1440 w/ gsync or 4K??

[JohnC87]

Hey guys, thanks for looking at my post. I am contemplating between those two monitors. I want to do either 24 or 27 inch. I have heard 4K is better for larger monitors. The main games I am playing right now are Overwatch and Tera: rising. I have a 6700k cpu, z170 Asus motherboard, and I bought the Gtx 1080 founders. It will be here Saturday. And I can not be more excited so I want to upgrade my monitor to take advantage of it. I run a Samsung 850 pro ssd. I have a pretty badass rig. I'd say top of the line once I get my card Saturday. So what do you guys think? The monitors I've looked at between the two are about a 100 dollar difference. I just don't know if gsync really makes that much of a difference as long as the monitor has a 5ms response time. Right?

Thanks for your responses!

 

[greens]

Honestly, 4k at anything less than 40" is borderline unusable due to the size of text and stuff.
Even windows scaling does a poor job of making it readable.

1440p is much more reasonable for the <30" screens.

 

[timbo1130]

Trust me G-Sync is worth it if you are playing fast paced games like Battlefield doom or call of duty. There is no question g-sync plus fast refresh is really amazing. I personally would not do 4K unless its G=Sync. The 5ms response time is meaningless as it is just marketing. You will need to check an actual review such as the reviews Toms does or the folks over at tftcentral. Its just my opinion but seriously G-sync really is that good and you wont understand untill you actually use it.

 

[photonboy]

The best gaming monitor has specs like this:

1) GSYNC
2) 144Hz+
3) IPS
4) 27"
5) good customer feedback, warranty etc.

GSYNC is definitely worth it.

4K is not really worth it for a gamer, especially with the low refresh rate.

I'll explain GSYNC a bit below..

 

[photonboy]

GSYNC:
With normal (non-GSYNC), synchronous monitors the screen updates at a preset interval. If 60Hz, that's every 1/60th of a second.

Problems:
1), 2) screen tearing, and LAG:
if you don't force the GPU to be synchronized (VSYNC) with the monitor you get screen tearing. Unfortunately this also adds LAG (latency) and makes the games feel more sluggish. The lower the refresh rate is the worse it becomes.

3) Stutter:
If you turn on VSYNC but then drop below the target (below 60FPS for 60Hz panel) you now get STUTTERING due to missing the frame update thus mixing frame times.

The solution to avoid VSYNC STUTTER is to tweak your game settings so that you NEVER drop below which isn't ideal (your FPS may range from 20FPS to 100FPS). Another solution is to use Adaptive VSYNC for a game but that simply turns VSYNC ON or OFF automatically, so if you drop below the cap VSYNC is OFF; you get screen tear but not stutter (screen tear is usually better than VSYNC stutter).

So... it's a mess. Enter GSYNC->

With GSYNC the monitor doesn't update the screen until it's TOLD to. So there's no large LAG due to buffering a frame, there's no need to make sure you are over a specific FPS (to avoid stuttering) and there's no screen tearing either.

Is there a catch?
Well, it's expensive right now. Also, you want a fairly HIGH REFRESH to avoid going over. 60Hz (60FPS) means it doesn't work if you can output more than 60FPS unless you cap but that's not ideal either.

There are articles on this of course, but the bottom line is:
a) SMOOTH GAMING
b) tear, lag, stutter no longer issues
c) FPS minimum not an issue

To use, just put the game settings to the HIGHEST possible, then if the frame rate is a bit low adjust the settings as appropriate to achieve 60FPS average or whatever is optimal for the game you play.

Other:
There should be a way to CAP but I don't have a GSYNC monitor. Personally, I'd want to cap to say 135FPS if I had a 144Hz monitor to ensure I stay in asynchronous mode all the time. AMD added a Global cap option, but I don't know how that works.

On the other hand, if you default to VSYNC ON when hitting 144FPS then it would cap to 144FPS VSYNC ON. You don't have GSYNC ON but the latency should be pretty low anyway (note it would be a PROBLEM at a lower refresh like 60Hz because you'd have a lot more lag at 60Hz VSYNC ON than at 144Hz VSYNC ON).

Other:
Some minor issues such as Fallout 4 being designed to run at 60FPS. I'm not sure how that game works with GSYNC ON with a non-60Hz panel to boot, however I believe the ideal setting would be GSYNC ON but capped at 60FPS for that game only. Not sure how to cap as i've said though.

 

[Xtergo]

4K is still more beauty then for being competitive, while higher refresh rate is always and edge and Gsync eliminates screen tearing ect so you wont have to worry at all about occasional frame drops, Go with the G Sync one, and if you still want looks of 4K in gaming Nvidia DSR would produce 4K mimiced results when you need eye candy.

If you can throw some extra bucks take a look at something like https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XB280HK-bprz-28-inch-Widescreen/dp/B00O0Z5682?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

 

[photonboy]

4K is still more beauty then for being competitive, while higher refresh rate is always and edge and Gsync eliminates screen tearing ect so you wont have to worry at all about occasional frame drops, Go with the G Sync one, and if you still want looks of 4K in gaming Nvidia DSR would produce 4K mimiced results when you need eye candy.

If you can throw some extra bucks take a look at something like https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XB280HK-bprz-28-inch-Widescreen/dp/B00O0Z5682?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

The deal breaker with a 4K monitor right away is the low refresh rate which is not ideal for gaming. The differences between the two resolutions is very small in gaming (I rarely see the slightest difference), whereas the advantages of going up to 144FPS or higher (while still smooth in asynchronous mode) is huge.

Also, I think you linked a TN panel, so it's not quite as good as an IPS panel.

Update:
Just FYI but Amazon is a complete and utter mess for having reviews of similar products mixed in. It happens everywhere, even for DVD's.

Three of the reviews for the 4K monitor linked are talking about 1440p, different monitors. Sigh.

 

[redgarl]

4k for me all the way. I have a good 4k TV with Displayport and don't regret it. Also, the response time is really good enough. I see no difference between my gaming laptop and my 4k screen.

Drawback is that you need 800$ of GPUs to drive it properly. Multi-gpu is also one of the main way to go and a lot of people don't like it especially recently with the lack of day one support. You need to wait 3 months for proper drivers to handle the game properly, but when it works, it works.

Your other option is a 1080GTX.

As for scaling, it's true it is not perfect, however many games are now offering scaling text options. It's going to be more mainstream, so I would not really be worried if Fallout two from 1998 is not offering 4k text.

 

[redgarl]

4K is still more beauty then for being competitive, while higher refresh rate is always and edge and Gsync eliminates screen tearing ect so you wont have to worry at all about occasional frame drops, Go with the G Sync one, and if you still want looks of 4K in gaming Nvidia DSR would produce 4K mimiced results when you need eye candy.

If you can throw some extra bucks take a look at something like https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XB280HK-bprz-28-inch-Widescreen/dp/B00O0Z5682?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

The deal breaker with a 4K monitor right away is the low refresh rate which is not ideal for gaming. The differences between the two resolutions is very small in gaming (I rarely see the slightest difference), whereas the advantages of going up to 144FPS or higher (while still smooth in asynchronous mode) is huge.

Also, I think you linked a TN panel, so it's not quite as good as an IPS panel.

Update:
Just FYI but Amazon is a complete and utter mess for having reviews of similar products mixed in. It happens everywhere, even for DVD's.

Three of the reviews for the 4K monitor linked are talking about 1440p, different monitors. Sigh.

When does 60 FPS considered low...? Consoles are only offering 30 FPS in many case.

IMHO, 4k at 60FPS is totally incredible. 1080p at 144Hz... is just smooth...

 

[photonboy]

4k for me all the way. I have a good 4k TV with Displayport and don't regret it. Also, the response time is really good enough. I see no difference between my gaming laptop and my 4k screen.

Drawback is that you need 800$ of GPUs to drive it properly. Multi-gpu is also one of the main way to go and a lot of people don't like it especially recently with the lack of day one support. You need to wait 3 months for proper drivers to handle the game properly, but when it works, it works.

Your other option is a 1080GTX.

As for scaling, it's true it is not perfect, however many games are now offering scaling text options. It's going to be more mainstream, so I would not really be worried if Fallout two from 1998 is not offering 4k text.

I find my 2560x1440, 60Hz monitor is also "good enough" however it is NOT optimal. He's asking what is better for gaming, 144Hz, 1440p, GSYNC, or 60Hz, 4K, GSYNC.

Hands down, 144Hz, 1440p, GSYNC is the best solution for gaming.

You also don't have a 144Hz, GSYNC monitor anyway. I've tried a lot of monitors and: 60Hz, non-GSYNC is good, 50FPS GSYNC is great, getting over 100FPS with GSYNC was so incredibly smooth it was almost painful to go back to my regular monitor.