144hz... Why did I not upgrade sooner?

Radox-0 said:
Disagree with most your comments to be honest on this, think its more an opinion or personal preference. Am running PG348Q on main build, one of the best gaming monitors around, yet I have no issue's playing on a 60 hz 4k HDR TV either. Infact I prefer the latter for some games as HDR in some titles looks absolutely amazing on a massive screen. Now sure there are some games, FPS I would rather be on the Monitor, but depending what game you play, some TV's can look the part.
Click to expand...

Yea I get that it is of course preference but also horses for courses. I said somewhere it depends what you like, if you into the cinematic experience with shiny then 4k HDR is gonna look amazing, someone mentioned horizon etc I agree, but feel games are way way more suited to monitors and there is a big difference in feel when you do a session on monitor then swop right over to TV you will really notice difference in input and feel, some people don't really care some are fussier than others, i probably slightly on the fussy side as I love games where controls are super direct and not syrupy like for example Uncharted which I called 'interactive animations' rather than games.
 
Used every type of display there is and none come close to my OLED TV overall, at least for my needs/wants. Can't stand looking at any LCD display now.

Always makes me laugh when people go on about certain monitors having amazing IQ etc. when to put it quite simply.... they are utter **** compared to a quality TV (even LCD based TVs) and then I laugh even more when I see the price of said monitors :o And what makes it even more amusing, is one of the reasons people buy top end PCs to get the best graphics possible yet they then go and pair their PC with a crappy LCD monitor :p

Although I find 4k meh (55" from 7/8 feet), depends entirely on the game, some look noticeably better (very rare), some look hardly any better and some are just a bit better, either way, 4k isn't worth the performance hit...... HDR brings far more to IQ than 4k.

I mustn't be sensitive to input lag either as I notice very little difference between a TV (when it has all the post processing crap turned off) and a 60HZ monitor.

OLED is on another level for motion clarity though, especially when put into 120HZ @ 1080P mode. The way OLED handles motion is just so much easier and nicer on my eyes, there is zero ghosting/trailing (even in 60HZ mode) compared to LCD panels.

But yes, 120+HZ LCD is noticeably better than 60HZ LCD.
 
Nexus18 said:
Although I find 4k meh (55" from 7/8 feet), depends entirely on the game, some look noticeably better (very rare), some look hardly any better and some are just a bit better, either way, 4k isn't worth the performance hit......
Click to expand...
It amazes me you can see the IQ improvement on OLED but cannot see IQ improvements brought by 4K tbh. Play Witcher 3 at a lower resolution and then 4K, surely you can see how much sharper and better everything looks? Day and night to my eyes.

Just goes to show how IQ and smoothness from higher hz/fps is very subjective.
 
Frames > Resolution for me.

Even when moving Windows from monitor 1 (144Hz) on my left screen to monitor 2 (60Hz) on the right, when dragging the windows round it looked/looks all choppy.

Sticking on CSGO after was jaw dropping.

My 2 pence!

To add my slower screen is IPS and has better image quality compared the the 144Hz TN one. Looking to get a second 144Hz screen soon and ditch the IPS one however...
 
yeah that is the problem with most 144hz screens often the colours are washed out on lower end models compared to cheaper 60hz ips panels. i would still take the higher hz though over the image quality.

if you used to 60hz or similar and gaming is fine its no issue. just once you play on 120hz or above regular then try and go back...it seems wrong.
 
Recently made the same change, went from a trusty Samsung 24" 1920x1080 60Hz display which had served me well for years to an MSI 27" 2560x1440 144Hz Freesync display.
I can echo the OP, it's much nicer. I thought 60Hz was fine and that I wouldn't notice the difference, but even just using the desktop and browsing, things are noticeably smoother and easier on the eye. Grab hold of a window and move it around the desktop and you notice the difference.
Game also feel smoother - my rig isn't particularly powerful, but it's nice to be able to play without V-Sync and have no frame tearing, and games just feel more fluid. One of those "should have done it sooner" upgrades.
 
Mark A said:
I have been eyeing up this monitor myself. Currently using a 42" tv as a monitor and have a feeling it's holding me back in online fps games.

What was the backlight bleed like? This seems to be the only real downside of these monitors.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of confusion around this, blacklight bleed and IPS panel bleed are 2 different things.

It's really not all that bad. The one I got has a spot in the too right corner, but only noticeable when the image is pitch black and I'm playing in a pitch black environment. They are no worse than LCD monitors in terms of chances of getting a bad one.
 
Furthermore, I was chatting to the wife as she was unconvinced but after seeing the new monitor she said she didn't expect such a obvious difference.

But we were chatting, and whilst the smoothness of the higher panel hz is, the biggest impact for me is Gsync. In nvidia control panel I have Gsync enabled and vsync. Any game I load, I turn off vsync and if my frame rates fluctuate between 70-144 it's still butter smooth, no tearing. Nothing.

THAT is the biggest, we all know the pain when you want to play an RPG and lock your frames to 60 with vsync. A slight dip below and it's a stutter fest. With gsync, not at all. Anddd, NO INPUT LAG!

God this monitor has changed my appetite for gaming. I STRONGLY suggest it to anyone, and if you prefer quality picture, the one I got, being an IPS panel, is sublime, after my previous monitor being IPS, I can't go back to LCD/TN now.

Also, here is a great in depth write up on testing Gsync: https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/
 
I don't get it, the picture on my MU6400 49" TV is miles better than the monitor and the laptop, it's only a low end 4K TV too. By far the most difference noticed compared to 1440P 75Hz or 1080P 120Hz.
 
willhub said:
How much was your OLED TV?
Click to expand...

£1099 (getting superior panel tech. @ 55", 4k, true HDR, 120HZ @ 1080P should you want it)

Compare that to agood quality 27" "gaming" monitor.....

TNA said:
It amazes me you can see the IQ improvement on OLED but cannot see IQ improvements brought by 4K tbh. Play Witcher 3 at a lower resolution and then 4K, surely you can see how much sharper and better everything looks? Day and night to my eyes.

Just goes to show how IQ and smoothness from higher hz/fps is very subjective.
Click to expand...

OLED offers so much more over LCD, the contrast ratio, the "perfect" viewing angles (which play a part even when "sitting" directly in front i.e. you don't have slightly of contrast issues in the corners like you get with lower end LCDs/TNs/VAs) and the infinite contrast ratio can even make a difference to clarity/sharpness and the main thing is...... the material you watch/play doesn't have to be made for OLED (although one thing about OLED is it will show up any imperfections a lot more than LCD as LCD masks a lot of sources issues such as gradient banding) where as with 4k, all it does is increase sharpness/clarity but the material you are playing/watching on it has to be shot/made with 4k in mind, this is why a lot of films/tv shows 4k remasters are pretty poor compared to true native 4k content, same for games, the textures, particle effects and so on are low quality.

Games wise, witcher 3 is one of the better ones here along with rise of the tomb raider (when using max texture settings), still to me, the performance hit is not worth it.

Also, another thing to keep in mind is that some TV scalers are far better for scaling than others.
 
Last edited:
Feeding a screen 144hz at 25x14 is probably equally as hard if not a bit more than feeding a screen 60hz at 38x21. I had a 100hz panel for a while and didn't really notice much of a change over 60 to be honest.
 
x-st said:
If you don't play FPS' that much is it that much of an upgrade? Worth if for third person adventure type games and older stuff?
Click to expand...

I play a huge mixture of games, the 144hz is nice for fluidity in FPS games, Gsync is nice in single player more demanding games where if frames are fluctuating betwee 70-144fps, gsync still smooths it out like vsync without tearing which also have no response lag unlike in game vsync.

Omaeka said:
Most competitive games can play at several hundred fps on a 60hz monitor without vsync and not screen tear. 144hz is great and all but it's mostly for single player.
Click to expand...

I think you may misunderstand the tech, it's physically impossible to have 0 screen tear when frames are not in sync with the monitor refresh rate.

As for 144hz being great for SP games only, this is also an odd statement. The much more fluid image is superior (in my opinion obviously) than 60hz. It's truly night and day. Gsync suits SP games, 144hz suits MP FPS.
 
Gaming on my Panasonic 55 HDR UHD oled tv for me is superb. I'll never not own a oled TV now and can't wait for oled gaming monitors. LCD technology is great on phones to big tvs but oled is a different level and I'm Surprised I didn't do it sooner after willy waving my oled phones for years.
 
what about for those of us who dont play FPS tho ;)

This 100+ FPS craze so far seems to be tied to FPS gamers.

For me TN is unacceptable as a screen. Granted you can get 144hz IPS now, but those monitors tend to be gsync and have stupid limitations like only displayport as output. I need vga, dvi, and hdmi all supported on one display, alongside IPS as a basic requirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom