2k or 1080p at 144hz with GTX 970

[Robomonkey]

Recently my second monitor died, which means now I am in the market for a new monitor.

At first i purchased a 4k monitor from ASUS but I couldn't get it to work to its full potential with my GTX 970 and so i returned it.

Now i am considering whether or not to go back to 1080 or go with a 2k monitor.

My goal is to be able to play my games on very high or near very high on the monitor. And i don't know whether or not to go 2k or 1080p @ 144hz, btw i know nothing about 2k, but I've read that it is the future.

As well would going 2k avoid the scaling issue that one would encounter with a 4k screen?

Thanks!

 

[jossrik]

I think in this instance, 2k is 1080p, and that is definitely not the future, the future is 4k or more. I had a 970 originally with a 4k monitor, and I don't twitch game or compete any more so framerate isn't important to me. Going from 4k to 1080p was painful even though I had better frames, then my 980ti got here and while you can't get 100s of frames in a lot of games, you can get playable enjoyable framerates.

It's sad to say, but 1080p@144Hz probably isn't achievable with the 970. You can get over 60, that shouldn't be a problem, but I'd look for something with G-Sync, maybe aim for 60 - 80 frames on a 2560x1440 or so display? You're gonna have to do some digging as to which games you play and the framerate you can get with the 970, but for high res or high frames you're gonna need more horsies.

 

[MarkW]

Remember that jumping from 60Hz to 144Hz forces the GPU to produce 240% more pixels per frame. So if you cannot get the fps you want at 60Hz, jumping to 144Hz is going to force even lower framerates.

 

[photonboy]

1) You don't really specify what your 4K issues where except to say "scaling issue"; yes, there are issues, but did you even try to set DPI to 150% and set the default scaling for web pages?

2) 2560x1440 is considered the best compromise between scaling (which tends to get worse, but not in all programs) and having a higher resolution

3) GSYNC is the best for gaming, however it's quite expensive. It's about $750USD for a 2560x1440, IPS, GSYNC, 144Hz monitor.

4) 144Hz vs higher res (what's more important to you because the budget will dictate). Examples:

a) CIV5 - higher resolution is important, refresh rate is not that important (i.e. 2560x1440@60Hz)

b) CSGO/shooters - higher resolution is NOT as important, but higher refresh rate is for some people (i.e. 1920x1080@144Hz)

*Keep in mind for normal, synchronous monitors you want to run at 144FPS solidly which can be hard to do. A good compromise is to force "Half Adaptive VSYNC" in NCP-> Manage 3D settings->...

That will cap at 72FPS on the GPU, and if you drop below VSYNC is turned off automatically to avoid stutter (you get some screen tearing, but not added stutter).

5) RESOLUTION->
This doesn't matter for gaming performance. You can run a game at a lower resolution than what the monitor supports. It's then scaled up to fit either by the GPU, or by the monitor's scaler.

That's why you have resolution options in the game settings up to the maximum (native) allowed by the monitor. I choose "scale by aspect" and scale on "GPU" for my settings in the NCP.

Summary:
BUDGET would have helped a lot. I'll try to link one or two.

 

[Dragos Manea]

Remember that jumping from 60Hz to 144Hz forces the GPU to produce 240% more pixels per frame. So if you cannot get the fps you want at 60Hz, jumping to 144Hz is going to force even lower framerates.

Lol what? First of all the resolution is the same so only thing changes is the refresh rate which does not influence the framerate of the gpu at 1080p, the only thing changes is the fluidity of the game, at 144hz is much more smotth, no ghosting effect and so on but the number of pixel calculated is the same as a standard 1080p 60hz monitor which is 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels. The framerate it wont change compared to a 60hz screen at 1080p but neither will be over 100, on this card you will be able to obtain about 60-75 fps in high demanding games and in witcher 3 about 40-60 fps.

 

[photonboy]

Remember that jumping from 60Hz to 144Hz forces the GPU to produce 240% more pixels per frame. So if you cannot get the fps you want at 60Hz, jumping to 144Hz is going to force even lower framerates.

You're a bit confused. Refresh rate has nothing to do with the amount of pixels a frame has. Every frame has the same amount, and the amount processed depends on the settings chosen (i.e. could be 1920x1080 on a 4K monitor).

If the GPU can produce only 40FPS for a 60Hz monitor then it will still produce EXACTLY 40FPS on a 144Hz monitor.

The only issue with a synchronous (not counting GSYNC/Freesync) monitor is whether you can produce enough FPS to match the refresh rate to avoid stutter issues. It also doesn't matter if you turn VSYNC OFF.

 

[photonboy]

http://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/

Play around with this.

1) GSYNC-> best, but expensive

2) 2560x1440 (arguably the best resolution)

3) 144Hz vs 60Hz

4) IPS vs TN (IPS is best)

5) screen size (up to 24" recommended for 1920x1080)

6) Warranty, user reviews etc.

Examples:
$750 http://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

$400 http://pcpartpicker.com/product/R998TW/aoc-monitor-g2460pg (TN, 24", 1920x1080 but it has GSYNC, 144Hz... good for fast games like shooters though not IPS quality color)

$350 http://pcpartpicker.com/product/LVV48d/asus-monitor-pb278q
(IPS, 2560x1440, but does NOT have GSYNC and is only 60Hz)

pros and cons as said.

I prefer IPS, 2560x1440 before the other features. High-res with good color is most important to me for not only programs but certain games like CIV5 where there is a lot of small text.

 

[MarkW]

60Hz x 1920 x 1080 = 124,416,000 per second
144Hz x 1920x 1080 = 298,598,400 per second.

It has a MAJOR effect on your framerates. In a negative way. If you have a powerful enough video card to drive those kind of numbers on a consistant basis, then it will look amazing, but very few people have powerful enough cards for that.

That is going to change radically this and next year, as the upper end cards are going to give people GPU power like we have never had till now.

 

[Dragos Manea]

60Hz x 1920 x 1080 = 124,416,000 per second
144Hz x 1920x 1080 = 298,598,400 per second.

It has a MAJOR effect on your framerates. In a negative way. If you have a powerful enough video card to drive those kind of numbers on a consistant basis, then it will look amazing, but very few people have powerful enough cards for that.

That is going to change radically this and next year, as the upper end cards are going to give people GPU power like we have never had till now.

OK so let me understand, if you have a 60hz 1080p screen and you play lets say at 48 fps in a game then if you change the screen to a 1080p 144hz then the framerate will drop with 144/60 = 2,4 which means 20 fps?

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

The GTX 970 is a 1080p 144hz or 1440p 60hz card. For anything more than that you'd have been looking at a GTX 980 Ti. If you aren't planning to upgrade your GPU soon then ask yourself which is more important; frame rate or graphics?

One thing to bear in mind is that some games are locked to a sub-144 frame rate.

 

[MarkW]

No, if your 60Hz averages 60 FPS (with vertical sync off), and you were tp replace the monitor with one operating at 144Hz, and left vertical sync off, you would still only see 60 fps. You have to have a system capable of pushing bvoth enough data (CPU) and FPS (GPU) at the much higher 144 FPS requirements for it to happen.

Its like in a car, just changing the transmission in most cases is not going to make the car a race car. You are most likely going to need a racing engine nd a racing tranny too.

 

[Robomonkey]

1) You don't really specify what your 4K issues where except to say "scaling issue"; yes, there are issues, but did you even try to set DPI to 150% and set the default scaling for web pages?

2) 2560x1440 is considered the best compromise between scaling (which tends to get worse, but not in all programs) and having a higher resolution

3) GSYNC is the best for gaming, however it's quite expensive. It's about $750USD for a 2560x1440, IPS, GSYNC, 144Hz monitor.

4) 144Hz vs higher res (what's more important to you because the budget will dictate). Examples:

a) CIV5 - higher resolution is important, refresh rate is not that important (i.e. 2560x1440@60Hz)

b) CSGO/shooters - higher resolution is NOT as important, but higher refresh rate is for some people (i.e. 1920x1080@144Hz)

*Keep in mind for normal, synchronous monitors you want to run at 144FPS solidly which can be hard to do. A good compromise is to force "Half Adaptive VSYNC" in NCP-> Manage 3D settings->...

That will cap at 72FPS on the GPU, and if you drop below VSYNC is turned off automatically to avoid stutter (you get some screen tearing, but not added stutter).

5) RESOLUTION->
This doesn't matter for gaming performance. You can run a game at a lower resolution than what the monitor supports. It's then scaled up to fit either by the GPU, or by the monitor's scaler.

That's why you have resolution options in the game settings up to the maximum (native) allowed by the monitor. I choose "scale by aspect" and scale on "GPU" for my settings in the NCP.

Summary:
BUDGET would have helped a lot. I'll try to link one or two.

My budget is under $400, since thats how much i got my 4k monitor for, as for games I'm pretty much everywhere, Arkham Knight, GTA V, SCII, Civ V, Overwatch (not that demanding), Total War (Attila, Shogun, Rome) etc. i mainly dabble in RTS and FPS and Action.

When i said scaling issues, i meant that everything got smaller (which is understandable) and I couldn't get it to look like it was at 1:1 when @ 1080, (again dealing in anything higher then 1080 is very new territory for me)

My main concern for selecting a new monitor is whether or not I my GTX 970 can play these games comfortable at 2k @ 40-60 fps or 1080 @ higher 70+ fps @ 144hz.

Thanks for the reply!