Pls help me understand the point of 1440p @144hz

[hasim]

I built my last system in October 2010, and am due for an update. I got my eyes fixed on a i5-6600k and gtx 1070.

Big post incoming!

TL;DR: Given that gtx 1070 can barely push 70fps on a 1440p monitor with current games, is there any point in buying a 1440p 144hz monitor if you are upgrading to a gtx1070? Especially given that coming games will be even more demanding?

Now, I've been trying to pick a monitor. I am torn on whether I should get a 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p monitor. In both cases, I am considering 144hz and gsync. So, I am looking at these as my options:

24":
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-Predator-XB241H-bmipr-1920x1080/dp/B01C05C1OK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468095063&sr=8-1&keywords=acer+xb241hu

https://www.amazon.com/AOC-G2460PG-24-Inch-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B00SIZ8QDM/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1468181741&sr=1-1&keywords=aoc+g2460pg

27":
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824106004

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236660

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XB270HU-bprz-27-inch-Widescreen/dp/B00UPVXDA8

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260333

I got this list from the following post (and lots of other places I looked at):
http://wecravegamestoo.com/forums/monitor-reviews-discussion/15713-best-144hz-monitors.html#post1357728

To finish, I looked at the following benchmarks:
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-geforce-gtx-1070-review/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance,4585-3.html

So, now that you've seen the information I considered, to the question:

As the benchmarks show, gtx 1070 can barely push 70fps on a 1440p monitor on a lot of games. This performance will surely fall in the coming years, with more demanding games. So, what would be the point of getting a 1440p 144hz monitor, unless you will upgrade your card again soon?

I upgrade my system once every 3-5 years. So, I definitely will not be buying a new card next year. Given this, would you agree that 1080p with "everything on it" is the way to go for a less frequent upgrader like myself?

Also, I play everything. Civilization 5, Starcraft 2, Doom, BL2, Witcher 3 etc... I like it when it looks good and is absolutely tear and lag free.

Thank you for your time and help!

 

[Hlsgsz]

Yes there is a point. Some games will push higher FPS than 70. Even new ones coming out. And one can always turn down some settings that don't improve teh quality taht much but eat alot of power so as to push ove 100 in any game.
And G-sync is definitely the way to go as you will have an awesome experience even if you don't push very high FPS.
And out of those monitors i would go with the ASUS ROG PG279Q.

All that being said, uou are goind about this the wrong way. A monitor is the best investment one can make in a PC as it can last you several builds. And while the 1070 may not always push 100+ FPS in 1440p, you next card probably will.

 

[lakimens]

Well, you should spend the monitor money on a GTX 1080 and get a 4K monitor.
The monitors you have are $800 and you can find a 4K monitor for $500, spend the $300 on the 1080 and you have a 4K system.

 

[Hlsgsz]

Well, you should spend the monitor money on a GTX 1080 and get a 4K monitor.
The monitors you have are $800 and you can find a 4K monitor for $500, spend the $300 on the 1080 and you have a 4K system.

That would be the worst idea ever. 4k is overrated and it's not quite time for it yet. What would you do in games that don't play ball with SLI? No single card can handle it properly as of today?
Also 4k is too much resolution for anything upto and including 21:9 34" and 16:9 27" and you wuold have to use high DPI setting in windows which is not a good experience.

 

[hasim]

@Hlsgsz: I understand what you're saying about the monitor probably lasting for years to come. I used to think the same thing, but, given how fast things are changing, I just feel like you have to change the whole system every 5 years. I mean, I'll go 1440p now, and then in 5 years everything will be moving to 4k, VR, OLED or something that does not even exist yet. But, point taken. Thank you.

@lakimens: But, if I go towards a gtx 1080 and $500 4k monitor, I will not be able to afford a gysinc or 144hz. Not sure if those even exist for 4k monitors. So, are you implying that 144hz and gsync are useless?

 

[hasim]

Yeah, I definitely am not buying a 4k monitor. I have somewhat made my mind about that. I mostly game on this computer, and do programming and I want efficiency. I'll worry about 4k in 4-5 years. If it wins this war..

 

[lakimens]

I am implying that you will not get 100+ with a 1070 and no, GSync isn't useless, but it's not the end of the world without it.
And you are right, there are no 144Hz 4K Monitors, but you can barely notice the difference between 60FPS,120FPS and 144FPS.

 

[Hlsgsz]

I am implying that you will not get 100+ with a 1070 and no, GSync isn't useless, but it's not the end of the world without it.
And you are right, there are no 144Hz 4K Monitors, but you can barely notice the difference between 60FPS,120FPS and 144FPS.

I disagree. G-Sync is an absolute must if you can afford it.
lakimens, i'm willing to bet you haven't experienced gaming with adaptive sync.
As for refresh rate, while it's true that between 100 and 144Hz the difference is minor to imperceetible, going from 60 to 100 is night and day.

 

[chenw]

I'll share my experiences, as I have both PG278Q (G-Sync 1440p/144hz) and BL3201PT (4k/60hz) screens.

Whether 4k or 1440p/144hz monitor is better is more subjective than objective, IE how much details are you willing to sacrifice to drive 4k instead of having a higher refresh rates, and that depends very heavily on what kind of games you want to play.

Currently 1080 is insufficient to drive AAA games at 4k resolution with maxed details, a fact complicated by matters that there seems to be a surge in non-SLI/Crossfire supporting games as of late (Doom and Hitman both don't support SLI, and RoTR only recently got them IIRC, and others like Fallout 4 got them several months after).

My opinion is that, the more you play high IQ First-persons (especially if playing competitively), 144hz is a better choice, due to the lower input lag and more smooth motion. If you play games that primarily do not require motion clarity (such as RTS's, non-FPS RPG's of any kind), then 4k would be a bit more suitable.

I will note several things I found to work against 4k's:

1. Not all games scale correctly with 4k, even with relatively modern games. Some UI is diminutive to the point where the screen size must be 40" in order to restore the legibility of the next, if lowering resolution is not an option for you. This is rather hit and miss, and it can turn up in expected places. For example, Mass effect 1 doesn't scale properly, Mass Effect 2 does, but Mass Effect 3 goes back to not scaling properly. This usually happens in older games, but something to watch out for. While the issue is still there for 1440p, it's much less serious than 4k.

2. Asus recently showed a 4k/144hz prototype monitor in computex, which means that 4k/60hz is about to get replaced. My argument is that, resolution can be upped via DSR, refresh rate cannot, so I would generally prefer high refresh rate monitors. Do I use the higher refresh all the time? No, but I prefer to have something that can't be compensated for, than to have more of something that sort of can (DSR isn't quite the same as the actual resolution).

3. 144hz vs 60hz argument is going to be impossible to resolve on paper, because you cannot discuss something that is almost completely subjective. Personally, I find the difference between 144hz and 60hz to be rather profound, especially since that I get far less motion sickness on my Swift than I do on my 4k, so I prefer to play it on that. If at all possible, you should play with the high refresh rate monitor compared to one without. If you don't feel like you are noticing the difference, get the 4k, otherwise, at least for me, I feel it's a huge difference.

 

[hasim]

Thanks for the discussion guys.

@chenw: Thank you for the detailed post. Your points confirmed mine. 4k was lakimens' idea anyway, and I am definitely not sold on it. It is too new. I am not a guy at the cutting edge of tech. I still use a i5-760 along with a Radeon 5870 I am only trying to decide if I should go with a 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p on my new build.

I was somewhat leaning towards 1080p, but, unfortunately, Hlsgsz has managed to swing me the other way. Heh, honeslty, while at it, maybe I should grab a gtx 1080 too if I'm going 27" @1440p and quit eating out for a month or two

 

[Hlsgsz]

Thanks for the discussion guys.

@chenw: Thank you for the detailed post. Your points confirmed mine. 4k was lakimens' idea anyway, and I am definitely not sold on it. It is too new. I am not a guy at the cutting edge of tech. I still use a i5-760 along with a Radeon 5870 I am only trying to decide if I should go with a 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p on my new build.

I was somewhat leaning towards 1080p, but, unfortunately, Hlsgsz has managed to swing me the other way. Heh, honeslty, while at it, maybe I should grab a gtx 1080 too if I'm going 27" @1440p and quit eating out for a month or two

A 1070 would suffice for 1440p with G-Sync and you know it has a way better price/perf ratio.

 

[hasim]

Thanks for the discussion guys.

@chenw: Thank you for the detailed post. Your points confirmed mine. 4k was lakimens' idea anyway, and I am definitely not sold on it. It is too new. I am not a guy at the cutting edge of tech. I still use a i5-760 along with a Radeon 5870 I am only trying to decide if I should go with a 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p on my new build.

I was somewhat leaning towards 1080p, but, unfortunately, Hlsgsz has managed to swing me the other way. Heh, honeslty, while at it, maybe I should grab a gtx 1080 too if I'm going 27" @1440p and quit eating out for a month or two

A 1070 would suffice for 1440p with G-Sync and you know it has a way better price/perf ratio.

I know. That's why I picked it in the first place, but then I got greedy

I guess, maybe I can tell myself to get the 27" 1440p monitor along with the gtx 1070 and allow myself to upgrade the card when a substantially better one hits the market in 2-3 years, which is faster than my usual upgrade cycle..

 

[Hlsgsz]

Thanks for the discussion guys.

@chenw: Thank you for the detailed post. Your points confirmed mine. 4k was lakimens' idea anyway, and I am definitely not sold on it. It is too new. I am not a guy at the cutting edge of tech. I still use a i5-760 along with a Radeon 5870 I am only trying to decide if I should go with a 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p on my new build.

I was somewhat leaning towards 1080p, but, unfortunately, Hlsgsz has managed to swing me the other way. Heh, honeslty, while at it, maybe I should grab a gtx 1080 too if I'm going 27" @1440p and quit eating out for a month or two

A 1070 would suffice for 1440p with G-Sync and you know it has a way better price/perf ratio.

I know. That's why I picked it in the first place, but then I got greedy

I guess, maybe I can tell myself to get the 27" 1440p monitor along with the gtx 1070 and allow myself to upgrade the card when a substantially better one hits the market in 2-3 years, which is faster than my usual upgrade cycle..

I don't think you'll really need to. G-Sync mostly negates any not so great FPS you may get.

 

[J_E_D_70]

I am running a 1070 with the Dell 1440p you linked and it is amazing. So glad I chose this over trying to drive the crap out of a large 1080p.

If you can find that Dell on sale (Best Buy just had it for $480 - I paid the same on Amazon) it's a steal compared to the ROG.

At full ultra with hairworks 2x in Witcher 3 I see dips down to 53 (from 60) but it's not apparent in game. Smooth as can be. In BF4 full ultra I stay at 140's most of the time. Caspian Border it's in the 120s. So much awesome and the smoothness/accuracy is great.

In 3-4 years you'll replace the gpu and drive the crap out of the Dell. In another 4 years after that get 4k/144hz with a xx70 and repeat

 

[hasim]

@J_E_D_70 Thanks for the input man. I'll definitely keep an eye out for a good deal. I have been pretty busy trying to figure out what to get, haven't had time to hunt down deals yet.

I am excited now! It'll probably take me another week before I order my full build, but now I feel much better in terms of what to get. Still trying to decide if I should go with a liquid cooler, which I never did, and if I should consider i7, instead of i5...

 

[Hlsgsz]

@J_E_D_70 Thanks for the input man. I'll definitely keep an eye out for a good deal. I have been pretty busy trying to figure out what to get, haven't had time to hunt down deals yet.

I am excited now! It'll probably take me another week before I order my full build, but now I feel much better in terms of what to get. Still trying to decide if I should go with a liquid cooler, which I never did, and if I should consider i7, instead of i5...

Avoid liquid coolers. They are less reliable and have less price/performance tha good air cooler. And those under 100 aren;t even worth looking at as they are overperformed by $40 air coolersw.
An i7 is a safer bet for the future and is highly recommende if you intend to stream/record.
Though, if you do not intend to overclock, i recommend the Xeon E3-1240 V5. It's basically an i7 6700 without integrated graphics and taht costs closer to an i5.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1240 V5 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($269.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: *Gigabyte GA-X150M-PLUS WS Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($79.16 @ Amazon)
Memory: *GeIL EVO POTENZA 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($51.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $401.14
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-07-10 20:50 EDT-0400

 

[J_E_D_70]

Just checked and the Dell S2716DG is still on sale at Best Buy... happy gaming!