144 vs 75 for casual gaming.

[Ryzouk]

Will it be worth the extra month to get a 144hz monitor for normal casual gaming like witcher 3 and pubg. I have been looking at this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ASUS-PB277Q-Monitor-Flicker-Certified/dp/B01B6JD5A0/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1514575234&sr=1-1&keywords=1440&refinements=p_n_feature_two_browse-bin%3A2596482031

It seem really good for the price. Just not sure if spending the extra 200 odd on a 144hz monitor would be worth it.

PLEASE HELP!!!!

 

[SkyNetRising]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

 

[Ryzouk]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

I have i5 4670k and 1080 gtx would this be capable ?

 

[Solandri]

For casual gaming, no. The 144 Hz monitors cater specifically to professional or competitive first person shooter gamers. The average human reaction time to visual stimuli is about 250 ms. A 144 Hz monitor refreshes every 7ms, vs 13.3 ms for 75 Hz. So you'd be paying $200 extra to gain a (13.3 - 7) / 250 = 2.5% improvement in reaction time.

Most regular gamers don't even have video cards which can achieve 144+ FPS on modern games. The only way to do it is by turning down the game settings (which gets back to you having to be a professional or competitive gamer). People do report however that 120 Hz and 144 Hz is more pleasant (smoother, realistic) to the eye than 60 Hz or 75 Hz. If that's your thing, then I suggest visiting a store or a friend with a 120/144 Hz monitor and seeing for yourself before deciding if it's worth the cost. (Also note that 120 Hz TVs will NOT let you drive them at 120 Hz with a computer. The 120 Hz refresh rate is only available internally.)

 

[SgtScream]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

I have i5 4670k and 1080 gtx would this be capable ?

You aren't going to achieve 144fps in some triple A titles due to cpu limitations of the i5, but yes i'd get a 1440p monitor with gsync, so your gtx 1080 can really shine.

 

[Ryzouk]

For casual gaming, no. The 144 Hz monitors cater specifically to professional or competitive first person shooter gamers. The average human reaction time to visual stimuli is about 250 ms. A 144 Hz monitor refreshes every 7ms, vs 13.3 ms for 75 Hz. So you'd be paying $200 extra to gain a (13.3 - 7) / 250 = 2.5% improvement in reaction time.

Most regular gamers don't even have video cards which can achieve 144+ FPS on modern games. The only way to do it is by turning down the game settings (which gets back to you having to be a professional or competitive gamer). People do report however that 120 Hz and 144 Hz is more pleasant (smoother, realistic) to the eye than 60 Hz or 75 Hz. If that's your thing, then I suggest visiting a store or a friend with a 120/144 Hz monitor and seeing for yourself before deciding if it's worth the cost. (Also note that 120 Hz TVs will NOT let you drive them at 120 Hz with a computer. The 120 Hz refresh rate is only available internally.)

Thank you for the in depth reply. I had a look today in town to see a 144hz monitor in person but had no luck. Just now I have a 1080p 60hz monitor and Its seems great for me I just want to move to 1440p. But there's so much choice when choosing a new monitor these days. So do you think the 75hz monitor I listed would provide a good 1440p gameplay.

 

[Ryzouk]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

I have i5 4670k and 1080 gtx would this be capable ?

You aren't going to achieve 144fps in some triple A titles due to cpu limitations of the i5, but yes i'd get a 1440p monitor with gsync, so your gtx 1080 can really shine.

So you think I would notice a great difference between the monitor listen and a G sync one ?

 

[SgtScream]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

I have i5 4670k and 1080 gtx would this be capable ?

You aren't going to achieve 144fps in some triple A titles due to cpu limitations of the i5, but yes i'd get a 1440p monitor with gsync, so your gtx 1080 can really shine.

So you think I would notice a great difference between the monitor listen and a G sync one ?

You're asking the opinion of someone who isn't a casual gamer ;-) so i'll try to "dial it down". If there is a significant difference in price between the monitor you want to get and a gsync monitor, go for the one without the gsync. In my opinion, gsync does help to get that "smooth like butter" gaming performance because it synchronizes fps with the monitors refresh rate. You already have a gtx 1080 so i'd be inclined to say you aren't a casual gamer but categorized as part of the "PC Master Race" lol.

 

[SkyNetRising]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

I have i5 4670k and 1080 gtx would this be capable ?

Yes - that's a good setup. Your system would definitely benefit from 144Hz screen.

 

[Ryzouk]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

I have i5 4670k and 1080 gtx would this be capable ?

You aren't going to achieve 144fps in some triple A titles due to cpu limitations of the i5, but yes i'd get a 1440p monitor with gsync, so your gtx 1080 can really shine.

So you think I would notice a great difference between the monitor listen and a G sync one ?

You're asking the opinion of someone who isn't a casual gamer ;-) so i'll try to "dial it down". If there is a significant difference in price between the monitor you want to get and a gsync monitor, go for the one without the gsync. In my opinion, gsync does help to get that "smooth like butter" gaming performance because it synchronizes fps with the monitors refresh rate. You already have a gtx 1080 so i'd be inclined to say you aren't a casual gamer but categorized as part of the "PC Master Race" lol.

Yeah the price difference has been quite high from what I have seen online lately. Can you suggest a good g sync monitor for a reasonable price. I mean I would spend up to £400 on a new monitor. Its just I seen this Asus ones and thought at £280 I looks pretty decent for the price. What about this G sync one ?

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/28-acer-xb281hk-predator-xb1-4k-nvidia-g-sync-v2-gaming-monitor-tn-3840x2160-1ms-100m1-displayport-h

 

[SkyNetRising]

G-sync monitors carry significant price premium. It's up to you, if you're willing to pay that much.
144Hz monitor even without g-sync is still a great improvement.

 

[SgtScream]

Is the rest of your hardware capable of 1440p@144fps gameplay?

I have i5 4670k and 1080 gtx would this be capable ?

You aren't going to achieve 144fps in some triple A titles due to cpu limitations of the i5, but yes i'd get a 1440p monitor with gsync, so your gtx 1080 can really shine.

So you think I would notice a great difference between the monitor listen and a G sync one ?

You're asking the opinion of someone who isn't a casual gamer ;-) so i'll try to "dial it down". If there is a significant difference in price between the monitor you want to get and a gsync monitor, go for the one without the gsync. In my opinion, gsync does help to get that "smooth like butter" gaming performance because it synchronizes fps with the monitors refresh rate. You already have a gtx 1080 so i'd be inclined to say you aren't a casual gamer but categorized as part of the "PC Master Race" lol.

Yeah the price difference has been quite high from what I have seen online lately. Can you suggest a good g sync monitor for a reasonable price. I mean I would spend up to £400 on a new monitor. Its just I seen this Asus ones and thought at £280 I looks pretty decent for the price. What about this G sync one ?

https://www.scan.co.uk/products/28-acer-xb281hk-predator-xb1-4k-nvidia-g-sync-v2-gaming-monitor-tn-3840x2160-1ms-100m1-displayport-h

That Acer predator would be an excellent choice.

 

[Solandri]

So you think I would notice a great difference between the monitor listen and a G sync one ?

Just to be clear, G-Sync (and FreeSync for AMD) function a bit differently than increasing refresh rate. They're for eliminating tearing and judder. Normally the graphics card constantly updates the image one horizontal line at a time, overwriting the previous frame as it draws. When the monitor timer says it's time to refresh the screen, it grabs and copies the latest version of the image for display. If this sync happens while the image update line is anywhere other than the very bottom of the screen, you get a tear. The upper half is of the image is for the current frame, the bottom half is for the previous frame, the disjoint in the image where the two meet (line which is currently being drawn) is called a tear.

V-sync eliminates tearing by using a second image buffer, so only a completed frame is ever displayed. But that introduces an extra frame of lag, and can result in judder if the framerate drops slightly below the refresh rate. One image is shown for two consecutive frames, which can be jarring for the motion detection cells in your eyes as an object which is supposed to be moving at constant speed momentarily freezes.

G-sync and FreeSync eliminate tearing by making the monitor sync (refresh the image) whenever the GPU completes drawing a full image (sort of - the details are a bit more complex). It's basically a variable refresh rate. The result is tear-free images without the lag introduced by V-sync. If you're bothered by tearing or judder, then G-sync is definitely a feature you want to consider. If you don't notice these things, then the extra money for G-sync is probably wasted. That said, all other things being equal, I would opt for G-sync over 144 Hz.

 

[Ryzouk]

So you think I would notice a great difference between the monitor listen and a G sync one ?

Just to be clear, G-Sync (and FreeSync for AMD) function a bit differently than increasing refresh rate. They're for eliminating tearing and judder. Normally the graphics card constantly updates the image one horizontal line at a time, overwriting the previous frame as it draws. When the monitor timer says it's time to refresh the screen, it grabs and copies the latest version of the image for display. If this sync happens while the image update line is anywhere other than the very bottom of the screen, you get a tear. The upper half is of the image is for the current frame, the bottom half is for the previous frame, the disjoint in the image where the two meet (line which is currently being drawn) is called a tear.

V-sync eliminates tearing by using a second image buffer, so only a completed frame is ever displayed. But that introduces an extra frame of lag, and can result in judder if the framerate drops slightly below the refresh rate. One image is shown for two consecutive frames, which can be jarring for the motion detection cells in your eyes as an object which is supposed to be moving at constant speed momentarily freezes.

G-sync and FreeSync eliminate tearing by making the monitor sync (refresh the image) whenever the GPU completes drawing a full image (sort of - the details are a bit more complex). It's basically a variable refresh rate. The result is tear-free images without the lag introduced by V-sync. If you're bothered by tearing or judder, then G-sync is definitely a feature you want to consider. If you don't notice these things, then the extra money for G-sync is probably wasted. That said, all other things being equal, I would opt for G-sync over 144 Hz.

Thanks I have never seen any tearing on games so far. What do you think about the Acer Predator that I linked in my last reply. I see its only 60hz although it has the g sync. Will this monitor give me a better crisp and smooth gameplay rather than the ASUS PB277Q or AOC Vesa Q2778VQE ? Enough so to make up for the price difference.

I don't play much FPS on pc mostly open world games so want then to looks as nice as possible.

 

[SgtScream]

If you're more into looks than performance, go with an IPS panel over TN. IPS panels typically have better color and viewing angles.