In which an oldster gamer asks questions about refresh rates and such

[Carpet_pissr]

Simple question that I have not been able to find a straightforward answer to online, via Googling (DuckDuckGoing if you want to be pedantic):

Q: Do monitors with higher refresh rates require a faster GPU, or is the resolution you run in more important (for games, specifically)? Or are both important? I guess that's two/three questions.

The following is just rambling backstory, if you are interested in my dilemma:

I currently have an old Geforce GTX 760 running an old 24" 1080p 60Hz monitor. Up until recently, I have had no problems running any games that I have been interested enough to install and play. Not being able to play games with most if not all graphical goodies turned on, has kind of always been the signal to myself that it was time to upgrade Ye Olde Graphics Carde, but now, you can't even find decent cards in stock for reasonable prices!

I built a second computer for RoF (Rest of Family), and so removed one of my two 24" monitors from my main, gaming/working rig. And going from two monitors to one is painful, especially since I have been doing a LOT of photo editing lately, and having that extra monitor for previews and such was amazing and very efficient.

After much and I mean MUCH research and forum chatting and reading, I have decided that the best monitor path forward for my main/gaming/work rig is the following:
1. A 27" 4K monitor, with very good color, IPS - refresh rate not important (editing/productivity/web browsing monitor)
AND
2. A 30/32/34" VA monitor at something below 4K resolution, with something at or above a 100Hz refresh rate (gaming monitor)

The problem as you might have already guessed, is that I can't find a decently price video card that will run 2. above. I was all set to buy a 1660 quite a while ago (which I am kicking myself now for not doing), while they were in stock, and not being ridiculously overpriced due to demand, but I saw that RTX cards were coming out, and multiple sources were saying WAIT!!!! DO NOT BUY NOW!!! There's a new card coming that will be CHEAPER than the current RTX card, AND FASTER BY A LOT!!! What those ppl did not say was that it would be damn near impossible to actually BUY that card, and not only that, but the resulting market would make buying ANY decent, recent video card a very spendy, and luck demanding proposition.

So here I am, assuming that the supply/demand and production issues that are wreaking havoc on the GPU market, will continue for at least another 8-12 months.

I'm really MORE interested in just adding the larger gaming monitor at this point (2. above), as I have a pretty decent (but smallish) 24" IPS monitor that I use for everything now. So that means I need to consider the limitations of my current video card wrt the potential new monitor. Considering I am coming from 60Hz, I am totally fine with a 100Hz gaming monitor, ESPECIALLY if that means that I could get by with my current card for a while. But if 144Hz (much more common, now) is more demanding on the GPU than lower refresh rates, then that narrows my search.

Please OO, you''re my only hope! (imagine me wrapped in a sheet saying that in a low res, ghostly image)

[dfs]

Q: Do monitors with higher refresh rates require a faster GPU, or is the resolution you run in more important (for games, specifically)? Or are both important? I guess that's two/three questions.

No. The monitors refresh rate is entirely a function of hardware internal to the monitor and has nothing to do with the input.

As a general rule resolution is what makes things crisper/sharper. Adding resolution will effect the performance of your gpu. Namely more pixels to fill means more computation means more for the gpu to do.

Refresh rate......Some time ago ...back in the days of tube monitors....I had a monitor with a a lower refresh rate that I preferred over monitors with a similar resolution. The difference had to do with color fidelity and my eye more than the refresh rate.

[Blackhawk]

No. The monitors refresh rate is entirely a function of hardware internal to the monitor and has nothing to do with the input.

This is true, with a caveat: if your framerate is distinctly below your refresh rate, you'll need account for that in games with things like vsync and buffering settings, or else you can get tearing (a type of artifact.) That can affect performance, but not significantly in most games. 4k resolution won't tax your card much more, but you'll won't be setting games at 4k resolution. You'll be setting them lower (1080) and letting the monitor upscale it (I've never had this, so you'll have to do some reading.)

To be honest, if I were going to suggest a monitor to anyone for gaming these days, my suggested priorities would be:

1. 144Hz refresh rate. This does make a difference.
2. 4k resolution
2 (tied). Gsync capability or compatibility (if you're going to stick with Nvidia cards.)
3. A fast response time (preferably 2ms or less.) This one is flexible if you don't play fast paced games that require speed and precision. Don't go too much higher, though.

I usually advise people to go with standard resolutions/refresh rates, etc, as you'll have fewer problems down the road getting things to play nice. I'd get the monitor now, and upgrade the card later.

[Carpet_pissr]

Thanks guys!

So just to clarify, two exact same spec monitors except for refresh rate (say one is 144Hz and the other 75Hz), would not tax a GPU any differently?

Great news! Makes picking out a monitor much easier.

I’m strongly considering a 144Hz Ultrawide 34”, 3440x1440, hoping that my card is powerful enough to work with that. If not, I assume I can lower the res?

[coopasonic]

2. 4k resolution

I think 1440p is a pretty reasonable target.

I’m strongly considering a 144Hz Ultrawide 34”, 3440x1440, hoping that my card is powerful enough to work with that. If not, I assume I can lower the res?

You really want to use your monitor's native rez.

Also this is more of a General Computing topic. Gaming in General is probably not a very accurate or specific enough name for this forum.

[Kasey Chang]

Personally... I have a monitor (Acer XFA240) that is capable of 144 Hz but I don't use it in that mode because it's more trouble than it's worth, IMHO. My video card (RTX2070) is certainly capable of it, with or without the NVIDIA N-SYNC, but most games don't refresh the screen that much anyway. And my experience with it was the monitor keeps popping into and out of N-SYNC that I just stopped using that altogether.

I think it's a gimmick to trick players into buying ever-larger video cards and more costly monitors. It may give you a slight edge in e-sports but the edge would be so small it's IMHO not worth pursuing.

OTOH, I do mainly programming, web browsing, and single-monitor gaming on my dual monitor setup (2 different 24 inch monitors) so YMMV. I don't dual-monitor game as I find that big monitor gap in the middle very distracting.

[Carpet_pissr]

Well, for the gaming monitor, I just bought a Dell 32", not the one I listed specs for above. 2560x1440 vs 3440x1440. This one is not an ultrawide, so it's going to be easier for either my existing card, or if I can find a reasonably new card, to "drive" it I guess.

https://slickdeals.net/f/14832817-32-de ... BarV2Algo1

32" Dell S3220DGF 2560x1440 QHD 165Hz VA Curved FreeSync Monitor w/ HDR

About $300 after everything (cashback, discounts, etc). Not too bad!

Rtings.com review is very good: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3220dgf

Now I need to settle on the 4K 27" non-gaming monitor - any recommendations?

[Blackhawk]

Personally... I have a monitor (Acer XFA240) that is capable of 144 Hz but I don't use it in that mode because it's more trouble than it's worth, IMHO. My video card (RTX2070) is certainly capable of it, with or without the NVIDIA N-SYNC, but most games don't refresh the screen that much anyway. And my experience with it was the monitor keeps popping into and out of N-SYNC that I just stopped using that altogether.

I think it's a gimmick to trick players into buying ever-larger video cards and more costly monitors. It may give you a slight edge in e-sports but the edge would be so small it's IMHO not worth pursuing.

I can promise you it's not, and it isn't about the framrate that the games can pump out, either. 60 FPS looks considerably smoother on a 144hz monitor than it does on a 60hz monitor. It's a very noticeable difference in smoothness and fluidity of motion, especially when you move your viewpoint in a game. It may not make any difference at all if you only play Civ, but for fast paced games it does. It also makes your inputs more responsive (a good mouse updates its position many times faster than 144Hz.)

[Carpet_pissr]

Personally... I have a monitor (Acer XFA240) that is capable of 144 Hz but I don't use it in that mode because it's more trouble than it's worth, IMHO. My video card (RTX2070) is certainly capable of it, with or without the NVIDIA N-SYNC, but most games don't refresh the screen that much anyway. And my experience with it was the monitor keeps popping into and out of N-SYNC that I just stopped using that altogether.

I think it's a gimmick to trick players into buying ever-larger video cards and more costly monitors. It may give you a slight edge in e-sports but the edge would be so small it's IMHO not worth pursuing.

I can promise you it's not, and it isn't about the framrate that the games can pump out, either. 60 FPS looks considerably smoother on a 144hz monitor than it does on a 60hz monitor. It's a very noticeable difference in smoothness and fluidity of motion, especially when you move your viewpoint in a game. It may not make any difference at all if you only play Civ, but for fast paced games it does. It also makes your inputs more responsive (a good mouse updates its position many times faster than 144Hz.)

Yes, V-Sync (on or off, can't remember which way it works) is and always has been a noticeable, ugly effect on most of the games I play, ESPECIALLY as noted, FPS games. Truly awful at 60Hz.

It's the reason that even for my non-gaming monitor purchase, I want something with at LEAST a 75Hz refresh rate (100Hz would be ideal), if only for the general smoothness you find in mundane OS or browser actions like moving windows around.

[Kasey Chang]

FWIW, have you looked at Monoprice monitors recently?

[Carpet_pissr]

FWIW, have you looked at Monoprice monitors recently?

Yep. I saw more than a few owners who were not happy and returned, and other comments that they buy B stock, etc.

Just too many negative comments for me to buy when there are so many good deals on tried and true monitors, with tons of pro reviews. I buy their other stuff (cables, and even have some Monoprice branded in-wall speakers), but I will stick with other brands for something I am going to be looking at for hours every day.

Their whole deal is (or at least was, I assume still is) "value", but I doubt they would be able to beat the price I got (considering same specs, quality, etc) for the Dell.

[Kasey Chang]

FWIW, there's an Acer 27 inch curved capable of 165 Hz for $220 right now on Amazon. VG27VH1B

[Carpet_pissr]

I already bought the gaming monitor (Dell), so my 27"er will be "everything else" - primarily web browsing, office stuff, lots of photo editing. So I don't really care about refresh rate for that one.

In order of importance, for the 27":
Resolution (I guess 4K)/ high PPI
Price
Color accuracy
Refresh rate (anything above 75Hz will be fine)

[Kasey Chang]

Woot has a Samsung 34" ultrawide refurb for 229. Max refresh is only 75 Hz though with FreeSync compatibility.

They have a 27" G7 that can go 240 Hz G-SYNC 1440p

[Carpet_pissr]

Dude. :p

[Blackhawk]

Black hawk <---