theres no doubt 144hz makes a big difference over 60hz monitors
there seems to be a HUGE price difference in monitors when you add G-sync / Freesync, and IPS instead of TN. both together adds about $500 to the price tag
are g-sync / freesync, and IPS really worth it?
g-sync/freesync? no.
IPS? sure.
what if you were playing something like GTA 5 or crysis on max settings? even with a gtx 1080 you could still see choppy FPS at certain times. in a forest on GTA 5 for example
Wrong.
For an example you can get a Quantum Dot display at 144hz w/ freesync for $279
a.co
GoySync absolutely isn't worth paying extra for on a 144Hz monitor. There's so little tearing at those sort of framerates that it's pointless. FreeSync is just a nice bonus that doesn't cost you anything.
IPS is nice, BUT those panels have a fuckton of QC issues. At best you're going to have to live with "acceptable amounts" of light bleed and IPS glow. TN looks a bit shittier, but not to the degree that you're going to notice when playing a game for the most part.
Sadly, you do begin to notice its flaws a lot more with desktop use. 27" is the point where colours start looking like shit in your peripheral vision from a standard sitting position at a desk, thanks to TN's garbage viewing angles
>theres no doubt 144hz makes a big difference over 60hz monitors
Hz by itself is a minimal difference in motion clarity. The only real benefit is in esports for reaction times.
Gsync is the only thing that should be considered in a gaming monitor in the current market. IPS has more negatives than TN does for games. Big ones being IPS glow and interference with gsync.
Fresync is mostly garbage. Can be ok in an application trying to push high resolutions/multiple monitors.
>I watched some youtube retard the post
IPS + hifrequency isn't worth it right now
shit is broken you either have nice frames or nice colors not both.
shit even high-DPI isn't even a solved problem, maybe mac does it the best, but it's pretty janky on windows/linux.
144 hz or 4K gaming is the very best example of diminishing returns. You're wasting 4x computing power on a very marginal gain in image quality/responsiveness. VR is another story though.
>in a forest on GTA 5 for example
Solid intel.
what about 1080 vs 1440? can you see the difference?
your gay monitor isnt going to make that better
Even the worst IPS panel is better than the best TN.
Also, >muh games
Go back to Sup Forums
best monitor if you have a NVIDIA card am i right?
amazon.com
>TN
>16:9
>1920x1080
It belongs in the bargain bin with all the other gamer rubbish.
Shoo shoo, dumb Nvidia shill. I've been through more 144Hz monitors than you've had shits in the middle of the street. Go advertise your worthless $150 addon somewhere else.
Enjoy your blur, champ.
freesync doesnt add price, gsync does.
ips adds price but its worth it imo.
Enjoy your 19" CRT, Sanjay.
ask a guy with the god tier dual monitor setup (1440p IPS and 144hz freesync TN) anything
You're shilling for AMD while saying I'm a currynigger. Get your shit together retard.
whats the real difference in color quality between IPS and TN? so far seeing pictures it just seems like IPS looks darker.. i watched a lot of videos but im skeptical since videos might distort the color on TN
How does it feel having wildly different colours across your two screens?
I own a GTX 1080, Amit. Enjoy that GT 210, it's a solid card!
You bought a nvidia card without a gsync monitor? You really a are retarded.
There is a world of difference, TN has absolutely no contrast or saturation by comparison.
Looks like you need to spend some more time with your English tutor to me, Sunil.
Whatever helps you feel better about freesync garbage, kiddo.
Do you still get paid if you fail to make a sale, Mandeep?
I just like motion clarity is all. Keep shitposting though. My guess is you're some europoor.
What discounts can you offer me, Dinesh?
You sure do know a lot of Indian names there. Your fellow workers at the AMD shill cell?
There are so many of you guys on Sup Forums that I know you all by name, Raj.
Your shill cell only works on Sup Forums?
IPS definitely has the color quality advantage. I started with the TN and thought it looked great until I purchased the IPS. Definitely a world of difference. I have the IPS perfectly calibrated with spectrophotometer and colorimeter readings and I can't get the TN to match it, although it's not as terrible as people say it is.
I'm perfectly ok with it since the advantages of the TN (144hz, response time, freesync) make up for it.
This really isn't helping sell me on GoySync, Vikram.
>IPS
No, actually it's not worth it. Neckbeards think so, but they're fucking retarded.
1) Humans are much better at contrast perception than color perception. This is why 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 chroma can actually work in all but text-heavy applications, whereas 2:4:4 would look like sheeeeeet.
2) Most of these idiots on Sup Forums don't even calibrate their monitors, so all that "muh color accuracy" doesn't even come into play.
3) Those that do calibrate by naked eye with cheap shit like some website, and end up with a calibration model that is hardly better than default anyway.
4) They're still comparing their budget-tier shit IPS (not all IPS are created equal) to new generation TN which has improved greatly.
Surprise twist: I own exclusively IPS displays; one Dell 27" U2715H and an LG 55UH8500 and an iOne Display Pro to calibrate them with. However if you're a gamer, IPS really isn't worth the tradeoff. Even the best "gamer" IPS displays cheat like a motherfucker to get that refresh. There are a shit ton of tradeoffs you have to deal with, however no retard on Sup Forums will ever admit that their precious IPS isn't the best.
High refresh rate is a meme started by companies who invested millions into 3D technology only for no one to use it. So instead they repurposed it to high refresh rate and market it to gamers with shitty images that just blur the 60 FPS side of the image like your OP bullshit.
Then all the placebo kiddies came out of the woodworks and claim how amazing it is, practically doing the marketing for said companies.
The best part is you idiots keep buying stronger graphics cards and CPU's too to try and reach 144 FPS.
Meanwhile, at 4K 60 Hz you get superior image quality and if you ever have left over GPU horsepower your components can instead run much cooler instead of maxing them out at all times to try and attain a ridiculous FPS number.
144hz and gsync make no difference over a 60hz monitor. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to justify the rediculous money they spent. Prove me wrong.
Your fantasy about Sup Forums users pushing nonsense is totally unfounded. If anything it's the other way around.
It was only 5 or so years ago that IPS became cheap enough that people on Sup Forums could start talking about it, before that it (and VA) were basically restricted to professional monitors. Lo and behold, that's also when you started hearing bottom-feeding gamers and the companies that pray on them extolling the supposed virtues of TN. Prior to that TN was almost universally considered an inferior technology for budget panels.
everyone here has a different opinion.. really lost here.
anyways i have about $400 to spend on a monitor. my card is GTX 1070. any recommendations?
For that kind of money you can't go wrong with a Dell Ultrasharp or Eizo's equivalent models.
have you used a 144hz monitor before?
Thought so
144hz is a noticeable difference. calling it a meme/placebo and its users kiddies doesn't change that objectively true statement. 144 fps isn't some crazy unattainable goal, and the game doesn't even need to reach the max refresh rate to benefit from it being higher. you sound so sure of yourself but you really have no idea about even the basic technological differences between IPS and TN, which is surprising if you actually own any calibration tools like you say you do.
you are welcome to try a 144hz monitor to see yourself. it's not like it's some hidden ancient secret. you can literally just look at the screen and see the difference. gsync is more expensive because of the chip they implement and will eventually give way to the adaptive sync standard in displayport
Why don't people who chase after high refresh rates just get a CRT? They are infinitely better than any LCD in that respect no matter how much money you blow on anti-blur placebo.
Having used a 144Hz monitor before, I don't agree with it being a better experience.
What exactly are the tangible benefits from a higher framerate? There's diminishing returns on reducing frametimes and unless you have an extremely high end CPU/GPU you're going to have situations of massive framerate spiking (i.e hitting 140 FPS, dropping to 90 FPS for some scenes, back to 120 FPS, back to 144 FPS) rather than a silky smooth 60 FPS with perfect 16.6 ms frametimes.
Even in titles that you can perfectly lock at 144Hz (which are very few and far between, usually old titles like CSGO) it didn't improve the gaming experience at all.
At the end of the day you should just accept that you're getting jewed by companies recouping their R&D costs from developing 120Hz panels so they could display 60 Hz 3D images and no one buying the technology. All early high refresh rate monitors were prominently advertised as 3D monitors and it's only when retarded pro gamers started epousing muh high FPS gaming did it catch on.
These are the same pro gamers who run CSGO at 300 FPS in borderless window mode and try to talk about how running the game at FPS higher than your refresh rate is beneficial and will improve your KDR.
>best gaming monitor for money
A 27", 1440p monitor with the rich, vibrant, saturated colors of an IPS, the creamy smoothness of 144Hz refresh rate and 1ms response times of a TN, built in and hidden HD speakers, and a microscopic bezel.
Does such a monitor exist? I believe the answer is, no. Prove me wrong, anons.
>g-sync / freesync
>he pays multitudes more for shitty software which gimps his hardware cause he was a fucking retard who bought hardware which isn't capable of working well with all his other hardware
cucks, the lot of you.
>144hz and gsync make no difference over a 60hz monitor.
Obvious you have never seen a 144hz monitor in person. For eight years up until just two weeks ago my gaming rig was a Dell XPS 630i with a Core2Duo cpu, Radeon HD 6850 gpu, and an ASUS MS226 1080p 60hz monitor. Two weeks ago I built this — pcpartpicker.com
There is no going back to 60hz once you experience 144hz.
>Even in titles that you can perfectly lock at 144Hz (which are very few and far between, usually old titles like CSGO) it didn't improve the gaming experience at all.
funny you should mention CSGO as an example when literally every pro player uses a high refresh rate monitor because of the increase in information that can be processed and shown. any sort of quick decision making games that rely on snap input (fps, fighting games) benefit from high refresh rates. you don't even need to be in a game to notice it, just switching between 60hz and 144hz on the windows desktop has a noticeable effect.
>At the end of the day you should just accept that you're getting jewed by companies recouping their R&D costs
144hz freesync monitors are cheaper than some of the "nice" budget monitors like the dell Ux line
>These are the same pro gamers who run CSGO at 300 FPS in borderless window mode
pro gamers aren't necessarily the cream of the crop for intelligence, but that doesn't mean them not utilizing it properly negates the benefits when they do
you are correct, it doesn't exist because of the differences in IPS and TN technology
the truth of the matter is even these $750 gaming monitors are budget options that companies make, which is why they all suffer from QC issues like BLB. quality monitors start at a much higher price and are geared to a totally different audience
>these $750 gaming monitors are budget options that companies make.
They're budget panels with a hugely inflated pricetag since gamers will buy anything.
You can get an a very high quality monitor for $750.
Even if you don't hit 144FPS you will still benefit from 144Hz faster refresh rate.
144hz is a meme
My xb321hk shits on your 144hz
Is there any reason for the 144 Hz standard? I mean, why is it specifically 144 and not a round number for example?
>buying any memesyncs
>not going ips
wow
>4K 60 Hz you get superior image quality and if you ever have left over GPU horsepower your components can instead run much cooler
this is absolutely retarded
120Hz was the standard, monitor manufacturer started selling monitors with a "OC" setting in the control panel and they could hit 140+Hz in some panels.
Since 144Hz is a multiple of 24Hz which is perfect for watching 24FPS content like movies, 144Hz "became" the standard.
I was going to post this. I have this monitor and it's amazing. The VA panel isn't as nice as IPS, but it's still really good.
so is the consensus that G-sync/Freesync is not useful?
144hz 1440p IPS is ideal?
that is the consensus among 17 year old Sup Forums users, yes
G-Sync is worth it for ULMB alone.
ULMB 120Hz looks better than 144Hz. too bad you can't use 120Hz ULMB + G-sync at the same time.
that looks good. unfortunately it only has 1080p, no 1440. won't bring out the full potential of my GTX 1070
144Hz 4k when?
I believe HDMI and DP aren't able to handle the data stream quite yet.
The latest DP revision has more than enough bandwidth.
Does anyone actually care about HDMI anymore besides those companies who have a stake in it?
The new LG 34" 75Hz 2560x1080 IPS ultrawide would be good
is 2560 x 1080 like in between 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440 for GPU requirement?
also im pretty sure 34" at 1080p would look blurry
>xb321hk
Was GSync really worth doubling the price?
As you go wider screen space becomes smaller for a given size. 34" in 21:9 is much smaller than a 34" 4:3 screen would be.
Ultrawide is garbage and should not be bought by anyone, lest more be made.
Yeah, essentially. Being that the 1070 handles 60FPS 1440P fairly well, the ultrawide 1080P is a good sweetspot for 60+ FPS gaming. To be fair, it does look "blurry" (not unusable, but noticable if coming from 16:9 1080P) for text/general web browsing, but its pretty much the best gaming experience for $400 IMO.
LG 34UM69G-B
PG279Q Master Race Reporting in.
>165Hz IPS 1440p
>100% sRGB
>4ms response time
>144hz is a noticeable difference
... going from 60hz to 144hz?
Yes there is a big difference.
But why does everyone ignore 75hz, 90hz, 120hz?
Going from 120hz to 144hz, there is virtually no difference. It's very hard to tell except in extremely, extremely fast motion.
>PG279Q
>Preforms worse than it's Freesync version in everything but response time
>Very easy to get a display with issues
>PG279Q
>Master Race
Pick one
>no HDR10, let alone Dolby Vision for that matter
>no OLED or at least some technology that's almost as good
>1440p not 2560x1600
It's complete garbage. I don't know what my life would be like if I settled for such shit taste as you have. I don't even want to think about it.
there are no 120hz monitors... i looked it up on amazon. 90% are either 60hz or 144hz
>no 120hz
>I looked it up on amazon
amazon.com
welp guess you're just shit
Thank you for the information.
>worse
AHVA panel varies a lot from monitor to monitor. Whether you buy a Eizo, Acer or another brand with the same panel it's susceptible to the same quality control issues. I bought and returned six of these to get one that was acceptable to my standards.
I'll upgrade next year, but 16:9 master race. And the PG279Q is a perfect all-rounder monitor. I've calibrated mine and I can do photo work to playing FPS games. You're just jelly, poorfag.
Don't speak to me, pleb.
I just don't see the sense in spending $600 or more on a computer monitor unless you need it to make money with. You can game on a $200 VG248QE just fine. In fact, it's way more than fine. I mean, I've seen gorgeous 55-Inch 1080p 120Hz Smart LED TV's for the price of one of those 27" PG279Q's.
Well sure.
I do hope decent HDR10 monitors come in in the $250-$500 range soon.
I need something in 16:10 to actually make HDR10 content in. 98%+ of DCI-P3 is going to be expensive. But 90-95% is and not quite as good contrast is fine for others.
I wish they would completely stop making total garbage tier monitors, though. It really sucks when you get feedback that someone can't tell the difference between a grey that's 80% black, and black, because their monitor is so dogshit and/or poorly calibrated. That's not the fault of who made the content.
ENJOY YOUR OVERPRICE gpu FAGGOT
but gaming, why can't I have a bigger screen size? I'm still using my 4k TV cause computer monitors are to small, I really want size over features.
BenQ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can TN panels be modified to look nearly as good as IPS?
That image doesn't even make sense.
Less frames don't magically add motion blur. You simply don't see those frames.
>freesync
>2 1440p monitors
do you run 4 sli furys or what
amd doesnt have a powerful enough cards for 1440p 144hz
shouldve gone gsync and 1080 ti
Just fucking wait until this dumb ass meme ends and the price tags falls to what it is supposed to be
>IPS
enjoy your shit tier blacks and backlight bleed
VA is falling off the market at least here
pretty much only TN & IPS here.
>here
pajeetland?
plenty of new VA top tier monitor releases
this fucking thread
the worst thing about Sup Forumstards is that they're not the kind of people who will look back at themselves in the future and cringe. They'll only become cringier because autists don't have any self awareness.
>pajeetland?
LMAOO DUDE EVERYBODY IS A FILTHY PAJEET AND PAKI
Just stop, also curved give me a fucking break.
i have an acer 144hz 1080p monitor with gsync.
playing ultra is such a meme to be quite honest, recently lowered settings gradually in game and found that ultra was barely at all noticeable in 1080p. not only that but ultra cuts your framerates by at least 20-30fps for performance you can't see.
pic related was something i did for the fuck of it. sold both and just got a 480.
>144Hz just so happens to be the frequency needed to clearly display a car in motion at probably 90+ mph
really makes you think
Does IPS have good blacks? TN blacks don't look good because of the monitor back light I presume.
Where is your hard disk?
Also what case?
If you have to choose between 1080p 144hz, or 1440p, 60hz, which would you choose?
Texture and shadow maps sizes, and AA make up 99% of the visual quality of a game.
Usually there is no difference there between high and "ultra". Ultra just adds all the new meme effects that destroy fps for little-to-no visual benefit.
Then drop grass quality from ultra to vhigh, it drops fps by at least 30 and it looks identical, also advanced settings can kill your fps since GTA v is heavy CPU bound