WQHD @ 144hz vs UHD (4k) @ 60hz for gaming

MGP

MGP

MGP

Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2004
Posts
2,584
Location
Surrey
So which is likely to be better, all other things being equal such as panel type, contrast, response, and let's assume price isn't a factor?

From my perspective it's about gaming, and mainly FPS stuff (Battlefield 4, etc). Of course if you were simply editing photos the 60Hz v 144Hz isn't going to be as relevant as you aren't dealing with loads of fast changes tot he image.

Let us assume we have a good TN panel. But would an IPS panel change the answer?

Is the extra detail of the 4k monitor that can only refresh at 60Hz, superior to the better refresh rate of a WQHD (2560x1440) monitor that could do 144Hz? Let us assume we have a GPU(s) that can handle the 144Hz frame rate, at the lower resolution or only the 60Hz at the higher resolution.

Now what about if we throw G-sync into the mix because our GPU isn't quite as powerful and can't quite do the frame rate? If that is reducing any tearing or stuttering of image effect, is that going to negate a difference between 60Hz and 144Hz?

And being bluntly honest, if you are sitting only 4' from a 27" type screen can your less than 20-20 vision actually see a difference between WQHD and UHD? Would any of these opinions change if the screen was bigger, say the 34" curved monitors we start to see?
 
This has been talked about many times in different threads, end of the day it comes down to what you prefer, try them both.
4K gaming @ 60fps will cost you 2 Titan X's, doing it on the cheap will cost you a Titan X and a Gsync 4k monitor and you'll be playing FPS in the 40's and it still isn't what I'd call cheap. If your coming down from anything 100hz+ you will feel this and will reflect on your performance in games like BF4.

You can defiantly see the difference between 1440p and 4k, 4k is a far superior quality. IPS is also leagues in front of TN, even the good TN panels.

Personally I went from 4K TN G-Sync to 1440p IPS Ultra wide 100hz G-Sync and have never looked back.

What we really need is a 34" IPS UW4K Gsync 120hz monitor and the hardware to power it.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of 4K 60HZ Gsync monitors going up for sale, one went for £300 on that place last night. It just needs too much grunt and it's only 60hz, which puts me off too :(
 
Born_2_Kill_83 said:
This has been talked about many times in different threads, end of the day it comes down to what you prefer, try them both.
Click to expand...

OK it probably has been a subject of discussion, although I was struggling with my ineptitude to find specifics (but if I struggle to see stuff would I need any of these resolutions :rolleyes: ). I'd don't have the money / accessibility to try / but both options, hence the seeking of opinions.

4K gaming @ 60fps will cost you 2 Titan X's, doing it on the cheap will cost you a Titan X and a Gsync 4k monitor and you'll be playing FPS in the 40's and it still isn't what I'd call cheap. If your coming down from anything 100hz+ you will feel this and will reflect on your performance in games like BF4.
Click to expand...

Current monitor is only 60Hz and 1080P. Even so I know that to get a good 4k I'd need a lot of grunt. But 60Hz is achievable at 4K, if you are SLI/Crossfire good modern cards?

You can defiantly see the difference between 1440p and 4k, 4k is a far superior quality. IPS is also leagues in front of TN, even the good TN panels.
Click to expand...

So if you can see the quality of 4K and can run that at 60 Hz or WQHD at 14HZ, both on ultra quality, what might give a better experience?

Personally I went from 4K TN G-Sync to 1440p IPS Ultra wide 100hz G-Sync and have never looked back.
Click to expand...

That's interesting that refresh over resolution may be more important, although as I understand it IPS may have better colour accuracy, often at the expense of TN's response.
 
I tested out 60HZ in Fallout 4 from the usual 120/144 and yuk what a difference! This is one huge reason why I never went for that cheap 4K 60hz Gsync monitor
 
MGP said:
OK it probably has been a subject of discussion, although I was struggling with my ineptitude to find specifics (but if I struggle to see stuff would I need any of these resolutions :rolleyes: ). I'd don't have the money / accessibility to try / but both options, hence the seeking of opinions.

Current monitor is only 60Hz and 1080P. Even so I know that to get a good 4k I'd need a lot of grunt. But 60Hz is achievable at 4K, if you are SLI/Crossfire good modern cards?

So if you can see the quality of 4K and can run that at 60 Hz or WQHD at 14HZ, both on ultra quality, what might give a better experience?

That's interesting that refresh over resolution may be more important, although as I understand it IPS may have better colour accuracy, often at the expense of TN's response.
Click to expand...

Yeah you do, you can buy try and return under DSR, go for 4k - try it if you like it keep it and turn down some setting till you can upgrade hardware if need be. If not send it back within 14 days, best check with the retailer they support this 1st to be safe but most have too, it'll just cost you 15 quid shipping.

Yes SLi 980Ti's or Fury SLi will do the job nicely, though I ran my first 4k monitor on a couple of 290X's, and bearing in mind when crossfire worked it managed ok though when it didn't it was unplayable. Games back then didn't require the vram they seem to now though so watch out with 4gb cards.

IPS response times are getting better, I'd always had TNs in the past with the ignorance that IPS colours won't be much better, but they are, safe to say I couldn't go back, TNs are so washed out it almost appeared black and white sat next to the IPS.

Which is personal pref really, do you want all the eye candy but slower frames or silky smooth fluid gameplay, the difference between 60hz-144hz is probably as bigger jump as 1080p to 4k is. When ingame though you soon forget about the sharpness of 4k while your off playing and shooting people, while the fluidness of high Hz is still there, helping.

I'd think from what you currently have a 120/144hz 1440p panel would be the best upgrade for you, still a nice jump from 1080p 60hz.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts thanks. It does seem from what I'm reading up that the faster refresh but lower resolution is the way to go at the moment.
 
Have taken the plunge for WQHD G-Sync -the Dell S2716DG seems to fit the brief and if I'm lucky a nice man called Richard from DPD will arrive with it later today :D
 
Born_2_Kill_83 said:
This has been talked about many times in different threads, end of the day it comes down to what you prefer, try them both.
4K gaming @ 60fps will cost you 2 Titan X's, doing it on the cheap will cost you a Titan X and a Gsync 4k monitor and you'll be playing FPS in the 40's and it still isn't what I'd call cheap. If your coming down from anything 100hz+ you will feel this and will reflect on your performance in games like BF4.

You can defiantly see the difference between 1440p and 4k, 4k is a far superior quality. IPS is also leagues in front of TN, even the good TN panels.

Personally I went from 4K TN G-Sync to 1440p IPS Ultra wide 100hz G-Sync and have never looked back.

What we really need is a 34" IPS UW4K Gsync 120hz monitor and the hardware to power it.
Click to expand...

4K gaming @ 60Hz is cheaper and faster on AMD Fury X's.
 
Having tried both, 1440p@144hz is the winner for me

No you don't need TitanX's for 4K and certainly not for 1440/144, 980ti's work perfectly fine and overclock better (980ti's also overclock further than FuryX's putting them ahead again, even more so at 1440p)

Neil79 said:
Still needs more off, Gsync monitors of that specification should be 400 at the max
Click to expand...

if freesync monitors of the same spec are also £455, why would the Dell (with better support) be less? that is a cracking price for that type of monitor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom