Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

1440p IPS Panel now or 1440p G-Sync TN panel later?

Tags:
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
  • Displays
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 14, 2014 7:04:28 PM

I'm looking for a 27 inch 1440p display for my PC. I have a GTX780 already so I might as well use it. So I've been looking for a 1440p display all day today, and so far I've found one I really like.

This one...

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-PA279Q-27-Inch-Screen-Monito...

It's 27 inch, 1440p, IPS, and has a relatively low response time according to Tom's Hardware. In fact, Tom's loved this monitor and gave it high praise. Although they did say that a 120Hz monitor would be better.

So should I get this monitor, or wait for the new BenQ and Asus 1440p 144Hz TN panels?

Basically it's IPS vs. 144Hz and G-Sync. And that fact that if I get the IPS I won't have to wait. And they are all around the same price.

Also, what other high end 1440p gaming monitors are out there? I've been searching all day and the only "gaming" one I've found is this Asus. What other ones do they have that are good I can look at? Name me some other good 27 inch 1440p IPS panels that are made for gaming or are really good.

More about : 1440p ips panel 1440p sync panel

a b C Monitor
February 14, 2014 8:07:01 PM

I you want a 1440p monitor that can display 120Hz then take a look in these Korean monitors, they are about $300-350 shipped and many are happy with them http://www.overclock.net/t/1384767/official-the-korean-...

Note that they've overclocked these monitor to 120Hz, some were unlucky to have 80-96Hz only.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
February 14, 2014 8:12:25 PM

This looks like a very nice monitor for editing photos, not so much for games though.
The biggest issue is response time. There are plenty of 60Hz monitors that can manage 2ms GtG, but these are TN panels.
IPS panels have better colors, but are slower.

Going to 2560x1440 resolution, frame rate is your next issue.
The GTX 780 isn't going to get near 60 FPS in many games.
Performance of this card will sit between the GTX 770 and Titan in this benchmark:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...

If you are looking for a monitor primarily for games, response time should be a primary concern.
120Hz or 144Hz will offer some additional benefit, but even at 1920x1080 you can only expect around 60 FPS in the most graphically intensive games.
2560x1440 will offer a better still image, but at the cost of higher image blur and input lag if the response time is higher or frame rate is lower.

If you can find a 2560x1440 panel (TN or IPS) with response time of 2ms or lower, please respond on here because I would be interested in these panels.
m
0
l
Related resources
February 14, 2014 8:22:41 PM

IDK if you read a lot of the Tom's Hardware reviews or not, but a GTX780 is plenty for a 1440p monitor. It sounds like your suggesting that I would struggle to get 60FPS on a 1080p monitor. But in the most demanding game ever on PC(no not Crysis 3), Metro LL, I get over 100FPS with everything on Ultra, PhysX On, and Tessellation on Max, but without SSAA. And in Crysis 3 I get around 80FPS with 2xSMAA. And in Battlefield 4 I easily get 100FPS with Ultra everything and 4xMSAA. I even crank up the resolution scale in Battlefield 4 to 120%. So the GTX 780 is plenty for 1440p at 60Hz.

Being on 1440p instead of 1080p, means your frame rate should drop around 38.5%. If you calculate that 1440p has about 75-80% more pixels. So if my frame rate drops from 100FPS-38%= 62FPS. This means I should still easily get +60FPS in all the games I'm playing besides Crysis 3. In that game it'll be around 50FPS, which is still great.

But back to the main question.... I could wait for the new G-sync displays, but they are TN. I want an IPS.

Do you really think that I'm going to notice a HUGE difference in lag? To me the image quality will be worth that little lag.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
February 14, 2014 8:23:52 PM

Ditto here. To have a full benefit of 1440p 120Hz monitor, you may need two GTX 780 Ti in SLI to max out the resolution.
m
0
l
February 14, 2014 8:24:44 PM

TN is not worth it at all. It has terrible viewing angles and AMD has suggested they could preform GSync features on standard monitors using just AMD Software.
m
0
l
February 14, 2014 8:25:13 PM

Yeah, for 120Hz, you'd need 2 780's. But for 60Hz, one is plenty at 1440p.

Even if you halve my frame rate from what I'm getting now at 1080p. I'll still be playing Crysis 3 at 40FPS, and Metro LL and Battlefield 4 at 50-60FPS.
m
0
l
February 14, 2014 8:30:54 PM

I mean seriously, what are people gaming on if they don't own a crappy overseas overclocked IPS 1440p monitor? I know they MUST have a 27 inch 1440p monitor that plays games at least decent.

I've gamed at 60Hz before, yes you can tell the difference, but it's not all that bad. It's not something your going to constantly notice and complain about. At least not for me.

Hell, my brother right upstairs from me has a 60Hz monitor and I game on it all the time with no problems.

I don't want a TN panel. So am I stuck with this 800$ Asus or is there anything else on the market that is noticeably better?
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
February 14, 2014 8:34:49 PM

Its either they buy an expensive, branded premium 1440p IPS monitors or go for Korean. I've watched reviews on them and I think they are good value for the money.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
February 14, 2014 9:36:10 PM

I have GTX 770 and I get about 50 FPS on Metro LL. I don't know how you manage to get 100 FPS with a GTX 780.
Here is a benchmark for the game:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/metro_last_light_g...

At 1920x1200 resolution, the GTX 680 is averaging 47 FPS, which is consistent with the performance of my GTX 770 being a little faster.
At 2560x1440 resolution, the GTX 680 is averaging 34 FPS and the Titan is averaging 48 FPS.

As mentioned above, I'm not just talking about input lag. I think the difference here would be unnoticeable.
The issue is image blur with fast motion, like trying to turn and aim in an FPS game.
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

You mention viewing angles, but don't you just sit in front of the monitor?
Why do you care what it looks like at 160 degrees?
Even for a TV, that is a pretty extreme viewing angle.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
February 14, 2014 10:21:05 PM

^ It is very common around the forums for people to complain about viewing angles with TN panels, but they really are talking about color shift. TN panels, even with small changes in angle, have slight color differences. I personally don't mind, and would much rather have a high refresh rate without ghosting, but if I spent my time at the desktop, I'd have to choose an IPS over TN, but in a game, I'd rather have a 120+hz TN panel.

Also, 2ms response times may take over 7ms to change from black to white, and a 6ms response time may take 20ms to change from black to white. That may mean it takes a few refreshes before a pixel can fully change color.

This was pretty eye popping to me:


The 2ms Asus VG248QE takes 7ms to change from full black to white.
The 6ms Asus PA279Q takes 23ms to change from full black to white.
The 8ms Asus PQ321Q take 25ms to change from full black to white.

To add insult to inury:


Input latency is hugely worse on these IPS panels as well.

I'll personally be waiting to see the Asus 1440 120hz Gsync monitor:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-rog-pg278q-nvidia...
m
0
l

Best solution

a b C Monitor
February 14, 2014 10:49:56 PM

I had a search for gaming oriented 2560x1440 monitors and didn't find a lot.
Interestingly, I found a review for the Asus PB278Q that shows motion blur and input lag is pretty good against competing IPS and PLS displays.
The specified response time from Asus is 5ms GtG rather than 6ms GtG.
With the trace free setting at 40 rather than 100 (because this introduces overshoot), I guess the PB278Q is probably still quicker than the PA279Q.
These have the same specified viewing angles.
The PB278Q is also cheaper than the PA279Q.
What you lose is the professional level color support.
I haven't read a detailed review in its entirety for other potential errors, but I think it would be well worth considering this monitor as an alternative and reading some reviews.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_pb278q.htm
Share
February 15, 2014 11:22:20 AM

And that monitor is EXACTLY what I just bought. I read the same review you did and it seems like is like the best 1440p monitor for gaming.

No matter which monitor I research, you can always find a review that has something negative to say. The negative about the PB278Q is that is using PWN control for back lighting, so it's not "Flicker Free". But screw it, if that's the worst thing about this monitor I can deal with it.

And this 1440p monitor only costs 550$, so compared to the almost 1000$ I was fixing to spend on a Samsung or Dell or that other Asus, it's basically half the price.

So if those G-Sync monitors come out in 6 months or so and I really like them SO much more than the PB278Q, I can always hook my brother up with this 1440p, and get the new G-Sync monitor if I like them. Of course I think I'll wait for them to come out with 1440p, 144Hz, IPS panels.

I read your answer this morning, I had purchased this monitor from Amazon last night. So you were right on the mark.
m
0
l
February 15, 2014 11:33:40 AM

For people that say they rather have a TINY little almost unnoticeable amount of smoothness over 1440p AWESOMENESS, I just don't understand that logic.

Right now I have probably the best gaming monitor on the market right now in the BenQ XL2420TX. It's 24 inch, 1920x1080p, 120Hz, 3D gaming monitor with 2ms GTG response time and nearly no lag, along with an EVGA GTX 780 SC overclocked to 1275Mhz core and 7250Mhz mem. These settings are on par with the GTX 780Ti, if not faster. I run nearly every game at >100FPS so I'm definately getting the smoothest gameplay possible right now.

My brother on the other hand has a 3 year old 1920x1200 60Hz 150$ monitor, along with this GTX 660Ti overclocked a little. I play games on this machine all the time. Yet I notice hardly any difference. Sure, mine looks a little more responsive for sure, but it's so hard to tell.

But you can OBVIOUSLY tell the difference between a 1920x1080 TN panel, and a 2560x1440 IPS panel.

Since I own one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors with fast response times and low lag, and also play FPS games like Battlefield 4 and COD, it would seem like I would be a huge fan of 120Hz gaming, and it would seem like I would think this type of setup would be better. But I've never even seem a 1440p monitor and I just know it'll be SO much better.

The desk I sit in the bottom of my monitor is about a foot higher than my chest, so the screen always looks discolored. This BenQ I have is one of the best looking 1080p panels I've seen, yet it still looks like crap I find.

I can't wait to see what that 1440p looks like, I bet it's amazing.
m
0
l
February 15, 2014 11:46:42 AM

VincentP said:
I have GTX 770 and I get about 50 FPS on Metro LL. I don't know how you manage to get 100 FPS with a GTX 780.
Here is a benchmark for the game:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/metro_last_light_g...

At 1920x1200 resolution, the GTX 680 is averaging 47 FPS, which is consistent with the performance of my GTX 770 being a little faster.
At 2560x1440 resolution, the GTX 680 is averaging 34 FPS and the Titan is averaging 48 FPS.

As mentioned above, I'm not just talking about input lag. I think the difference here would be unnoticeable.
The issue is image blur with fast motion, like trying to turn and aim in an FPS game.
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

You mention viewing angles, but don't you just sit in front of the monitor?
Why do you care what it looks like at 160 degrees?
Even for a TV, that is a pretty extreme viewing angle.


When I play Metro LL, my settings are this: Ultra Quality, Tessellation on High, 16x AF, PhysX On, and SSAA Off. I do not use SSAA for this game. It makes no difference whatsoever. That's how I'm getting over 100FPS. Plus SSAA causes bad lag in Metro LL, it's very noticable.

You were making the point that a GTX 780 isn't fast enough for 1440p though. Yet even a stock 780 can run any game on the MAX possible settings without AA. Even at 2xAA it'll be fine. But at 1440p, you don't even need AA.

Plus my GTX 780 is an EVGA SC version, and I've overclocked it to the point it's as fast or faster than a 780Ti. That's why I love these GK110 GPU's. They have SO many cores, and are SO lowly clocked to start with that they have SO much headroom. Stock a 780 is like 900Mhz, mines at 1275Mhz. That's a 375Mhz overclock from stock lol. My card did come at 993Mhz though since it was a SC version. Plus my memory easily did an extra 1250Mhz.
m
0
l
a c 135 C Monitor
February 15, 2014 12:30:59 PM

EricJohn2004 said:
For people that say they rather have a TINY little almost unnoticeable amount of smoothness over 1440p AWESOMENESS, I just don't understand that logic.

Right now I have probably the best gaming monitor on the market right now in the BenQ XL2420TX. It's 24 inch, 1920x1080p, 120Hz, 3D gaming monitor with 2ms GTG response time and nearly no lag, along with an EVGA GTX 780 SC overclocked to 1275Mhz core and 7250Mhz mem. These settings are on par with the GTX 780Ti, if not faster. I run nearly every game at >100FPS so I'm definately getting the smoothest gameplay possible right now.

My brother on the other hand has a 3 year old 1920x1200 60Hz 150$ monitor, along with this GTX 660Ti overclocked a little. I play games on this machine all the time. Yet I notice hardly any difference. Sure, mine looks a little more responsive for sure, but it's so hard to tell.

But you can OBVIOUSLY tell the difference between a 1920x1080 TN panel, and a 2560x1440 IPS panel.

Since I own one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors with fast response times and low lag, and also play FPS games like Battlefield 4 and COD, it would seem like I would be a huge fan of 120Hz gaming, and it would seem like I would think this type of setup would be better. But I've never even seem a 1440p monitor and I just know it'll be SO much better.

The desk I sit in the bottom of my monitor is about a foot higher than my chest, so the screen always looks discolored. This BenQ I have is one of the best looking 1080p panels I've seen, yet it still looks like crap I find.

I can't wait to see what that 1440p looks like, I bet it's amazing.


If you already made up your mind on 120hz being useless, why did you ask the question?

For myself, at least, 120hz is far more than a tiny bit of improvement. The difference is pretty major. It is especially noticeable in how my mouse feels in my hands when playing 1st person games. Everything is now very responsive, rather than sluggish. This difference means I do not get nauseated anymore as well.
m
0
l
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2014 12:24:51 PM

EricJohn2004 said:
For people that say they rather have a TINY little almost unnoticeable amount of smoothness over 1440p AWESOMENESS, I just don't understand that logic.

Right now I have probably the best gaming monitor on the market right now in the BenQ XL2420TX. It's 24 inch, 1920x1080p, 120Hz, 3D gaming monitor with 2ms GTG response time and nearly no lag, along with an EVGA GTX 780 SC overclocked to 1275Mhz core and 7250Mhz mem. These settings are on par with the GTX 780Ti, if not faster. I run nearly every game at >100FPS so I'm definately getting the smoothest gameplay possible right now.

My brother on the other hand has a 3 year old 1920x1200 60Hz 150$ monitor, along with this GTX 660Ti overclocked a little. I play games on this machine all the time. Yet I notice hardly any difference. Sure, mine looks a little more responsive for sure, but it's so hard to tell.

But you can OBVIOUSLY tell the difference between a 1920x1080 TN panel, and a 2560x1440 IPS panel.

Since I own one of the best 120Hz gaming monitors with fast response times and low lag, and also play FPS games like Battlefield 4 and COD, it would seem like I would be a huge fan of 120Hz gaming, and it would seem like I would think this type of setup would be better. But I've never even seem a 1440p monitor and I just know it'll be SO much better.

The desk I sit in the bottom of my monitor is about a foot higher than my chest, so the screen always looks discolored. This BenQ I have is one of the best looking 1080p panels I've seen, yet it still looks like crap I find.

I can't wait to see what that 1440p looks like, I bet it's amazing.


Have you got your new monitor yet?
How do you find motion blur compared to the XL2420T?
Any other observations?
m
0
l
!