4K or 144hz?

[Urbanengineer]

Tom's Hardware Members,

I am a gamer who is finally looking to purchase the monitor of my dreams. I currently am using an Intel I5-4670 CPU and two R9 290 GPU's from Sapphire. I cannot push the limits of my system on my 1080p 60hz TV and want to move up to something that blows me away.

Whenever I see a GoPro commercial I notice the video quality is absolutely amazing and I want that to transfer over to my games. I run most games at max settings and vsync for 60 fps. I know LoL will run at 300 something frames .

I also will be buying a GoPro soon and wish to edit movies from family adventures and my motorcycling trips. What would be the perfect monitor for me on a modest budget?

Thank You Tom's Hardware Members.

 

[Urbanengineer]

I forgot to add, I do not care about the size of the screen as long as it is not below 20". I am not a brand whore . Best value I am looking for here... aka I don't want to spend north of $400.

 

[dwatterworth]

I'd say go for the 144 hz monitor or a nice 1440p monitor like the Asus PB278Q. The current 4k monitors that are lower cost have pretty terrible panels. They are obviously locked at the maximum 60hz. Larger panels such as the popular 28" panels won't be very good at the 'blow away effect'. There will be a lot of color degradation due to the viewing angle on such a large panel unless you are sitting further away. I think of the 4k monitors like the whole camera megapixel thing. Unless you can really dedicate a lot of cash for one of the IGZO panel models (32" panels), then I'd say you are better off getting a 1440p monitor with fantastic color reproduction or a quality 144hz monitor for high FPS gaming.

 

[Urbanengineer]

Here is a 1080p 144 hz option which seems to be a good price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236313

Stil...... This or 4k? What is best for viewing pleasure folks?

 

[dwatterworth]

That Asus one is great. I still think you will much more appreciate rich colors of a quality IPS panel, or the super response of the 144hz panel over a lower cost 4k panel. Compromise if budget allows would be one of the highly rated and reliable Overlord 1440p ips monitors. They're overclocked to 120hz and feature a fantastic LG panel.

http://overlordcomputer.com/collections/27-monitors/products/tempest-x270oc-glossy

 

[Urbanengineer]

I'd say go for the 144 hz monitor or a nice 1440p monitor like the Asus PB278Q. The current 4k monitors that are lower cost have pretty terrible panels. They are obviously locked at the maximum 60hz. Larger panels such as the popular 28" panels won't be very good at the 'blow away effect'. There will be a lot of color degradation due to the viewing angle on such a large panel unless you are sitting further away. I think of the 4k monitors like the whole camera megapixel thing. Unless you can really dedicate a lot of cash for one of the IGZO panel models (32" panels), then I'd say you are better off getting a 1440p monitor with fantastic color reproduction or a quality 144hz monitor for high FPS gaming.

Okay so 4K was a bit of a stretch, so can I do 1440 at a higher response rate than 60 or should I stick to 1440/60 vs 1080/144?

-"Overclockable" to 120hz - 1440p 60hz stock - http://www.amazon.com/QNIX-QX2710-Evolution-2560x1440-Perfect/dp/B00CAKD6LI/ref=pd_cp_pc_0/175-2996566-1557500

-1080p 144hz : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236313

Opinions? I am still kind of a newb to this stuff .

 

[Urbanengineer]

That Asus one is great. I still think you will much more appreciate rich colors of a quality IPS panel, or the super response of the 144hz panel over a lower cost 4k panel. Compromise if budget allows would be one of the highly rated and reliable Overlord 1440p ips monitors. They're overclocked to 120hz and feature a fantastic LG panel.

http://overlordcomputer.com/collections/27-monitors/products/tempest-x270oc-glossy

That is almost double the Asus price though 🙁. I am not certain of the difference in quality though?

 

[Outlander_04]

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-pb287q

too rich for your budget , and it would stretch your graphics set up to its limits
But I want to own one so Im sharing

You only need 144 Hz if you plan on using 3D glasses . Other than that stick with a 60 Hz panel

 

[capt_taco]

I don't think the 144 MHz monitor is going to improve your experience much unless you're a near-competitive level gamer. 60 fps is already about double what the human eye can see. The response time is the main difference.

4K is too early IMO to get the "blow you away" experience at the right price ... what you pay $1,500 for today will probably be inferior to $200 technology a few years from now ... I would just go with the above advice and get a top-notch 1440p display; that will give you the best experience unless you really have unlimited cash to throw at it.

 

[dwatterworth]

The Qnix panels aren't clocked to their advertised refresh rate out of the box, some go up to 144hz, some don't make it past 80. Big gamble with their panel qualities too from what I've read. I think dead pixels surface pretty commonly.

I'm fairly inexperienced with overclocking monitors as well, but most of my tech purchases are based around getting the features or specs I want out of the box, allowing for tuning later, rather than needing to depend on inconsistent returns on overclocking. I made a rig for a friend that wouldn't OC a 4770K past 4.1ghz, no matter how many volts we threw at it, all in the name of saving $30 over a 4790k.

I think the less often you replace a component, the more should be allocated to that item (within reason). Monitors are usually the least replaced product. Nearly your entire experience depends on the quality of the monitor as well. You can have an awesome setup like yours but if the monitor is crap or has dead pixels, you'll hate it.

What type of games do you play? I think that should drive the response time. I play some FPS games, but mostly strategy etc, so I've always gone for image quality over refresh etc. The better color reproduction panels will make video and photo editing more pleasurable along with showing you more accurate colors.

 

[dwatterworth]

That Asus one is great. I still think you will much more appreciate rich colors of a quality IPS panel, or the super response of the 144hz panel over a lower cost 4k panel. Compromise if budget allows would be one of the highly rated and reliable Overlord 1440p ips monitors. They're overclocked to 120hz and feature a fantastic LG panel.

http://overlordcomputer.com/collections/27-monitors/products/tempest-x270oc-glossy

That is almost double the Asus price though 🙁. I am not certain of the difference in quality though?

That Asus 144hz panel will be great. It gets awesome reviews. I think it just depends on what matters more to you is what I'm saying. At the reasonable budget level, it's hard to get a monitor without a compromise. Speed or image quality is the main tradeoff. In no way does that mean that the Asus 144hz panel will look bad, I saw one for the first time in action and high frame rate gaming looked amazing. I did notice color banding in smoke and sky particularly, but that is something to live with on a consumer level TN panel.

 

[Urbanengineer]

Hmm.. Thank you for letting me know 144 hz will even be a waste. Considering I have gamed on Big-Box PC monitors for most of my life I probably don't really know what I am looking for. When I look around for "what do I want in a gaming monitor" i find everyone is different.. well I really don't know 🙁.

So it is response time that makes computer monitors look amazing? When I watch 1080p motorcycle videos on youtube the motorcycles seem to move at about 10 frames per second or so... it does not look fluid. I want my new monitor to move fluidly and gracefully... if that makes sense. Like a GoPro Commercial .

You all seem to mention IPS Panels and Image quality.

Games Include:
League of Legends
The Sims 4 (I know...)
Assassins Creed Series (Runs like ass on AMD cards)
Battlefield 4 [Occasionaly]
Civilization Interstellar Edition
Shadow of Mordor
Anything new that pops up that I hear good reviews about .

Maybe I could sell one of my R9 290s to budget an even nicer monitor (R9's still collect around $200).

 

[Urbanengineer]

I don't think the 144 MHz monitor is going to improve your experience much unless you're a near-competitive level gamer. 60 fps is already about double what the human eye can see. The response time is the main difference.

4K is too early IMO to get the "blow you away" experience at the right price ... what you pay $1,500 for today will probably be inferior to $200 technology a few years from now ... I would just go with the above advice and get a top-notch 1440p display; that will give you the best experience unless you really have unlimited cash to throw at it.

Thanks for this response. A 4K Monitor seems to be VERY expensive at the time and should be avoided. I think 1440p would be much clearer too and I should just run 60fps? Should I sell my extra R9 290 because the graphics are already great with the single?

 

[Urbanengineer]

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-pb287q

too rich for your budget , and it would stretch your graphics set up to its limits
But I want to own one so Im sharing

You only need 144 Hz if you plan on using 3D glasses . Other than that stick with a 60 Hz panel

I don't think I would ever really get into 3D gaming . It sounds pretty neat though! Can the eye really see no difference between a 60hz and 120hz monitor with the same refresh rate?

 

[dwatterworth]

Is there any way you can hold on the screen and keep the two 290's? Those would be very nice to have with a any higher resolution panel, although the 290 alone can easily push a single 1440p screen on ultra.

The monitors refresh rate is not intended to match up to the human vision. The higher refresh rate monitors instead achieve their effect by being able to keep up with systems that are outputting at high frame rates, so even though the human eye can detect to an average 40-60hz (why many people get headaches from fluorescent bulbs that fire at 60hz and failing bulbs can be seen to flicker at 50hz), the higher rate of FPS displayed allows our brains to interpret a fluid motion vs what we can easily detect differences in at 40FPS and under. It's like watching things in real life, they are moving at essentially, infinite frames per second, so the closer that the monitor can simulate a fresh image of something moving, the closer it looks to real life, which really helps with 3D / first person game immersion experiences.

So that is another reason why things like Gsync and freesync are important, since if the computer hardware can exactly match the monitors frequency of fresh cycles, the more fluid the motion looks, vs say a computer outputting at 40fps, which even though the monitor is outputting at say, 60hz, there is not a clock synchronization, there are frames that are displayed for two refresh cycles, and there are images that display for one, creating a very subtle inconsistency that disrupts immersion. Worse yet, there is also image tearing, where a runt frame is displayed over a previous frame, which if objects are moving on screen, will create an off-set top and bottom half of the total image.

 

[Urbanengineer]

That Asus one is great. I still think you will much more appreciate rich colors of a quality IPS panel, or the super response of the 144hz panel over a lower cost 4k panel. Compromise if budget allows would be one of the highly rated and reliable Overlord 1440p ips monitors. They're overclocked to 120hz and feature a fantastic LG panel.

http://overlordcomputer.com/collections/27-monitors/products/tempest-x270oc-glossy

Is there any way you can hold on the screen and keep the two 290's? Those would be very nice to have with a any higher resolution panel, although the 290 alone can easily push a single 1440p screen on ultra.

The monitors refresh rate is not intended to match up to the human vision. The higher refresh rate monitors instead achieve their effect by being able to keep up with systems that are outputting at high frame rates, so even though the human eye can detect to an average 40-60hz (why many people get headaches from fluorescent bulbs that fire at 60hz and failing bulbs can be seen to flicker at 50hz), the higher rate of FPS displayed allows our brains to interpret a fluid motion vs what we can easily detect differences in at 40FPS and under. It's like watching things in real life, they are moving at essentially, infinite frames per second, so the closer that the monitor can simulate a fresh image of something moving, the closer it looks to real life, which really helps with 3D / first person game immersion experiences.

So that is another reason why things like Gsync and freesync are important, since if the computer hardware can exactly match the monitors frequency of fresh cycles, the more fluid the motion looks, vs say a computer outputting at 40fps, which even though the monitor is outputting at say, 60hz, there is not a clock synchronization, there are frames that are displayed for two refresh cycles, and there are images that display for one, creating a very subtle inconsistency that disrupts immersion. Worse yet, there is also image tearing, where a runt frame is displayed over a previous frame, which if objects are moving on screen, will create an off-set top and bottom half of the total image.

I guess I could keep both? Im confused why you say 1 card will do well enough though .

Unfortunately I went the AMD CPU GPU method (Then bought an Intel I-5 after with a new board), so I cannot get perfect sync through G-Sync (although I think Mantle Mimics this?). What is the #1 Bar none thing I will want in a new monitor? The response time?

The Assassins Creed series uses a 3rd person person camera that swings from side to side and it seems that millions of new frames keep loading every minute. I want that to be solid movement like when I am looking into the sky in the game and it responds with perfect fluid motion. When I play it sits around 40 fps (noticeable issues) and jumps to 60 when looking straight up.

Is that why I need something like the Overlord monitor you mentioned that boasts 2ms response time, 120hz OC, and and IPS screen?

Sorry for all the questions, you are very courteous to help out another random on the web 😀:!

 

[Urbanengineer]

http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=2&background=stars&pps=240 The current monitor I am on right now cannot clearly show the UFO after 240 Pixels per Second. It is moderate at best right?

 

[dwatterworth]

I said one card should do well enough because the 290 is a powerful card, it plays pretty much every game at ultra above 30fps if the AA is turned down doesn't it? I was just suggesting if you could hold on getting the screen, then you could keep both cards so you could enjoy the high fps of the dual 290's and the new monitor, so you wouldn't need to sell one for whatever screen you chose to go with, or was that just for the $400-$500 monitors.

I think you'd probably like the higher refresh rate monitor. The Overlord monitor is a mix of the two while the asus 1440p has the best color reproduction. Since you value fluid motion, the higher refresh rate will get you that and a great picture.

 

[Urbanengineer]

The R9 does great in crossfire on most games but absolutely hates Assassins Creed it seems -.-.

See this video at Time = 2:07 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC-KHOKM7ck

He mentions some kind of blur? That is the blur I have while playing assassins creed and running the UFO test myself. Is that a response rate issue? Lost there.

It seems I would be most interested in 1. NO BLUR 2. Fluid game play 3. Color and Cost 4. Actual brand or look of actual monitor on outside.

The 1440p by 120hz just seems to be crazy expensive 🙁. I just want fluid gameplay.

 

[Beezy]

I don't think the 144 MHz monitor is going to improve your experience much unless you're a near-competitive level gamer. 60 fps is already about double what the human eye can see. The response time is the main difference.

4K is too early IMO to get the "blow you away" experience at the right price ... what you pay $1,500 for today will probably be inferior to $200 technology a few years from now ... I would just go with the above advice and get a top-notch 1440p display; that will give you the best experience unless you really have unlimited cash to throw at it.

this is untrue, the human eye is much more perceptive than that common myth tends to claim. 144Hz next to a 60 Hz monitor with hardware that is capable, the difference can be noticed. Really only side by side though. With just one or the other I say it would be a lot harder to notice unless you are a competitive online first person shooter, where every second counts. All in all, I would prefer rich and crisp colors at 1080/1440p than crap quality with 4K. Plus I hear 4K still has kinks to iron out (seeing as its not hugely adopted yet as a standard.)

 

[Urbanengineer]

I don't think the 144 MHz monitor is going to improve your experience much unless you're a near-competitive level gamer. 60 fps is already about double what the human eye can see. The response time is the main difference.

4K is too early IMO to get the "blow you away" experience at the right price ... what you pay $1,500 for today will probably be inferior to $200 technology a few years from now ... I would just go with the above advice and get a top-notch 1440p display; that will give you the best experience unless you really have unlimited cash to throw at it.

this is untrue, the human eye is much more perceptive than that common myth tends to claim. 144Hz next to a 60 Hz monitor with hardware that is capable, the difference can be noticed. Really only side by side though. With just one or the other I say it would be a lot harder to notice unless you are a competitive online first person shooter, where every second counts. All in all, I would prefer rich and crisp colors at 1080/1440p than crap quality with 4K. Plus I hear 4K still has kinks to iron out (seeing as its not hugely adopted yet as a standard.)

Which 1440p 1080p monitor do you recommend then? 500 is too much money 🙁.

 

[Outlander_04]

I 60 Hz monitor refreshes the screen 60 times a second
This is the same as 60 FPS when you are gaming .

I personally cannot notice any difference in image smoothness once I get above about 45 fps . Other people may have different experiences , but I believe by the time you hit 60 fps there is little more if anything to gain from increasing the frame rates .
What can happen is horrible screen tearing if you push too hig a frame rate at a panel that is only refreshing at 60 Hz . Often worse on a tv screen , and HDMI connectors have not been kind to my gaming experiences either .

IPS panels can be LUSH . They look a lot nicer . But finding one with a fast enough response time is an issue .

Unfortunately manufacturers specs on monitors are usually utter bs . Maximum brightness measured by leaving one square inch white and trying to pump all the light through that . Response times measure by making transitions that wont usually happen etc etc .

In the end actually being able to see a screen and play on it is the best way .

 

[Urbanengineer]

I 60 Hz monitor refreshes the screen 60 times a second
This is the same as 60 FPS when you are gaming .

I personally cannot notice any difference in image smoothness once I get above about 45 fps . Other people may have different experiences , but I believe by the time you hit 60 fps there is little more if anything to gain from increasing the frame rates .
What can happen is horrible screen tearing if you push too hig a frame rate at a panel that is only refreshing at 60 Hz . Often worse on a tv screen , and HDMI connectors have not been kind to my gaming experiences either .

IPS panels can be LUSH . They look a lot nicer . But finding one with a fast enough response time is an issue .

Unfortunately manufacturers specs on monitors are usually utter bs . Maximum brightness measured by leaving one square inch white and trying to pump all the light through that . Response times measure by making transitions that wont usually happen etc etc .

In the end actually being able to see a screen and play on it is the best way .

What do you play on?

 

[mdocod]

60 fps is already about double what the human eye can see.

Myth! In fact, the frame rate used for cinema and television is actually bordering on inadequate to be comfortably perceived as "motion" and not a slideshow. When subjected to the fast scrolling and fast viewport angle changes that take place in real-time gaming, 30FPS is VERY detectable and very annoying for many players. In fact, even 60FPS is very detectable by most people when panning, scrolling, or changing the direction of their viewport or in-game character, though 60FPS is generally an acceptable level of "fluidity" for most conditions and most gamers.

People who pay attention to the issue because it effects their own game-play and competitiveness will tell you that motion does not begin to appear very fluid until ~100FPS and BEYOND when dealing with fast motion. Some competitive gamers shoot for 120FPS as a bare minimum, and would like more like 200FPS if they could have it.

The eye does not have a shutter speed. Information gathered by the eye is not in the form of snap-shots, rather, it is in the form of a continuous stream of data. There is evidence to suggest that the eye/brain can discern that motion is made up of individual frames all the way up to somewhere in the neighborhood of 200-300FPS.

Games played at 30FPS (consoles) typically have motion blur effects forcibly turned on, which effectively "trick" the eye/mind into thinking that the motion is smoother than it really is. This forced loss of detail when panning about is a compromise.

 

[Outlander_04]

I 60 Hz monitor refreshes the screen 60 times a second
This is the same as 60 FPS when you are gaming .

I personally cannot notice any difference in image smoothness once I get above about 45 fps . Other people may have different experiences , but I believe by the time you hit 60 fps there is little more if anything to gain from increasing the frame rates .
What can happen is horrible screen tearing if you push too hig a frame rate at a panel that is only refreshing at 60 Hz . Often worse on a tv screen , and HDMI connectors have not been kind to my gaming experiences either .

IPS panels can be LUSH . They look a lot nicer . But finding one with a fast enough response time is an issue .

Unfortunately manufacturers specs on monitors are usually utter bs . Maximum brightness measured by leaving one square inch white and trying to pump all the light through that . Response times measure by making transitions that wont usually happen etc etc .

In the end actually being able to see a screen and play on it is the best way .

What do you play on?

Samsung B2440 .
24 inch business class, 1080p TN panel with a rated 5 ms response time

Very definite color tone changes as you move to an angle . Maybe a bit worse than most tn panels , but not a huge issue for anyone sitting directly in front .
Ive had it for a few years and I thin I bought it because 1/ brand and 2/ LED backlight when that was less common and 3/ it was discounted