[SOLVED] 1440p@144Hz vs 1080p@240Hz

[JayBee82]

I recently decided to update my very old 24" 1080p@60Hz TN monitor to a more modern option, and I thought it'd be easy to choose one.
But it's actually not as simple as I thought, as there are too main options out there, 1080p@240Hz and 1440p@144Hz, with both pros and cons.
So I decided to to this thread to both ask you guys what you think, and possibly help other people facing the same choice.
I know the question has been already asked, but I feel like not every aspect has been summarized like this.

Here are the pros and cons of each solution I could find by reading various info on them;

1080p@240Hz
Pros:

• Smoother and lower latency at 240Hz
• Better for competitive gaming
• 1080p locked content will obviously look better on it
• More suitable for ~24" monitors
• 1080p works better on lower end pc, especially if not using full 240Hz
• Less ghosting at 240Hz, and even less with BFI
• Supposedly works better to emulate the CRT smooth look and feel for old consoles and arcade emulators, thanks to the better BFI (see blurbusters posts about it)

Cons:

• higher latency on 60fps@60Hz
• lower pixel density, so lower details
• less suitable for bigger ~27"monitors, pixel density isn't very good
• 240p/480i/480p contents have to use top and bottom black bars for integer scaling

1440@144Hz
Pros:

• Looks sharper and better
• Lower latency at 60fps@60Hz
• Suitable for bigger ~24" monitors
• 240p/480i/480p contents can be used in full height since they use integer scaling

Cons:

• 1080p locked contents look worse, softer
• takes more power, not recommended for lower end pc
• has slightly higher latency than monitors running at 240Hz

Now for my personal config, I have an i7 4770K with a 1060 6GB and 32GB of ram, and I'm not playing competitive games nor the most recent and more demanding games.
But I do want to upgrade for a 27" if possible.
So it leaves me wondering which solution would be the best.

 

[sizzling]

I know it might not be possible with the pandemic but you really need to try a 27” 1080p. I made the mistake of buying one several years ago and regretted. For me 27” needs 1440p to be a pleasant experience. However I know people will disagree with me.

 

[AlexTheFern]

the higher the resolution, the more gpu reliant it is.

can you run the games you play at 240 fps consistently? If you can, sure, but if you can't, theres no point in getting a monitor when you can't get frames

 

[JayBee82]

the higher the resolution, the more gpu reliant it is.

can you run the games you play at 240 fps consistently? If you can, sure, but if you can't, theres no point in getting a monitor when you can't get frames

Sure, and that's both points I mentioned in the list 😉
However your second point might not be entirely true depending on the monitor specs.
For instance, running a game at 60fps limit and 240Hz monitor refresh rate might allow a lower latency and less ghosting, especially with features like the BFI.
At least from the info I gathered.

 

[AlexTheFern]

i have a 27" 1080p monitor, and when I am not playing a game, it seems just tad bit blurry

 

[cryoburner]

Now for my personal config, I have an i7 4770K with a 1060 6GB and 32GB of ram, and I'm not playing competitive games nor the most recent and more demanding games.

Realistically, an i7-4770K will likely struggle to hit the kinds of frame rates to benefit much from a 240Hz screen in modern games. And a 1060 will likely struggle to run modern games well at 1440p.

Generally, those getting a 1080p 240Hz screen want them for displaying the highest possible frame rates in competitive games, and if you don't play such games much, the feature is probably not worth paying a big premium for, as it's unlikely you will see much noticeable benefit from it over a 144Hz panel. You tend to run into diminishing returns in terms of how noticeable higher refresh rates are past a certain point. Also, in many cases, such screens might use a panel designed for maximum speed at the expense of image quality, and things like the quality of colors and contrast may potentially suffer as a result.

A 1440p 144Hz screen would have the benefit of not only increasing the refresh rate substantially over your 60Hz panel, but would also provide a much sharper image at native resolution, due to it displaying nearly 80% more pixels than 1080p. That also makes larger screen sizes more practical for up-close viewing. Of course, that's going to affect your frame rates, probably cutting them by over 30% in games limited by graphics performance. A 1060 is not really an ideal graphics card for running modern AAA games at 1440p, but unfortunately the current graphics card shortage means that upgrading to something better is not really practical right now, and probably won't be for a number of months.

If you don't mind black bars, you could always try running games at a letterboxed 2560x1080 ultrawide resolution on such a screen though, as most recent games should support that resolution, and the performance impact should be lower. Or try Nvidia's updated image sharpening filter, that can allow you to run games at a lower-than-native resolution while still appearing sharp...

DLSS is Dead: New Nvidia Freestyle Sharpening Tested

Nvidia's latest major driver update brought with it several new features including performance enhancements, GPU integer scaling for retro games, a new ultra-low latency mode and perhaps...

www.techspot.com

Personally, I would go with the 1440p 144Hz option, as it would provide improvements in more areas, rather than refresh rates alone. Of course, even within a given refresh rate and resolution category, not all screens and panel types are created equal. Some have significantly better colors or contrast than others, and some handle ghosting and inverse-ghosting better than others. So, there's more to look at than just those specifications, and oftentimes detailed reviews are neessary to tell how these things compare.

 

[JayBee82]

Realistically, an i7-4770K will likely struggle to hit the kinds of frame rates to benefit much from a 240Hz screen in modern games. And a 1060 will likely struggle to run modern games well at 1440p.

Generally, those getting a 1080p 240Hz screen want them for displaying the highest possible frame rates in competitive games, and if you don't play such games much, the feature is probably not worth paying a big premium for, as it's unlikely you will see much noticeable benefit from it over a 144Hz panel. You tend to run into diminishing returns in terms of how noticeable higher refresh rates are past a certain point. Also, in many cases, such screens might use a panel designed for maximum speed at the expense of image quality, and things like the quality of colors and contrast may potentially suffer as a result.

A 1440p 144Hz screen would have the benefit of not only increasing the refresh rate substantially over your 60Hz panel, but would also provide a much sharper image at native resolution, due to it displaying nearly 80% more pixels than 1080p. That also makes larger screen sizes more practical for up-close viewing. Of course, that's going to affect your frame rates, probably cutting them by over 30% in games limited by graphics performance. A 1060 is not really an ideal graphics card for running modern AAA games at 1440p, but unfortunately the current graphics card shortage means that upgrading to something better is not really practical right now, and probably won't be for a number of months.

If you don't mind black bars, you could always try running games at a letterboxed 2560x1080 ultrawide resolution on such a screen though, as most recent games should support that resolution, and the performance impact should be lower. Or try Nvidia's updated image sharpening filter, that can allow you to run games at a lower-than-native resolution while still appearing sharp...

DLSS is Dead: New Nvidia Freestyle Sharpening Tested

Nvidia's latest major driver update brought with it several new features including performance enhancements, GPU integer scaling for retro games, a new ultra-low latency mode and perhaps...

www.techspot.com

Personally, I would go with the 1440p 144Hz option, as it would provide improvements in more areas, rather than refresh rates alone. Of course, even within a given refresh rate and resolution category, not all screens and panel types are created equal. Some have significantly better colors or contrast than others, and some handle ghosting and inverse-ghosting better than others. So, there's more to look at than just those specifications, and oftentimes detailed reviews are neessary to tell how these things compare.

Thank you, that's a very detailed and useful answer!
I will follow your advice go for a 1440p monitor then.
I did a little bit of digging, and the only good and affordable monitors I found where I live (japan), seem to be the Gigabyte G27Q and the Asus VG27AQ, do you know if they perform well?
Or maybe there is a better option under 500$ I missed?

Edit: and I forgot to mention, I do have tons of older games in my steam/gog backlog, they will occupy me nicely until buying a graphic board gets easier. So I bet those old game will work nicely with 1440p, and even better if I use your trick of using 1080p wide screen 👍

 

[AlexTheFern]

Thank you, that's a very detailed and useful answer!
I will follow your advice go for a 1440p monitor then.
I did a little bit of digging, and the only good and affordable monitors I found where I live (japan), seem to be the Gigabyte G27Q and the Asus VG27AQ, do you know if they perform well?
Or maybe there is a better option under 500$ I missed?

you want a 27" monitor, correct?

 

[AlexTheFern]

if so, check out these:
asus monitor
lg monitor

the asus one is actually a 165hz monitor, but at a really good price

 

[JayBee82]

if so, check out these:
asus monitor
lg monitor

the asus one is actually a 165hz monitor, but at a really good price

Thanks!
They seem indeed very nice.
So I guess, that the 4 choices I have now, that all cost around the same;

ASUS TUF VG27AQ ~500$
Gigabyte G27Q ~500$
Gigabyte G27QC ~500$ (same but with a curved VA panel)
LG 27GN850-B ~600$

It seems the 3 IPS models all suffer from not so good contrast and black level, and the VA one suffers from bad viewing angles.
And both gybabyte suffer from bad ergonomics (?) from what I read, probably because of the limited feet motions and such.
Other than that, they all seem great!

How well does the curved screen behaves for non gaming uses? It is worth it?

 

[AlexTheFern]

its just a preference. If you want to use a multi monitor display, i would recommend flat.

also, ips is better than va

 

[JayBee82]

its just a preference. If you want to use a multi monitor display, i would recommend flat.

also, ips is better than va

True, curved might not be the best for that.

I wonder tho, what makes the ips on the other models better than the curved va, beside maybe less ghosting?
On those particular models, the contrast, and especially the HDR seems better on the VA panel, and the latency not so different.
I often play in a low light environment, so the reviews saying the 3 other ones have greyish black and bad HDR is kind of concerning 🤔

 

[AlexTheFern]

thats what your going to get for 2k around that price point tbh

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Add my vote for 1440p. Pixel density at that resolution on a 27" is higher than 1080p on a 24" As far as 1080p content being blurry, that's a risk, but any of that would hypothetically be in motion and thus less noticeable than static imagery on desktop. Any modern display adapter can push desktop 1440p just fine.