Don't see a big difference between "60Hz 1080p" and "165Hz 1440p gsync" monitor

[turbopixel]

I'm a little worried about my about me, because I should notice a difference, but seem not to see any. I think, after researching and reading a lot, I have configured the monitor, graphics driver and in game settings correctly. What is your experience? Is it me? Maybe it wasn't worth the money. This is the second monitor of same type, as the first one stopped working.

I was playing intensively Counter Strike:Global Source and later Overwatch on a Samsung 27" 60 Hz 1080p monitor and my system could produce 60+ fps constantly. I have upgraded my graphics card from GTX 970 to 1070 and the monitor to AOC 27" 144/165 Hz 1440p with G-Sync.

Shouldn't I feel a big difference in Overwatch and Redout with G-Sync and 165Hz? But I did not make any comparison, maybe I set second monitor side by side and compare. What is your experience? Do someone feel like me? Or do my eyes adapt it very fast?

 

[Sedivy]

It depends on the person I find. Some people are audiophiles for example, and detect every bit of difference in sound quality. I can't tell at all personally. Visual experience can be like that.
That's not to say there is no difference, you just might not notice or care about the difference in overall experience.

 

[turbopixel]

I will check old monitor again and see if it looks cancery like most people report. If there is no difference noticible, then the money was not worth it.

 

[SinxarKnights]

What exactly were you expecting?

It just makes things appear smoother. side by side it is most noticeable especially when using a 60hz secondary monitor. try dragging a window around on the desktop then do the same on the 60hz one. That smoother animation translates directly to games. the effect is that there are more frames shown of any given animation, that is what makes it appear smoother.

 

[dauransx1]

I just got the same monitor if its the Rog Swift. I feel the same but not 100%.... My opinion is, the 165Hz doesn't do the 4ms justice or vice versa if i said that backwards. The 4ms of the isp just takes away from the 165hz (200fps in DOOM) and blurs the image like 60hz does so i can think how bad the 21:9 looks with only 100hz and 4ms. BUT! im sure if i were to game again on my 60hz 1ms TN ill prob see how wrong i am because you never really see the upgrade till you go back to the inferior version.

I know ms is ghosting and refresh is like a slideshow but the images they show on the box and on sites showing how clear moving objects are when they move across the screen is a lie and misleading, big time because its not even close to that... The only good i see in the $750 i paid is g-sync and isp colors and the 1440p. I was thinking i could see players name tags as they run pass my screen but i cant, still blurry but yet it is smoother just not any clearer then a 60hz monitor with 1ms, again could be that its isp?

 

[turbopixel]

Its not Asus, but the very similar AOC Agon AG271QG with the exact same panel. I read a lot and I trust the German site Prad.de, where it got very good review with absolutely low latency, contesting their best monitors in this reagion even against a TN panel. So, we can ignore the 4ms, its like marketing to have 1ms in my opinion.

I wonder if I would get cancer, when I play Overwatch on 60Hz without G-Sync again. Or maybe we don't just see it. Maybe our expectations was too much when we upgraded?