Choosing a new monitor: my brain Hz

JeditOjanen

JeditOjanen

JeditOjanen

Soldato
Joined
7 Feb 2011
Posts
6,056
I'm planning on upgrading my five year old system to something less prehistoric very soon, and to go with it I'm considering a new monitor. However, since the last time I bought a display the options seem to have multiplied and I want to be sure I'm getting something right.

Although I will be doing some productivity work, the monitor is primarily going to be used for gaming. I'm set up for a 28" monitor and probably can't go much bigger, but I don't want to go smaller either.

So:

1) My new system will be capable of handling 4k. Is it worthwhile, or would a top end 1440p be better/more economical?

2) What's the difference between Freesync and GSync (apart from £150), and which would be preferable? Assume I'm on something of a budget having just bought an expensive PC.

3) Is 60Hz an acceptable minimum for gaming, or would I want a 120/144Hz display? I don't play FPSs, if that helps.

4) What's with these ultra-wide monitors?

Any help you can give would be appreciated.
 
2) Freesync is AMD-only, GSync is nVidia only, I believe. Which sucks because it ties two of your most expensive components to each other...

3) Personally I'm happy with an older 24" screen at 60Hz. Most of the time my output fps isn't that high, and like you, I don't tend to play FPS games. Minecraft/Kerbal Space Program/Cities Skylines are totally viable at 60fps max. Obviously if you want to try out 3D gaming/glasses, you want to step up to 144Hz. This might be a more compelling option than 4K, even.

4) Personally I like having a big centre screen, and a smaller portrait-monitor to either side. I find this versatile and satisfying all round. I've tried spreading games over all 3, and while it works, there's a lot of distortion out on the edges that give things a real fish-eye look. Maybe an FPS gamer would benefit from the wider peripheral vision, but for my personal uses there's no real benefit to ultra-wide; I'd rather have an ultra-big 16:10 :)
 
Last edited:
1) My new system will be capable of handling 4k. Is it worthwhile, or would a top end 1440p be better/more economical?

IMO: I love 4K, but for a lot of people using it on the desktop on 28" is a pain. I can totally understand that, and you're also limited to 60 Hz with 4K right now. So I think 1440p might be best for you.

2) What's the difference between Freesync and GSync (apart from £150), and which would be preferable? Assume I'm on something of a budget having just bought an expensive PC.

IMO: Whilst FreeSync = AMD and GSync = NVIDIA, I think right now with the issues that you have with FreeSync ranges (e.g. on the MG279Q FreeSync only works between 35 and 90 Hz, whilst with the equivalent GSync you get up to 144 Hz) I'd go for GSync. If you're buying a monitor I would definitely get one that has one of these technologies.

3) Is 60Hz an acceptable minimum for gaming, or would I want a 120/144Hz display? I don't play FPSs, if that helps.

IMO: If you can, get 120 Hz or more. The difference is noticeable even on desktop.

4) What's with these ultra-wide monitors?

IMO: If you'll struggle to fit more than 28", I wouldn't bother. Unless it's a 3440 * 1440 (which I think are nearly all 34") I'd rather take a 2560 * 1440. It's an interesting option because you get lots of peripheral view, but I just don't see the point in 2560 * 1080 when you can get 2560 * 1440 for quite reasonable prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom