[SOLVED] How to get 165 hz refresh rate?

[shmu26]

So I got a new monitor:
ASUS TUF Gaming Monitor VG27AQ1A 27''
It advertises as 165 hz. How to enable this refresh rate?

In Windows advanced display settings, I have two choices:
59.951 Hz
60.011 Hz
It defaults to the former.

The monitor is connected by a HDMI 2.0 cable.
The computer has three monitor ports:
VGA
DVI
HDMI
I also have USB-C, if that counts.

Intel® UHD Graphics 630

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9700 CPU @ 3.00GHz 3.00 GHz
Installed RAM 16.0 GB (15.9 GB usable)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor

 

[kerberos_20]

your GPU supports hdmi 1.4
1440p at 60Hz is max it can output

with DVI (dual) you could to go 75Hz at 1440p
https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=maximum_limits

1080p can run 144Hz

 

[sizzling]

Have you selected 1440p resolution? Looking at the instructions for the monitor you should get 144Hz over HDMI at 1440p. To get 165Hz it needs to be connected via Display Port.

 

[shmu26]

Thanks guys. I have it at 2560 x 1440, which is the recommended resolution.
I don't do fast motion gaming. In fact, this machine is mainly for text-oriented work. So maybe I should stick with the higher resolution, and forget about high refresh rate?

I would consider getting a discrete GPU, but I am not sure I will feel the difference for my user case.

My main goal in upgrading my monitor was to reduce eye strain.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

Gaming or not, you will need a discrete GPU for that resolution at 165hz. Processor graphics don’t go that high.

You might find an old GTX980 on eBay maybe. Check the max supported resolution and refresh rate of any card you get because that’s a very high res for 165hz.

 

[shmu26]

Gaming or not, you will need a discrete GPU for that resolution at 165hz.

Maybe I didn't make my quest clear enough. My quest is for minimal eye strain, and my main use is text-oriented. That said, maybe a high refresh rate is not so important for me?

 

[Math Geek]

past about 100 hz your eyes won't tell much difference anyway. i def saw a difference when moving from a basic 60 hz screen to a 120 hz screen. even a basic igp can handle basic office work at 1440p.

i don't recall having to set the refresh rate for mine. just the resolution i wanted. did you look and see if there are any drivers for the monitor at the asus site? here is the link

TUF GAMING VG27AQ1A - Support

www.asus.com

 

[shmu26]

I installed the driver from the asus site.
If I go down to 1080p, so that I can push up the refresh rate, am I gaining or losing, for my user case?

 

[kerberos_20]

I installed the driver from the asus site.
If I go down to 1080p, so that I can push up the refresh rate, am I gaining or losing, for my user case?

if image quality doesnt get worse, than no issue with 1080p
it depends on how it gets upscaled on your display to its native 1440p

 

[Math Geek]

the difference to me is a zero sum type thing.

you get more screen space at 1440p but then have to zoom in more so you can actually see it. when working with text based your eyes do not like to have to focus real tight to read something so you likely already have the text fairly large. i work with code a lot and have it pretty big to prevent eye fatigue.

so at 1080p you won't have to make it as big as you would at 1440p. in the end you will likely keep the text at the same size either way making it a coin toss as to what is "better"

i hope this makes sense to you as it's just something i noticed about myself and not really tried to put into words before

 

[shmu26]

the difference to me is a zero sum type thing.

you get more screen space at 1440p but then have to zoom in more so you can actually see it. when working with text based your eyes do not like to have to focus real tight to read something so you likely already have the text fairly large. i work with code a lot and have it pretty big to prevent eye fatigue.

so at 1080p you won't have to make it as big as you would at 1440p. in the end you will likely keep the text at the same size either way making it a coin toss as to what is "better"

i hope this makes sense to you as it's just something i noticed about myself and not really tried to put into words before

Makes perfect sense to me. I just lowered to 1080p and cranked the refresh rate up to 120. As a result, I decreased the scaling from 125% to 100%.
Can't say at this point whether the display is clearer and crisper or not, but at least I am getting a higher refresh rate, which is what I paid for. Not sure the expense was totally justified, but I do see that these gaming-oriented devices come with software that helps you tweak it to your delight.

 

[Math Geek]

rather than higher resolution i have 2x 24" 1080p screens on my desk. i can get lots of stuff on the screens at once and can see it all. works great for me and what i do.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

You should definitely use the monitor at native resolution to minimise eye strain. Refresh rate is only important for gaming and even then 60hz is enough for light gaming and is what most people use.

For reading emails and web browsing then refresh rate makes no difference other than maybe smoother scrolling animations.

What does make a difference is running at native resolution. At that res you will likely want to crank up windows desktop scaling to 150% or so.

Running at 1080p is terrible advice and will definitely increase eye strain not reduce it.

 

[shmu26]

You should definitely use the monitor at native resolution to minimise eye strain. Refresh rate is only important for gaming and even then 60hz is enough for light gaming and is what most people use.

For reading emails and web browsing then refresh rate makes no difference other than maybe smoother scrolling animations.

What does make a difference is running at native resolution. At that res you will likely want to crank up windows desktop scaling to 150% or so.

Running at 1080p is terrible advice and will definitely increase eye strain not reduce it.

If you increase the resolution, and then increase the scaling, aren't you cancelling out the benefit?

 

[Math Geek]

i've never read anything that suggests native resolution is the best way to go. not saying it can't be true, but i've not seen anything to back that up personally. then again never seen anything backing up what i said either.

is simply my observation from my experience.

i'd love some reference links if you got any i could read up on tommy