Is a 144hz rig Worth it?

Solution
I'm running 1440p with a GTX 1060 3GB and I love the higher FPS. Older games play 144 FPS on Ultra settings while I have to dial back detail on newer games to get 90Hz. Even playing 90 FPS is a real nice improvement over 60.

i5-8400 has Passmark single thread performance of 2330 compared to 2709 for 8700K (same 6 core count for both). In my mind, i5-8400 is a great choice if you don't have $ to spare. I wonder how your FPS will go running only 8GB RAM though... again, will depend on the games you play I guess.

Good luck kkiwi855!


nobspls

Reputable
Mar 14, 2018
902
12
5,415
You are probably not going to be able to get to 144 fps with GTX1060. I don't think I am getting 144 fps at 1440p with my GTX1070 but the 144hz G-sync is really nice and I am usually getting more than 70 fps. So I can only imagine that 144fps would be really nice.

But you'll probably need to get a 8700k and GTX1080 at the very least to get to 144 fps.
 

danthemanoz

Great
May 15, 2018
38
0
60
I'm running 1440p with a GTX 1060 3GB and I love the higher FPS. Older games play 144 FPS on Ultra settings while I have to dial back detail on newer games to get 90Hz. Even playing 90 FPS is a real nice improvement over 60.

i5-8400 has Passmark single thread performance of 2330 compared to 2709 for 8700K (same 6 core count for both). In my mind, i5-8400 is a great choice if you don't have $ to spare. I wonder how your FPS will go running only 8GB RAM though... again, will depend on the games you play I guess.

Good luck kkiwi855!


 
Solution
Monitor A costs $300 No Gsync
Monitor B costs $450 with Gsync
Monitor C costs $450 no Gsync
The difference between the quality of monitors is 0 - same spec. But Nvidia wants a big chunk for their technology.
So monitor C is in theory the best choice for the same cost, because it has 50% more money spent on quality components.
Gsync was done, because Nvidia has the market-share, and knew people would want everything to be Nvidia.