Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Guest-44432, 16 Nov 2018.
So is a 2560x1440 at 144Hz worth it over 60Hz - Mainly for Sim Racing?
Is 8" better than 6" ?
One hundred and a bit more per cent. Massive upgrade and just a pleasure to use. I can not believe I went without a 144 Hz G-Sync panel for so long.
If anything, the faster the pace of game, the better it gets.
I'm waiting to see if something pops up during these "kinda black friday but probably all week including monday, tuesday, wednesday" sales. I'm after 27", 144+, IPS, Gsync, 1440p.
Well in life experiences, you will come to realise that size is not everything. What maybe enjoyable to one lady, could be uncomfortable for another.
Sounds amazing! - So has TN got better these days, and better to have over IPS?
I want min lag, and a great response rate.
There is already some Black Friday deals on Amazon.
TN is definitely better for quicker response rates and the colors really aren’t far off my IPS that’s next to it. It just needs some calibration.
If you can see it and appreciate it? yes. If not? no.
My eyes seem to pick up the finest of detail, as i notice the slight lag, and ghosting on my monitor now, especially after racing in VR @90hz.
You don't have too much choice though, because there aren't too many monitors that fall into the massive chasm between 60 and 144... there are a couple 75hz (almost all of them Freesync, so no good for Nvidia cards) and a couple 100hz (almost exclusive to Ultrawides) while 120hz is almost extinct, so you basically have to settle for an abysmal 60 or jump to 144.
definitely worth it imo, i took the plunge last year and love it, g-sync seems to be doing its job too as i don't remember ever seeing screen tearing
fps, racing games, sport games, will benefit the most from it (anything fast paced really).
Philips 40" has always had a bit of ghosting if you ramped up the response time thing, that's not really a refresh rate issues so much as the method used to boost refresh on VA panel having a large margin of error for overshoot but was pretty fast for size even with that stuff turned off, nice screen to use if you are not too fussed about a bit of ghosting, or actually run it with less response boost and it can be better, but of course there are better alternatives for screen now.
Shouldn't have any lag to mention though unless your hardware can't keep up with res.
the boost over drive blur thing also happens to 144hz screens when you ramp up boost but of course they are more than double the speed so less noticeable but check if smart response is off on your 40" or first notch and see how it feel with blur. If it already off, then yup you have fussy eyes and need better screen.
That's what I will upgrade to next, but not for a while. Except without the Gsync.
If you have a card capable of using G-Sync, it’s daft not to get it... it’s soooo good to have.
I have smart response off, having it on makes it worst.
I think my eyes have become more fussy, either that or the monitor has deteriated over time.
Well I have a 9900K and a GTX 1080Ti.
So is G-sync really worth it?
It sure is. It syncs your FPS and refresh rate so that there is no tearing or ghosting.
I see, but the Nvidia Tax of these monitors, especially if I plan to buy 3...
With a 9900k and a 1080ti, nvidia tax?!
Depends which monitors you get in all fairness.
I paid $400 with shipping for mine on eBay when they were $650 new. Just got to shop around, y'know?
If you think you're going to hit any kind of decent frame rate (let alone 144fps) at 7680x1440, prepare for disappointment. I've got a very similar setup to you except 8700K and a single Asus PG279Q 165Hz panel. Most games with the candy turned right up sit between 80-120fps, depending upon optimisation etc. If I turn a few settings down a touch, I can hit 144Hz cap and 165Hz if I go a bit lower.
Triple that horizontal pixel count and you're going to have to put games into Minecraft graphics mode to get anywhere near 100fps, let alone 144fps in 3x1440p surround.
Separate names with a comma.