High Refresh Rate or Overall Image Quality?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Greyson, Sep 22, 2018.

  1. Greyson

    Greyson n00bie

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Yep, it's what you'd expect from the title. I'm in the market for a monitor and i'm not sure which I should prioritize. Should I go for a pro-grade IPS that tends to have better uniformity, contrast, and accuracy than their gaming-grade counterparts? Or go with one of the 144hz IPS/VA displays that are on the market which may not be as good in other areas but include technologies like G-Sync. (I use Nvidia)

    Size and resolution are secondary right now, i'm just trying to figure out which side of the fence I fall on. I do play games, but a lot of them are RPG or RTS and i've never had a problem with 60hz up to this point even in the shooters I play. That's not to say a higher refresh rate wouldn't be better and if I could have everything I would, but it seems like I have to pick one or the other. I'm sure the phrase "you don't know what you're missing out on" is true, but i've been "surviving" on 60hz all the same.

    Basically, for anyone else who has considered these options, does having a high refresh rate outweigh all other options? Is it worth it to sacrifice a bit of quality in all areas for extreme performance in one particular area?

    I'm sure this thread is a bit derivative and the topic has come up before, i'm just completely stuck even trying to narrow down my options.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2018
  2. HiCZoK

    HiCZoK Gawd

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    I had 240hz gsync 1080p tn and loved the smoothness but sold it due to image quality and just got 60hz ips because I want correct iq.

    Now I am looking for something that does it all and the only monitor might be lg 32gk850g... Very very good reviews. Said to have good gamma, colors and 165hz, gsync along with best ever va pixel response... It sounds too good and its the reason I did not bought it yet
     
  3. Mega6

    Mega6 Gawd

    Messages:
    1,012
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    RTS means Frames to me. I never "see" tearing so 1080p and 60-200+ Frames Per Second is the way I play. It's really a personal decision and no one can really tell you what you want to visually see that's enjoyable for you. From your orig, post, I'd say stick with the 60Hz since it doesn't bother you and go for some more image quality given those two choices. Maybe you can demo something in a store or a friends to "see what you are missing" to help you make a better decision.
     
  4. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    791
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    This is a very interesting question. I also always wonder if I should get a 144hz screen, or "better" pixels lime a QLED monitor. Usually I decide for image quality - as that never stops being noticeable, unlike 144h in most of one's desktop use. 60 to 75hz is fine most of the time for me, but then again I don't play competitive shooters.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2018
  5. XoR_

    XoR_ Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    378
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    I use setup consisting of Acer XB271HK 27" 16:9 4K G-Sync monitor and HP DreamColor LP2480zx 24" 16:10 professional grade monitor with A-TW
    Colors of Acer are good enough for games, web, productivity, etc.
    Perfect gamut and A-TW of HP make colors so much better and life-like. For games I do not need life-like colors though.
    Thing to note: wide gamut monitors are worse at text rendering.

    Setup consisting of 144Hz G-Sync IPS (avoid VA - they are terrible at color quality) and Eizo CX240 (or if you can get your hands on good condition HP LP2480zx <- it actually have far superior panel) would be great and probably fullfil all your needs

    Unfortunately price would be pretty high :dead:
     
  6. stephen2002

    stephen2002 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    129
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Give a high refresh monitor a try if you can. Some people think it's the best thing ever even for desktop use (scrolling and dragging windows will be smoother).

    I personally think high DPI and image quality are far more important. I increase settings in games until I'm below 60FPS anyway, so have an IPS 4K 60Hz. To me high refresh is "that's kinda nice I guess" but high DPI is "wow everything looks so nice and smooth".
     
    Brian_B and ors like this.
  7. kasakka

    kasakka Gawd

    Messages:
    893
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    There is no reason that a 144 Hz display cannot be also accurate when it comes to color reproduction. My 8-bit TN panel on my 144 Hz G-Sync display is accurate for sRGB color space. The newer IPS panel versions should also be accurate for that and higher gamuts as well.

    Then it comes down to which you want to use for gaming, do you turn settings down (depending on your GPU) to get 100+ framerates or do you rely on G-Sync to keep it smooth at 40-60+ fps by having high graphics settings.
     
  8. Greyson

    Greyson n00bie

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Everything i've looked at suggests that most (or all) of the 144hz+ IPS displays on the market have mediocre uniformity, (exacerbated by backlight bleed) worse Delta E performance, and lower contrast than professional grade models, and the prices aren't all that different due to the premium that G-Sync fetches. If you can suggest something to me please do, I don't claim to know about every monitor out there but I have looked at many.

    Yeah, i've been thinking about buying a monitor from somewhere with a good return policy just to give it a shot.

    Thanks to everyone who has replied. I agree about image quality being something you "never stop noticing" vs. refresh rate being a thing that mainly benefits gaming, though I understand it has some fringe benefits for general tasks too. That's kind of where i'm leaning right now, because gaming is only one of many things I use this computer for.
     
  9. HiCZoK

    HiCZoK Gawd

    Messages:
    758
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    So far, the 240hz tn monitors I've tried all looked much worse than 60hz tn monitor from 10 years ago.
    The colors are fine but gamma performance is very low and contrast goes to hell when using high refresh modes. That is for tn panels
     
  10. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,919
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    I suggest you consider VA gaming panels. IPS and TN have 860:1 to 990:1 contrast ratio and poor black levels around .14 .. While a modern gaming VA isn't as good as a TV it still has triple the contrast ratio (~ 3000:1) and black depth of ips and TN.

    Some other things to consider.......

    We are on the verge of moving to hdmi 2. 1 in TVs next year, and most likely in consoles in 2020. There will be some really good tvs that check all the boxes if re-doing your room setup for increased size and viewing distance isn't a problem. The samsung Q9FN 65" line has 480zone FALD , ~ 1700nit HDR 1000, 19018:1 dynamic fald contrast ratio, and near perfect REC 2020 color in it's hdr color volume. They already support VRR (variable frame rate hdmi standard) in their 2018 models via hdmi 2.0b (as does xbox and amd cards). In 2019, tvs should have hdmi 2.1 for 120hz native 4k at 4:4:4 color, VRR, and QFT (quick frame transport for low input lag gaming). The problem , other than the sizes available and the high price, is that nvidia has a monopoly on the most powerful gaming gpus and has vested interest in g-sync so it's likely they won't support VRR for a few years, if ever.. The fact that they released their 2000 gpu line early without hdmi 2.1 says something. Even though the 480zone Q9FN price model slot is $3700 currently and the 80zone Q8 is $2500, they are still $1700 less and $2500 less than the nvidia 65" BFG models which are over $5000 and like their over $2000, small 27" 4k fald hdr models will still be on hdmi 2.0b which means they can't do 4:4:4 color over 98hz and they lack standardized hdmi 2.1 VRR, QFT, dynamic HDR, and overall bandwidth. Hopefully in 2019 and 2020 we will start seeing more options and sizes as real HDR1000 displays with HDMI 2.1 start to become more common.

    J62gufP.png

    Regarding high hz benefits:
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  11. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,919
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    ...
     
  12. N4CR

    N4CR 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,823
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    After seeing it all new and old including plenty of CRT time in the days, IQ over Hz, especially as I mostly do workstation stuff. But a good balance is best for when I have some gaming time :)
    Something like 10 bit, 80-90Hz would be optimal minimum. But if stuff gets crappy looking, dull and less vibrant which is often the case then nope. I'll go slower and nicer looking.
     
    euskalzabe likes this.
  13. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    791
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    This, exactly. That's why I don't care bout 144hz. It never looks as good as better lower hz panels. Smoother? Sure, but I'd rather look at a slower nice image, than a really fast dull one.
     
  14. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,919
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    In the market right now then yes there is still a lot more fragmentation in trade-offs.

    However it's going to change in the next two years with hdmi 2.1, HDR 1000 (1000nit+ peak), FALD contrast ratio of 10000:1 or more, rec 2020 color and 4k 120hz 4:4:4 native becoming standard in displays over time.


    Frankly, this will blow all current displays away especially for gaming and media/movies.

    The only displays even close are the nvidia FALD HDR 4k models but they don't have hdmi 2.1 so can't do 4:4:4 color past 98hz and lack VRR (including for consoles) and a few other hdmi 2.1 enhancements. Their pricing models are also insane even for high end pricing tiers at over $2000 for a 27" 4k (tiny for a 4k imo), and over $5000 for a BFG when a top of the line samsung tier with 100 more FALD zones (480 vs 384) costs $1700 less, and a 80 zone costs $2500 less (half)... and again no HDMI 2.1 on the nvidia displays or gpus while tvs in 2019 and the next gen of consoles in 2020 will all have hdmi 2.1 and it's features.


    J62gufP.png


    Non-HDR (SDR) color would be the flat base plane in both cases, and in most monitor's cases would be a smaller cutout within even that 2d plane.

    3r1M8aR.png

    4lXSE9G.png
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018
  15. Aluminum

    Aluminum Gawd

    Messages:
    513
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2015
    If Samsung gets their shit together and puts a DP 1.4 on their premium screens, we got a pretty solid winner for PCs on most fronts. Making the smaller sizes more available would help a lot too. No gshit but possibly VRR over that, though you can always just go all in on GPU to mostly make up for the lack of whatever-sync.

    For now I got one of the korean 43" 120hz 4k ips using make an offer on a killer bucks n discount day, its not bad. I run it at 10bit 96hz most of the time, though its a tad on the "ips blue" size no matter what color settings I tweak.