Need GTX 970 monitor advice.

[Vilos1]

Hi I just wanna ask for some advice concerning monitor choices. Anyway I recently built my first computer and are looking for a good monitor. I use the computer for gaming (witcher, bioshock etc), 3D (Maya etc) photshop and such (I think you get the gist).

I would like to get an ips panel and the main choices I seem to have are the acer XB270Hubprz and the asus MG279Q. I wonder however if I really need one of these or if my gpu can even handle them and really need some advice. After all I don't want to buy something really expensive (mainly the acer one) and then find out my pc can't handle it. Would it be better to just find a 1440p monitor at 60hz for example?

Prices:
ASUS MG279Q 5490kr = roughly 652,711 USD
Acer Predator XB270Hubprz = roughly 949,788 USD

GPU: Asus GeForce GTX 970 Strix DirectCU II OC HDMI DP 2xDVI 4GB
http://www.prisjakt.nu/produkt.php?e=2809941

My build: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/qkLfTW

 

[spagalicious]

Well if you want G-Sync, 144Hz, and IPS, the XB270HU is definitely your best option. The ASUS has gotten solid reviews but is a Freesync panel, the adaptive sync capability of the monitor would be useless to you. You could definitely save a little cash by going to 1080P. The GTX 970 does okay at 1440P but not with modern more demanding titles. That said, 1440P is a pretty big jump in image quality over 1080P and G-Sync on the XB270HU will keep everything silky smooth should some demanding titles drop your framerate under 60 FPS.

At this point in time, I would not drop the cash on a higher priced 1080P panel when there are great 1440P panels that are not that much more expensive. XB270HU all the way.

 

[Stabi]

Hello.A 1440p monitor for gaming with a gtx 970 is a very good idea , you will get high fps in max settings at most games,you will probably drop(at some points) below 60 at very demanding games like the witcher 3 (you will have average 45-50 fps in this game).If you are not planning on doing a gpu upgrade in a couple of years, a monitor above 60hz is an overkill.

Another fact is that 1440p monitors come pretty pricey,considering there are 4K monitors in the same price range,however you cannot enjoy 4K gaming right now, even with GTX 970 SLI you don't get the full experience , you get something mediocre,so that explains the price of 1440p monitors.

 

[Vilos1]

Well if you want G-Sync, 144Hz, and IPS, the XB270HU is definitely your best option. The ASUS has gotten solid reviews but is a Freesync panel, the adaptive sync capability of the monitor would be useless to you. You could definitely save a little cash by going to 1080P. The GTX 970 does okay at 1440P but not with modern more demanding titles. That said, 1440P is a pretty big jump in image quality over 1080P and G-Sync on the XB270HU will keep everything silky smooth should some demanding titles drop your framerate under 60 FPS.

At this point in time, I would not drop the cash on a higher priced 1080P panel when there are great 1440P panels that are not that much more expensive. XB270HU all the way.

So basically you're suggesting getting a xb270hu? just asking becuase it's a lot of money that I'm not sure I can or should spend right now. About what you said about the gtx 970 not doing okay 1440p with more modern titles, can you elaborate, or give me a few examples?

 

[Vilos1]

Hello.A 1440p monitor for gaming with a gtx 970 is a very good idea , you will get high fps in max settings at most games,you will probably drop(at some points) below 60 at very demanding games like the witcher 3 (you will have average 45-50 fps in this game).If you are not planning on doing a gpu upgrade in a couple of years, a monitor above 60hz is an overkill.

Another fact is that 1440p monitors come pretty pricey,considering there are 4K monitors in the same price range,however you cannot enjoy 4K gaming right now, even with GTX 970 SLI you don't get the full experience , you get something mediocre,so that explains the price of 1440p monitors.

I don't really care about 4k honestly, feels like overkill right now. The fps amount seems acceptable to me and is the main reason why I'm thinking 1440p with a 60hz ips monitor would be fine. The problem is finding a 1440p, 60hz monitor that has at least reasonable input lag and response time. I have been looking at 30 monitors for the last few days and I can't seem to find a decent one.

 

[Stabi]

Considering the response time,it doesn't really matter unless your internet allows you to run games with a latency below 40-45ms or you are a proffesional gamer.Take a monitor with 10ms response time for example, all that it does to your gaming it's like adding 10ms to your latency,so comparing it with a 1ms response time monitor , the 10ms one is like having 9ms more lag.

 

[Vilos1]

Considering the response time,it doesn't really matter unless your internet allows you to run games with a latency below 40-45ms or you are a proffesional gamer.Take a monitor with 10ms response time for example, all that it does to your gaming it's like adding 10ms to your latency,so comparing it with a 1ms response time monitor , the 10ms one is like having 9ms more lag.

I'm a bit unclear about what you are talking about when mentioning the internet latency thing because I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else when looking up monitor information. I also tested my internet with speedtest and pingtest and currently I get between 15-20 ms ping with 1 jitter.

 

[spagalicious]

Well with 60Hz you are limited to a best case scenario lag times of 16.67 ms and that opens you up to ghosting/frame skipping/motion blur possibilities. If you don't have a preference of IPS over TN, the Acer XG270HU is a great panel though you lose G-Sync which is something you will definitely want with 970 levels of performance at 1440P. If the XB270HU and the XG270HU are a bit too much for you, you can go down to 144Hz 1080p. You won't find the highest quality TN panels with G-Sync and 144HZ but at 1080P, the GTX 970 will perform great at 1080p.

Something like the AOC G2770PQU 27" 144Hz would be a good option. Not sure how much it would cost at your preferred retailer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824160227&cm_re=aoc_144hz-_-24-160-227-_-Product

Here are a couple benchmarks for the ASUS 970 Strix:

 

[Stabi]

What I mean is that if you cannot notice the difference between 20ms and 30ms latency in games, then you should not care about the screen response time because you will not notice a difference (as most screens come with below 10ms response time).

 

[Vilos1]

Well with 60Hz you are limited to a best case scenario lag times of 16.67 ms and that opens you up to ghosting/frame skipping/motion blur possibilities. If you don't have a preference of IPS over TN, the Acer XG270HU is a great panel though you lose G-Sync which is something you will definitely want with 970 levels of performance at 1440P. If the XB270HU and the XG270HU are a bit too much for you, you can go down to 144Hz 1080p. You won't find the highest quality TN panels with G-Sync and 144HZ but at 1080P, the GTX 970 will perform great at 1080p.

Something like the AOC G2770PQU 27" 144Hz would be a good option. Not sure how much it would cost at your preferred retailer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824160227&cm_re=aoc_144hz-_-24-160-227-_-Product

Thanks for helping out, I'm going to have to think about it for little longer but thanks for all the help, I appreciate it.

 

[Vilos1]

What I mean is that if you cannot notice the difference between 20ms and 30ms latency in games, then you should not care about the screen response time because you will not notice a difference (as most screens come with below 10ms response time).

Right thanks for the help and explanation.

 

[spagalicious]

What I mean is that if you cannot notice the difference between 20ms and 30ms latency in games, then you should not care about the screen response time because you will not notice a difference (as most screens come with below 10ms response time).

That is not entirely true. Panel response time effects the user's immediate perception of lag and latency while network latency is dependent on network capabilities and server latency. That kind out thing is mostly out of the users control. However, things like motion blur, ghosting, and input lag are directly dependent on a panel's measure response and signal processing times.

A 60Hz panel can introduce a player to a phenomenon known as frame-skipping. When a panel is operating at a lag time of 16.67 ms or slower, the frame that a user is viewing on his/her screen could already have occured. Meaning any input the user attempts to 'do' the current displayed frame will not register until the following frame. This is where the advantage of above-60Hz panels come into play.

You also can't rely on manufacturers claimed response and latency times, they are just marketing. For example, this Benq display (60Hz) claims a 4ms G2G response time and 12ms ISO time. While the TFTCentral review measured an average response time of 10.1ms, that is not the end result which effects panel responsiveness. The combined input lag must be considered, it is response + signal processing time.

The panel had a measure latency of 24ms.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_gw2765ht.htm
Just food for thought

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

(Pixel) response time is not input lag.

 

[Vilos1]

What I mean is that if you cannot notice the difference between 20ms and 30ms latency in games, then you should not care about the screen response time because you will not notice a difference (as most screens come with below 10ms response time).

That is not entirely true. Panel response time effects the user's immediate perception of lag and latency while network latency is dependent on network capabilities and server latency. That kind out thing is mostly out of the users control. However, things like motion blur, ghosting, and input lag are directly dependent on a panel's measure response and signal processing times.

A 60Hz panel can introduce a player to a phenomenon known as frame-skipping. When a panel is operating at a lag time of 16.67 ms or slower, the frame that a user is viewing on his/her screen could already have occured. Meaning any input the user attempts to 'do' the current displayed frame will not register until the following frame. This is where the advantage of above-60Hz panels come into play.

You also can't rely on manufacturers claimed response and latency times, they are just marketing. For example, this Benq display (60Hz) claims a 4ms G2G response time and 12ms ISO time. While the TFTCentral review measured an average response time of 10.1ms, that is not the end result which effects panel responsiveness. The combined input lag must be considered, it is response + signal processing time.

The panel had a measure latency of 24ms.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_gw2765ht.htm
Just food for thought

So as a fairly serious gamer (what does that even mean nowadays) but not a proffesional one, what kind of measure latency am I looking for?

Edit: Nevermind I had a look at tftcentrals lag classifications and got a decent idea what to look for.

 

[spagalicious]

(Pixel) response time is not input lag.

Right, I simply mentioned the G2G time stated by the manufacturer for the panel because the measured time was different.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

I had to read that a few times. I thought you meant that the update frequency could be slower than 16.67 ms. But then I have something else to say. Majority of people don't notice an input time of slower than 16.67 ms. A lot of people don't even notice an input lag of 33.34 ms. I'm saying this because most 60 Hz panels have a slower input lag than 10 ms which the best IPS and TN panels are listed as on displaylag. The max even on these panels are slower than 16.67 ms. Which for me the only logical explanation is that the users are experiencing placebo.

So how important is it really? If we have a 60 Hz panel pushing 60 FPS, then isn't that enough frames to minimize our perception of input lag, just like a higher refresh rate minimizes our perception of screen tearing? Just a theory of mine.