1080p vs 1440p @144hz

>>61232479
No. 1440p 144hz is a meme until at least Volta.

A 1060 cannot handle 1440p 144hz very well

>>61232515
I mentioned I'd get a 1080ti, but I want my upgrades to last. I'm worried the money won't be worth it if I can't reliably game @ 1440p 144hz

144 is a meme.
stick with ultrawide ips panel monitor preferably 29" or a little bit bigger but that's it
don't buy 144 unless you know you'll get massive improvement on the experience
I know I didn't

>>61232479
If you want 144hz for gaming /g/ isn't the best board to ask

>>61232505
Bullshit. I can get 100+ FPS in most games at high/max settings with an RX 480, let alone anything more powerful.

1440p 144 Hz FreeSync is bliss.

>>61232505
absolute bullshit
1080 ti 100 fps or so maxed out in most of the games

>>61232479
Why are you retards buying anything other than 4k in 2017?

1440p is a meme just like 720p before it.

>>61233009
It's cheaper and games don't run at decent FPS in 4K yet anyway. Also LCDs are shite these days, quality control has gone down the tubes so I'm not shelling out for a 4K 144 Hz monitor when a bunch of new technologies are around the corner that hopefully improve monitors in general, e.g. HDR and OLED.

>>61233110
Its a mistake to hop the the 4K bandwagon right now.

one more gen when they refresh the 1080ti as the gtx 2080 should cinch 4K 60hz as far as im concerned.

By then they will have the fully enabled die matching titanXP cuda core count and they will have ~10% better clockspeeds due to the new process they are planning to use. In that situation the 2080 will have enough performance to push it over that magic 60fps mark on Ultra settings in most games.

Also it will have the added benefit of being in the x80 price tier of about 500ish dollars instead of 700 that a 1080ti sells for now.

>>61233009
Because they're manchildren and they can't afford a video card that can play games in 4K at over 60 FPS.

>>61232505
The games that benefit most from 120+ FPS all reach it at 1440 on top end cards now. You won't hit it in every title, but if you play a lot of fast paced games it is absolutely worth it.

>>61233009
Because you can't play in 4K at over 120 fps yet and the monitors that will allow you to do so are going to be priced at more than $2000 when they arrive this year. That's on top of the $1000 multi-card setup you would need to pump those frames out. If you can afford to spend $3000 on things that will be obselete inside of five years, more power to you. I can't justify spending that kind of cash on video games.

>>61232479
Jumped from a 17" 1080p 60hz monitor to a 24" 1440p 165hz monitor and the differences are unreal. Both are ips so in terms of just ppi and performance i'm very satisfied with my upgrade. Its always nice having all that extra room with windows.

>>61233009
I've played with both 4k and 2k monitors 24" at 60 fps. Same brand monitor just different resolutions and I didn't see a difference with that size. Unless you're going big, 4k is unnecessary if you're sitting at a normal distant with a normal sized computer screen.

>>61233511
I can easily notice a difference with text. 4k makes Linux font rendering almost usable. 5k might do the trick.

>>61233009
Because I'm not planning to use my monitor as a fucking TV, anon

Bought the really expensive 27 ips monitor, turns out gsync is great, you don't need to always have 100 fps plus to enjoy the high refresh and gsync smoothness. Also screen brightness is great.

But using a 980 now I feel underpowered, so mind you it is really a steep investment while 4k standard is coming in 2,3 years.

I am staying with a 1080ti OC driving three 1080p monitors for now, center one at 120hz for games and the outer two set at 60hz. Overkill, but ideal for me right now.

File: fg2421.jpg (227KB, 1280x1190px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1280x1190px

Is there still only one non-TN panel that hits at least 120Hz?

>>61233978
No, there's plenty of 120hz IPS panels. Even the iPad Pro has one.

>>61233511
You are doing something wrong then. The difference is huge. Especially on small details and text. Are you sure the game you played had 4k textures turned on?

>>61233580
What are you talking about? You sit closer to your monitor than your tv so pixel density matters more on a monitor than on a tv.

>>61234010
Lol look at this loser angery that he wasted money on the 4k meme

File: 808417-766128-800.jpg (95KB, 800x666px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x666px

the Acer xf270hu or hua(revision model) are 1440p IPS 4ms 144hz Freesync monitors

r8 now that RX Vega is incoming

>>61234283
>r8 now that RX Vega is incoming
A month before volta btfo of it

>>61234371

>paying the goy—sync tax

Guys I got an old build, running a GTX 670, no plans to upgrade at the moment. Need a monitor though. Should I just get a 1080p with G-sync? I have no chance taking advantage of either 1440p or 144hz, but want a smooth and responsive experience. That the best bet?

>>61232505
>Tfw even my Fury X gets > 100fps in almost everything, if I lower AA, and tweak settings just a bit.

Fuck Godrays, tho

How does this monitor seem? Specs say 1ms (gtg) 1080p 144mhz. Been looking at this for a while now and I'm about to pull the trigger

>>61234565
>forgetting to link the monitor in question
Goddamn it
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BV1XBEI/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

As someone who has owned 1440p @ 144hz, and now uses 1440p @ 60 hz, it's definitely worth it and I miss the experience during gaming.

>>61234371
volta wont be out for another year
atleast the ti version, titans are a meme

>>61233978
holy shit grandpa where have you bin?

>>61234965
I don't research new developments in monitors until I'm in the market for a new monitor.

>>61234679
Try q1 2018.

And with consumer vega coming out in august, that is 3-4 months.