Hardware & Technical Gaming Monitor question - not for ED

[[VR] optimal_909]

I have a Rift for ED, so I am considering something for the rest of my gaming needs.

Currently I have a very simple Samsung 24" 1080p 60hz, and while I'm satisfied with it I am considering to upgrade - because sitting at the desk 1080p resultion -to me- is pixelated, so I thought 27" 1440p would be something to enjoy. And indeed such monitors start at around a friendly €230ish where I live.

However, reading Reddit, everyone claims 144hz is where the fun begins. And better yet, G-Sync is absolutely needed as at that refresh rate and resolution dips are inevitable even with a 1080ti.
Getting all those features, I am looking at prices north of €500. I can afford it, it just not seems right to me to spend that much on a monitor. Is 144hz that much of a game changer?

 

[Pville_Piper]

I have a Rift for ED, so I am considering something for the rest of my gaming needs.

Currently I have a very simple Samsung 24" 1080p 60hz, and while I'm satisfied with it I am considering to upgrade - because sitting at the desk 1080p resultion -to me- is pixelated, so I thought 27" 1440p would be something to enjoy. And indeed such monitors start at around a friendly €230ish where I live.

However, reading Reddit, everyone claims 144hz is where the fun begins. And better yet, G-Sync is absolutely needed as at that refresh rate and resolution dips are inevitable even with a 1080ti.
Getting all those features, I am looking at prices north of €500. I can afford it, it just not seems right to me to spend that much on a monitor. Is 144hz that much of a game changer?

For fast paced racing games and FPS shooters... Definitely. My KDR in BF4 climbed up a fair amount just from the higher frame rate and reduced lag. The reduced lag meant that I wasn't getting those deaths where you get a ton of hit markers on your opponent and end up suddenly dead with your opponent walking away with only 30 to 40% damage. These kind of deaths were common with a 60hz monitor and a 4ms response time and usually happened when you rounded a corner and ran into your opponent. While these kinds of deaths can be attributed to being shot by multiple opponents, when you get a lot of them, it's lag.

Depending on the game you play and the settings you desire, a GTX 1080ti should handle 1440p very well so Free/G Sync are options, but desirable as they can smooth out the odd stutter and make the game more enjoyable. That being said, 144hz is the most desired feature. Once you consistently game above 100hz you really get a nice, smooth game experience. The gameplay in FPS shooters gets to be much more enjoyable with a fast monitor.

With my rig right now I can run BF1 and BFV at 144hz on ultra but I'm running a 1080p G Sync 144hz monitor.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

I am not really playing fast games, though some casual GTA5/Wreckfest-ish online racing in the future is planned.
The other thing that puts me off is that the 1080ti should be enough for quite some time, but at 144hz I'll hit its limits sooner - and I certainly don't want to enter in a never ending upgrade creep spiral.

Perhaps I should see it in action to decide!

Another question: how does the VR's 90hz look like after 144hz?

 

[Pville_Piper]

Oh, yeah, I get the whole never ending upgrade creep spiral... That's one reason that I haven't upgraded to 1440p or beyond. But now I do VR soooooooooooooooooooo... [blah]

As far as the difference between 144hz and 90hz it's different, but I never really looked at it from the perspective of VR 90 against non VR 144hz... Realistically, as long as it's delivered smoothly, that's good enough for me with Elite Dangerous. With Battlefield, I can see a fair bit of difference between 90hz and 144hz. When I was doing some testing after getting my I7 6700K (still had the GTX 970) you could really see a difference going from 60 to 90, and incrementally above that. There is one map in BF4 that has bars like a jail that really shows off the difference. If stand away from them and don't move at 60hz, you can see clearly through the bars. But if you move even a tiny bit, it blurs up and you can't see. At 90hz it wasn't too blurry, but you still couldn't see through very well. Somewhere north of 100hz, maybe around 110, but certainly by 120, you could see clearly through the bars.

This is what makes 144hz such a game changer. Those little bits of blur will often obscure a player... Who ends up killing you! This is why I will never go back to a sub 100hz monitor...

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

...

I was hoping for an answer, 'it's nice man, but it may not worth it for you, just go for the value'.

Is it possible/worth it to 'underclock' a 144hz monitor to 100-120hz?

Edit: Dell S2716DG looks like a decent value, 'only' twice as expensive as a 60hz 27".

I am more torn than I should be.
On one hand:
That Dell is decent value and I found a repackaged one for OK price.
However, it has a TN panel, reviews say colors are a bit washed out even though with settings it can be somewhat addressed. Also, viewing angle is pretty compromised, some claimed it can be seen while sitting in fron of the monitor.

On the other hand:
AOC Q2781PQ is a very nice IPS monitor with probably better image/color quality at the expense of being 60hz only - but it also almost half as cheap as the Dell.

Gamers recommend 144hz over 1440p. For me 1080p is pixelated and I'm not playing fast-paced games.
I should really check out monitors in a showroom or something.

 

[Space Dandy]

...

....snip...

Gamers recommend 144hz over 1440p. For me 1080p is pixelated and I'm not playing fast-paced games.
I should really check out monitors in a showroom or something.

That would be best if you have a place you can get to where you can see for yourself.

While no expert my main thought was faster monitors for fps types game tend to sacrifice in color/graphic department but really what works for you will likely be different than what I think or joe, jack and what his name seeing that our eyes are all different which make all our opinions quite subjective.

I mean monitors and tv are difficult to shop for without seeing as two of them with the same "stats" can "look" different side by side....

 

[Morbad]

However, reading Reddit, everyone claims 144hz is where the fun begins. And better yet, G-Sync is absolutely needed as at that refresh rate and resolution dips are inevitable even with a 1080ti.
Getting all those features, I am looking at prices north of €500. I can afford it, it just not seems right to me to spend that much on a monitor. Is 144hz that much of a game changer?

All other things being equal, a higher refresh rate is always better and variable refresh rate solutions will eliminate tearing with very few downsides. However, I'd be hesitant to call either 144Hz 'game changer', that's quite subjective though.

I played a lot of fast-paced online shooters (the original UT, Counter-Strike, Tribes 2, Battlefield 1942 and BF2, etc), some of them at a high level, on high-end CRTs, usually at refresh rates well in excess of 144Hz and I had very little issue transitioning to 60Hz when my last good CRT finally needed to be replaced about 10 years back. In the decade since, I've generally prioritized image quality, screen size, cost, resolution, latency, and then refresh rate. My current display was targeted at CAD users, not gamers, and is an objectively poor gaming monitor by most criteria. Rarely have I felt 60Hz was a major limiting factor, in either my enjoyment of games, or my performance in competitive ones.

After using a few G-Sync displays, I can definitely say that I'm not willing to spend the premium for G-Sync when the exact same panel can be had without it for ~200 dollars less. I'm not picky enough about tearing to feel going from simple vsync off to g-sync would be worth it.

Don't get me wrong, the differences are objective and measurable, in both of these arenas, it's just not 'game changer' level, for me. It is very hard to recommend a display with less than a 120Hz refresh rate at this point though, as the price premium for the refresh rate alone is rather small.

My advice would be to find someone who has some of these displays and try them yourself before making a decision.

Is it possible/worth it to 'underclock' a 144hz monitor to 100-120hz?

You can set virtually whatever refresh rate you like, up to the display's limit, without going beyond spec.

two of them with the same "stats" can "look" different side by side....

Ha, two of them with sequential serial numbers could look different side by side!

I have three Hanns-G HZ281s, identical part numbers, same firmware, on a back up system and not one of them looks like any of the others. They need completely different settings to look vaguely similar and I gave up on getting them calibrated identically a long time ago.

Higher-end displays do tend to be more consistent though.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

All other things being equal, a higher refresh rate is always better and variable refresh rate solutions will eliminate tearing with very few downsides. However, I'd be hesitant to call either 144Hz 'game changer', that's quite subjective though.

I played a lot of fast-paced online shooters (the original UT, Counter-Strike, Tribes 2, Battlefield 1942 and BF2, etc), some of them at a high level, on high-end CRTs, usually at refresh rates well in excess of 144Hz and I had very little issue transitioning to 60Hz when my last good CRT finally needed to be replaced about 10 years back. In the decade since, I've generally prioritized image quality, screen size, cost, resolution, latency, and then refresh rate. My current display was targeted at CAD users, not gamers, and is an objectively poor gaming monitor by most criteria. Rarely have I felt 60Hz was a major limiting factor, in either my enjoyment of games, or my performance in competitive ones.

After using a few G-Sync displays, I can definitely say that I'm not willing to spend the premium for G-Sync when the exact same panel can be had without it for ~200 dollars less. I'm not picky enough about tearing to feel going from simple vsync off to g-sync would be worth it.

Don't get me wrong, the differences are objective and measurable, in both of these arenas, it's just not 'game changer' level, for me. It is very hard to recommend a display with less than a 120Hz refresh rate at this point though, as the price premium for the refresh rate alone is rather small.

My advice would be to find someone who has some of these displays and try them yourself before making a decision.



You can set virtually whatever refresh rate you like, up to the display's limit, without going beyond spec.



Ha, two of them with sequential serial numbers could look different side by side!

I have three Hanns-G HZ281s, identical part numbers, same firmware, on a back up system and not one of them looks like any of the others. They need completely different settings to look vaguely similar and I gave up on getting them calibrated identically a long time ago.

Higher-end displays do tend to be more consistent though.

Based on what you say, perhaps the best way would be to go for a 144hz non-synced monitor, and perhaps set it it to 100hz so that I can avoid dips.
Tearing bugs me, but as most of the games I'm playing are slow-paced, 100hz should provide me with enough fluidity.

Yeah, it is difficult as most of my friends are not into this stuff, and otherwise, with kids and family, I'm quite busy just to spend even half a day going somewhere to check it out.

 

[Pville_Piper]

Don't get me wrong, the differences are objective and measurable, in both of these arenas, it's just not 'game changer' level, for me. It is very hard to recommend a display with less than a 120Hz refresh rate at this point though, as the price premium for the refresh rate alone is rather small.

And some are subjective as well. I've had friends who laughed at me when I spent more $20 for a mouse and when I bought gaming mouse pad. One was a guy who bought a $9 mouse and he played as well as or better than the average. But I definitely felt a better level of control and that made the game more enjoyable for me.

Would I recommend a G Sync monitor? I own one, I feel that in fast paced games it gives me an edge... But it is really difficult to tell someone that they need to buy one. I know the extra $200 or more isn't a trivial expense at the checkout. But then, if you buy a good monitor, it will last you years so that extra money spread over the life of the monitor makes it easier to swallow. Another thing for consideration, in games like Battlefield, COD or CS/GO, you're always working to get the most out of you're system and this is a box that you can check and forget about... I've done the best that I can.

Will it make you a better player? No. Much like taking out a nice new car with a good suspension and enjoying the twisties and then jumping into a high end sports cars and running the same roads, the high end sports car won't make you a better driver all of a sudden. What good hardware won't do is make you a better player, but it will allow you to be the best player that you can be.

And because of the subjectivity, it's really nice to be able to see and use these things before buying them. Not an easy thing to do.

 

[Morbad]

Yeah, it is difficult as most of my friends are not into this stuff, and otherwise, with kids and family, I'm quite busy just to spend even half a day going somewhere to check it out.

And because of the subjectivity, it's really nice to be able to see and use these things before buying them. Not an easy thing to do.

Without any acquaintances with applicable displays, or retailers with demo samples up and running, best option is probably to buy the G-Sync version of the panel one is interested in from an etailer with a solid return policy, then just return/exchange it for the non-G-Sync variant in the event that the difference isn't pronounced enough to justify the cost.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

I was contemplating the pros and cons, and now tending to go for an IPS monitor, I decided better color range trumps refresh rate, and one thing that bothers me is color banding of TN panels - even though it is most noticable in Elite and that's one thing I'm not playing anymore on monitor.

The sweet spot I found is the Philips 276E8FJAB00, which apart of being fairly priced, is a 75hz panel which I recon (hopefully) would overclock to 90hz or so, which sounds good. As I'll buy it online, return policy is great so I can decide again after the purchase has been made.
I do realize going for 144hz would be the best, but monitors without compromise cost at least €800 - at the moment I feel it is out of proportion for my needs. In any case, many thanks for all the opinions, I learned a lot from them!

And, with the money saved, I can now justify buying a new oil pan for the car, which will be needed sooner or later.