Looking to buy a new monitor, some opinions would be appreciated

[angelicajames]

Looking to get either a 1920 x 1080 144Hz, a 2560 x 1080 60Hz monitor or a 2560 x 1440 60Hz.

I am SUPER interested in getting an ultra-widescreen, but not sure how well it works with poe which would be my main concern. I know some games freak out with odd resolutions, and if I'm forced to play 1920x1080 pillarboxed and locked at 60Hz then there's no point in me buying one, to begin with.

I have a 1920x1080 144Hz monitor as my main one right now, so what I buy will probably become my main one while what I currently have would be secondary. In all honesty, if 2560x1080 works then I'll 100% go for it, but otherwise, it would be nice to know if 2560x1440 works nicely with the game for you guys.

[Simon]

To be honest i am doubful of people that claim that they can see faster than 60Hz but then I prabably have attention deficit. I tend to go for resolution over speed and prefer IPS, the LG monitors of which i own 1 are to be seen te be beleived.

[cnering]

2560x1440 (16:9) is an incredibly common resolution.  I've never played a game that didn't natively support it.  2560x1080 would be extremely wide and low res, I'm not sure you'd want a monitor like that. 

The 30+ inch Ultrawides do seem to have relatively poor support, it depends on what games you play but I would expect at least a few of them to block off the sides of the monitor to fix the aspect ratio.  I think even big ones like Overwatch still don't have full ultrawide support.

The gaming sweet spot right now is IPS 2560x1440 at 144hz.  4k is too many pixels to push at high refresh rates, and 1920x1080 is too low res to look crisp.  Given that you have a 144hz monitor now I'm surprised you're even considering 60hz models, for most people (myself included) once you see 144hz you'll never go back to 60hz under any circumstances.  It's just so much better.

[Simon]

4K is unneccessary for moving content. The only reason i use it is for text smoothness and general good experience of not being able to see the pixels.

[cnering]

Oh definitely, 4k looks gorgeous, I would just pass on it if the focus is more on gaming.

[JxR]

To be honest i am doubful of people that claim that they can see faster than 60Hz but then I prabably have attention deficit. I tend to go for resolution over speed and prefer IPS, the LG monitors of which i own 1 are to be seen te be beleived.

Your pretty much right.  144Hz monitor is honestly a waste of money and GPU processing power.  60Hz is enough for mere mortals, although this article would imply that its possible to notice a difference up to ~77Hz.  I have no idea if there is more recent studies or better ones though.

http://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116

[Simon]

It's like the resolution thing, 4K is plenty unless you want a huge moniter that you will physically have to pan to see all of the content on like multi monitor setups now. I saw a videa by linus where people chose the faster monitor over the higher resolution but I really do not see how you can tell a 60Hz from a 144Hz if the image itself is moving. No more than i expect to watch 4K videa because my mind has plenty to go on with 1080 moving around.

[JxR]

I've had the same old Dell Ultra sharp 30" monitors for years now.  Different versions, and bought at different times when they run their 50% off sales.  Maybe one day I would get a 4k monitor, but then it would probably have to be 2x 4k.  I would rather have more screen real estate than a single high-rez monitor.  You can only make your desktop windows so small after all.

[Simon]

Well my point with resolution is that 4K is the max anyone will need as after that it is a waste of resolution unless it was say one huge 8K monitor that you intend to use as 4x 4K spaces. People often want more than they need and decide that they can tell thedifference to justify it. You wouli strauggle to spot a single pixel black pixel on a white background on a 1920x1080, 4K is therefor plenty. I have a 27" which I can sit close to and not see the pixels. I also have a 42.5" as my main monitor but I sit about 1m from it.

[JxR]

Yeah, I have laptops that are much higher rez than my desktop monitors.  4k would be great, and I get your point and agree with you about 8k.  I would love to get some new monitors one day, just not a priority at the moment.

[cnering]

Have you guys actually tried 144hz monitors in games before?  I'm completely shocked at your responses, the higher refresh rate is extremely noticeable in almost all situations.  Even moving the mouse around on a 144hz monitor is VERY noticeably smoother.  I've had my parents, my grandparents, and all of my friends use my monitor at 144hz, and without even mentioning it they all immediately noticed and commented on the smoothness.  I think the only time you wouldn't notice the difference is in videos (their framerates don't change) and in animations.  Even scrolling through webpages at 144hz is very noticeable.

In games it's even more surprising.  The difference is astounding.  I sincerely cannot see how anyone could think 60 and 144hz are the same, the experiences are just so wildly different.  Looking around in an FPS at 144hz is a completely different experience than at 60hz.  Everything is clear and sharp even under quick movement.

[Simon]

No i have not used 144Hz before. i suppose if you can see an LED blink at 50Hz then yes it perhaps makes a difference. I don't know if the jumping in scrolling web pages is the monitor or the PC/graphics rendering. On the whole i am happy with 60Hz.

[JxR]

Have you guys actually tried 144hz monitors in games before?  I'm completely shocked at your responses, the higher refresh rate is extremely noticeable in almost all situations.  Even moving the mouse around on a 144hz monitor is VERY noticeably smoother.  I've had my parents, my grandparents, and all of my friends use my monitor at 144hz, and without even mentioning it they all immediately noticed and commented on the smoothness.  I think the only time you wouldn't notice the difference is in videos (their framerates don't change) and in animations.  Even scrolling through webpages at 144hz is very noticeable.

In games it's even more surprising.  The difference is astounding.  I sincerely cannot see how anyone could think 60 and 144hz are the same, the experiences are just so wildly different.  Looking around in an FPS at 144hz is a completely different experience than at 60hz.  Everything is clear and sharp even under quick movement.

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice.  I did state that the research showed that humans may be able to see up to ~77Hz.  I also stated that I had some old ass Dell 30" monitors, so I haven't used 144Hz either.  But, based on the little research I did, not much would convince me that a human could see a difference in the 77-144Hz range (except better research).

I will also note, that I'm not current on the technology of these monitors.  So, if say they work by drawing the top half of the screen, followed by the bottom half, then that would put the full screen refresh rate at 72Hz.  Which would put the total refresh rate near the human limit.  I will leave it to someone else to provide such data though if that is how they really function.

[apis]

On old CRTs the difference between 60 and 120 Hz refresh rate vas very noticeable, although CRTs are different beasts I wouldn't rule out that there could be some difference.

[Simon]

I think with CRT's it was about fliker and phosphor persistence, with LCD's that all goes away and all it is down to is how much we care about the refresh rate. I used a monitor on 30Hz rather than 60Hz when I first got it as the graphics card could not do 4K very well and I never noticed the difference. It was less laggy at 30Hz as the GPU could keep up better.

[cnering]

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice.  I did state that the research showed that humans may be able to see up to ~77Hz.  I also stated that I had some old ass Dell 30" monitors, so I haven't used 144Hz either.  But, based on the little research I did, not much would convince me that a human could see a difference in the 77-144Hz range (except better research).

I will also note, that I'm not current on the technology of these monitors.  So, if say they work by drawing the top half of the screen, followed by the bottom half, then that would put the full screen refresh rate at 72Hz.  Which would put the total refresh rate near the human limit.  I will leave it to someone else to provide such data though if that is how they really function.

I think that study is showing something different.  It's not saying that humans couldn't tell a different in refresh rate above 75hz, it's saying that showing humans images at a rate of 75hz was about as fast as you could go before the brain couldn't process it in time to tell what it was.  If you showed someone an image for 1/72nd of a second, they had a pretty good chance of being able to tell you what it was.  Showing them the same image for 1/100th of a second, they couldn't.

That's not at all the same as saying 144hz isn't noticeably smoother than 60hz.

[JxR]

I think that study is showing something different.  It's not saying that humans couldn't tell a different in refresh rate above 75hz, it's saying that showing humans images at a rate of 75hz was about as fast as you could go before the brain couldn't process it in time to tell what it was.  If you showed someone an image for 1/72nd of a second, they had a pretty good chance of being able to tell you what it was.  Showing them the same image for 1/100th of a second, they couldn't.

That's not at all the same as saying 144hz isn't noticeably smoother than 60hz.

If you can find reputable research data that supports your claim, I'm certainly open to reading it.  Simply disagreeing with the data is not enough to convince me though.  I do believe that you think you see a difference.  You shouldn't feel obligated to try and disprove the data if you don't really want to.  I also don't really feel like connecting to my university library at the moment to see if I can find anything better, but I'm always open to the possibility that more accurate data exists.

[nctnico]

Have you guys actually tried 144hz monitors in games before?  I'm completely shocked at your responses, the higher refresh rate is extremely noticeable in almost all situations.  Even moving the mouse around on a 144hz monitor is VERY noticeably smoother.  I've had my parents, my grandparents, and all of my friends use my monitor at 144hz, and without even mentioning it they all immediately noticed and commented on the smoothness.  I think the only time you wouldn't notice the difference is in videos (their framerates don't change) and in animations.  Even scrolling through webpages at 144hz is very noticeable.

In games it's even more surprising.  The difference is astounding.  I sincerely cannot see how anyone could think 60 and 144hz are the same, the experiences are just so wildly different.  Looking around in an FPS at 144hz is a completely different experience than at 60hz.  Everything is clear and sharp even under quick movement.

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice. 

What research? You have to be a bit skeptical when it comes to research about how fast people can discriminate what they see because the test setup typically used for these kind of tests isn't always perfect. At one of my former employers I created a setup using a fast LCD screen instead of the (traditional) computer monitor and the results measured using a light sensor where quite different. The LCD screen was able to get to significantly better defined exposure times than possible with the monitor. It did take some convincing towards the researcher to show the test setup my collegue and I had created was better.

And then there are individual differences between people. Some can't deal with low refresh rates and you have to respect that.

[ogden]

My response was based on neurological research from MIT, so I have to go with trusting the science that 144Hz is physically impossible for a human to notice.

I would go for experience of huge eSports industry rather than "science" of MIT students team.

[JxR]

I would go for experience of huge eSports industry rather than "science" of MIT students team.

Why would you assume that it is students??

What research?

Attached.  I'm not a neurologist, nor do I claim to study in this field.  Like I said, if any one has a research paper that is better, more accurate, more relevant, etc.  please by all means provide it.  I always like learning, and could care less about being proven wrong.  Not that I really look at it that way, its not MY research after all.

[ogden]

I would go for experience of huge eSports industry rather than "science" of MIT students team.

Why would you assume that it is students??

Ok, scientists. Whatever. That research is about "eye fixation periods". I agree to whatever they did find while flashing images in front of people. Image flashing and smooth, lag-less movements of picture elements are completely different things. It does not matter that your brain most likely do not register every frame shown, it does not need to. Timing of those frames that are registered - matter. 60Hz refresh means 16.6ms lag. Imagine table tennis player wearing 16.6ms -delay glasses while playing. He will fail miserably against one who do not wear said glasses.

Those who have definite opinion that 144Hz refresh is pointless - better try some FPS shooter @144Hz first, only then decide.

[JxR]

Unfortunately, since I moved back to the US about 5 years ago the one thing I have been convinced of is this: That people can literally convince themselves of anything.  I'm a skeptic because I'm forced to be.  I also totally believe that you feel like you see a difference.  What I'm trying to ascertain is at what actual rate is that difference seen.  So far, I'm still the only one that provided data.  I don't think my personal opinion really counts, nor has anyone in this thread convinced me theirs does either.

Nctnico related his experience in an improper experiment setup and I completely can see the validity of that.  I also realize that there is not going to be a perfect number, and there are going to be some outliers (I would expect the younger the person the faster they may be able to process the visual data as well). 

Regardless there is going to be an average limit, to our eye/brain where buying a faster monitor truly buys you nothing, and it is just a marketing ploy.  Is that at: 77Hz, 90Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, etc?  Your experience with FPS vs scientific research just isn't going to do it for me. If 80Hz was your hypothetical limit, and unless you used monitors in multiple ranges of refresh speeds between 60Hz-144Hz, how would you actually know that 144Hz is better than say 81Hz?  I'm not trying to condescend, and if you feel personally attacked by this: "science", well not really sure what to say to that.  You've obviously convinced yourself that your monitor is superior, so just go with it and be happy.  I'm just trying to learn.

The research data does already show that 144Hz is better than 60Hz because we can detect images faster than 60Hz.  So maybe that is all that should really matter here for most.  Personally though, if 80Hz was fast enough I would rather use less GPU time.  It is probably a moot point if most of the monitors on the market faster than 60Hz are 144Hz though.

[JxR]

Timing of those frames that are registered - matter. 60Hz refresh means 16.6ms lag. Imagine table tennis player wearing 16.6ms -delay glasses while playing. He will fail miserably against one who do not wear said glasses.

I re-read this and I think I better understand what you are saying.  Your computer is running the game at say 80FPS, but your monitor has a set refresh rate for when that next frame can actually appear regardless of the game's frame rate.  If the timing is off at just the right moment, you may be able to notice a skip.  I'm I understanding you correctly?

[ogden]

Regardless there is going to be an average limit, to our eye/brain where buying a faster monitor truly buys you nothing, and it is just a marketing ploy.  Is that at: 77Hz, 90Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, etc? Your experience with FPS vs scientific research just isn't going to do it for me.

Sure. Then listen to pro eSports gamers. Proof that gamers benefit from 144Hz compared to 60Hz is all over internet.

If 80Hz was your hypothetical limit, and unless you used monitors in multiple ranges of refresh speeds between 60Hz-144Hz, how would you actually know that 144Hz is better than say 81Hz?

You just take fast monitor, run game at it's max frame rate, then reconfigure it to "standard 60Hz" to be blown away. It is hard to tell, you have to experience it. Unless you try it - there's nothing much to discuss. Just go to computer store and try for gods sake! - The same about swimming, girls or virtually anything - you do not know what it is until you try it yourself.

I'm not trying to condescend, and if you feel personally attacked by this: "science", well not really sure what to say to that.

LOL I am not attacked. Actually I did comment that research in my previous post.

You've obviously convinced yourself that your monitor is superior, so just go with it and be happy.  I'm just trying to learn.

I had 120Hz CRT monitor when I was playing Quake and UT. Now I don't game, thus  do not need anything better than 60Hz IPS wide gamut.

[JxR]

Thanks, and please see my last post.  I think I may have had a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say, and hoping that what I wrote is coming closer to what you are trying to explain.  At-least I think it does.  I hardly play FPS anymore, but if I get a chance to try out one of these monitors I will certainly approach it with an open mind.