g-sync, freesync, what should i do; 1440p vs 4k

[n64FANBOY]

ok, so as of right now i have a gtx 970 but want to get into g-sync but there are so few g-sync monitors out there at a reasonable price and there seems to be alot of negative reviews online for their monitors. amd freesync monitors are much cheap and have better reviews out there for their products. im skeptical about joining the red team due to bad driver history and i;ve heard negative things about their financial situation which makes me less inclined to buy from them. once i buy this monitor, i have to stick with their graphic cards. i want to get a 4k or 1440p monitor but i am torn on what to do.

 

[XMorsX]

You already have an 970, you can buy the good TN 1080p AOC G2460PG if you want to go cheaper.

Otherwise it is either Acer XB270HU or Asus MG279Q with G-Sync and Freesync accordingly. Given that you already have a nVidia gpu, it is cheaper to just buy the Acer.

 

[husker]

I don't think there is a single correct answer when someone asks "amd or nvidia". Personally I have an amd R9 290x paired with the newly released freesync Benq XL2730Z and I love the combination! However in your case, since you already have a 970 I would stick with nvidia and gsync. The money you would need to spend on a new gpu can be better put into a top of the line monitor - and that will make a huge difference in your gaming. Going "cheap" on the monitor is not good. I find it amazing how people will spend so much on an enthusiast gpu and then waste the thing on a sub-standard monitor. Things I would keep in mind:

* Monitor technology (although lately has shown several new developments) tends to move more slowly that graphics, cpu, memory so it is a better investment over the long haul to spend your money on a monitor because you will get a lot of good years out of it making it worth the extra $$$.

*Fast response, good color reproduction, high refresh rate (120-144hz) nice 2K resolution(2560x1440), and gsync are what you should be looking for.

*Look out for your eyes!!! Eye strain can be greatly reduced by using a good quality led backlit monitor designed with human ergonomics in mind.

*Money is not to be wasted and and extra $200-$300 is nothing to sneeze at, however it is well worth it if you think of paying an extra fifty cents a day over the next couple of glorious gaming years.

 

[Two Cakes]

ok, so as of right now i have a gtx 970 but want to get into g-sync but there are so few g-sync monitors out there at a reasonable price and there seems to be alot of negative reviews online for their monitors. amd freesync monitors are much cheap and have better reviews out there for their products. im skeptical about joining the red team due to bad driver history and i;ve heard negative things about their financial situation which makes me less inclined to buy from them. once i buy this monitor, i have to stick with their graphic cards. i want to get a 4k or 1440p monitor but i am torn on what to do.

No, whatever you do, if you want to use Windows 8 or 10 +, do not get a monitor with less than 100 DPI. Microsoft abandoned ClearType in its latest OS, where greyscale anti-aliasing is the only technology left. Although MS will have you believe its all good because grey scale AA scales text well in all directions, this only benefits tablets and such devices that would ever even need dynamic orientation.
As for the majority / the rest of us with monitors, this means in the absence of ClearType - text is simply awful on anything less than 100 DPI. Despite ClearType being within the direct write API in windows 10, MS have ‘disabled it’. This dirty act was done in collaboration with monitor manufactures to boost sales of new hardware in exchange for brown envelopes containing lots of corrupt cash. MS can’t backtrack due to the PR nightmare that would ensue but trust me, I have inside knowledge. End result, the corporate setting that relies almost 100% on word and office will balk at the impossibility to read text on anything much less than 100 DPI and all demand new monitors (cha-ching), whilst the home user just becomes the casualty of corporate capitalism as ever.

I would say currently, 1440 21:9 is the way to go with a good graphics card. Or 1440 16:9 if your graphics card has perhaps less horse power. 4k, Yes it sounds great on paper but the reality is it needs formidable graphics power and ideally you want 34" or bigger, so it can get very prices indeed all things considered. Also, its likely to be a 16:9 aspect, so you miss out on the immersion that the brilliant 21:9 brings. Honestly as someone that has used both, 1440 21:9 34" pretty much blows anything else out the water. 4k is overkill at anything less than 32", you simply don't notice the greater DPI in game vs almost 4k 3440 X 1440, but the curved 21:9 aspect is like night and day, that is where the money is. Wait a bit and decent Freesync or G-sync units with good low and upper refresh limits should hit shelves in 2016. Don't get carried away with the early adopters of those Fisherprice / Mattel toy looking monitor designs, patience, 2016 will bring some good solutions !

http://wccftech.com/amd-freesync-ces2016/

http://pxcalc.com/