Gaming Monitor 144hz or more - Don't know where to start.

Z

Zoda

n00b
Joined
Jun 15, 2015
Messages
30
Hello guys,

First off I want to say thank for all the help building my gaming PC. I have been using an ASUS VS239 23" LED monitor for the past year and I would like to have something incredible smooth so I don't have motion blur.

I have thought about getting BenQ and ASUS monitors to replace my current monitor. I would like to get something with a refresh rate of at least 144hz and 23+ inches so that there is no blur when I play League of Legends and CSGo.

My budget is around $400, can be up to $500 if necessary.
144hz or 240hz would be suitable
27" preferred

Any suggestions or comments would be helpful, I am new to gaming displays. Thanks!
 
What resolution do you want to play at? 1080P or 1440P? For 27" I would recommend a 2560x1440 panel. Do you want G-Sync or Freesync? What are your PC hardware specs, and is your rig fast enough to drive such a high framerate? 144Hz panel means nothing if you can only render 50FPS.

All these are relevant questions you need to address before you can narrow down some choices.
 
Last edited:
NukeDukem said:
What resolution do you want to play at? 1080P or 1440P? For 27" I would recommend a 2560x1440 panel. Do you want G-Sync or Freesync? What are your PC hardware specs, and is your rig fast enough to drive such a high framerate? 144Hz panel means nothing if you can only render 50FPS.

All these are relevant questions you need to address before you can narrow down some choices.
Click to expand...

Hey NukeDuem,

Yeah I just read up a little more about these G-Sync and Freesync. I don't care which one I get I just want a 144 that is super clear. But I heard you have to get one according to your GPU. My GPU is an ASUS Strix GTX 970 OC Edition. I have an i7-4790k. I built the whole rig like August 2015 when everything was still new and up to date. It's only a year old. I'll see if I can find my old post of my specs.

I would like a 27" if possible. 1080p is fine with me, but if the budget permits ($500) I would like the highest model possible.

Thanks for your input.
 
Newegg's official ebay account are selling manufacturer refurbished Asus PG278Q's(27"1440p Gsync) for $480(retails for over $650) right now with free shipping and returns. Owner of one for about a year, absolutely love it. Despite you having minimal interest in gsync, I believe you will really appreciate it once you use it for a while.

Benq XL2730Z(27' 1440p Freesync) is another solid option for around $500 if lack of gsync is no biggie.
 
I'm afraid your options are quite limited... Your GPU is not good enough to drive 1440p anywhere near 144fps, and at the same time there are no IPS/VA 27"+ 1080p 144Hz monitors in your price range.. You could go with TN, but then the picture quality will be questionable..

Acer Predator Z35 would be a good option... It's 21:9 monitor, 35" 2560x1080, basically an extended 27", also curved. VA panel and 144Hz with G-sync. It would be a perfect combo for you. But it is ~750€ here in Europe, so you would have to save some more money while waiting for a good discounted deal to pop up somewhere.
 
Comixbooks said:
Amazon.com: Dell Gaming S2716DG 27.0" Screen LED-Lit Monitor: Computers & Accessories

Get the Dell good quality control it won't break people say it's faded but lots of people tolerate it or it's actually not that bad.
Click to expand...

Shoot, I could have made the same thread as the OP. A lot of us are on the fence because of all the panel roulette and nonsense.

I keep coming back to this monitor. It seems like a "safe bet" all told. There is only one thing I'm not sure about for myself: I've used IPS and VA monitors for 99 percent of my time in LCD which has been a long time. The one TN monitor I tried was BenQ's 24 inch G sync monitor from last year. I know that's a 6 bit TN and I just couldn't handle the drop off in PQ despite how impressed I was with the high refresh rates and G sync.

I understand the Dell is an 8 bit TN instead of a 6 bit and that it has more going for it but all told...going by this... should I consider this or am I likely headed to a repeat of disappointment?
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Hmm, so 1440p would not work well with my GPU? I am okay with sticking to 1080p. But still a little confused. To begin with, should I be buying G-Sync or FreeSync for my GPU (ASUS Strix GTX 970 OC). Which one is optimal for my GPU. Also are there 1080p 144hz monitors that will do the job? My budget is $500. I would like to stay around the 27" range, 35" might be too big. Thanks.
 
G-Sync for NVIDIA GPUs, FreeSync for AMD.
I would not recommend buying a high refresh rate monitor without G-Sync.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Zoda said:
Hmm, so 1440p would not work well with my GPU? I am okay with sticking to 1080p. But still a little confused. To begin with, should I be buying G-Sync or FreeSync for my GPU (ASUS Strix GTX 970 OC). Which one is optimal for my GPU. Also are there 1080p 144hz monitors that will do the job? My budget is $500. I would like to stay around the 27" range, 35" might be too big. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I believe the claim of a gtx 970 not being good enough for 1440p 144hz to be a bit extreme, unless you only exclusively play the latest graphic busting games at only max graphic settings. Although i just personally have a hard time recommending anyone 1080p in general at this point in time.

I also had no idea Dell had their own 144hz model. Seems like a great option too.
 
People always seem to mention hz without the accompanying frame rates. You really need at least 100fps average with g-sync imo to get some of the improvements of modern high hz monitors outside of avoidance of screen aberrations provided by g-sync. Luckily you can do that with high end dual card sli on a 2560 x 1440 and still only have to dial down to very high or very high+ (custom)settings. At 1080p you have a lot less gpu demand obviously.

I feel like you will never get gpu's powerful enough to outpace graphics settings because the graphics ceiling is really arbitrary to begin with. The challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit real time, not the other way around. They could easily bump up the ultra setting 3x, 4x, 10x etc what it is now. You can also downsample from 8k or more and use mods to go way over ultra even now. Meshes and textures are downsized by devs using authoring software. View distances are limited, and animated objects viewable in distances, and view distance layout tricks are utilized. Shadows are limited too. There really is no ultra, at least not like the one you think you know on the slider, if you look at it that way, only what you are capped at artificially. The more powerful gpus get, the more graphics image and fx quality "limits" that devs artificially set as the ceiling (ultra) will go up.
Personally I run a balance between still shot quality and motion excellence. At around 100fps-hz or 110fps-hz average you ride a frame rate graph that typically goes from 75-90 <----> 100 - 110ave <---> 130's or more dynamically and smoothly with g-sync.

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40/50/60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less smearing blur)
5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations .

Regardless of the monitor's hz, lower frame rates will be blurrier (outside of using strobe mode), and lower frame rates will be a lot less motion def and motion articulation. That is why I list my rates at fps-hz not fps and not hz alone. Without the frame rates, the hz is practically meaningless.

People are infatuated with graphics detail in still shots, but you don't play screen shots. If you are using variable hz at 1440p to run low (sub 75fps-hz to 90fps-hz mode/most of the time in game, really should be like 100 at least imo), you are essentially running a low hz, low motion definition and motion articulation, smearing blur monitor and missing out on most of the gaming advancements modern gaming monitors provide outside of the judder/tearing/stops avoidance.

---------------------

Since you mentioned LoL and CSgo, you would be able to get pretty high frame rates since those are less demanding games. Those are a few of the exceptions however in regard to gpu demand in games so 1080p is more suitable for most gpu budgets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
Okay but since I have an nVidia chipset (GTX 970) is it best for me to buy G-Sync?
 
Yes, out of the two technologies you want Gsync if you are going with Nvidia based cards.

I have the Dell S2716DG and it's great. I calibrated it per TFT Central settings and I really like the way it looks. I had the Rog Swift before and the panel crapped out on me. I like the Dell better honestly.
 
Zoda said:
Okay but since I have an nVidia chipset (GTX 970) is it best for me to buy G-Sync?
Click to expand...

Yes. You need to go G Sync. No use getting a free sync monitor unless you are thinking of changing to an AMD graphics card. Unfortunately, you can't get monitors with both Free Sync and G Sync.
 
KJ43 said:
Yes, out of the two technologies you want Gsync if you are going with Nvidia based cards.

I have the Dell S2716DG and it's great. I calibrated it per TFT Central settings and I really like the way it looks. I had the Rog Swift before and the panel crapped out on me. I like the Dell better honestly.
Click to expand...

Which Swift did you have. The TN model or the IPS model.
 
Okay so since I have the ASUS Strix GTX 970 I have narrowed it down to a few choices, can anyone point me at the one I should get?

BenQ XL2420G 144hz G-Sync Gaming Monitor
BenQ XL2720Z 144hz ZeroFlicker Gaming Monitor
ASUS VG278HV 144hz (Splendid and Tracer Free Technology)
ASUS VG248QE 144hz (Splendid and Tracer Free Technology)
 
Zoda said:
Okay so since I have the ASUS Strix GTX 970 I have narrowed it down to a few choices, can anyone point me at the one I should get?

BenQ XL2420G 144hz G-Sync Gaming Monitor
BenQ XL2720Z 144hz ZeroFlicker Gaming Monitor
ASUS VG278HV 144hz (Splendid and Tracer Free Technology)
ASUS VG248QE 144hz (Splendid and Tracer Free Technology)
Click to expand...

Hey, I also have Dell's s2716dg, which is great quality and no hassle like with thoose ips panels and it's cheaper. I also had 970 and before dell was using AOC G2460PG which is 1080p gsync 144hz monitor (actually I'm currently selling it in trade section for $280). I can say it was just perfect for gaming on 970. No quality problems as well. I think you should consider this monitor.
 
To take advantage of high refresh rate, which I assume is what you want considering all those monitors are 144Hz ones, it's better to have adaptive sync technology such as G-Sync.

This will prevent screen tearing regardless of what fps your games are running at.
 
Even though your video card will not be able to run most games at 144fps, you should still go for a 1440p monitor. If you want more fps you can run games at a lower resolution, like 1080p. Upgrade your gpu in a year or two to take full advantage of the high refresh rate at 1440p.

Get a monitor with gsync since you already have an nVidia card, but know that if you want to continue to use gsync in the future you will effectively be locked into buying nVidia.
 
Zoda said:
But would this monitor be inferior to the BenQ which has G-Sync?
Click to expand...

G-Sync is a bonus, and some would claim a MUST, but it adds a bit to the price. If you see two almost identically priced models, but one has G-Sync, be wary of the G-Sync model, as it may have some sacrifices to meet the price point. Usually G-sync adds ~$150 to the monitor price.
 
Zoda said:
But would this monitor be inferior to the BenQ which has G-Sync?
Click to expand...
Unless you can guarantee that your games are going to run at 144 FPS and never drop a frame, G-Sync is essential.
The only people recommending monitors without G-Sync, are people that haven't used G-Sync. You can't go back.
 
I am really tempted to buy the Dell S2716DG because it meets all my specification needs for right around $500 or less. I know the refresh rate will be higher but is the viewing angle change really that noticeably bad? How will the viewing angles compare to my ASUS VC239 IPS monitor ($150)? I've had a monitor bad in 2004 where when I viewed the monitor at angles it was pretty bad.

I just don't want to downgrade in terms of picture quality from my VC239. But I've heard a whole bunch stuff about TN vs IPS monitors that I have not seen for myself.
 
Zoda said:
I am really tempted to buy the Dell S2716DG because it meets all my specification needs for right around $500 or less. I know the refresh rate will be higher but is the viewing angle change really that noticeably bad? How will the viewing angles compare to my ASUS VC239 IPS monitor ($150)? I've had a monitor bad in 2004 where when I viewed the monitor at angles it was pretty bad.

I just don't want to downgrade in terms of picture quality from my VC239. But I've heard a whole bunch stuff about TN vs IPS monitors that I have not seen for myself.
Click to expand...

You are going to have to make that call for yourself. TN will not have the same viewing angles without color shifting etc that IPS will. TN will have less input lag if that matters to you. I personally sit in front of my monitor and have it on an arm so it is always oriented right in front of me. I never notice viewing angle issues...ever. My secondary monitor is an IPS panel so I can compare TN to IPS right next to each other.

Be wary of the people on the forum that make big generalizations. For example "IPS is the best by a million miles, TN looks like dogcrap". In my experience it just isn't true unless you are doing serious graphics work that requires the best color fidelity. Check them out for yourself if you really want to see how it might affect you. Take what people say with a grain of salt...especially if they have an extreme opinion.

For a 27 inch panel I would try to make sure it was 1440p personally.

For me input lag, refresh rate, and screen clarity are king. I mostly play fps and in the past I've played competitively so lower input lag is important to me. The Dell s2716dg fits the bill and once calibrated has a super sharp consistent image from edge to edge. Mine had almost no blb and had zero stuck pixels.
 
1440@144 is a gift and a curse, it's about the same as 4k@60, which is to say it's as demanding as it gets. I have a 980ti and even in games like TF2 it dips below 120 sometimes. The good news is, at least to me, the difference between ~100 and 160hz is something I can't notice, maybe when you aren't actually playing and staring looking for problems, but in game it's all the same. The problem now is if I want to stay above 60fps, which is why I bought the damn monitor, I'm probably looking at flagship-only cards for the next five years.

All the cool kids in CSGO are using 1080p so I'd just go with that, it makes a HUGE difference in requirements needed.

My overclocked 980ti can not get Witcher 3 above 60fps to save its life, dropping down to 1920x1080 makes things hum along much more smoothly.


I was leaning toward that Dell but ultimately went with the Acer and am very pleased with the quality, I do think overall this forum tends to *greatly* overstate any issues with different screen technologies, plenty of happy people on TN panels out there.
 
ZeqOBpf6 said:
My overclocked 980ti can not get Witcher 3 above 60fps to save its life, dropping down to 1920x1080 makes things hum along much more smoothly.
Click to expand...
And this is why G-Sync is so important.
It doesn't matter what hardware you've got, you can't guarantee a fixed framerate unless you're only playing old games.
I just don't see the point in buying a high refresh rate monitor without variable refresh rate technology. (G-Sync or FreeSync depending on whether you have NVIDIA or AMD)
 
hulksmashhh said:
Newegg's official ebay account are selling manufacturer refurbished Asus PG278Q's(27"1440p Gsync) for $480(retails for over $650) right now with free shipping and returns. Owner of one for about a year, absolutely love it. Despite you having minimal interest in gsync, I believe you will really appreciate it once you use it for a while.
Click to expand...

Thanks hulksmashhh ! I jumped on this and will post here what I think when I receive it in a few days.
 
So I just received the PG278Q from newegg on eBay and it was looking like it winner, until I noticed a 5mm scratch under the screen that shows on white. Location is top of the panel where I would see most of my tabs in browsers. So not something I will keep. I've started an RMA process and will order another one because I like the monitor overall with just a couple hours of use. Size is perfect as is resolution. But too bad the RMA item came with this particular defect. Anything but the panel and power for me.
 
MeTaSpARKs said:
So I just received the PG278Q from newegg on eBay and it was looking like it winner, until I noticed a 5mm scratch under the screen that shows on white. Location is top of the panel where I would see most of my tabs in browsers. So not something I will keep. I've started an RMA process and will order another one because I like the monitor overall with just a couple hours of use. Size is perfect as is resolution. But too bad the RMA item came with this particular defect. Anything but the panel and power for me.
Click to expand...

The second monitor came in and was 10x worse than the first. It has a scratch on the screen a good six inches diagonal across the center. Newegg quality assurance must be ass for refurbished monitors. I'm thinking about keeping the first though. Besides the scratch, I like the screen and resolution.
 
Just because you have a 1440x144Hz monitor doesn't mean you have to run it balls out. A 970 has plenty of muscle to run 1440p and probably at 144Hz too, short of insane gaming (I'm doing it now w/ a 970 FTW). And if it does stutter/tear, lower the refresh some. Your gaming isn't going to suffer if "OMG" you run 60/75/100 Hz. Plus that monitor will still be good when you do upgrade to a 10XX Ti/Titan card.
 
"Plenty of muscle" is relative.
At lower fps ranges, your game viewport will suffer aesthetically in 1st/3rd person games where you are continually moving the entire game world around in the viewport relative to you.
You will lose the appreciable amounts of motion clarity increase (blur reduction) and the motion definition and path articulation increase of higher frame rates fed to the higher hz.
Whether that matters to you or not is up to you but you won't be getting much out of your high hz monitor's hz if you are running low hz.

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40% / 50% / 60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less' smearing blur)
5:3 / 2:1 / 2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations .

You can dial down settings in demanding games, but most people don't like going much below very high or very high+ (custom settings).

1070
Games like fallout 4 get 85fps-hz on ultra at 2560 x 1440 on a gtx 1070, which gives you a closer target to work from to reach 100fps-hz average or so by dialing down graphics settings.
A 1070 on witcher3 at 2560x 1440, on ultra, gets only 65fps. That's 65 fps-hz average , swinging/"vibrating" dynamically plus and minus something like 20 fps-hz on a frame rate graph.
65 fps-hz is grossly inadequate to feed a 144hz monitor.
Going forward, the graphics ceilings aren't going to be getting any lower on the more demanding games designed for these new card's gen obviously either.
Frame rate graph of 108fps-hz average on an sli setup vs graph of 60 fps-hz on a single card. Notice the ranges and the frequency that the rate changes.

Imo you should at least dial in 100fps-hz average or so as a minimum if you want to see at least some of the advancements (including motion aesthetics) the high hz can provide outside of the avoidance of screen abberations variable hz provides.

Personally I run a balance between still shot quality and motion excellence. At around 100fps-hz or 110fps-hz average you ride a frame rate graph that typically goes from 75-90 <----> 100 - 110ave <---> 130's or more dynamically and smoothly with g-sync. So my frame rate and screen blur are kind of doing a vibration blur oscillating between 20%/30%/40/%/50%/60% blur reduction and near 1:1 motion def through 1.x:1/5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion def and motion/path articulation.
I'd like to tighten those ranges up toward the higher end more of course. To me that is a minimum to see anything worthwhile out of a high hz monitor's high hz capacity.
 
Last edited:
Rustynuts said:
Just because you have a 1440x144Hz monitor doesn't mean you have to run it balls out. A 970 has plenty of muscle to run 1440p and probably at 144Hz too, short of insane gaming (I'm doing it now w/ a 970 FTW). And if it does stutter/tear, lower the refresh some. Your gaming isn't going to suffer if "OMG" you run 60/75/100 Hz. Plus that monitor will still be good when you do upgrade to a 10XX Ti/Titan card.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. The monitor is something that is static and doesn't get upgraded as often as the GPU. The graphics will change every cycle, but you need to invest ahead of the curve for the best monitor you can afford. Not every game you run at maximum refresh and fps. I don't recall people ever running DOOM 3 at 144hz when it just came out, and no one whined about monitors back then. Some games people will run 1080p and some will run native. But all of the benefits you still have
 
yeah like I said the single gtx 1070 bench at 1440p I saw was 85fps-hz average... 100fps-hz ave is a preferred min for me though since:

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40% / 50% / 60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less' smearing blur)
5:3 / 2:1 / 2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations .

85fps-hz isn't bad but your graph is constantly fluctuating between 65fps-hz to 100fps-hz most likely with that. So getting zero blur reduction and no motion def increase to less than 30% blur reduction. So I would turn down ultra to very high or very high+ (custom, or ultra minus if you prefer) until I got 100fps-hz ave or so. Otherwise you aren't getting much out of the high hz really. G-sync/variable hz would still avoid screen aberrations at least though of course.

witcher 3 being 65fps-hz ave with the hd texures on ultra is very inadequate though, and games aren't going to get any less demanding going forward.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top