Question Monitor for My Gaming Build 24 vs 27" 1080p vs 1440p?

jasonp12

Distinguished
Sep 8, 2010
544
0
19,010
9
So I am looking at building a gaming rig/multi tasking rig(Streaming music/movies/web browsing) along the lines of the following
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Nvidia RTX 2060 or 1660ti
16gb Ram

Obviously the PSU etc will be ample (650w+ gold)

Ive tried researching but find so many different opinions on monitors. As for games I will be playing mainly Dota2, SC2, and some shooters, CS:GO, Battlefield series (5 etc)

So with that said do I go 24 or 27" 1080p or 1440p? I sit approx 2-2.5ft from my monitor

What are the advantages of 24 vs 27 and 1080p vs 1440p? From what little i gathered is if going 24" 1080p will suffice and 1440p is a waste. But if going 27" is 1080p good enough or do i need 1440p?

Ive heard for multi tasking etc 27" 1440p is great as u can have 2 full browsers easy to read etc. if u go 1080p the font can get small? 27" is better for MOBA and RPG type games but some prefer 24" for FPS games as its less to see/periferal while still being big enough?

Did i understand this right?

Also based on my build is that stretching the hardware to much to play 1440p at 27"

Obviously budget can play a factor but I have room for a 27" 1440p if need be (~400-450 CAD) But dont need to spend it if a 24 or 27" 1080p is good enough.
 

Aeacus

Glorious
Herald
At your sitting distance, go for 24" 1080p. Since with 27" 1080p monitor, you'd be seeing individual pixels and that ruins the look. 27" 1080p monitor is best used with sitting distance of 3-6 ft.

Going with 1440p monitor is up to you. With 1440p, the images are more detailed (more pixels on screen) but it's also more taxing on hardware, especially when gaming.

Though, with GTX 1660 Ti / RTX 2060 @ 1440p, you'd be looking towards average of 60 FPS* on maxed settings. While @ 1080p, average FPS would be 100 FPS* on maxed settings.
* Depending on a game.

Long story short:
24" 1080p - high FPS
27" 1080p - high FPS but you'd be seeing individual pixels
24" 1440p - mediocre FPS and more detailed image
27" 1440p - mediocre FPS, more detailed image but you might see individual pixels if you have eagle eye

Also, are you already decided on monitor refresh rate (e.g 60Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, 165Hz, 200Hz, 240Hz) and panel type (TN, VA or IPS)?
 

jasonp12

Distinguished
Sep 8, 2010
544
0
19,010
9
At your sitting distance, go for 24" 1080p. Since with 27" 1080p monitor, you'd be seeing individual pixels and that ruins the look. 27" 1080p monitor is best used with sitting distance of 3-6 ft.

Going with 1440p monitor is up to you. With 1440p, the images are more detailed (more pixels on screen) but it's also more taxing on hardware, especially when gaming.

Though, with GTX 1660 Ti / RTX 2060 @ 1440p, you'd be looking towards average of 60 FPS* on maxed settings. While @ 1080p, average FPS would be 100 FPS* on maxed settings.
* Depending on a game.

Long story short:
24" 1080p - high FPS
27" 1080p - high FPS but you'd be seeing individual pixels
24" 1440p - mediocre FPS and more detailed image
27" 1440p - mediocre FPS, more detailed image but you might see individual pixels if you have eagle eye

Also, are you already decided on monitor refresh rate (e.g 60Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, 165Hz, 200Hz, 240Hz) and panel type (TN, VA or IPS)
Much thanks for the info. You basically confirmed what i thought.

Go either 24 and 1080p or 27 and 1440p.

I do not need to game on max settings unless i can with 60fps+ dont care if its below 100 tho. Or i dont mind med to high either.

As for type and refresh rate no i havent decided. Maybe u can educate me. It seems ips are best visually but sometimes higher latency. TN seem to be best gamer? I dont know if id notice a diff.

From my research 144hz should be good and seems optimal for gaming vs performance wheres at 75 you may see delays etc?
 

Aeacus

Glorious
Herald
1st off: refresh rate

For web browsing/movie watching, there's is no need to get above 60Hz monitor since movies are recorded either in 30 FPS or 60 FPS. And since the webpage text isn't moving in front of your eyes, 1 FPS would do just fine.

However, for gaming and for smoother experience, higher than 60Hz is suggested. 75Hz monitor has so little improvement over 60Hz monitor that i don't think you'd be able to tell a diff between 60Hz and 75Hz monitor. I know i can't. At current date, 144Hz monitor is the sweet spot of all kinds of gaming, be it slow-paced RPG or fast-paced FPS. And thanks to the fast evolving tech, 144 Hz monitors doesn't cost as much anymore as they did few years back. Sure, there are 200Hz and even 240Hz monitors out there but 1. they cost a fortune and 2. they come only with TN panel.

So, if you can afford 144Hz monitor, i suggest you get one. I did.

Speaking of me, i have 24" 1080p 144Hz VA panel monitor in use, which i bought 6 months ago as an upgrade to my old 23.6" 1080p 60Hz TN panel monitor. The monitor i'm currently using is MSI Optix MAG241CR.

2nd: panel type

Like i said above, there are 3x kinds of panels: TN, VA and IPS. Actually there are more (variations of the main three) but i focus on these main ones.

TN panel is oldest of the three and also cheapest. Where TN panel excels is it's performance, most notably response time (1ms) and refresh rate. At current date, only TN panel monitor can achieve 240Hz but other panel types are catching up with refresh rate.
Though, TN panel also has it's downsides. Prominent ones are: poor color accuracy (washed out colors), very narrow view angle and poor contrast ratio (max 1000:1).

Gaming wise, TN panel monitor is best suited for fast-paced games (FPS, racing etc), where you don't care as much about pretty colors as you do about smoothness of movements.

IPS panel has been around for some time and is also the most expensive of the thee.
Where IPS panel excels is it's color accuracy, which is the best of the thee. Also, it has widest viewing angles of the three.
But where IPS panel falls short is response time. IPS technology by design can't be any faster than 4ms (compared to the 1ms most TN panels are). Another area where IPS panel falls short is it's poor contrast ratio which is equal to a TN panel (max 1000:1), despite it's great color accuracy. This is most prominent when looking at black image and where black isn't black but instead gray or some form of blue. Refresh rates aren't IPS panel strong side either and many IPS panels are 60Hz, especially on higher resolutions. There are some 1440p 165Hz and 4K 120Hz IPS panel monitors out there but they are few and far apart, also costing a fortune.

Gaming wise, IPS panel monitor is best suited for slow-paced games (RPG, strategy etc), where you have time to see all those pretty colors and where smoothness of movements isn't that important.

VA panel is the newest of the three and price wise, it falls between TN and IPS. VA panel was created to take the best of both worlds (TN and IPS) and combine them.
Where VA panel excels is it's contrast ratio (min 3000:1), where you'd see the deepest and richest blacks. Also, it doesn't fall short on other aspects as well. VA panel color accuracy isn't as good as it is for IPS panel but it's close to the levels of IPS panel (considerably better than TN panel). It's viewing angle is also a notch smaller than that of an IPS panel but again, considerably better than that of a TN panel. Refresh rate wise, VA panel is more capable on different resolutions than IPS panel but it doesn't match the 240Hz of a TN panel (at least not yet). Response time is another area where VA panel does good. While VA panel can't naturally be any faster than 4ms (just like IPS panel), it can achieve the magical 1ms response thanks to the software solution in it.
Downside of VA panel monitor is that not many of them are around at current date.

Gaming wise, VA panel monitor is suited for all kinds of games. VA panel is like Jack of all trades but master of none.

Like i said above, i too have VA panel monitor in use. While i did consider getting IPS panel monitor as well, i wanted to keep the performance of TN panel monitor and so, i went with VA panel monitor. At times, i'm still amazed how good colors and contrast are compared to my old TN panel monitor. For gaming, my monitor's 144Hz refresh rate makes everything much smoother and when needed, i can also enable 1ms response time (from the default of 4ms). Though, 1ms response time reduces the brightness on my monitor (it's a drawback of the VA panel design). But all is not lost since i can set the response time to 2ms as well, without any reduce to the brightness (which i'm currently using as well).

3rd: stutter reduce tech

Since G-Sync is proprietary tech and it has high royalties on it thanks to Nvidia, G-Sync monitors can cost double of the price for the same monitor without G-Sync.

G-Sync could be worthwhile if you have the money to pay basically double the price of the monitor and where you absolutely need GPU frames to match the frames produced by your monitor (e.g in competitive eSports gaming).
I, personally, don't see the need for G-Sync due to the much higher cost and because there are free alternatives out there.

My monitor doesn't have G-Sync, only Freesync (AMD's royalty free equivalent to Nvidia G-Sync). And since i have Nvidia Pascal architecture GPU, i can't use the built-in Freesync (or can i?).
Currently, i'm using Nvidia Adaptive Vsync which works well for me,
further reading: https://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/adaptive-vsync/technology

However, thanks to the latest Nvidia drivers, anyone who has Pascal architecture or newer Nvidia GPU can use their GPU with Freesync as having AMD GPU in the PC,
further reading: https://www.techspot.com/article/1779-freesync-and-nvidia-geforce/

So, if your Pascal or Turing architecture GPU works fine with AMD's Freesync tech, why pay extra for Nvidia G-Sync?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: matthyas910

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS