Should I prioritize Hz or Resolution?

[Rocetmal]

Recently built a new PC and looking to update my monitor. Maybe wait until black friday deals. I went mid-range with my build, getting a 1060 GPU, Ryzen 5 2600 CPU, and 8 GB DDR4-2933 RAM. I play very low/mid-end games in terms of resource demands: Overwatch, League of Legends, XCOM 2, Rocket League.

I'm realizing that if I go all-out and get 1440p + 144 Hz + G-Sync, the minimum spend is going to be nearly $400.

Firstly, I'm wondering if my GPU will even be able to spit out enough frames at that resolution to be worthwhile. Second, I'm not sure the games I'm playing really need a monitor with every option maxed.

So my question is, what should I prioritize? Should I stick with full HD (1080) and a higher frequency like 144Hz, or does refresh rate only matter in ultra competitive games and I should prioritize high resolution? And will g-sync really matter?

I'm realizing if I lose g-sync and go with 1080p + 144 Hz or 1440p + 60Hz, I can get a monitor for under $200. Could even squeak up to 75 Hz for an extra $50 or so.

TL;DR to rein in the conversation below

Maybe I should be more specific. I love brightness and color and clarity. I like watching videos on my PC but it's mainly for gaming. I don't want to get 1440p if it's only going to be marginal, or if my GPU can't keep up, obviously.

But there is no such thing as a 1080p + 144Hz display that is also an IPS panel, which felt like it would have been a good mix of upgrading my visual experience while not overloading my GPU.

At this point, I am pretty convinced that 1440 + 144 is overkill for my system, as the higher resolution will mean my FPS won't get anywhere near that refresh rate.

So I'm back to my initial questions:

1) 1080 + 144Hz or 1440 + 60Hz
2) Is the G-Sync premium worthwhile?

 

[superninja12]

a gtx 1060 and ryzen 2600 is enough to play every game on ultra in 2k. sure you wont always hit 60 fps but hey 45+ is super cool.


do you need 144hz? in overwatch it cool be cool I guess, comming from a competitive pc gamer, but hey is that 1 game worth that lot of money?

 

[Rocetmal]

do you need 144hz? in overwatch it cool be cool I guess, comming from a competitive pc gamer, but hey is that 1 game worth that lot of money?

I don't know if I need 144hz. To be honest I have never seen a 144hz or 2k display in real life. I imagine 2k is a higher priority since it makes video watching and general browsing better, whereas refresh rate will only have an impact on some games. But I don't even know if I'm thinking about the two things properly.

 

[drivinfast247]

a gtx 1060 and ryzen 2600 is enough to play every game on ultra in 2k. sure you wont always hit 60 fps but hey 45+ is super cool.

You absolutely cannot play every game @ 2k ultra with that GPU! At least not keeping a remotely decent framerate.

 

[Rocetmal]

You absolutely cannot play every game @ 2k ultra with that GPU! At least not keeping a remotely decent framerate.

For what its worth, I'm not trying to play GTA V or anything like that. Again, I'm talking League of Legends. Overwatch. I don't play much in terms of the latest and greatest games out there.

 

[androbourne]

I would say stick with 1080HD and higher herts monitor with gsync if possible. 144herts if you can.

This would help future proof you if you decide to upgrade your GPU later.

HD resolution is still perfectly fine. HD is very close to 2k resolution and what I actually perfer. Unlike 4k where games can't even properly scale the UI so it is very small etc...

I prefer good looks and higher FPS and I would say HD/2k is a sweet spot for that.

And no, he wouldn't be able to play every game on ultra in 2k with that card. I just upgraded from a 1070 because in some games in HD was still lower then the FPS I excepted. I now run a 1080TI which is overkill for that resolution, but rather have the headway room in case I decide to go 4k later. (which I most likely will not) and at least my FPS closely matches my FPS at around 144 in all games I play.

 

[superninja12]

a gtx 1060 and ryzen 2600 is enough to play every game on ultra in 2k. sure you wont always hit 60 fps but hey 45+ is super cool.

You absolutely cannot play every game @ 2k ultra with that GPU! At least not keeping a remotely decent framerate.

why can you not play on 2k with a gtx 1060? because it doesnt live up to your standards?
it looks totally playable to me.

@ op. I prefer a 24 inch screen size otherwize it just gets too big for me. and on 24 inch 1080p looks better than 2k or 4k to me. sure a picture might look better on 4k, but for overal use and gaming its jsut spot on. the icons(windows start) and other stuff get soooooooooooooo tiny that it ruins all the fun.

 

[Rocetmal]

Maybe I should be more specific. I love brightness and color and clarity. I like watching videos on my PC but it's mainly for gaming. I don't want to get 1440p if it's only going to be marginal, or if my GPU can't keep up, obviously.

But there is no such thing as a 1080p + 144Hz display that is also an IPS panel, which felt like it would have been a good mix of upgrading my visual experience while not overloading my GPU.

At this point, I am pretty convinced that 1440 + 144 is overkill for my system, as the higher resolution will mean my FPS won't get anywhere near that refresh rate.

So I'm back to my initial questions:

1) 1080 + 144Hz or 1440 + 60Hz
2) Is the G-Sync premium worthwhile?

 

[superninja12]

1) decide first on the screen resolution
2) no.

 

[cryoburner]

But there is no such thing as a 1080p + 144Hz display that is also an IPS panel, which felt like it would have been a good mix of upgrading my visual experience while not overloading my GPU.

If you value image quality, you might also consider a VA panel, which do come in 1080p 144Hz. VA panels tend to not offer quite the same level of color accuracy as IPS, but colors do tend to be notably better than TN, and they have deeper blacks that give them around 3 times the contrast of either a TN or IPS screen. Tom's Hardware reviewed one such monitor just the other week, priced under $250, and there are some others around this price range as well. These screens do lack G-sync though, having FreeSync instead, which Nvidia doesn't support.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/msi-optix-mag24c-gaming-monitor,5734.html

A GTX 1060 is arguably more of a 1080p card than anything. Sure, it can push a number of games reasonably well at 1440p, but you'll often need to reduce settings significantly to keep above 60fps in many titles, and the games coming out a year or two down the line will only get more demanding. So, I feel a 1080p 144Hz screen would be better suited to that card. It should allow you to maintain 60+fps with max settings in most games, and in those that are less demanding, you'll be able to view higher frame rates for smoother motion.

 

[Rocetmal]

If you value image quality, you might also consider a VA panel, which do come in 1080p 144Hz. VA panels tend to not offer quite the same level of color accuracy as IPS, but colors do tend to be notably better than TN, and they have deeper blacks that give them around 3 times the contrast of either a TN or IPS screen. Tom's Hardware reviewed one such monitor just the other week, priced under $250, and there are some others around this price range as well. These screens do lack G-sync though, having FreeSync instead, which Nvidia doesn't support.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/msi-optix-mag24c-gaming-monitor,5734.html

A GTX 1060 is arguably more of a 1080p card than anything. Sure, it can push a number of games reasonably well at 1440p, but you'll often need to reduce settings significantly to keep above 60fps in many titles, and the games coming out a year or two down the line will only get more demanding. So, I feel a 1080p 144Hz screen would be better suited to that card. It should allow you to maintain 60+fps with max settings in most games, and in those that are less demanding, you'll be able to view higher frame rates for smoother motion.

Thanks! I guess I had hoped the 1060 would be a more substantial upgrade. Until last month, I was using a Radeon 5750 GPU which I bought in 2009. With that card I was playing my games at full 1920x1080 resolution on medium settings getting 60 FPS. I spent $270 on a new GPU and I guess all it gets me is going from Medium to High settings at the same resolution. Ouchie.

 

[cryoburner]

A 1060 is a pretty big upgrade from a 5750 (It should be multiple times as fast, actually). The suggestion for 1080p would be more for maintaining good performance in the more demanding titles without lowering settings, while allowing a high-refresh rate screen to fully stretch its legs and push very high frame rates in the less demanding ones.

Actually, the games you mentioned in your first post do tend to be less demanding, and I suspect they would have no problem maintaining good frame rates at 1440p even on a 1060. Games like Overwatch would likely get up around 90fps, and something like Rocket League could run even better than that. In a more demanding game, like Battlefield One, for example, or many of the other recent big "AAA" games, you would likely need to lower settings a bit to maintain a solid 60fps at that resolution though, since the card needs to render around 78% more pixels each frame compared to 1080p. And many games coming out next year, or the year after that, will likely be more demanding still. If you wanted a 1440p display though, it could certainly be a reasonable choice as well. Just keep in mind that some games may need their settings toned down to maintain good performance.

Then it comes down to pricing though, which you touched on in your first post. If you're looking for a 1440p screen with a high refresh rate and good image quality, you'll probably be looking at spending upward of US $300 for something with a VA or IPS panel. One example might be this 27" 144Hz Samsung VA screen, which looks pretty good for its price point at around $330, though since it's a new model, there's a lack of reviews to go by...

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824022734

They also appear to have the 31.5" version of that screen on sale for just $20 more right now. Those don't appear to have any sort of adaptive Sync available though, not even FreeSync to go with AMD cards, but for G-Sync you would likely be looking at spending upward of $500 for a screen at that resolution, so it's questionable whether that feature would be worth the money. If you are okay with a standard refresh rate, you may also be able to pay around $100 less for an IPS panel at 1440P.

Another thing related to performance, is that if you went with a relatively large 1440p screen, you should also be able to set up a custom ultrawide resolution for it. So, for example, you could run a game at 2560x1080 ultrawide, with black borders at the top and bottom, and since you'll be pushing fewer pixels than 1440p, performance should be somewhere in-between 1440p and 1080p, which could help some of the more demanding games run better without otherwise reducing graphics settings.