Which is a more essential upgrade: going from 1080p to 4k or going from 60hz to 144hz?

Which is a more essential upgrade: going from 1080p to 4k or going from 60hz to 144hz?

I have a pretty powerful PC if that matters (1070 + i5 6600k)

144hz

none of these matter

144hz, now post more cute cartoon girls with ponytails.

>File: 1478579493309.jpg (298 KB, 1280x1024)
when every game and their mother is locked at 30fps because pc gaming is dead and everything is a console port then anything over a 30hz monitor is a waste of money

I think there's a monitor coming out that does both.

I can't afford that.

Quality post from a quality tripfag poster

>he doesn't know K-on

Truly, dark times are upon us

Probably 4K since TN panels suck.

TFW GF had a nice pony tail just as we started dating. TFW now she keeps it nothing but short, and looks like a guy because she can't pull it off. Damn man, I'm thirsty for this.

Are there no IPS 144hz monitors? I have an IPS right now and it's pretty slick, I like it a lot

Going from video games to a respectable hobby

Very cute, go on.

Where did you get that I don't know Mio? Stop assuming things and post more cute cartoon girls with ponytails.

There are but they are expensive I think. Not sure.

I would save your money then.

that's not a tripfag my newfriend

and what the fuck are you blabbering about?

no games can even run in 4k 144fps that aren't ancient shit (that doesn't even benefit from the 4k)

You know fps and screen refresh rate are sot synchronized, right? Retarded namefag

4K
Don't fall for the 144Hz meme. It's barely noticeable compared to 60fps whereas you'll have a lot better picture quality in 4K and virtually no jaggies.
4K is also better for general computer use, while 144Hz is absolutely useless.

Do you play competitive video games?
60hz to 144hz

Do you play games casually?
1080p to 4k

>buying a 4k monitor when games can barely run at 60 even with high end cards

just buy a 1440p 144hz and split the diff

fpbp
4k is the king meme because advertisers love it

144Hz
Don't fall for the 4K meme. It's barely noticeable compared to 1080 whereas you'll have a lot better picture quality in 144h and virtually no jaggies.
1080p is also better for general computer use, while 4K is absolutely useless.

4k is a meme

144hz is buttery smooth and youll never want to go back

/thread

acer xb270hu xb271hu asus PG279Q
All 1440p 144hz IPS gsynch.

>$800

144hz.

its kinda hard to get 144 fps in modern games without sacrificing graphics, and even then, the jump from 60 to 120/144 isnt as big as 30 to 60, speaking from experience.

at the same time the benefit of 4k in games is still unclear to me because we now have so many advanced methods of antialiasing, from post processing smaa to bruteforce downsampling, i would only see a benefit in 4k if you wanted a huge as fuck monitor where lower resolutions would result in too low PPI

it's also hard to get 4k in modern games without sacrificing graphics

anyone that says 120-144hz is a meme has never played FPS on a 120hz+ monitor and should kill themselves for talking about things they dont know jack shit about

not really, if you have 4k you dont need that 32xq antialiasing and can settle for 4-8x. In the end both things are about increasing the viewport resolution/fidelity.

you dont really need any AA if you have 4K most of the time. even 2x would be more than enough for most people

Upgrade to Mugifag for instant economic gains.

4K by a huge margin. 144Hz is nice, but it's a marginal effect. You barely notice the difference if you accidentally have your monitor set to 60Hz.

4k gives you an insane amount of detail and allows you to run 30" or 32" monitors without seeing any pixels.

>insane amount of detail
implying 99% of devs aren't lazy fucks who just pixeldouble everything.
t.lazydev who does just that

You should take the best option: 1440p 144hz

why this image

Neither.
Get a professional IPS monitor and a calibrator for the highest quality pixels.

1440p 144hz >>>>>> 4k.

if you sacrifice framerate for resolution you're no better than a console player

This

what are they doing in this image?

You're not poor are you?

>gotta see those compressed textures in all their glory

UHD.
144Hz+ was a thing every gamer had back in the late 90s.
TFTs just wasn't good enough at high refresh rates until now.

t.19'CRT with 2048*1536@60Hz / 1280*960@200Hz from 2001.

If you don't get both you are no better than a console player.

So how much do you think it's gonna cost?
$3k? $5k?

1~1.5k is my guess

why not? everyone loves mio

I thought that 144hz monitors were only worth it if you had a really high end GPU like a gtx 1080 because most modern games need a really powerful GPU to get fps that high. Whereas to achieve 4k, you could just get away with a somewhat high end gpu.

i7+1070 gets me at minimum 100 fps in most games. If you have a more budget computer you need to turn down the settings quite a bit to reach 144hz.

1440p or 4k still requires quite a good computer to run smoothly compared to 1080 however.

On the price side, keep in mind that the Swift PG348Q will remain the flagship ASUS ROG display and therefore the new PG27UQ will unlikely cost more than its bigger curved brother does. We've heard murmurs around the $1500-$2000 price point, but we will see. Given the timescale of a device like this, I suspect we will have more information around Computex time (early June).

>what a fuckin waste of money.

What 90s anime is that

So achieving 4k is actually more expensive than achieving 144fps?

As someone who has both a 144hz 1080p monitor and 4K TV, I can probably say I enjoy fast paced games with 144hz and beautiful games in 4k

Although for newest games, it is much easier for me to achieve 144fps on the highest graphics settings compared to 4k on highest graphics.

Overall, the extra frames are only noticeable when playing fast paced games, and you'll enjoy it most if you're a twitchy player.
Otherwise if you like to just sit back and enjoy the details, you should just stick to 4k

If you want to max everything then sure.
But setting down options down a notch or two really does not matter. Maybe I just have bad eyes or don't know what to look out for but in many modern games I don't see much difference between Ultra and High.

My Asus mg279q is 144 hz 1440p IPS. it's amazing and worth all that it costs and more.

Ultrawide 144Hz. Been wanting to find such a monitor somewhere that isn't expensive out the ass, not concerned for 1440p or 4k.

Mio is the only keion I'd consider fapping to.

For monitors, 144hz only if you can actually run games at 100+ fps consistently. Get 2560x1440 monitor otherwise. You can't run 4K above 30 fps, so it's useless.

For TVs, 4K with HDR. No questions.

>K-ons
My guilty pleasure

Where'd Mio go?

At the beach.

azusa is literally perfect

...

Where are their noses?

>posting Yui's fat posterior

Where's any anime characters nose for that matter.
Noses are ugly

144hz is king

>not being an anzufag
nice nice grapics card though

144hz is worth it even just for internet browsing. It's so fucking smooth. The downside is that you can never go back to 60hz without it looking like complete shit to you in comparison

Mio is best girl!

Found one.

144Hz is really worth it but bear in mind a lot of consoleshit ports will struggle to get 144 even with good hardware. 4K is nice but mostly a meme and is not worth it. If you have the money then I would get a 2560 × 1440 144Hz IPS screen, but I'm not even sure if any good ones exist yet. ASUS VG248QE here

144hz is nice but alot of games won't run above 60 thanks to physics and shit ports.

4K looks fucking amazing (especially at a solid 60 or 120 fps) but 1080p still looks crisp enough (at least for me).

So i guess you should just choose based on what matters to you. Frame rate or Resolution.

it's subjective
I have shit motion sensitivity so can barely tell the difference above 60hz but i personally think gaming at 45fps at 4k on a hdr oled tv is about as good as it gets and love the amount of detail. Most seasoned pc gamers would probably notice input lag when gaming on a tv but I literally don't notice a thing - even in side by side comparisons.
My friend on the other hand thinks anything under 90 fps with gsync is like a slideshow and doesn't see much difference between 1440p and 4k besides less aliasing.

So essentially try both if you ever get the chance. just don't get a shitty panel, contrast ratio is more important in games than resolution.

i doubt consoles have resolution or framerate to give up for something else

that's not how rendering resolution works. images aren't just upscaled

kek
that's not how it works user-kun, unless you mean some hipster psuedo-retro-8bit pixelshit garbage

literally why?
You can get a 55inch oled tv for the same price
...
okay desu i know why since tvs are only 60hz and have input lag but for me that just seems like a rip off when you consider how much more you get for your money when you get a tv.

>55 inch
why would you want a screen that big? If you sit in front of it the edges are not even if your field of view and are at large angles. If you sit at a distance you won't see the details which kind of defeats the point of a quality screen.

>that's not how it works
But it is, for textures obviously, not polygons or vectors, you don't magically get more detail by upping the resolution like some CSI movie. Only recently have some games been getting actual high res textures (and they are usually just very good upscales that make no difference, see fallout4)
>psuedo-retro-8bit pixelshit garbage
In fact a 8bit pseudo retro game may have vectorial textures that actually get scaled.