r9 390 at 144hz 1080p or 60hz 1440p

[Hayden Voegtle]

Hello everyone,

I'm looking at getting a 390 for a new build and I'm stuck between a 144hz 1080p monitor and a 60hz 1440p monitor - if it makes a difference I'm looking for a 24-25" monitor that I will be about 2-3 feet away from

thanks for the input everyone

 

[XMorsX]

1440p is at its best at 27". A 1080p makes more sense at 24".

Then again, the best monitor you can buy is Asus mg279q, if you can afford it go for it.

AOC will also launch soon 1080p 144hz with Freesync. You may wish to wait for them.

 

[Firepower0701]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

 

[Iamsoda]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

 

[Firepower0701]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

Only for some people, and it is not worth the hefty price. Also, that is why I added quotation marks around "refresh rate"

 

[Iamsoda]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

Only for some people, and it is not worth the hefty price. Also, that is why I added quotation marks around "refresh rate"

It isn't just for some people. Some people may notice within a few minutes the difference. I would say the reason is most all devices are 60hz (tablets, phones, tv, and many computer screens) Others (Like myself) might take an entire week with 100 fps plus to truly feel the difference. Untill you see 100 fps + monitor and play on it for a week, I say your argument is invalid.

 

[Iamsoda]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

Only for some people, and it is not worth the hefty price. Also, that is why I added quotation marks around "refresh rate"

There isn't that great of a hefty price for a 1080p 120-144hz and with regards to 1440p that tech is still pretty new to the market so of course it is expensive.

 

[Firepower0701]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

Only for some people, and it is not worth the hefty price. Also, that is why I added quotation marks around "refresh rate"

There isn't that great of a hefty price for a 1080p 120-144hz and with regards to 1440p that tech is still pretty new to the market so of course it is expensive.

The 1440p panel is still a better buy for his gpu.

 

[Iamsoda]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

Only for some people, and it is not worth the hefty price. Also, that is why I added quotation marks around "refresh rate"

There isn't that great of a hefty price for a 1080p 120-144hz and with regards to 1440p that tech is still pretty new to the market so of course it is expensive.

The 1440p panel is still a better buy for his gpu.

It really depends on the games being played on. High speeds FPS its better to have frames maxed out at 1080p, but for single player games and slower moving FPS better screen res looks better.

 

[Hayden Voegtle]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

Only for some people, and it is not worth the hefty price. Also, that is why I added quotation marks around "refresh rate"

There isn't that great of a hefty price for a 1080p 120-144hz and with regards to 1440p that tech is still pretty new to the market so of course it is expensive.

The 1440p panel is still a better buy for his gpu.

It really depends on the games being played on. High speeds FPS its better to have frames maxed out at 1080p, but for single player games and slower moving FPS better screen res looks better.

I figured I really only play multiplayer games like battlefield so 1080p @ 144hz would be better

 

[Firepower0701]

Since the human eye has a "refresh rate" of about 60, I would go for the 60hz one. It will probably be cheaper and have a better response time as well. But I agree that you should wait a bit longer for monitors with freesync to come out. (If AMD doesn't cancel that project, too...)

The human eye doesn't work with a refresh rate. Sorry argument invalid. 144hz can be seen as a difference.

Only for some people, and it is not worth the hefty price. Also, that is why I added quotation marks around "refresh rate"

There isn't that great of a hefty price for a 1080p 120-144hz and with regards to 1440p that tech is still pretty new to the market so of course it is expensive.

The 1440p panel is still a better buy for his gpu.

It really depends on the games being played on. High speeds FPS its better to have frames maxed out at 1080p, but for single player games and slower moving FPS better screen res looks better.

I figured I really only play multiplayer games like battlefield so 1080p @ 144hz would be better

Ok. That is reasonable.

 

[Iamsoda]

Then go with 1080p 144hz. You will like the butter smooth fps and the many many times reduced input lag. Instead of about 16ms it is 0.008ms.