Advice on a monitor

[zarugal]

Hey all,

I'm looking at buying a new monitor, but I need one that has a range of characteristics. Having taken more of an interest in online and competitive gaming over casual for a while now, I feel I'd like a higher refresh and more responsive monitor than my current 60Hz IPS. However, having come from TN to my current IPS, I'm not sure I can go back to the (terrible) colour reproduction of TN panels.

So basically, my question is this. What is/are the best monitor/s with 120-144Hz refresh, low response, and colour reproduction? If there's a 120Hz 4ms monitor with IPS-like colours that would be ideal, but as far as I can see I could spend days doing research and not come up with anything, whereas I'm sure there's someone on here that knows off the top of their head exactly what I'm looking for.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

TN and IPS are worlds apart. A TN can never look as good, or even close to an IPS. If anybody came to that conclusion comparing monitors, they are doing it wrong. Regarding response time, ignore this spec, it's an LCD not a CRT - it's marketing, it doesn't actually mean anything in the modern market. BenQ makes cheap 144 Hz monitors, I would go with that.

 

[zarugal]

Ok, in that case let me re-phrase my question:

Which 100Hz+ monitor has the best/most accurate colour reproduction?

 

[zarugal]

An afternoon's research has revealed that 144Hz IPS monitors are definitely coming with Acer already having released one (albeit poor) example that shows the technology exists.

I have decided I shall wait until there are more refined examples available, at which point there will be no compromise between refresh rate and colour.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

The problem is not me being arrogant, the problem is that they are marketing these "gaming" displays towards those who won't ask questions - the gamers. And, they are making them out to be good, when they are not. There is no such thing as a "gaming" monitor. That's just another word for build something cheap but sell it for a lot more because it has a "gaming" sticker on it. Similar to how other brands take a perfectly fine product and put a LED on it, and rebrand it as a gaming product.

Since you're running 2 GTX 970's in SLI. I suggest the XB270HU. It's a 1440p, 144 Hz, GSync, IPS monitor.

Suggestions:

Monitor: Acer XB270HU bprz 144Hz 27.0" Monitor ($719.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $719.99 -- GSync

Monitor: Asus MG279Q 144Hz 27.0" Monitor ($579.00 @ Amazon)
Total: $579.00 -- FreeSync

And the upcoming PG279Q...

The reason I posted these as well the price, is because they're both using the same exact panel. They are using the M270DAN02.3, which is the only 1440, 144 Hz, (sync), IPS panel that exists. So take a look at the price difference. The only difference is price, aestethics, and sync tech. In my opinion, 1440p GSync and FreeSync is not a very good idea. The reason is because if you can push 100+ FPS, you won't need either of these. Your perception of screen tearing will already be minimized, in comparison to a 60 Hz display.

Also, keep in mind that 1440 is a bit more demanding than 1080, so here's a way to look at it is:

1920 * 1080 = 2073600
2560 * 1440 = 3686400

------------------------------------
3686400 - 2073600 = 1612800
1612800 / 2073600 = 0.77
0.77 * 100 = 77
------------------------------------

1440 is 77% more demanding than 1080, so expect a bit lower FPS in the titles you play. You can of course lower your resolution on a 1440 display, but that means you'll lose 1:1 pixel mapping. This means that you'll introduce a blur, and small details will be lost.

I don't think we know when the 1080 144 Hz IPS will hit the market, hey seem to think that a higher resolution on a slightly bigger screen, is the way to go. Even though resolution has nothing to do with picture quality after 1080 got mainstream.



All the best!

 

[zarugal]

The problem is not me being arrogant, the problem is that they are marketing these "gaming" displays towards those who won't ask questions - the gamers. And, they are making them out to be good, when they are not. There is no such thing as a "gaming" monitor. That's just another word for build something cheap but sell it for a lot more because it has a "gaming" sticker on it. Similar to how other brands take a perfectly fine product and put a LED on it, and rebrand it as a gaming product.

Since you're running 2 GTX 970's in SLI. I suggest the XB270HU. It's a 1440p, 144 Hz, GSync, IPS monitor.

Suggestions:

Monitor: Acer XB270HU bprz 144Hz 27.0" Monitor ($719.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $719.99 -- GSync

Monitor: Asus MG279Q 144Hz 27.0" Monitor ($579.00 @ Amazon)
Total: $579.00 -- FreeSync

And the upcoming PG279Q...

The reason I posted these as well the price, is because they're both using the same exact panel. They are using the M270DAN02.3, which is the only 1440, 144 Hz, (sync), IPS panel that exists. So take a look at the price difference. The only difference is price, aestethics, and sync tech. In my opinion, 1440p GSync and FreeSync is not a very good idea. The reason is because if you can push 100+ FPS, you won't need either of these. Your perception of screen tearing will already be minimized, in comparison to a 60 Hz display.

Also, keep in mind that 1440 is a bit more demanding than 1080, so here's a way to look at it is:

1920 * 1080 = 2073600
2560 * 1440 = 3686400

------------------------------------
3686400 - 2073600 = 1612800
1612800 / 2073600 = 0.77
0.77 * 100 = 77
------------------------------------

1440 is 77% more demanding than 1080, so expect a bit lower FPS in the titles you play. You can of course lower your resolution on a 1440 display, but that means you'll lose 1:1 pixel mapping. This means that you'll introduce a blur, and small details will be lost.

I don't think we know when the 1080 144 Hz IPS will hit the market, hey seem to think that a higher resolution on a slightly bigger screen, is the way to go. Even though resolution has nothing to do with picture quality after 1080 got mainstream.



All the best!

I wasn't trying to imply that I thought you were being arrogant, I'm sorry if I came across that way with my post(s).

What you've come up with is very helpful and insightful. Although I would point out the price difference is likely due almost exclusively to the verification price that Nvidia demand from manufacturers in exchange for G-sync, whereas AMD do not charge for FreeSync.

I'm now running at 2560x1080 and can run games like FarCry 4 with everything maxed and get above 144Hz with plenty to spare. 1440p only works out at 30% harder to run than my 1080p wide, so I'm not concerned about graphics power.

I'm left trying to work out whether to wait and see if there are more examples and/or 1080p variants at lower prices coming around soon, or to go for the Asus. I've always considered xxxx-Sync to be an addon to the features, not a deciding factor for purchase. Like you said, the refresh rate is so high that tearing is removed naturally.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

I haven't heard of any 1080 IPS Gsync/freesync monitors yet. Maybe someone else have some information on that.

 

[zarugal]

I'm not particularly bothered by G-Sync, and even less so FreeSync (as I have GTX cards).

144Hz IPS is currently at the top of my wishlist.