4K 60hz with G-SYNC vs. 1440p 144hz monitor for non-professional gaming?

[Raincity]

Hi wonderful community, I am building a gaming rig and am looking into monitor choices. I'm currently choosing between ASUS ROG PG278Q and Acer XB280HK. I don't play pro-level game, and I'm not that competitive with FPS. But I do want to get the most fluid experience out of non-competitive but action-heavy games, like AC Unity or the upcoming Witcher 3. If money is not an issue, and supposing I have a powerful enough rig to run them at their best, which one is overall better for non-professional gaming? By "better" I mean the best graphic display without sacrificing fluidity to a noticeable degree. You can of course recommend another option (Actually please do).

I have two specific questions I'm thinking about behind choice.

1. According to your experience, is 60hz with G-SYNC fluid enough for an average gamer?

2. If I play 1440p on a 4k monitor, would that be worse/same/better than on a native 1440p monitor?

Any help is appreciated.

 

[coolcole01]

Whats the cpu/gpu

 

[rhysiam]

Assuming you've got the rig to power them (and if not, don't bother with either 1440p @ 144hz or 4K... upgrade your rig first!), then get the ROG 144hz 1440p option personally.

For action games the additional frames makes a noticeable difference (for most people at least), and 4K still has issues in the desktop environment which can be frustrating. I'd take a silky smooth 1440p setup over 4K myself.

RE #2) running any panel at a non-native resolution will always have a big impact on quality. Try it... put your monitor now on another resolution and you can immediately see how 'fuzzy' everything looks. Because of the much smaller pixels on a 4K display, the effect won't be as dramatic, but it'll still be there. 1440p gets my vote.

 

[skit75]

With a 4k display, you will probably want to SLI or Xfire to get the frame rates you want. As coolcole01 mentioned, you should post your system specs. If your budget is for a monitor only, you might not even have a choice on which display to get due to hardware limitations of your GPU/CPU.

 

[Raincity]

Whats the cpu/gpu

When I wrote "if money is not an issue," I guess I should've specified that I meant I have unlimited budget for the rig and the monitor (Well, not really unlimited, but I just want to focus on the performance side of the question). I updated my question to say "supposing I have a rig powerful enough."

 

[Raincity]

With a 4k display, you will probably want to SLI or Xfire to get the frame rates you want. As coolcole01 mentioned, you should post your system specs. If your budget is for a monitor only, you might not even have a choice on which display to get due to hardware limitations of your GPU/CPU.

Well, I'm still building my rig, so nothing is set for now. But by saying "money is not an issue" I am setting up a presumption that my rig would be powerful enough to power the monitor, just to narrow down the discussion on monitor performance.

 

[Raincity]

Assuming you've got the rig to power them (and if not, don't bother with either 1440p @ 144hz or 4K... upgrade your rig first!), then get the ROG 144hz 1440p option personally.

For action games the additional frames makes a noticeable difference (for most people at least), and 4K still has issues in the desktop environment which can be frustrating. I'd take a silky smooth 1440p setup over 4K myself.

RE #2) running any panel at a non-native resolution will always have a big impact on quality. Try it... put your monitor now on another resolution and you can immediately see how 'fuzzy' everything looks. Because of the much smaller pixels on a 4K display, the effect won't be as dramatic, but it'll still be there. 1440p gets my vote.

Thanks for reply! Vote taken. I'll wait for a few more days to collect votes before picking the best solution.

 

[gridironcj]

I purchased the ROG Swift last month and I chose it over the G-sync 4K monitor because of the refresh rate difference. Yes, 60Hz with G-sync will make 45FPS seem much more fluid, but 45FPS is still 45FPS. Playing games on 2560x1440 and actually seeing 100+FPS is a dream come true, not to mention G-sync makes it the most fluid gaming experience possible right now. I would recommend at least 2-way SLI for 2560x1440 and even more for 4K, if you want to max games out.

The biggest problem with 4K right now is that we still don't have adequate hardware to truly max games out at that resolution. Many people play on Medium settings in games on 4K, which seem contradictory to me because the whole purpose of a higher resolution is to get a better visual experience, yet you're settling for crappy textures, lighting, etc. Additionally, there are folks out there who say "you don't need anti-aliasing at 4K," but this is far from the truth. Jaggies occur mostly when the camera is moving and you can still see them in 4K. The higher the resolution, the lower the anti-aliasing settings you'll need. I still recommend 2x MSAA or something equivalent for 4K. This is a bit taxing though, so you probably won't be hitting 60FPS with max settings and low AA. I suppose you could quad SLI some 980s, but you're looking at decreasing returns to scale at that point (not very cost-effective).

2560x1440 at over 100FPS with max settings is very realistic to pull off, even with a 2-way SLI setup. I have a 2-way SLI Titan setup and I'm hitting about 120FPS average in Battlefield 4 on Ultra and the max 100FPS in Shadow of Mordor (Ultra settings + additional settings turned up that Ultra does not cover). Playing racers like Grid 2 is amazing at 144FPS as well.

I'll also note that the ROG Swift has ULMB, which you may like if motion blur bugs you. It's aesthetically superior, in my opinion, to any monitor on the market as well. It truly looks like an enthusiast PC gamer's monitor (the red LED is a nice touch). Also, surround gaming is much more feasible with three 2560x1440 displays over three 4K displays.

One last note, G-sync is still in its infancy, so there are problems. Nvidia has yet to produce robust drivers for SLI + G-sync. I take a 10 percent performance hit with a G-sync device plugged into my PC, even if it's not even active. I've tested this extensively and the issue only occurs with SLI. The drivers are the issue and Nvidia has yet to address this. Who knows if this will actually be addressed. Also, some games flat out don't work well with G-sync. A month ago, many folks with SLI and G-sync were experiencing crashes in games. Finally, G-sync will not cure all stuttering issues. Assassin's Creed Black Flag's stuttering in certain scenes cannot be fixed with G-sync. It's simply an issue with the game itself.

 

[coolcole01]

ok so if you have a 5960x and 3 gtx titan blacks then yes get the 4k but unless your rocking that i would go 1440p to max out fps

 

[bystander]

The biggest problem with 4K right now is that we still don't have adequate hardware to truly max games out at that resolution. Many people play on Medium settings in games on 4K, which seem contradictory to me because the whole purpose of a higher resolution is to get a better visual experience, yet you're settling for crappy textures, lighting, etc. Additionally, there are folks out there who say "you don't need anti-aliasing at 4K," but this is far from the truth. Jaggies occur mostly when the camera is moving and you can still see them in 4K. The higher the resolution, the lower the anti-aliasing settings you'll need. I still recommend 2x MSAA or something equivalent for 4K. This is a bit taxing though, so you probably won't be hitting 60FPS with max settings and low AA. I suppose you could quad SLI some 980s, but you're looking at decreasing returns to scale at that point (not very cost-effective).

I agree with a lot of what you say, and I too would get a 1440p monitor, not so much about the power requirements, but because I like high FPS. It just makes a game feel more alive and fluid.

However, your thought on settings is a little off. For starters, high texture settings does not effect performance, unless you lack the VRAM, at least in the vast majority of the time, so while you might play on "high" settings on a single 780ti, you can use maxed textures and get 45+ FPS. Of all the games I've seen people try this, only Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light require you to use some medium settings.

And Let's be honest here. Resolution is a setting too. So while you are stuck at high settings, with the rare medium game, you have a higher resolution, which is an improvement in visuals. It's a personal preference thing. Many people with 4k monitors are claiming that medium-high settings results in better visuals on 4k, than ultra/maxed at 1440p.

But animation is what gets me hooked, more than anything, so I'd definitely go with the ROG. Fluid, low latency gaming is my cup of tea.

 

[dennisfyfe]

"Fluid, low latency gaming is my cup of tea."

That. Unless I'm mistaken, the higher refresh rate and G-SYNC are what you should be chasing. 4k monitors lack the higher refresh rates. Some will say that you can't see a difference between 60 hz refresh and 120/144 hz. BS. There's a significant difference and it can be seen just from moving your mouse cursor in a circle. That being said, if you're currently using a monitor at 60 hz, please be aware that the precision with higher refresh rates is uncanny and the accuracy is highly addicting.

 

[gridironcj]

The biggest problem with 4K right now is that we still don't have adequate hardware to truly max games out at that resolution. Many people play on Medium settings in games on 4K, which seem contradictory to me because the whole purpose of a higher resolution is to get a better visual experience, yet you're settling for crappy textures, lighting, etc. Additionally, there are folks out there who say "you don't need anti-aliasing at 4K," but this is far from the truth. Jaggies occur mostly when the camera is moving and you can still see them in 4K. The higher the resolution, the lower the anti-aliasing settings you'll need. I still recommend 2x MSAA or something equivalent for 4K. This is a bit taxing though, so you probably won't be hitting 60FPS with max settings and low AA. I suppose you could quad SLI some 980s, but you're looking at decreasing returns to scale at that point (not very cost-effective).

I agree with a lot of what you say, and I too would get a 1440p monitor, not so much about the power requirements, but because I like high FPS. It just makes a game feel more alive and fluid.

However, your thought on settings is a little off. For starters, high texture settings does not effect performance, unless you lack the VRAM, at least in the vast majority of the time, so while you might play on "high" settings on a single 780ti, you can use maxed textures and get 45+ FPS. Of all the games I've seen people try this, only Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light require you to use some medium settings.

And Let's be honest here. Resolution is a setting too. So while you are stuck at high settings, with the rare medium game, you have a higher resolution, which is an improvement in visuals. It's a personal preference thing. Many people with 4k monitors are claiming that medium-high settings results in better visuals on 4k, than ultra/maxed at 1440p.

But animation is what gets me hooked, more than anything, so I'd definitely go with the ROG. Fluid, low latency gaming is my cup of tea.

I didn't mention just textures, but also lighting, shadows, tessellation, reflections, level of detail, etc. If you turn up the quality settings in a game, your performance will decrease (it all requires more processing power by your GPU). Also, you will still need some AA for 4K (very little, but still something). It all adds up to lower performance and you'd really need a tri or quad SLI setup to reach 60FPS+. I've seen a few benchmarks on games in 4K and what's most troubling to be is that the min FPS does not scale as well as the average for many games, which I find the min extremely important if it's well-below the average (way more FPS variance means less-smooth gameplay). The cure would be G-sync, but once again, 45FPS is still 45FPS. I'll upgrade to 4K once the performance is there with a 2-way SLI setup AND we get 144Hz at 4K with acceptable color quality. That's where the ROG Swift is hurt a bit, but hey, it's a weighing game at the moment. No monitor "has it all," but the ROG Swift is the closest thing. If someone is dying to play on 4K though, I would only recommend the G-sync versions. Screen tearing vs. stuttering via V-sync is not something I would want to deal with.

 

[bystander]

Clearly you are a maxed or nothing kind of guy. You'd be surprised at how little difference many of those settings make. While I prefer 80+ FPS, many people are having a good time at 45-60 FPS on high settings at 4k on a single 980/780ti. Two way SLI/CF would be more than enough for a good time, even for me.

 

[jchrismando]

From reviewers who have played on both the ROG swift and the Acer 4k gsync it seems to come down to the type of gamer you are. Fast twitch first person - ROG all the way. Third person sight seeing strategy kind of guy - 4k gsync. I haven't played on either yet but ordered the Acer. Reading the posts here almost makes me want to cancel my order however I've not heard from any forum goers who don't play 1st person who have actually gamed on both screens. If your out there I'd love to hear from you.

 

[Raincity]

Thanks for everyone's answer. I have never tried the ROG swift, but I recently got a chance to try out the 4k g-sync one. In general it looked for me smooth enough, but whenever it requires some careful aiming, it reaches its limit. For example with AC blackflag, it's smoothness is satisfying in general fighting, but it is a pain whenever I need to use manual aim to shoot anything with a pistol. I think I have decided on the ROG swift.