so microcenter has a monitor that may or may not be exclusive to them but the specs look good for the price
http://www.microcenter.com/product/503505/KG271U_27"_WQHD_144Hz_HDMI_DP_FreeSync_LED_Monitor
144hz 2k, though no g-sync
I've been reading up but still a little unclear about when g sync kicks in and if I'll be hitting these fps discrepancies often with my setup. any time the gpu fps isn't exactly the 75hz the monitor displays? wouldn't that mean screen tearing almost all of the time?
Don't most of those 1440p 144hz monitors have TN panels? Is having a monitor with 144hz refresh rate, poor viewing angles and color reproduction a better trade-off than an ips/va, 60hz (freesync/gsync) monitor at 4k for gaming?
There's a 32"/165Hz/1440p LG VA panel. I bought one to replace a Dell 32"/4k60 IPS and like it significantly better for gaming. Color between the two was indistinguishable to my eyes with some minor changes to the LG (The Dell was supposedly factory calibrated) and black level/contrast is much better on the VA panel.
That said I greatly prefer 4k resolution for image editing ... 1440p at 32 inches is just not sharp enough sometimes. For gaming though it's no contest, 144+ Hz and adaptive sync all the way.
32 inches for 1440p has the same pixel density as a 24 inch 1080p screen. Seem like a hefty downgrade to the 32inch 4k dell monitor.
I have an LG 4k VA monitor and have to say that some games look really good on 4k compared to the lower resolutions, not to mention the text sharpness i get when writing code.
I have a dell 144hz 1440p TN right in between 2 dell IPS monitors. There is a difference, but its not a big deal. the 144hz is absolutely, 100% better for gamingDon't most of those 1440p 144hz monitors have TN panels? Is having a monitor with 144hz refresh rate, poor viewing angles and color reproduction a better trade-off than an ips/va, 60hz (freesync/gsync) monitor at 4k for gaming?
The motion fluidity, adaptive sync and improved black levels make it a huge upgrade for gaming. I have very good eyesight and don't notice the decreased pixel density but definitely notice the lack of tearing and better tracking and aim for competitive FPS. For text and photo editing the 4k monitor was clearly better, but my home PC is primarily a gaming machine.
I will likely add a 4k monitor specifically for photo editing. I ordered a 27"/4k LG IPS for that purpose but was extremely disappointed in the color accuracy so sent it back.
I had been back and forth on a high refresh rate monitor for a while, and ended up trying one at PAX east back in April. Just a cheap 24"/1080p/144 Hz panel they had set up at the PC gaming stations ... there was no going back even from that relative POS.
Have you tried ULMB mode (assuming your monitor supports it)? It was a revelation in terms of clarity, assuming you can keep a solid 100+ fps. If you're the sort of person who appreciates the fluidity of high refresh you'll probably love it.
Have you tried ULMB mode (assuming your monitor supports it)? It was a revelation in terms of clarity, assuming you can keep a solid 100+ fps. If you're the sort of person who appreciates the fluidity of high refresh you'll probably love it.
ULMB + GSync is not possible I believe. I prefer 180z Gsync over 120hz ULMB by far. ULMB is still great. 60hz is pretty brutal imo.
I thought 2560x1440 was "2K". This is why I like terms such as 1440p. A quick search on Newegg shows 2560x1440 (and a few others) under "2K".
Regarding the OP, I went with 1440p and I like it. Unfortunately I can't compare it to 4K as I have not used one, but it looks very sharp in Windows. In games, I don't have to worry about having a top end video card or dealing with resolution scaling. I would suggest 2K unless you really don't mind spending the extra money or just want something that you will likely hold on to for a very long time.
No, look closer.
2k is 2048x1080 which is much higher than HD but still lower than some other standards.
The problem is people use 2k to mean multiple things, including 1440p.
I have a 27" 1440p monitor and a 28" 4k monitor. For *me*, the difference isn't huge in day-to-day productivity or gaming.
I'd say a 1440p monitor with higher refresh rate would get my nod (assuming the panel isn't crap.)
Ok now I see the hype about 144hz. That's a big upgrade. I'm not sure how useful g sync is but oh well
FWIW, you normally have to turn vsync off in games for it to work. Unless there is a specific setting for it. Also make sure its set in your nvidia control panel. Its not on by default IIRC.could be, for sure. I haven't put in enough time with different scenarios to really be able to tell yet. I still have to read some more and play around with settings, too
FWIW, you normally have to turn vsync off in games for it to work. Unless there is a specific setting for it. Also make sure its set in your nvidia control panel. Its not on by default IIRC.
144hz wasn't set by default either! I didn't notice until I launched a game and it was stuttering and I went looking for a fix. G Sync was on, though I'm not sure if one of the nvidia applications turned it on for me.
I have been reading about optimal settings, stuff like setting fps max slightly under monitor refresh rate to reduce input lag, or something like that. honestly it's all rather complicated and I'm not sure I should even bother trying to figure it out, I am certainly not a professional gamer
144hz wasn't set by default either! I didn't notice until I launched a game and it was stuttering and I went looking for a fix. G Sync was on, though I'm not sure if one of the nvidia applications turned it on for me.
I have been reading about optimal settings, stuff like setting fps max slightly under monitor refresh rate to reduce input lag, or something like that. honestly it's all rather complicated and I'm not sure I should even bother trying to figure it out, I am certainly not a professional gamer