QOTW: PC monitors - high resolution or high refresh?

[deejayburnout]

High resolution . 60fps is fine for me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Blackmaine]

I use an acer 4K (XB280HK) Gsync myself, although it maxxes @ 60Fps i find that the extra resolution makes a heck of a difference. A 4K @ 100Hz would be great, however 2K @ 100Hz is pretty much the sweet spot at the moment i believe.

N.B. A strange thing i never hear about these monitors, people rarely think of lowering a resolution to keep a game @ its 40-60Hz ideal zone. No tearing, lag or artifacts is a nice plus. G-sync still works after all so why not?

[loccothan]

10Bit colour for me (or HDR)
Now on 10Bit 1440p 74Hz DP -> https://iiyama.com/gb_en/products/prolite-xub2792qsu-b1
Great Monitor, BF1 smooth as butter on my Fury

[malcmacq]

Think you've missed the obvious: BIGGER!
After size, I'm looking at type, and favor IPS.
Ideally we've got a good portion of our field of vision filled with screen and it's viewable from almost any angle.
So the next logical step is to pack more information into what we're seeing, so go for the higher res.
Finally, go for the refresh.
The real drawback to this is likely to be the cognitive lag inherent in our processing of so much visual information. We don't have a means of fine-tuning the settings of how our eyes and brain are going to process the input.

[3dcandy]

For me I'm guessing resolution is better - but size as I'm currently stuck on a 24" main screen

[Skorne]

I had this debate in my own head last time I bought a monitor. I knew I didn't want 4k as the graphics hardware to power it at a decent framerate is still too expensive and the scaling issues can still be a problem. I decided on 1440, then I was toying with the idea of ultrawide vs 16x9.

I don't think framerates above 60 are really necessary unless you are a super competitive CS player or something. I'd rather have a good colour accuracy so I went with IPS.

Anyway ended up with a LG 34UM88, it's not the most glorious monitor out there but it does what it says on the tin very well and is a decent compromise in all aspects (including price) I feel.

[Primey0]

High refresh

[EndlessWaves]

Neither really.

I find I prefer monitors further away, so until HiDPI screens come along in more resolutions (5120x2160 plz) the current options all seem good enough in that area.

I haven't tried any high refresh LCDs, although with CRTs it never bothered me if they were running at 60hz or 85hz so while I'd be interested in giving it a go, I don't hold high hopes for it.

The stuff that's high on my wishlist for my next monitor is improvements at 2560x1080@50-75hz. LFC, FALD, SED and so on.

[MercutioUK]

<zoidberg> Why not both?! </zoidberg>

[EvilCycle]

Neither, I can live with 1080p 60fps just fine if it means resources can be spent on the other ever increasing demanding graphical features instead. If i was a competitive gamer then it would be all about the refresh rate, but I'm not so ha!

[bitbucket]

I've never looked at a game running at 60fps and thought "I wish this was running faster". Resolution for me, every time

[Ozaron]

Both, up to the point where I have at least 75, preferably 120Hz. Beyond that, all IQ. Sadly not crazy enough to replace my screen.

[Anomander]

I plan on buying an ultrawide 3440x1440. The more I research, the more I'm convised this is the sweet spot at the moment. With the latest gpu power you should be able to run all games on decent framerates compared to 4k where you might not. Just wondering if I should go for gsync or freesync

[Mr_Jon]

I'd say resolution, as I find that switching to a lower resolution causes more visual offence than switching to a lesser refresh rate.

[QuorTek]

No point for anything gaming 4K unless you can muster a nasty sli or something... maybe in 2-3 years min FPS would be 100FPS or so.

Currently on an ASUS 1440p 144hz monitor with Gsynch, but honestly I should just had kept my 1080p

8K monitors is just around the corner as well and we still need the proper hardware for just running 4K at a reasonable price as it is.

[Ttaskmaster]

What matters most, when you think about it, is really the Rugubuh features.

I mean, a friend of mine recently got this Asus ROG Swift PG348Q 34" super-wide thing for over a grand. It was going OK, setup well and everything, but then he switched on the feature that shines a bright red LED out from the central column and projects the ASUS ROG logo onto the desktop beneath the monitor. Finally, I thought, a monitor that replicates the Subaru door thing that so many TrendyChavs adore... so imagine our disappointment when we learned it was not a Rugubuh feature and only shone in plain red!!!!!

A thousand English Pounds and no Rugubuh..... He's sending it back immediately. Also, there are rumours of a 2-3cm dark band across the top that flickers during Heaven benchmarks and video playback, but that's a minor niggle, ya know?
Meanwhile, I'm looking to ditch my old Iiyama 27" 1080p TN 60Hz once he gets his replacement, and adopt his old Acer XB270HU 27" IPS 144Hz G-Sync, since he got one of the good'uns.

It really comes down to budget and whether or not I can actually see a difference in something.
If I can see that the extra 10Hz or 3fps is noticable, then fine. Otherwise, meh.