Hi, I'm in the market for a fast TN panel purely for gaming purposes where speed is the priority e.g. first person shooters. This will be to compliment my IPS panel which covers most other uses. I'd like the panel to be TN, 144hz and freesync as I have a 290X. My question is - should I opt for a 1080p panel where I can get closer to the 144 fps mark, or opt for a 1440p panel where my frames will be less? Is it the case that I will get the most benefit from a 144hz panel if my frames are in that region, or does freesync make this less important? Cheers, Z
depends on your budget, what games you play and so on. I have a 1080p 120hz monitor and the smoother motion is really nice, and hard to go back to a 50/60hz monitor once your use to it. Ideally you would get 1440p 144Hz monitor but they cost a bomb and a 290X wouldn't be able to keep up at the res and a frame rate of 100+ in most games. So because you have a 290X, id recommend going high Hz but with 1080p. I think you will have a more enjoyable experience. If your going 1440p you should consider beefing up your GPU if your playing newish games, might get buy if your not interested in high settings and lower Hz tho.
Thanks Otis. So 144hz monitors work best when your frames are higher, even with Freesync? I was planning on playing BF1 so the 290X would struggle unless I lowered the settings. And yes, there is around a £200 difference between the 2 monitors so 1080p would be the safer option. I'd also consider going for the 1440p now and lowering settings until I replace my graphics card at a later date, but I'd probably go with an Nvidia card making freesync useless. Tough choices!
144hz will only work if you have at least 144 fps in game. You have to match the fps with the hz, all the sync does is lock the monitor with the graphics card so there always running at the same hz and frame rate but will never go above 144hz as the panel isnt able to. This eliminates screen tearing which can happen when your frames go lower than your refresh rate,
I would not buy a freesync or gsync monitor at this time. Buy a 144hz or 120hz normal monitor and be happy.
No clue which of the 2 will become industry standard of free sync or gsync. So you could spend a lot of money on a standard that's not supported in 2 years. I see monitors as a long term investment. look at blue ray vs hd dvd. Both expensive one survived. It's easier to save money and wait. A normal 1440p 120 or 140hz screen is still signicantly less money than freesync badged or gsync badged one is.
Some freesync models are getting towards what you'd expect to pay for a non-freesync one (particularly AOC): https://www.scan.co.uk/products/24-...350cd-m-10001-80m1-speakers-dp-hdmi-dvi-d-sub Don't know whether this is any good, but 144hz monitors with or without freesync don't seem to dip much under £200 anyway. I figured my next monitor might be freesync even though I really don't want to spend much simply because the 22 inch non-144hz model similar to the above can be had for under £100. Reviews seem okay, which means freesync is actually almost free
I tentatively agree with rollo, I'm waiting to see if gsync/freesync becomes more widely adopted. I also find 1080p (and 1920x1200) perfectly comfortable and seamless at normal viewing distances and when I have seen higher resolution monitors I've struggled to appreciate the increase in pixel density. A 24" 1920x1200 screen sat 2 feet away feels absolutely perfect, nothing too big or too small. Not sure about a 27" 1080p, some people say it's fine and others complain things are a bit too big and pixelly. Also in content terms, 1080p is as wide as I will ever need a monitor to be unless I get into serious photo processing and work. It's big enough for usably sticking two documents side by side, it's big enough to handle spreadsheets easily, it's ideal for HD video, and games look fine. I see higher resolutions as a process of diminishing returns because the higher you go, the fewer tasks benefit from the extra real estate. [totally not sour grapes talking here]
My gut instinct is to go 24" 1080p and take the higher frames (as well as saving £200!) over the extra real estate for gaming. Looking at this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nixeus-1920x1080-FreeSync-Adaptive-Sync-Adjustable/dp/B0131PBN6U Reviews are positive from a gaming perspective, and the freesync range is large. I understand where your coming from Rollo - spending £400 plus on a monitor with freesync only for the standard to disappear would sting a little, as well as being forced to buy AMD cards for the foreseable. £250 is more palatable all things considered.
Ironic though if a lot of people hung back from buying free-sync or g-sync monitors because they're not sure which technology become mainstream might actually skew the outcome. Unfortunately it's not cheap!
Agreed. My Dell U2410 is pushing 6 years old and I've got no plans to replace it before the end of the decade (unless it breaks), mainly because it's been faultless so far and has pretty much every king of video input I'll ever need. Over the last few years I've looked at 3D/freesync/gsync/4K/touchscreen displayed and found no reason to upgrade.
