Hey guys, I'm currently shopping for a new monitor. My old one is starting to fail

Don't buy a g-sync monitor. Chances are if you're running 1440p you'll have a good enough PC that g-sync won't be needed.

As for monitor recommendations I cannot say, I'm waiting for OLED or the next big thing in monitor technology. Right now I have an Asus PG278Q g-sync monitor, I don't use g-sync nor do I need to because I manage 60fps+.

look at what you just said 60 fps , 144 fps is more than double that. also DMC4 is a 7 year old game.

people don't get how much of a jump from these standard displays to "gaming monitors" are. when ever i see some get those monitors shortly after they end up rebuilding their system.

I'm aware. My monitor is only 60hz so I haven't to check how far I can actually push it, but someone with hardware a few steps up from mine will likely hit that easy. My CPU for instance is pretty damn old at this point.
Yes, I'm aware of that. That was part of the whole point of my post.

I should also mention that I can play UT4 well at native resolution. Things weren't maxed, but on high or something. I never checked if I was actually staying at 60 but it looked like it most of the time. Ran beautifully besides the crashing in multiplayer (The reason why I stopped. I should probably check if it's fixed now.)
Meanwhile Redout, which also uses UE4, runs like absolute dogshit despite the ships being a fairly lowpoly racing game.

Optimization is everything.

*despite it being a fairly lowpoly racing game.

I've always had great luck with Acer monitors. Most recently, According to Speccy, they're Acer H236HL ([email protected]/* */). They've got DVI and HDMI ports and run at a pretty good resolution. My graphics card itself is about 2 years old and everything runs like a dream.

I have the HDMI (provides both A/V) from my graphics card to my primary monitor, and my headphones connected to a standard audio jack in the monitor, to supply my headset with sound. Basically, my graphics card is acting as a bridge to give me audio, which I find amusing.

no if you had a good enough system to run a 1440p monitor at 144 fps you wouldn't even be sweating the cost of a monitor with G-sync because you have spent more than that on the video cards.

i don't think there is ONE card out that can get 144 fps at 1440p on any modern game out right now. you are look at two 1080 GTXs to pull that off

we are talking about gaming monitors here, 60 FPS the low end, games should be running 120+ on them.

Monitors are monitors, is there actually that much of a difference? I would think a lot of the noticeability comes from the graphics card, not the display device.

Like, I don't imagine most people here bought a lot of high-end games in the last two years, just because of the limited amount of quality vidya; I'd assume again, that the graphics card, not the monitor, made the biggest difference

That is fucking disgusting. Is that game unoptimized trash or is it that the 1080 can't sli worth a shit?

yes, there is a difference from 60 hz to 144 hz. find some one that has a 144 hz monitor or go to a store that has one there is a big difference.

OP is trying to buy a $400 monitor, what im trying to show is that is a very stupid idea. no one should be buying monitors higher than 1080p if they care about budget

Unless your lcd is 7+ years old dont upgrade unless you want 10bit, 4k, 120+hz with free sync. Don't buy gsync, companies are already dropping support.

You know I was responding to a guy who was knocking resolutions higher than 1080p in general, right?
But like I said, it shouldn't be that big problem for computers that are better than mine. My card is a R9 380, but my CPU is a Phenom II X6
Just someone that sprang for a 390 and a 8350 should be hitting 90 at least.
If you're on the cutting edge with newer stuff 120+ shouldn't be unfathomable for the types of games I speak of either.

its like that for almost every game the 4k push is just market BS most gaming pcs cant run any game on high at 4k and struggle at 1440p

Let me clarify though that I'm talking about 1440p. 4K is obviously another story. It'd probably be around 60-90 with the newest stuff.

Oh, that's fine and I agree. I'm just fairly ignorant to the thing, since I've always gotten pairs of $120 monitors when I needed to

I have that exact monitor.

144hz is amazing, I'll never go back.
1440p is good if you adjust your workflow (if you use your machine for work at all) around having multiple windows open side by side. Say, text editor, terminal, and browser. If you have one window maximized all the time, it isn't really worth it.
FreeSync I almost never use, because you can't have it and the strobed backlight enabled at the same time. I prefer the strobed backlight for reducing motion blur, and I don't really notice tearing when playing FPS at 144hz anyway.

The one big problem with this monitor happens when you combine the strobed backlight with 60hz video modes. It strobes the backlight at 120hz anyway, resulting in horrendous visual artifacts. It's basically unusable at 60hz, which sucks if you wanted to play any console games on it. You have to turn backlight strobing off for that, which gives it the same shitty motion blur and input lag as much cheaper LCDs.

If it still sounds appealing to you, I recommend it. Best monitor I've ever had. If you have doubts, BenQ has a 1080p 144hz strobed backlight monitor that's supposed to be good as well.

I'm a programmer too and wouldn't mind the screen real estate of 1440p. The monitor is on sale at 600 canadollarydoos but I'll look into getting the 1080p one. It will be a drop for me since I am at 1920x1200 right now but because of the 1080p marketing meme thy are extinct.

Yo Holla Forums I'm a graphic artist and I play a shit load of games what is a good IPS monitor that is 1080p and not over 200 bucks?

its because motion blur and retarded AA options nobody uses are sucking up frames.

This I can't stand more than a locked lower rate. This user speaks the truth.

v's recommended monitors

Used.