A new monitor is a great idea. Higher refresh rates monitors are always superior, how much better depends on a few factors but as a competitive player it's definitely worth it no matter what games are played. "Middling" refresh rates (~90-120Hz) are rare on your chosen resolution, and the best refresh rates for competitive gaming is given by TN panels. Ultrawide monitors provide a good alternative at all budget levels, and there's no point jumping on a GPU now after you've waited so long already; best wait for a good deal. Monitors are the best "investment" one can make in computer hardware, in the long term it's better to spend as much as possible on a monitor now rather than balance hardware requirements.
^ Nothing I'm said is wrong given the information provided. And almost completely contradicts your useless speculation.
Again: it's best to wait for OP to provide more information before pretending we know best.
Jesus, you really don't understand the difference between opinion and personal attack, do you? Please, get your head out of your a**.
Sure, nothing you said above is
wrong given the information provided. Nor is what I said. But some of it doesn't contradict me at all, and a lot of it is questionable.
A new monitor is a great idea.
Really? We don't even know what monitor the OP has. As such, that statement is perhaps wrong, but certainly not correct.
Higher refresh rates monitors are always superior, how much better depends on a few factors but as a competitive player it's definitely worth it no matter what games are played.
No. It comes down to ability, preference and priorities. Many gamers would never be able to tell the difference between 144 and 240Hz. And stating that refresh rates are the only determinant of monitor quality - even for edge cases like gaming - is arguably false. Input lag, monitor size, image quality, color reproduction, pixel response, and a whole host of other factors come into play, regardless of usage. The balance between priorities shift, but again, if "Higher refresh rates (sic) monitors are always superior" the ultimate gaming monitor would be a single pixel pulsing at several kHz. That's clearly not the case.
"Middling" refresh rates (~90-120Hz) are rare on your chosen resolution, and the best refresh rates for competitive gaming is given by TN panels.
I wouldn't say so. Sure, between 90 and 144 options are sparse, but they're there, and even at 144Hz there's a decent selection of VA and IPS panels. Of course, with FreeSync, it doesn't matter much wether a panel is 90, 120 or 144Hz as long as the framerate you hit is inside or above the FS range of the monitor.
Ultrawide monitors provide a good alternative at all budget levels
As ultrawide monitors are generally more expensive than regular 16:9 monitors, that's a pretty clear no ...
This discussion essentially boils down to you saying "maybe consider getting a new monitor", me replying "yeah, that might be an idea, but if that's an option, keep in mind all the relevant factors", and you then replying "OMG STFU NONONONONONONONONO MY OPINION IS OBJECTIVE FACT AND YOURS IS WRONG." Let's leave it at that, no? I don't think the OP gains much from reading this.