4K? 144hz? Ultrawide?..

Nathan94 · 13 Apr 2015 at 16:29

Right so I've got up a reasonable budget of anything up to 1k and I've been scouring many retailers, forums and such to try and get a viewpoint on the three distinct gaming monitors.

Those being; 144hz, 4k and Ultrawide / 1440p.

I've currently got SLI GTX970's so should be capable enough to run any of the three, G-SYNC will be a bonus too.

I personally like the 4k https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-111-BQ&groupid=17&catid=1895
or 144hz https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-077-AC&groupid=17&catid=1851
or Ultrawide https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-120-LG&groupid=17&catid=2908

Looking to be playing GTAV, an array of first person shooters, GRID, Project: Cars etc etc

I've currently still only got an LED 24" 1080p, which while good for its needs over the years, I think it's time to replace and build upon what I've previously thought to be good (I've never tried any of 4k/144hz/Ultrawide) monitors personally, although having been to a few retailers to view the products and from experiences at tech shows I can see that they all have there own distinct positives.

I can't however decide on one that's right for me. Desk space isn't an issue, so size (24/27/28/30/32/34 etc) is not a problem.

RichL · 13 Apr 2015 at 19:26

Personally, I'd go for a 27" G-sync 144Hz as gaming is your priority. I've just got the Asus Swift and it is great. I run it alongside a BL3200PT (60Hz, 1440p version of the one you've listed) and the Swift is far better for gaming.

I've also owned a 34" LG ultrawide but I didn't get on well with the aspect ratio and ended up with the 32" BenQ instead.

wunkley · 14 Apr 2015 at 09:40

Well, I'd think twice before going 4k with your current GPUs. Titan x SLI is the only set up that do gaming at 4k proper justice.
If you can wait a bit there's a new range of superwide 144hz with gsync/freesync coming out. That's the next screen I'll be buying.

If you need to buy now, it's a tough call. I currently game on a rog swift though, and it is brilliant.

Marine-RX179 · 14 Apr 2015 at 10:04

With the 970(s), the 4K option should be thrown right out the window.

Considering the slightly crippled vram and memory bus, the 2560x1440 144Hz IPS is probably your best bet, especially if you want Gsync as well.

eldergeek · 14 Apr 2015 at 10:07

If you're looking to use a widescreen for your main driver, do not buy one for gaming. While it's fine for the most part, I've found massive issues with trying to play games such as starcraft, mass effect etc. as it'll cut the top and bottom off and render the game more or less useless for all practical purposes.

Marine-RX179 said:
With the 970(s), the 4K option should be thrown right out the window.

Considering the slightly crippled vram and memory bus, the 2560x1440 144Hz IPS is probably your best bet, especially if you want Gsync as well.

Do you even own a 970, or was that your (laughably) expert opinion? Being an owner of a 970, I feel it prudent to point out that few games actually hit the 3.5gb vram usage issue, and that there's still 4gb vram on the card - it's a fine graphics card that can handle anything thrown at it...anything. The fact that he has two in SLI config means he shouldn't be gimped in any way, shape or form!

Seriously. I'm tired of naysayers and AMD fanboys insisting that this card is crap.

Marine-RX179 · 14 Apr 2015 at 10:16

eldergeek said:
Do you even own a 970, or was that your (laughably) expert opinion? Being an owner of a 970, I feel it prudent to point out that few games actually hit the 3.5gb vram usage issue, and that there's still 4gb vram on the card - it's a fine graphics card that can handle anything thrown at it...anything. The fact that he has two in SLI config means he shouldn't be gimped in any way, shape or form!

Seriously. I'm tired of naysayers and AMD fanboys insisting that this card is crap.

So you are telling me you are recommending OP to go 4K with his 970s then is that what you are saying?

3.5GB vram and 224+32bit memory bus is NOT suitable for 4K.

Before you go accusing other people of being "fanboy", may be you should consider taking a good look at the context of the subject being discussed first?

eldergeek · 14 Apr 2015 at 11:17

Marine-RX179 said:
So you are telling me you are recommending OP to go 4K with his 970s then is that what you are saying?

3.5GB vram and 224+32bit memory bus is NOT suitable for 4K.

Before you go accusing other people of being "fanboy", may be you should consider taking a good look at the context of the subject being discussed first?

Hardly. I personally think 4k is a flash in the pan - but considering I know several people that have a 970 installed - both in a single and SLI config and game just fine on 4k monitors, ** Let's keep it civil thanks **

Captain · 14 Apr 2015 at 11:43

I had no problems playing games at 4K with 970sli, was smooth and had no slowdowns, everything turned up too.

Nathan94 · 14 Apr 2015 at 11:59

A mixed bag of views I see then, hmm. I am still swaying towards the 4k BenQ.

kyippee · 14 Apr 2015 at 14:09

144hz as you're using it for gaming, especially for fps gaming.

wunkley · 14 Apr 2015 at 20:17

You could try 4k with your 970s. But you'll be upgrading your GPUs very soon if you do it. I bet you.

africanos23 · 15 Apr 2015 at 12:24

I've got a 4K Asus (60hz) and thinking of moving to something Gsync based. No real issues to be honest but I want to see what all this praise is about

.

I had GTX970s in SLI (aswell as R9-290s in CFX) moved to the Titan X and everything is just so much smoother with no VRAM/Driver/Microstutter issues.

I might hold out for something like a 3440x1440 144hz or 4K 144hz if and when they come out.

Nathan94 · 15 Apr 2015 at 12:46

africanos23 said:
I've got a 4K Asus (60hz) and thinking of moving to something Gsync based. No real issues to be honest but I want to see what all this praise is about .

I had GTX970s in SLI (aswell as R9-290s in CFX) moved to the Titan X and everything is just so much smoother with no VRAM/Driver/Microstutter issues.

I might hold out for something like a 3440x1440 144hz or 4K 144hz if and when they come out.

Also costs an arm!

mraerosmith1981 · 15 Apr 2015 at 14:21

I also have a 4k rig, with 2x 970 in sli, and dont have any problems.

Is that an RX290x in your sig Marine-RX179??

Nutella33 · 15 Apr 2015 at 14:30

good point. 970's are all thats needed for 4k. despite every other benchmark saying different and nvidia users reporting massive improvements from going to the 980 or Titan X....

Its all just AMD boys :rolleyes:

mraerosmith1981 · 15 Apr 2015 at 14:44

Being a fanboy or not is nothing to do with this discussion to my mind, I own a 4k Panel and 2 970's in SLI, as you say every other benchmark , so not all of them, everyone has a different idea of whats needed.

As to the people that go to a TitanX of course it will be faster.

But on a Day to Day basis, I find the 970's more than adequate

eldergeek · 15 Apr 2015 at 14:58

Nutella33 said:
good point. 970's are all thats needed for 4k. despite every other benchmark saying different and nvidia users reporting massive improvements from going to the 980 or Titan X....

Its all just AMD boys

That is by far the most inane statement I've seen all day.

1.) You're getting feedback from people with a 970, and running 4k - in multiple configurations no less.

2.)Are you...Suggesting that you shouldn't see a performance between Nvidia flagship value card, Nvidia's Flagship goto card, and Nvidia's flagship "stupid amounts of money to spend on a graphics card" card? Because if you're suggesting that there shouldn't see a difference, you really need to read up on why price points exist.

Captain · 15 Apr 2015 at 15:08

Nutella33 said:
good point. 970's are all thats needed for 4k. despite every other benchmark saying different and nvidia users reporting massive improvements from going to the 980 or Titan X....

Its all just AMD boys

I had 2 290's in CF running 4K, it was great, moved to 970SLI, didn't see any improvement at all regarding scores or fps, only benefit was the 970's ran cooler.

Apart from that, you couldn't tell them apart. So no it's nothing to do with which is better.

wunkley · 15 Apr 2015 at 15:59

mraerosmith1981 said:
Being a fanboy or not is nothing to do with this discussion to my mind, I own a 4k Panel and 2 970's in SLI, as you say every other benchmark , so not all of them, everyone has a different idea of whats needed.

As to the people that go to a TitanX of course it will be faster.

But on a Day to Day basis, I find the 970's more than adequate

Actually a Titan X isn't particularly 'faster' than 970's in SLI. I have 2 x 780Ti which is often quite similar in games and benchmarks to 970 SLI give or take an overclock. I also used a Titan X for a week.
I game at 1440p currently, and 780Ti SLI is faster, or roughly the same as one Titan X when you clock the bejeeus out of it.

At 4k however, it's a bit of a different story. As I'm used to gaming on a fast monitor (Rog swift) I consider anything less than 60fps with all the details at max to be a bit poo these days. From the benchmarks I've seen, I wouldn't consider a 4k monitor unless I ran two Titan X's. And I haven't even mentioned Vram yet

Or the pitfalls of SLI, so I'd still rather have one TX really ;-)

whyscotty · 15 Apr 2015 at 16:23

Marine-RX179 said:
With the 970(s), the 4K option should be thrown right out the window.

Considering the slightly crippled vram and memory bus, the 2560x1440 144Hz IPS is probably your best bet, especially if you want Gsync as well.

I have to agree with Marine on this, why -

I had 2 x 980's and a Asus 4K - 980's lasted less than 2 weeks as the cards struggled with the games I played.

Yes I could have lowered some settings but I didn't go 4K to lower settings.

They even struggled on my Swift :eek: