 3 are just badly optomized and don't reach very high FPS. The refresh rate of the monitor is fixed at 144Hz or variable if it has Freesync or GSync.

The FPS of a game is constantly changing based on how much processing is required for a scene in game. Lots of stuff going on means lower FPS. So when people enter the scene and guns start firing the FPS is going to drop. The FPS is constantly changing.

So lets say a particular game on your system at 1440p with ultimate graphics produces and average of 70-100FPS. Your monitor can take advantage of that because it is 144HZ and not 60Hz. If your monitor was only 60Hz you would enable VSync or some other methods to cap the games FPS at 60 or else screen tearing and other stuff happens. Enabling VSync cause input lag with the keboard/mouse so competitive gamers don't like it. Now with the reverse if your monitor is fixes at 144Hz and your game only makes 90fps there are other problems. One fix is to use Freesync or GSync if your monitor supports it and it's refresh rate will change in real time to match the FPS of the game for perfect smooth gameplay. If the FPS was higher than the monitor then you would cap it around 130fps and enable Freesync and the monitor will follow the game perfectly.

So Ideally you want your FPS to be lower than your monitor meaning your monitor can take advantage the FPS, then anable Freesync/GSync to take care of screen tearing. If your FPS happens to go higher than the monitor you can put a FPS cap if desired, or leave it be if you don't want to introduce input lag, or upgrade to a 240hz or 300hz monitor.

Now 4k is technically over twice the amount of pixels as 1440p. So your FPS should technically be about half or even less than at 1440p assuming the same horsepower of PC. If your hitting 100fps at 1440p think 50fps at 4k. Todays hardware is just not powerful enough to game at 4k with ultimate settings in all games. 1440p is the compromise.

If you were to decide between 144HZ 1080p or a guaranteed 60Hz at 1440p then the 1440p would probably give you the better experience with the extra real estate. Today's better hardware like a 2070 video card and Intel I7, AMD Ryzen CPUs can play 1440p pretty good so a 144Hz 1440p is very doable. If you can't afford the expensive 2070 video card then 1080p is the way to go, but 4k is insane on PC unless you have the budget to attempt it.

To answer your questions, the FPS is perfectly fine in the 90fps range even though your monitor is 144hz. That means your capable of taking advantage of 90fps compared to a 60hz monitor. If you have Freesync or GSync enable it. As for switching to 4k 60hz don't do it. Your FPS will drop below 60.

And I would rather have a nice 1440p monitor with adaptive sync, high refresh rate, and superb colors and black levels, as opposed to a mediocre 4k.

 

[George3356]

Ok the FPS the game is capable of producing is based on horsepower and the programming of the game. Some games like the Witcher 3 are just badly optomized and don't reach very high FPS. The refresh rate of the monitor is fixed at 144Hz or variable if it has Freesync or GSync.

The FPS of a game is constantly changing based on how much processing is required for a scene in game. Lots of stuff going on means lower FPS. So when people enter the scene and guns start firing the FPS is going to drop. The FPS is constantly changing.

So lets say a particular game on your system at 1440p with ultimate graphics produces and average of 70-100FPS. Your monitor can take advantage of that because it is 144HZ and not 60Hz. If your monitor was only 60Hz you would enable VSync or some other methods to cap the games FPS at 60 or else screen tearing and other stuff happens. Enabling VSync cause input lag with the keboard/mouse so competitive gamers don't like it. Now with the reverse if your monitor is fixes at 144Hz and your game only makes 90fps there are other problems. One fix is to use Freesync or GSync if your monitor supports it and it's refresh rate will change in real time to match the FPS of the game for perfect smooth gameplay. If the FPS was higher than the monitor then you would cap it around 130fps and enable Freesync and the monitor will follow the game perfectly.

So Ideally you want your FPS to be lower than your monitor meaning your monitor can take advantage the FPS, then anable Freesync/GSync to take care of screen tearing. If your FPS happens to go higher than the monitor you can put a FPS cap if desired, or leave it be if you don't want to introduce input lag, or upgrade to a 240hz or 300hz monitor.

Now 4k is technically over twice the amount of pixels as 1440p. So your FPS should technically be about half or even less than at 1440p assuming the same horsepower of PC. If your hitting 100fps at 1440p think 50fps at 4k. Todays hardware is just not powerful enough to game at 4k with ultimate settings in all games. 1440p is the compromise.

If you were to decide between 144HZ 1080p or a guaranteed 60Hz at 1440p then the 1440p would probably give you the better experience with the extra real estate. Today's better hardware like a 2070 video card and Intel I7, AMD Ryzen CPUs can play 1440p pretty good so a 144Hz 1440p is very doable. If you can't afford the expensive 2070 video card then 1080p is the way to go, but 4k is insane on PC unless you have the budget to attempt it.

To answer your questions, the FPS is perfectly fine in the 90fps range even though your monitor is 144hz. That means your capable of taking advantage of 90fps compared to a 60hz monitor. If you have Freesync or GSync enable it. As for switching to 4k 60hz don't do it. Your FPS will drop below 60.

And I would rather have a nice 1440p monitor with adaptive sync, high refresh rate, and superb colors and black levels, as opposed to a mediocre 4k.

Hi Gondo and thx A LOT for the exhausting reply!! It makes perfect sense - I had to study the technicalities a bit but reading Your comment on top of it makes perfect sense. + I am now trying the 144hz monitor and it DOES feel smoother.

Also, I have a 4K TV I can play at 4K If I want to, but it was capped at 30hz until now but I managed to get it working at 60hz so it is fine now.

So I chose the 1440P monitor but I am sitll not sure about the type...

I tried this one:
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-c32jg56-d5652111.htm#recenze
but the stand was FIXED and I couldnt get it to tilt even so it was like tilted to the table... and way too low...

Then I found this one:
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-c32hg70-d5088175.htm
- with an adjustable stand + HDR + FREESYNC 2 (some guys in a previous thread recommended these features are worth the 10% price)

So I returned the G56 and bought the HG70... BUT - I tried the HDR in AC Origins for example and I didnt find it overwhelming... + the stand is HUGE, it is taking so much space I have the monitor basically right in my nose... + the G56 had a better design, thinner side frames... (it was like blended into the monitor instead of plastic frame...)...

Any thoughts on the HDR and Freesync 2..? I guess that for both of them Id have to get a monitor arm anyway... so I am still thinking of getting that G56 I had before :-/ It is an investment for nextseveral years for me so I wanna choose right :-/ I also felt the G56 had better picture but that might be just bad memory.

Or do You have any other in mind in hte 400€ price range?

Thanks a lot!
George

 

[gondo]

Freesync/GSync is a must. I think now Freesync is just a given and any high refresh rate monitor is going to have it. Especially with NVidia starting to adopt it. It's kind of like the old HD DVD and Blueray battle. HD was better but Blueray won. Beta was better but VHS won. GSync is better but Freesync won so NVidia has to start using it.

When it comes to computers HDR is meh. Not much of a bother. It's more the panel itself that will give you better colors. For example an IPS vs a TN panel is wow. Side by side the TN looks like crap. And put the black levels of an OLED next to a normal panel and the OLED looks like liquid color it's so beautiful. VA gives better blacks but has some negatives. I think the best bet is to get a very good VA with good color. I wouldn't worry about viewing angles because with a monitor we sit right smack in front of it.

As for 144hz making a big difference. I find it's hard to notice. I also think people are leaning towards 144Hz just because if they get the FPS why not have the monitor to support it. But freesync is definitely worth it. You get super smooth video with zero tearing or lost frames. I think you would have to try the same 60hz monitor next to a 144hz monitor and see the difference. I think a lot of it is placebo effect....if you have it you think it's better.

And the 1440p vs 4k debate. My take on it is if you go 4k at ultimate settings some games may shoot you into the low 30's for FPS which is where stuttering and lag appears. At 1440p it's way easier to get over 60fps. You could lower the video setting at 4k but then the picture looses quality. I'd say go 1440p since you can set all details on ultimate for a gorgeous picture and use Ray Tracing.

So for features that make a big difference in a gaming monitor my order would be

• Panel type quality for good colors and black levels
• Resolution - the more the merrier assuming your hardware can push it adequately
• Adaptive Sync to reduce tearing and artifacting
• Refresh Rate
• Ergonomics and stand
• HDR

Looking at my priorities I'd choose a 60Hz 1440p Freesync monitor over 240Hz 1080p monitor assuming both had the same picture quality. Assuming you can push the 1440p monitor consistantly at 60Hz. 4k is even nicer but I dare you to find a computer under $3000 that can push 4k over 60fps consistently at ultimate with Ray Tracing.

 

[George3356]

Freesync/GSync is a must. I think now Freesync is just a given and any high refresh rate monitor is going to have it. Especially with NVidia starting to adopt it. It's kind of like the old HD DVD and Blueray battle. HD was better but Blueray won. Beta was better but VHS won. GSync is better but Freesync won so NVidia has to start using it.

When it comes to computers HDR is meh. Not much of a bother. It's more the panel itself that will give you better colors. For example an IPS vs a TN panel is wow. Side by side the TN looks like crap. And put the black levels of an OLED next to a normal panel and the OLED looks like liquid color it's so beautiful. VA gives better blacks but has some negatives. I think the best bet is to get a very good VA with good color. I wouldn't worry about viewing angles because with a monitor we sit right smack in front of it.

As for 144hz making a big difference. I find it's hard to notice. I also think people are leaning towards 144Hz just because if they get the FPS why not have the monitor to support it. But freesync is definitely worth it. You get super smooth video with zero tearing or lost frames. I think you would have to try the same 60hz monitor next to a 144hz monitor and see the difference. I think a lot of it is placebo effect....if you have it you think it's better.

And the 1440p vs 4k debate. My take on it is if you go 4k at ultimate settings some games may shoot you into the low 30's for FPS which is where stuttering and lag appears. At 1440p it's way easier to get over 60fps. You could lower the video setting at 4k but then the picture looks like <Mod Edit>. I'd say go 1440p since you can set all details on ultimate for a gorgeous picture and use Ray Tracing.

So for features that make a big difference in a gaming monitor my order would be

• Panel type quality for good colors and black levels
• Resolution - the more the merrier assuming your hardware can push it adequately
• Adaptive Sync to reduce tearing and artifacting
• Refresh Rate
• Ergonomics and stand
• HDR

Looking at my priorities I'd choose a 60Hz 1440p Freesync monitor over 240Hz 1080p monitor assuming both had the same picture quality. Assuming you can push the 1440p monitor consistantly at 60Hz. 4k is even nicer but I dare you to find a computer under $3000 that can push 4k over 60fps consistently at ultimate with Ray Tracing.

Hey pal, thanks for the answer again, it makes absolute sense the way You put it 🙂.

It seems all the panels I am looking at are VA so I guess that will be my target.
I will also aim for 144hz and 1440p - again because what YOu said makes absolute sense. I tried running e.g. Witcher 3 on my TV at 4K and I couldnt get it to run at good FPS at ultra high... so I would get similar results on the monitor, so I woudl either have to downgrade graphics, or the resolution, making the 4K useless. All of the monitors also have freesync - just some have freesync 2 which I dont understand the difference in.

You mention OLED. This monitor has QLED - is it similar, or just a marketing gimmick?
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-c32hg70-d5088175.htm#recenze

Thx a lot for Your time and energy

 

[sizzling]

Freesync/GSync is a must. I think now Freesync is just a given and any high refresh rate monitor is going to have it. Especially with NVidia starting to adopt it. It's kind of like the old HD DVD and Blueray battle. HD was better but Blueray won. Beta was better but VHS won. GSync is better but Freesync won so NVidia has to start using it.

When it comes to computers HDR is meh. Not much of a bother. It's more the panel itself that will give you better colors. For example an IPS vs a TN panel is wow. Side by side the TN looks like crap. And put the black levels of an OLED next to a normal panel and the OLED looks like liquid color it's so beautiful. VA gives better blacks but has some negatives. I think the best bet is to get a very good VA with good color. I wouldn't worry about viewing angles because with a monitor we sit right smack in front of it.

As for 144hz making a big difference. I find it's hard to notice. I also think people are leaning towards 144Hz just because if they get the FPS why not have the monitor to support it. But freesync is definitely worth it. You get super smooth video with zero tearing or lost frames. I think you would have to try the same 60hz monitor next to a 144hz monitor and see the difference. I think a lot of it is placebo effect....if you have it you think it's better.

And the 1440p vs 4k debate. My take on it is if you go 4k at ultimate settings some games may shoot you into the low 30's for FPS which is where stuttering and lag appears. At 1440p it's way easier to get over 60fps. You could lower the video setting at 4k but then the picture looks like <Mod Edit>. I'd say go 1440p since you can set all details on ultimate for a gorgeous picture and use Ray Tracing.

So for features that make a big difference in a gaming monitor my order would be

• Panel type quality for good colors and black levels
• Resolution - the more the merrier assuming your hardware can push it adequately
• Adaptive Sync to reduce tearing and artifacting
• Refresh Rate
• Ergonomics and stand
• HDR

Looking at my priorities I'd choose a 60Hz 1440p Freesync monitor over 240Hz 1080p monitor assuming both had the same picture quality. Assuming you can push the 1440p monitor consistantly at 60Hz. 4k is even nicer but I dare you to find a computer under $3000 that can push 4k over 60fps consistently at ultimate with Ray Tracing.

Each to their own but I find 60Hz vs 144Hz very noticeable, even the mouse on Windows desktop is smoother. As for Freesync/G-Sync being a must, I’ve turned G-Sync off but I mainly play FPS type game while running 120+ FPS and running a cap of 140 FPS preventing it going over the 144 of the monitors refresh rate. There is an ever so slight lag with G-Sync and I have found running 120-140 FPS there is no perceivable screentearing. At lower frame rates G-Sync does help.

 

[gondo]

I should add some stuff. Competitive gamers have different priorities. They need minimum input lag or maximum responsiveness. That means a TN monitor and no adaptive sync. Adaptive Sync can also have the effect of no lost frames so if you read up on it explained, basically imagine a multiplayer FPS. One frame could show the glare of a gun in the sun and you find your enemy hiding. But a lost frame could be you loose that gun glare and don't see your enemy. This is when you get super competitive multiplayer with pro gaming.

A Freesync 2 monitor is certified to have certain features. HDR, wider color gamut, lower input lag, low framerate compensation, etc.... Freesync works for example from 60Hz to 144Hz on a monitor....but what happens if a game goes below 60fps? It's stuff like this that you have to look out for. What happens if your game goes above 144Hz? That's why you limit the game to a cap of 130fps or so, unless your competitive and want reduces input lag.

OLED an QLED is not the same thing. QLED is a quantum LED....just a different tech of regular LED and it uses a backlight like a regular LED. To create black it must dim the back light and use shutters, etc... An Organic LED on the other hand can produce light and color on its own without a backlight. Turn the LED off and it's black like the TV is off since no backlight is required. Each pixel makes it's own light so just turn off the pixel for black. That's why OLED is so superior. Also why you can make thin flexible OLED screens....no backlight required. Unfortunately OLED monitors are not mainstream yet. They are only just starting to become more common on Laptops.

As for 60Hz vs 144Hz+ Many people claim it's very noticeable. Others not so much. I guess the same why some people claim they can see fluorescent light flickering and it gives them headaches while others don't notice it. Like I said, it would be interesting to use the same monitor at 60hz vs 144hz and check the difference. I own a 144hz monitor so I may cap the FPS at 60fps on a game and compare it to 144fps for fun and see if I notice a difference. All I know is that I use Freesync, softcap the game to 135fps or so, and it's so butter smooth and never had an artifact or tear in game ever.

One last tip. Just because a monitor is VA do not assume they are all the same. Read the reviews to see how the colors and contrast are. They will all be different, some bad some good. Some monitors are very expensive because they are color accurate, calibrated, and designed for pro/cad use and they will support features like a USB-C displayport. All overkill for gaming.

 

[George3356]

I should add some stuff. Competitive gamers have different priorities. They need minimum input lag or maximum responsiveness. That means a TN monitor and no adaptive sync. Adaptive Sync can also have the effect of no lost frames so if you read up on it explained, basically imagine a multiplayer FPS. One frame could show the glare of a gun in the sun and you find your enemy hiding. But a lost frame could be you loose that gun glare and don't see your enemy. This is when you get super competitive multiplayer with pro gaming.

A Freesync 2 monitor is certified to have certain features. HDR, wider color gamut, lower input lag, low framerate compensation, etc.... Freesync works for example from 60Hz to 144Hz on a monitor....but what happens if a game goes below 60fps? It's stuff like this that you have to look out for. What happens if your game goes above 144Hz? That's why you limit the game to a cap of 130fps or so, unless your competitive and want reduces input lag.

OLED an QLED is not the same thing. QLED is a quantum LED....just a different tech of regular LED and it uses a backlight like a regular LED. To create black it must dim the back light and use shutters, etc... An Organic LED on the other hand can produce light and color on its own without a backlight. Turn the LED off and it's black like the TV is off since no backlight is required. Each pixel makes it's own light so just turn off the pixel for black. That's why OLED is so superior. Also why you can make thin flexible OLED screens....no backlight required. Unfortunately OLED monitors are not mainstream yet. They are only just starting to become more common on Laptops.

As for 60Hz vs 144Hz+ Many people claim it's very noticeable. Others not so much. I guess the same why some people claim they can see fluorescent light flickering and it gives them headaches while others don't notice it. Like I said, it would be interesting to use the same monitor at 60hz vs 144hz and check the difference. I own a 144hz monitor so I may cap the FPS at 60fps on a game and compare it to 144fps for fun and see if I notice a difference. All I know is that I use Freesync, softcap the game to 135fps or so, and it's so butter smooth and never had an artifact or tear in game ever.

One last tip. Just because a monitor is VA do not assume they are all the same. Read the reviews to see how the colors and contrast are. They will all be different, some bad some good. Some monitors are very expensive because they are color accurate, calibrated, and designed for pro/cad use and they will support features like a USB-C displayport. All overkill for gaming.

Hi Gondo and thx a lot for the additional info.

Taking all that into account, which would You pick?
https://www.alza.cz/gaming/asus-tuf-gaming-vg32vq-d5684093.htm#popis
https://www.alza.cz/31-5-dell-s3220dgf-d5706395.htm
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-c32hg70-d5088175.htm#popis
https://www.alza.cz/32-samsung-c32jg56-d5652111.htm#recenze

I am vouching for the ASUS at the moment. Does it make sense?
I am now trying the 32" Samsung C32HG70 but the stand is just huge and I feel when I am working at my laptop at 60hz (I guess HDMI cable downgrades it to 60hz), it feels very bad. Also as You explained, it is QLED which is therefore worse then the LED on ASUS...? I guess it is a LED monitor? So I am thinking of changing for the ASUS... What do You think?


Thanks
George

 

[gondo]

Much of the quality of a TV is based on the backlighting. First there was LCD which used cold cathode backlights. Then came along LED which used LED backlights and was far superior. Sony improved on the LED technology with Quantum LED QLED. QLED still uses an LED backlight but different pixel technology so it has better colors. Samsung today licenses the QLED technology.

LG makes Organic LED OLED screens. These do not use any backlight and is not even an LED really. These are the ones with the super black light and contrast. They are very expensive due to LG controlling the market with no competition. Sony also uses LG panel for it's OLED TVs and no longer makes Quantum LED.

So what is happening is LG is fixing it's prices at the highest point that it can still sell to maximize profits. Samsung is sticking to QLED technology to beat LG by having something different on the market vs everyone else. QLED vs LED just sounds better. Samsung doesn't have to rely on LG to purchase the OLED panels, and they can therefore sell their TVs at a lower price than OLED. So what you get with Samsung is a very good TV that is one of the best on the market at a price point much more competitive than OLED.

When it comes to computer monitors you have OLED screens on smartphones and tablets. And there are some 15" OLEDs for laptops. When you get a Dell, HP, Alienware, etc... laptop with the 15" OLED screen it's all the same panel. Nobody has gotten into 27" or 32" OLED computer monitors which is a shame since their picture quality is amazing and the input lag is very low for gaming. The only problem is OLED sufferes from burn in which can be a problem with gaming. In the meantime you are stuck with regular LED for computers and Samsung has QLED. QLED is not necessarily better than a good LED so don't get hung up on the name. Both use LED backlighting so a QLED with crappy backlighting vs an LED with many zones of good backlighting means the LED is actually better.

I'll make a 2nd post to pick which monitor I'd go with.

 

[gondo]

When it comes to monitors there are some nice ones out there. But since you are limiting it to these 4 lets look at them quickly. I'll ignore the Samsung JG56 out since the HG70 is the top end one with Quantum Dot.

All monitors have the same features, HDR, Freesync 2, 144Hz, 32" curved 2k. All are VA monitors so very similar as far as contrast, color, and viewing angle goes. The Asus has some Black uniformity and backlight issues. The Samsung has gorgeous colors due to Quantum dot but it has input responsiveness and blur issues. The Dell seems to be the best all around performer with the most uniform black.

The Samsung is a beautiful monitor with great colors but has it's issues. I think the dell would be the better bet. You can have the best color in the world, but if you don't have the blacks your colors won't pop. And you don't want that hazy ghosting in black areas. I think I would put up with a little inferior color and play it safe with the Dell. The Samsung may have some nice colors, but it has flaws and unless you have it A/B next to another monitor will you actually notice the color difference and miss it? Depending on what your used to the Dell may be such an improvement you'll be blown away.

For example the Samsung has it's motion blur reduction method but it disables Freesync. Little things like that I don't think are worth the risk and would therefore recommend the Dell. In the end though, the monitors you choose are offering a lot for the price and I think you'll be very happy.

 

[George3356]

Hi again Gondo,

thanks a lot for the LED/OLED/QLED summary. Very helpful!! I have to say to a "noob" QLED sounds so "awesome" - QUANTUM LED 😀 that it actually can be a competitive advantage despite the fact it can actually be worse as you state.

Anyway also thanks a lot for the recommendation of the DELL. I wanted to get it too so You made me sure to buy it.

I tested the HG70 SAMSUNG before and when I switched to 60hz on my work notebook, it was TERRIBLE - the mouse felt as if I was completely drunk - the movement was... terrible! I dont know how to describe it. + it hurt my eyes from reading text, working, etc. On top of it it felt "cheap" - plastic frames, the stand was so huge I had the monitor in front of my face... and I just didnt like it. I also had the G56 before which didnt have such issues but the stand was not adjustable at all - that is why I returned it before.

So I tried the DELL which was 20% more expensive than the HG70 and it is AWESOME. perfect design, no eyes hurt, adjustable stand, REALLY BLACK in dblack scenes - unlike the HG70. And for work PC it works well, no mouse "dizziness", text is sharp. I am absolutely satisfied with it.

So thanks again for all Your responses!!! 🙂
George