GTX 1070 Gsync 1440p@60Hz or 144Hz?

Ah the great debate. If you're not doing FPS it will be hard to notice a difference. Plus remember you'd be spending $230 for 10-20 frames that you probably won't even notice outside of FPS games. Stick with 60hz.

Go for 60Hz. Save your money.

I have an IPS monitor for photography and there's a huge difference when compared to TN. IPS has far punchier colours and wider viewing angles, although the latter isn't really an issue for desktop PC users. Typically, IPS monitors have slower response times but that's not an issue in your case.

Something worth remembering is that gaming benchmarks are always taken at ultra settings, usually with some degree of AA applied. If you lowered the settings to high and disabled AA, there's a good chance that a GTX 1070 could hit 100 fps. That said, I don't see much point in having that high a frame rate for games that aren't an FPS. Some games are also arbitrarily locked to a sub-144 frame rate by the developers and no amount of tweaking is going to change that.

Yikes man. I don't think G-Sync is worth that much

The human eye is a funny thing. Some people more easily notice things than other, which is why the seeing over 60 fps debate always gets very heated. Some can legitimately see over 60 dos, and some legitimately can't. Or they can only see in a side by side comparison. Same with G-sync here I believe. If you know of any stores that sell monitors that have ones with g-sync and without, I'd go there and do a direct comparison for yourself and see if you notice anything.

The ASUS ROG Swift has a 2560x1440 IPS panel with G-SYNC and a 1ms response time. It's also less than $700 USD.

+PgUpPgDown Hello. Personally I'm already spoiled with IPS displays. The only TN display that I'd consider in the year 2016 is the new 1080p 180 and 240 Hz displays that Acer should be releasing sometime this year. I have no idea what the prices will be.

I own:

Acer Predator XB271HU: Newer 165 Hz version of the XB270HU, but essentially the same price. Best thing about this model is the greatly improved look of the bezel; they replaced the child-like glossy finish with a good looking matte finish.

Dell UltraSharp U3415W: This is a 3440 x 1440 (1440p widescreen) @ 60 Hz. It was the same price as the Acer Predator. Even though it's only 60 Hz, I absolutely love the wide screen aspect ratio, especially for games like GTA V and Witcher 3. I opted for 60 Hz because the only higher refresh I could find was the Acer Predator X34, which was $1,350 at the time; currently it's priced at $1,200. It's a 3440 x 1440 g-sync display overclockable to 100 Hz.

Dell UltraSharp U2412M: 1920 x 1200 @ 60 Hz IPS display. I've own this display for years and absolutely love it. It has a fantastic IPS image, and the best OSD I've ever experience till this day. To be completely honest, the bezel would be consider thick by today's standards, but I still like it.

Summary (aka My point): I've experienced a few different resolutions. Do I notice a difference between 60 Hz and 144+ Hz? Yes. What I would do in your situation: Buy the 1440p 60 Hz IPS display and put aside the money saved for a future PC upgrade. When you receive the monitor in the mail, keep everything. Keep the box, packaging materials, plastic bags, even the twist ties. If you don't enjoy the experience within that month, return it. If you have a change-of-heart after that month, then sell the display on Craigslist or Ebay. I sell PC components all the time. I mentioned my 3440 x 1440p display because I honestly would rather have a wide screen 60 Hz display than a normal 1440p 144+ Hz display. Below is the video that inspired me to get a wide screen, and below that is a screen shot(s) from my wide screen.

* This is the video that inspired me to purchase my 3440 x 1440 display:
LG 34UM95-P 21:9 3440*1440 BF4

https://youtu.be/FoFDG8lyoog

I have a 980 TI (which roughly equals the GTX 1070, plus or minus depending on respective overclocks) and both an ASUS ROG Swift and a BenQ 60hz monitor, both 1440p; while the BenQ definitely has better colors, it was only about ~$150 cheaper (I got the ROG for $550 on Amazon, iirc), and at 1440p I've been able to play most games at 100+ FPS to take advantage of the G-Sync. I'd give a solid thumbs up for the ROG, if you can get it at the right price.

However, if you're not going for twitch shooters a la CS:GO or Rainbow Six: Siege, the added monitor refresh probably won't be of great benefit. YMMV.

I agree, $330 is a lot to ask. Personally, I'd rather spend that on something else.

It is a hard question to answer notably because we're moving from DX11 to DX12, with Vulcan and OpenGL also in there. And we don't know if others will follow and how they will impact older cards. I'll say you will get a good 2-3 years wight he 1070 being able to play 95% of games at 90 fps with super high settings. After that, 90 fps could still be attained, but might require the turning down of some textures. It's really hard to predict how the industry will move. Nobody expected what Vulkan what do to AMD GPUs. OpenGL is still kind of out there. And now we're moving to DX12.