Three 60Hz monitors, or one 144Hz monitor?

[TheGrayWolf81]

What would you prefer? Using a single 120 or 144 Hz display, or 3 individual 60 Hz displays? For gaming that is. I would be doing mostly driving (BeamNG Drive, or other car games/simulators). GPU most likely going to be used: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 970.

Would I get input lag if I use 60 Hz display(s)?

Thanks in advance

 

[getochkn]

You probably won't get 3x60fps on that GPU anyways, so you will certainly get lag.

 

[andy_Man]

Buy the nice 144hz gaming monitor, then pickup a cheap used secondary monitor if you like having windows open while you game. My 2 cents.

On 60hz it's not really input lag, it's more about screen tearing when going above 60fps in games. Also the response time is probably higher than on the 144hz gaming.

Turning on vsync is where you get input lag.

There are some nice higher refresh rate ips panels coming out but they are expensive, TN panels are what the cheaper high refresh rate monitors use, but they don't have as nice of a color or viewing angle.

 

[TheGrayWolf81]

Buy the nice 144hz gaming monitor, then pickup a cheap used secondary monitor if you like having windows open while you game. My 2 cents.

On 60hz it's not really input lag, it's more about screen tearing when going above 60fps in games. Also the response time is probably higher than on the 144hz gaming.

Turning on vsync is where you get input lag.

There are some nice higher refresh rate ips panels coming out but they are expensive, TN panels are what the cheaper high refresh rate monitors use, but they don't have as nice of a color or viewing angle.

Hmm, well I would like to use all three monitors for gaming, which is mainly why I want the three monitors, and then also productivity, but a lot of gaming. I had a fear that 3 monitors wouldn't really work out that way for only a GTX 970... What would you think about it for gaming?

 

[andy_Man]

I wouldn't try to power that resolution with a single 970. It would be 1920 by 1080(x3) = 6,220,800 pixels.
4k has 8.2 mil pixels
A 970 doesn't get anywhere close to doing 4k by itself. While it's not quite 4k it's close.

 

[TheGrayWolf81]

I wouldn't try to power that resolution with a single 970. It would be 1920 by 1080(x3) = 6,220,800 pixels.
4k has 8.2 mil pixels
A 970 doesn't get anywhere close to doing 4k by itself. While it's not quite 4k it's close.

Well, it would've been quite helpful if stupid me also noted that I'm doing 1080p gaming... lol. So I guess it'll be fine for now, as I plan on upgrading the monitors along the road (and probably parts as well). Anyways, thanks for the help!

 

[andy_Man]

I wouldn't try to power that resolution with a single 970. It would be 1920 by 1080(x3) = 6,220,800 pixels.
4k has 8.2 mil pixels
A 970 doesn't get anywhere close to doing 4k by itself. While it's not quite 4k it's close.

Well, it would've been quite helpful if stupid me also noted that I'm doing 1080p gaming... lol. So I guess it'll be fine for now, as I plan on upgrading the monitors along the road (and probably parts as well). Anyways, thanks for the help!

I assumed you were doing 1080p gaming, what I am saying is 3 1080 monitors will take about the same system performance to power as a 4k Monitor. Almost the same number of pixels.

 

[TheGrayWolf81]

I wouldn't try to power that resolution with a single 970. It would be 1920 by 1080(x3) = 6,220,800 pixels.
4k has 8.2 mil pixels
A 970 doesn't get anywhere close to doing 4k by itself. While it's not quite 4k it's close.

Well, it would've been quite helpful if stupid me also noted that I'm doing 1080p gaming... lol. So I guess it'll be fine for now, as I plan on upgrading the monitors along the road (and probably parts as well). Anyways, thanks for the help!

I assumed you were doing 1080p gaming, what I am saying is 3 1080 monitors will take about the same system performance to power as a 4k Monitor. Almost the same number of pixels.

Alright then, thanks for the help!