QOTW: PC monitors - high resolution or high refresh?

[Jace007]

Hexus stop asking us Questions every week instead start giving out prizes every Week.
Who needs Screen tech, I'm working on a Holo_Deck without needing to wear a head set.

[Percy1983]

For me its resolution and colour accuracy, with that I am running a business which is videography and photography.

Current have 2x 24" UHD 60hz IPS monitors, I will say they are only srgb as such but I do calibrate the them.

I will admit I run 125% in windows but of course videos and photos aren't effected by this.

[Biscuit]

Id say its a balance between the two. I wouldn't have need to 4k or 144Hz, but would like more than 60Hz and 1080p ideally.

In all honesty, its unlikely I would make a purchase soley on one feature or the other, other elements like colour accuracy, backlight bleed, connectivity, GPU FPS sync technology would all come into play.

[Otherhand]

I always thought it would be a little of both. My assumption for a couple of years now was that my next monitor would be a fast 1440p (I have a 60Hz 1440p monitor already).

Buying a laptop proved to me that resolution was really my biggest concern, and not for games so much as for desktop work. I just couldn't pull the trigger on any laptop, no matter how good the deal, if it meant buying 1080p. Some of those were even G-Sync UHD panels, but that still wasn't to my liking. The idea of stepping down to 1080p was infeasible for my creative software, when what I need is more detail and more space, so I got a laptop built with a 4k panel.

When I do get a new external monitor at some point, it'll probably be for gaming purposes and it'll probably be a fast G-Sync 1440p monitor, as previously planned, but only because the laptop's GPU is a GTX 1070. It can play some games in 4k, and I can absolutely see the benefit, but this is really a 1440p GPU.

To those who think resolution doesn't matter in games, I think you're half-right but it depends on the game. My laptop plays Rocket League maxed at well over 100fps in 4k, and it's so much better because your eyes are set on the far distance most of the time - 1080p looks awful by comparison. For 3rd-person open world games, the distance is unimportant and your focus is on a 20-yard bubble around your player, and it's a better economy to load up all the bells and whistles at 1080p with a giant framerate than to play with compromised settings and performance at 4k. If it's ever a choice between a 60fps minimum or a high resolution, I prefer the better framerate. When framerate is no object, 4k gaming really is nice especially in relatively leisurely games than allow you to take in the beauty. I'd say that 4k's added niceness doesn't outweigh the nastiness of sub-60fps gaming, that's all.

[excalibur1814]

Neither. Just make a really quality 1080p that doesn't have issues with gaming and displays accurate colour. It seems that the marketing department's in control. "Next big buzz word!"

[Stuen4y]

Nothing better the 1440p 165hz IPS with G-sync

Same monitor with Freesync? I do agree that 144Hz+ IPS is the best, even if it is 1080p (talking about 24" and below in terms of size).

[this_is_gav]

Get the quality back to how it used to be 5 years ago first. There's a terrible lack of consistency and build quality in monitors (gaming or otherwise) at the moment.

After that, I'll take screen-res all day long. I'm at 2560x1440@60Hz at the moment (with a 1920x1200 secondary) and I'm quite content with that. I'm not stupid enough to go for a 28" 4K monitor; most programs are OK with scaling now, but it's just a waste of performance. And you can't do anything productive at 1080p, however many horizontal pixels you throw at it, and a 240Hz *Sync isn't going to make you a significantly better gamer no matter your genre.

I'd consider a ~34" 3440x1440 monitor, gaming or otherwise, but it's not high up on my list. I've got a 40" Samsung KU6400 hooked up as a TV and I'm tempted to stick the stand on and give it a go as my main screen to see how well it stacks up, with a custom resolution for gaming if needs be.

I'll happily take a faster monitor, but it's somewhere along the lines of:
1) quality (no lotteries) --- > --- 2) resolution ------------------- > ------------------- 3) Hz and sync capabilities.

[spolsh]

Resolution, or better yet, resolution and faster refresh, and a lottrery win to run it.

[Tunnah]

This is a funny one for me.

New year I bought a 4K TV. However I didn't have the GPU to run games at 4k...but I found out the TV would do 1080p at 90hz. The first time I played a game at 90hz, it was astounding. I couldn't believe the difference between 60hz and 90hz, it was like night and day. Everything just seemed so much better.

Now I have a GPU capable of 4K gaming, and, while it's beautiful and all..I kinda think I prefer 1080p at 90fps. That smoothness trumps fidelity for me.

[qasdfdsaq]

I'm happy at 60fps/60Hz if the monitor has decent response time, and excellent contrast. Contrast and viewing angles are probably my main requirements since even on my gaming PC, >50% of the time is spent not gaming. 120Hz is nice and so is 4K, which is why I spent so long waiting for that Dell 4K 120Hz OLED that never appeared, but at the end of the day, neither is really necessary. You can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080p (rendered at 4K) on a <15" monitor anyway, which is what I'm stuck on most of the time.

[MDK]

My choice would be res first, Hz later.
But not hi-res, mid-res is ok to me, the graphics card has to be able to keep up.

Ideally, an ultra-wide monitor (3440x1440), HDR monitor with 100 Hz refresh and a VA panel.

[hellig]

1140p and 165hz and that monitor shall last me at least 7 years

[anselhelm]

As long as it hits 60Hz refresh rate, it's generally fine for me. I'm sticking to my ageing but trusty Dell WFP2407 until I can buy a monitor which has all of the following criteria:

• FreeSync / FreeSync 2
• 1440P resolution (though I'll go with 2160P if I have to)
• 24-27" size (any larger is just too large)
• IPS panel
• HDR10 / Dolby Vision or similar High Dynamic Range colour space
• DisplayPort input
• Non-ridiculous pricetag for the specs (i.e., up to £700 max)

I don't feel like that's asking a lot, but companies seem to want to link 4K (2160P) with HDR in the form of TVs only, as if PC gamers are an afterthought.

I'm really hoping that Dell comes through over the rest of 2017 with this, as my experience has been that Dell monitors are virtually immortal, especially compared with how quickly other-branded monitors seem to die.

[anselhelm]

The time has come to FINALLY eliminate all compromises.

ASUS is releasing 4K 144Hz HDR Quantum Dot G-Sync and also coming is a free sync version end of this year starting a new era where 4K is hold to a new standard.

Thank you for pointing this out. I hadn't seen that Asus were pushing in this direction and it has made me very happy. I'll be waiting to see the FreeSync version of the PG27UQ, as that's a lovely-looking series of specs in a sensible monitor size.

[zaph0d]

Res for me. I use a 49" 4k tv for my gaming and I'm just going to put a pair of rotated 27" 1080p screens either side for the extra width.

[Millennium]

I have 144hz 1080p but I don't think 144 is required. Would probably be happy with IPS punch, 90hz+ and something above 1440p but not 4k unless close to 40 inches.

Happy to wait this out for a while no problems with this monitor and don't do much video or photo editing any more so don't really need the resolution yet.
Don't game much any more either ....