Your personal opinion on the best gaming resolution atm

Nhirlathothep

New member
i find 1080p 120-144hz perfect.

for me there is not enough difference to use a 1440p or 4k-5k monitor for gaming

but of course i admit they re a little better (4k-5k is only 60hz, so atm it s too slow if u usually play on a fast screen fast paced games)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



- i m gonna ignore 1440p (the best compromise atm)

- i m gonna wait for a 4k 144hz not too expensive screen

... so i m probably going to remain 1080p 120hz for years
 
Last edited:
i have a 1440p 144htz asus monitor but it runs better at 1080p via hdmi then i get the full 144htz at 1440p it seems to drop to 120htz and that's through displayport.

i prefer the 1440p profile when doing work etc but when gaming i would say 1080p is perfect for me.
 
1440p 144hz. 1080p 144hz is probably the best for pure competitive but 1440p 144hz is a great balance.
 
i have a 1440p 144htz asus monitor but it runs better at 1080p via hdmi then i get the full 144htz at 1440p it seems to drop to 120htz and that's through displayport.

i prefer the 1440p profile when doing work etc but when gaming i would say 1080p is perfect for me.

man, i am considered really sensitive to the hz of the screen, i made many comparisons and i really have better results in 120hz than 60hz. ( when playng fast paced games)

But i must admit it s hard for me to find difference between 120 and 144hz.

you must be a real pro-gamer to sense it, or you have reflex better than mine (and i consider mine really fast!)
 
Last edited:
I've owned several 1440p and 1080p monitors and also used a fair few 4k. 1440p is a big leap forwards from 1080p and it also runs very well on more modest hardware, for that reason I think it's definitely worth the small price increase. Currently I own a Dell U2515H which is a 1440p 25" panel and the original ROG Swift which is of course 27". Both seem like a great density, for use on a desk I wouldn't really want to go much lower or much higher.

28" 4k seems pointless to me, it destroys windows, nothing looks that much better and it has no more visual impact than a 27" 4k. On top of that running 4k resolution with any hardware isn't really 'that' easy. I was playing with 4x Titan X's, and honestly I just wanted my Swift back. I'm sure 32" 4k would be a totally different story however nobody seems to have plans for a 32" gaming orientated panel.


I have to say going from 60hz to 144hz hasn't changed my life, but that is perhaps down to the type of game I play. G-Sync on the other hand is phenomenal, I couldn't rate it highly enough, even in its infancy it was formidable, hugely smoother and very forgiving of lesser hardware. Because of that I wouldn't want 60hz 1440p where G-Sync was constantly hitting its upper limit, the massive 30-144 range lets you keep it floating somewhere good. I hope that Free-Sync is on the same level now.

So right now 27" 1440p 144hz adaptive sync seems like the way to me.

Hopefully in a few years I will be saying 32" 4k 80+hz adaptive sync is optimal, but I really don't feel like 28" is.

JR
 
I've owned several 1440p and 1080p monitors and also used a fair few 4k. 1440p is a big leap forwards from 1080p and it also runs very well on more modest hardware, for that reason I think it's definitely worth the small price increase. Currently I own a Dell U2515H which is a 1440p 25" panel and the original ROG Swift which is of course 27". Both seem like a great density, for use on a desk I wouldn't really want to go much lower or much higher.

28" 4k seems pointless to me, it destroys windows, nothing looks that much better and it has no more visual impact than a 27" 4k. On top of that running 4k resolution with any hardware isn't really 'that' easy. I was playing with 4x Titan X's, and honestly I just wanted my Swift back. I'm sure 32" 4k would be a totally different story however nobody seems to have plans for a 32" gaming orientated panel.


I have to say going from 60hz to 144hz hasn't changed my life, but that is perhaps down to the type of game I play. G-Sync on the other hand is phenomenal, I couldn't rate it highly enough, even in its infancy it was formidable, hugely smoother and very forgiving of lesser hardware. Because of that I wouldn't want 60hz 1440p where G-Sync was constantly hitting its upper limit, the massive 30-144 range lets you keep it floating somewhere good. I hope that Free-Sync is on the same level now.

So right now 27" 1440p 144hz adaptive sync seems like the way to me.

Hopefully in a few years I will be saying 32" 4k 80+hz adaptive sync is optimal, but I really don't feel like 28" is.

The BenQ XL2730Z I have has a Freesync range of 40-144Hz *Although I limit FPS to 143 so it never exceeds it* which is damn good and compared to the Swift monitor I had the colour definitely pops a lot more.

Oh and, No dead or stuck pixels ^_^
 
Last edited:
When on Budget I'd say 1080p 75hz (yes you can see a difference between 60 and 75 especially in twitchy shooters, and I dont want to go back to 60hz)
With unlimited resources I'd go for 34" 21:9 or 27" 1440p 144hz.
 
When on Budget I'd say 1080p 75hz (yes you can see a difference between 60 and 75 especially in twitchy shooters, and I dont want to go back to 60hz)
With unlimited resources I'd go for 34" 21:9 or 27" 1440p 144hz.

I'd go for a 34" 3440x1440 IPS Freesync 144Hz Curved from BenQ as I love their monitors, A man can dream ^_^
 
As a user of 4K that regularly plays and benchmarks at 1080p and 1440p for work I can easily say that 4K isn't adequately different from 1440p to really be worth it.

I think 1440p at higher than 60Hz is best really, it offers a great compromise between framerate and resolution.

4K is too hard to run sometimes, so 1440p is nicer as you can more easily achieve 60+ FPS framerates.
 
I have to say 1440p is the sweet spot ATM, I own a 4K TV and I'd have to say I wouldn't put 4K on my PC ATM Not enough hardware to run it at it's full glory and the refresh rates aren't high enough, but I'm sure as the technology matures I will eventually find myself going over to it.
 
I've owned several 1440p and 1080p monitors and also used a fair few 4k. 1440p is a big leap forwards from 1080p and it also runs very well on more modest hardware, for that reason I think it's definitely worth the small price increase. Currently I own a Dell U2515H which is a 1440p 25" panel and the original ROG Swift which is of course 27". Both seem like a great density, for use on a desk I wouldn't really want to go much lower or much higher.

28" 4k seems pointless to me, it destroys windows, nothing looks that much better and it has no more visual impact than a 27" 4k. On top of that running 4k resolution with any hardware isn't really 'that' easy. I was playing with 4x Titan X's, and honestly I just wanted my Swift back. I'm sure 32" 4k would be a totally different story however nobody seems to have plans for a 32" gaming orientated panel.


I have to say going from 60hz to 144hz hasn't changed my life, but that is perhaps down to the type of game I play. G-Sync on the other hand is phenomenal, I couldn't rate it highly enough, even in its infancy it was formidable, hugely smoother and very forgiving of lesser hardware. Because of that I wouldn't want 60hz 1440p where G-Sync was constantly hitting its upper limit, the massive 30-144 range lets you keep it floating somewhere good. I hope that Free-Sync is on the same level now.

So right now 27" 1440p 144hz adaptive sync seems like the way to me.

Hopefully in a few years I will be saying 32" 4k 80+hz adaptive sync is optimal, but I really don't feel like 28" is.

JR

for non-gaming-purpose i have 1440 and 5k good quality screens.
once i tried a game on 5k and it has not impressed me at all. (it was diablo 3, not my kind of game btw, can t say with other games)

i ve never saw gsync in action, but i read it improves quality in low-fps scenery.
i usually play at 150-200 min fps, is gsync going to change something at these hi fps ?
 
for non-gaming-purpose i have 1440 and 5k good quality screens.
once i tried a game on 5k and it has not impressed me at all. (it was diablo 3, not my kind of game btw, can t say with other games)

i ve never saw gsync in action, but i read it improves quality in low-fps scenery.
i usually play at 150-200 min fps, is gsync going to change something at these hi fps ?

No if you fps exceeds the refresh rate of the monitor it's totally pointless. With it enabled it will just act like V-Sync and limit the maximum (ie. 144fps on a Swift). It's really most advantageous when playing graphically demanding games with high settings that may fluctuate between 50-120, the transitions aren't noticeable and rather than becoming stuttery and unrefined in the lows it just flows through.

You can obviously still get a good high refresh rate G-Sync panel and run it with G and V-Sync disabled in less demanding games. So it wouldn't make things any worse in that scenario, it would just be like 200fps on a 144hz screen.

JR
 
No if you fps exceeds the refresh rate of the monitor it's totally pointless. With it enabled it will just act like V-Sync and limit the maximum (ie. 144fps on a Swift). It's really most advantageous when playing graphically demanding games with high settings that may fluctuate between 50-120, the transitions aren't noticeable and rather than becoming stuttery and unrefined in the lows it just flows through.

You can obviously still get a good high refresh rate G-Sync panel and run it with G and V-Sync disabled in less demanding games. So it wouldn't make things any worse in that scenario, it would just be like 200fps on a 144hz screen.

JR

thanks, i always play at min details and 150-200 min fps, so i think this feature it s just not for me atm!
 
Back
Top