Best 1440p Monitor for Gaming

[rlg5150]

I think I've narrowed myself down to the Asus PB278Q or Dell U2713HM.

I've heard that these 1440p panels are not good for gaming due to input lag, but is it really noticeable? I mean, it seems like every single thread I see asking about 120Hz vs 1440p says to go for 1440p. If so many people use these for gaming, can it really be that bad?

For the record, I do have a 1080p 120Hz monitor that I will be keeping. I figure it's not worth it to sell it but I intend on using the 1440p monitor as my main display and only hooking up the 120Hz if I get an urge to.

I will say that I've researched the Korean monitors, and I'm NOT interested. Knowing that I own a cheap-o monitor is not worth saving $150-200 in my opinion. I think peace of mind and build quality are worth the extra price. The Dell is $650, and that's the most of looking to spend, however.

 

[Guest]

have both in a few months if you can wait asus rog swift pg278q, 1ms response, 120hz, gsync, 1440p
only draw drawback is not ips and price but you cant have everything

 

[rlg5150]

I'm not interested in another TN panel since I already have a good one. The jump to 1440p is not only for the higher resolution, but the better quality panel as well.

Thanks.

 

[Rams Anirudh]

I think I've narrowed myself down to the Asus PB278Q or Dell U2713HM.

I've heard that these 1440p panels are not good for gaming due to input lag, but is it really noticeable? I mean, it seems like every single thread I see asking about 120Hz vs 1440p says to go for 1440p. If so many people use these for gaming, can it really be that bad?

For the record, I do have a 1080p 120Hz monitor that I will be keeping. I figure it's not worth it to sell it but I intend on using the 1440p monitor as my main display and only hooking up the 120Hz if I get an urge to.

I will say that I've researched the Korean monitors, and I'm NOT interested. Knowing that I own a cheap-o monitor is not worth saving $150-200 in my opinion. I think peace of mind and build quality are worth the extra price. The Dell is $650, and that's the most of looking to spend, however.

I would personally recommend U2713HM, it has better original color profile, there is no much difference between both. Well, Dell is cheaper and has equal performance with its counterpart pb278q

 

[rlg5150]

The Asus is $100 cheaper.

 

[CRooKeDCoP]

If you are already used to having 120hz then you might see the difference going down to 60hz. However most ppl don't SEE the benefits of a 120/144hz monitor because they literally do not SEE the differences it makes. Our eyes all see things differently and you might be best to try and find someone that already uses a 1440p monitor for gaming to let you have a look. That way maybe you would have a better chance at figuring out if you want one or the other. Unless you go with a company that will let you return the monitor no questions asked.

From experience however I went from 60hz to 120hz , I can definitively SEE the difference. I also had to wait till LCD's were really good before giving up my CRT. SO really when it comes down to it , it's up to your eyes or your preference in what style monitor you use.

Hope my ramblings help you out a little.

 

[rlg5150]

I'm aware that I will notice the difference going from 120hz to 60hz as I can definitely tell the difference once I get to 90+ fps. The trade off will be the better picture quality.

What I'm most worried about is input lag and if it's actually noticeable these 1440p panels.

Thanks.

 

[ubercake]

I really wouldn't consider a 1440p monitor for FPS-type gaming. If you have a newer Nvidia card or cards, I'd say wait until the G-sync monitors are available in 1440p. This is scheduled to be in Q2 this year. I wouldn't want to go back to the 60Hz unless I was just playing MMORPGs or RTS games.

You'll see what I mean if you go from your 120Hz monitor to a 60Hz again. You have the input lag of the IPS coupled with the fact that you'll want to start turning on V-sync or adaptive v-sync. Either way your introducing more input lag with the v-sync to avoid the tearing. For an FPS game, this is a disadvantage.

You're correct about the Korean monitors. They have terrible contrast. Shadowy areas appear as black whereas with the TN monitor you could probably make out the things lurking in the shadows (ie enemy), you won't even see them with bad contrast.

I hope AMD comes up with something similar to G-sync. I'd like to see V-sync as no longer necessary one day.

Yes, you can see more with the 1440p monitor and the colors are better, but the trade off is tearing and input lag.

I use the Asus PB278Q as a secondary monitor at work. It is absolutely great for that purpose. I'm sure it would be good if your more into games other than FPS. It's supposed to have better color than the Dell. It uses the Samsung panel (PLS).

If you're definitely going to choose one of the two for gaming, I'd pick that one.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

Input lag isn't a major issue on most 2560x1440 panels. Refresh rate isn't going to be different enough for you to notice either, though you will probably notice a big difference going from 120Hz to 60Hz.

Oddly, it's not rare for TN panels to have worse input lag than IPS panels, because TN panels are generally paired with cheaper control boards.

Here's some imput lag measurements on common 2560x1440 screens (linked the Dell review just because it was on their homepage):


Some 1440p screens do quite well, some do not. Both the Dell and ASUS you mention are around the middle of the pack. (Not everyone measures input lag the same way though, so while you can compare sites you usually cant compare one monitor from one site and one from another site)

 

[rlg5150]

Input lag isn't a major issue on most 2560x1440 panels. Refresh rate isn't going to be different enough for you to notice either, though you will probably notice a big difference going from 120Hz to 60Hz.

Oddly, it's not rare for TN panels to have worse input lag than IPS panels, because TN panels are generally paired with cheaper control boards.

Here's some imput lag measurements on common 2560x1440 screens (linked the Dell review just because it was on their homepage):


Some 1440p screens do quite well, some do not. Both the Dell and ASUS you mention are around the middle of the pack. (Not everyone measures input lag the same way though, so while you can compare sites you usually cant compare one monitor from one site and one from another site)

Thanks for that information.

I'm not worried about how much input lag a monitor has unless you can actually feel it. I've read reviews of monitors and seen how they report on the input lag, however unless this translates in to something that you can actually notice while gaming, it isn't really helpful.

The panel I have now is a BenQ XL2420T which I think is supposed to have a very low amount of input lag.. I've used some cheap panels before and never noticed any "lag," however I can't stand to use my mouse when my PC is hooked up to my TV. The mouse feels floaty and weird.. I definitely don't want something like that if that's how 1440p panels feel.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

TVs often have absolutely horrid input lag. 3D TVs and higher-end TVs with lots of post processing have in excess of 100ms of lag, which is pretty much unusable (except for watching TV, of course). Modern monitors will almost never be worse than about 30ms. So nothing will be that bad.

I have a (very) old monitor with an input lag near 40ms, and while it's usable for gaming (used it for UT classic, it's that old), you do notice it on occasion (particularly when sweeping across and coming to a sudden stop). It's usable, but at that point it's definitely noticeable.

On the other hand, the monitor I use daily has an input lag measured at about ~15ms, and at least to me that's not noticeable. As a reference , 16ms is roughly one frame at 60FPS. If your refresh rate combined with your input lag are less than or near that, it's very unlikely you'll be able to notice a difference from a CRT.

Another way to look at it is by equating input lag to ping. A ping of 5 and an input lag of 10ms are roughly the same thing (1:2 because ping is usually displayed as time one-way when in reality actions have to go from the server, to you, then back to the server)

Edit: From TFTCentral's chart, the XL2420T measures to 13ms of input lag, the ASUS measures 16.6, so it's very unlikely you'd notice any difference between them in terms of input lag.

 

[ubercake]

The tearing at 60Hz is so much more perceivable. This may bug you even more since you've already had experience with the 120Hz. If you play shooters and have a newer Nvidia card that will operate with G-sync, I'd say wait and get the 2650x1440 edition when it comes out later this year.

Or you'll be introducing even more input lag when you throw the V-sync switch to 'on' just to get rid of the tearing for which you no longer have a tolerance. The V-sync lag is noticeable even on the non-IPS/non-PLS monitors.

If your heart is set on the 2560x1440, I'd suggest you keep both hooked up so you can compare by switching which is primary when you game. This way you can keep the 120Hz around for shooters. Since other game types are less reaction time dependent, they really are great on the 2560x1440 60Hz monitor with V-sync turned on. The fact that you've used the 120Hz monitor is going to make it difficult for you to go back to the gaming world at 60Hz though. If you hadn't known the 120Hz, this wouldn't even be a point of discussion.