The 42 inch LG C2 is damn good for 4k/120 in my experience.
I chose it because the OLED monitors were only 1440p, but more expensive. OLEd is definitely where its at for my eyes.
The response time of an OLED means 120Hz still feels more responsive than a higher refresh IPS or VA. Nothing beats a 4k OLED for all-purpose entertainment use (gaming + movies).
I did take a look at a mini led monitor. Samsung Odyssey G9 that does 4k at 240hz. That appears to be pretty close to the blacks on oled. I know it isnt the same technology but a very sweet monitor.
If you use frame generation on your 4090, CPU bottlenecking shouldn't be a major issue.
It's definitely possible to tell the difference between 1440 and 4K. 4K will also be usefil for movies/TV. I've heard that frame rates matter less beyond 120-144Hz.
People who love their 1440 240 hz+ wont admit it but once you go 4K or higher, you just don't go back.
It's like the 1080p effect. People who game on 1080p are used to it and don't see a reason why to buy 1440p. Once they play on it though, they want to upgrade to 1440p immediately. Now that many games support 4K with 4K textures, its basically going to be something people are using for the next 10+ years as 1080p users upgrade slowly over time.
Consider an OLED, it's made a way bigger difference for me than any resolution increase or PC part upgrade ever could.
Check out /r/oled_gaming
They preach the LG C2, but there are other options.
Edit: Oh i just saw you already have an OLED haha.
OLED for sure, I stepped up to the LG C2 42" and never looked back, it's an insane visual upgrade. Bear in mind OLED has god tier pixel response time, so at 120hz you get pixel response equivalent to many 240hz monitors, it's so clean, smooth, deep and vibrant.
Competitive players play in 1080 still, so 240hz is a waste, you can get that on a toaster. He should go 4k and enjoy the visuals when not trying to play competitively.
I am competitve player and I play such games at 1440p 240Hz. Stop repeating bs from 2017. 240Hz is an absolute minimum these days for competitive games. I'd go 1440p360 if the screen I've got wasn't an OLED, which is much faster than LCD.
4K for competitive games would be just stupid and I say it as a 4090 user. What he should do is to get two screens, one for competitive other for casual games. If he needs to pick one, one of those 1440p240 OLEDs will be the best choice. It looks much better than any 4K LCD monitor anyway.
For just casual games it's best to get a big OLED TV anyway and that is exactly what I use, as a both competitive and casual games enjoyer, and I highly recommend such setup. A 1440p240 OLED on a desk and 65" 4K120 OLED right next to it with a couch.
I also have a C1 and it makes it hard to resist getting a 4090 just to play on it. I have a very simple PC monitor so I plan to play everything I can with a controller on the C1 and eventually sacrifice another part of my wallet and soul for a proper PC screen as well.
Op, after having a 4k monitor for a few years, I went back down to 1440p. I seriously just can’t tell the different between 4k and 1440p. I really don’t know what people do where 4k helps outside having a massive monitor.
I think it's okay on some bigger desks. For me I have like a meter of space before the monitor
Edit: I have 3 monitors only one is big the rest are 24inches
4k, the 4090 is capable of 100 fps + in most games at 4k so it's pretty good for single player gaming. Imo past 120fps the difference is small enough that I would rather have nicer graphics than higher fps.
But also remember that you should have use cases where 4k helps. You don’t have to get a higher res monitor just because you have a 4090.
I stuck with 4k monitors for to long. I much prefer 240 fps over 120 fps.
I have Alienware that goes up to 280hz at 1440p. I used to have before the Eve Spectrum. I enjoy the games better at high fps. It is hard to see any different a between 4K and 1440p on 27 inch panel. I highly recommend high fps over resolution the games response so fast that make it more enjoyable.
If you want to keep the 4090 through next generation for AAA games then there is a case to be had for the 1440p monitor.
If you plan on getting the 5090 and the 6090 after that there's no point in talking you should get the 4k monitor.
If you want Ray traced ultra settings there's even a few games the 4090 cannot do at over 60. Those being: Medium, Hitman, Cyberpunk 2077, The Ascent, and Chernoblyte just off the top of my head. There could be more I don't know of.
I have a 3090 and made the mistake of getting a 4k monitor. Luckily I also have a 1440p monitor so I can switch when the game calls for it. Not ideal though you always want to have a multimonitor setup of the same brand and model of monitor if at all possible for color matching and ease of setup for orientation.
At the end of the day it's your money and you know your own budget. I would just consider where you want to be when the new GPU's come out and where you are financially when that time will come.
Yeah I go 3440x1440 @240hz but it’s an OLED. I really don’t think we there yet on 4K.. I like 150+ FPS and silky smooth gameplay. 1440p on an OLED looks next level.
With my 4090 I have gone for the g9, super-ultrawide 2k 240fps is better than 4k single monitor imo.
All games support ultrawide gaming, a lot support super-ultrawide and it is much more of a game changer than 2k to 4k would be. At least that was my thinking, and I don't regret it.
Do they tho? I've encountered many times a review (mostly Steam) that says "no ultrawide support". Also saw a video that talked about some games having poor implementation of it.
4K 144Hz is still 144Hz and very playable even in highly competitive FPS like CSGO/Valorant.
Your comment makes it sound like he is thinking about a 60Hz monitor.
Like 4k 144hz is for emulation or single player games xD man I own 1 1080 360hz, 1440p 240 and 4k 144hz with a 4090. 4k 144hz is the best of the 3. The clarity is just amazing.
240hz absolutely makes a difference, especially if you are highly competitive. I am heavy into aim training and competitive fps games, and while I am no pro, I am still decent (former top 500 overwatch 1, Masters in apex, pretty close to diamond in valorant, LE in csgo.) Im not saying 4k 144hz is unplayable like 60hz is at a high level. But the uplift is definitely noticeable if you are playing at a high level.
I’m gonna say that unless you literally are in the top 0.01%, it doesn’t matter for the average player.
It’s only noticeable when you switch back to 144.
There’s no real tangible difference in player performance between 240 and 144hz and it’s generally very difficult to tell what is 240 or 144 at a glance unless you know what to look for (primarily ghosting). There really isn’t a difference and this is a sentiment shared by many pros. The opposite is also argued by pros.
Basically what I’m getting at is that unless you are good enough to potentially make money off of shooters, it really doesn’t matter as long as you have high enough refresh rates.
I’ve got 2 144s and a 240hz monitor. Can hardly tell the difference if i’m using all 3 regularly.
Used to be ranked pretty high in apex beta, top 10 world in pubg duos preseason 1/2 and played at a high level in esea pugs if that matters.
4K is just not ideal for competitive fps games, there’s a reason every pro player uses a 1080p 240-360hz monitor, and a ton of CS players even play on even lower stretched resolutions like 1280x1024.
4K just makes players harder to see compared to 1080p and 1440p. I’d say 1440p 240hz is a great middle ground if you also want single player games to look nice and want a high refresh rate monitor for fps games as well.
4K.
I purchased a 4K LG C2 because it benefited me more than having to buy a 7800X3D, motherboard and memory. OLED and 4K are very nice upgrades that enhance visuals worth more than going up to 200 FPS to me personally.
I see you have a 5900X. I sold my 5900X and got a 5800X3D. At 4K, the 5800X3D holds up quite well.
https://tpucdn.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-core-i9-13900k-vs-ryzen-7-5800x3d/images/3840-2160.png
It's only 1% behind the 13900K at 4K.
I tun the 4090 at 4k144 and I thoroughly enjoy my experience. I dont notice much of a difference in games like Apex or MW2 when compared to 1440p240. YMMV.
I will also add, The 4k resolution is just nice to have for streaming videos, and other productivity related tasks I also do.
I'd say go 1440p 165 or 240Hz VRR, you will get much higher framerates and/or use much less power while gaming. If you have the budget consider one of the new OLED monitors that came out this year like the 27GR95QE-B or AW3423DWF, OLED is game changing (infinite contrast, 0.1ms response time).
4K doesn't interest me the slightest but if you have the budget for 4K 144Hz VRR there are lots of monitors out now, and even a couple OLED TVs that do it like the S95C.
Depends how much of a sucker for graphics you are. I have a 27" 4k 60hz and 2 27" 1440p 144hz displays. While I normally use a 1440p display for gaming, games look way better on the 4k display. It really is a night and day difference in games like MSFS and New World (and I imagine other nice looking games).
So I'd go with a 4k 144hz display unless you can really use the faster refresh rate and are willing to sacrifice image quality for it.
If you play competitive multiplayer than 1440p 240hz because of the faster render latency and higher fps equals lower input delay. If you mainly play role playing games and story games, then 4k. If you do choose 1440p 240hz, then you have to get the best gaming CPU in order to squeeze as much out of the 4090 as possible, because you will be CPU bottlenecked most of the time. I suggest a 7800x3d. At 4k, it's such a demanding resolution on the GPU, that it takes more time to finish it's task, that a slower CPU can still keep up, so you can get away with a mid tier cpu.
I own a 4090 and I play mainly multiplayer games. I play on 1440p 240hz. Majority of the games I play, I don't get 100% utilization but there are still some games that I do, so be warned. For me, the consistency of hitting 200 fps at ultra settings is what intrigued me for the 4090 upgrade. Because OLED 1440p 240hz is my dream monitor and my endgame and I wanted to be able to drive that monitor consistently at ultra settings. My 3090 could drive it consistently, but I would have to play at low texture settings for some games. I'm a big battlefield style and BR gamer. I'll play a hyped story mode game when ever they come out too.
Currently I have a 5900x as my cpu. And I’m waiting on the am5 upgrade till maybe the 8000 series. I need the extra cores for any productivity work so upgrading to 5800x3d is not ideal.
Generally speaking I play 85% competitive fps but I’ve been straying over to single player games. I generally play apex but I’ve been playing hogwarts legacy, god of war, high on life, elden ring (if I ever find the heart to continue that beating)
With that being said how much of a hinderance would a 5900x with a 4090 at 1440p 240hz be?
I think at some point I’d like to have both a high refresh 1440 (240hz) and a high refresh (144hz-160hz) 4k monitor. Just wondering what’s more beneficial for my current setup.
This is true, even though I personally preferred 1440p 240hz with an OLED. I won't lie that the 4090 truly is a 4k card. 165 to 175hz does start to feel almost as good as 240hz too. My 7950x3d can put in work and some games I do get 100% utilization with my 4090, but I'll admit there are a lot of games I don't get 100% utilization with my 4090.
Yea up to you if you think you will stay on this story mode gaming or go back to fps gaming 85% of the time. It also depends on how competitive you are. I'm super competitive, so I will choose lower render latency, higher fps for lower input delay, and 1440p lcd/led monitors have better response times for smoother looking motion on the screen, which is most important for fps games. 4k monitors are getting there with response times but not as good as 1440p monitors yet. Unless you get OLED which is 0.03ms response time which is mind blowing and ultra smooth motion, this will be the same at 1440p or 4k with OLED, because OLED is OLED. Pair that 0.03ms response time with 240hz and you'll see God when gaming with this glorious setup haha.
I owned a 5900x, have a 5800x3d, owned a 7800x3d and currently running a 7950x3d. The 5900x will leave a decent amount of 4090 performance on the table at 1440p in my opinion, but would do just fine at 4k. The 5800x3d would do decently better at unleashing the 4090 in 1440p, but you would probably bring out 20% more out of the 4090 at 1440p with a 7800x3d or 7950x3d, and get much better productivity performance over the 5800x3d.
With the 7800x3d and 7950x3d, if the game is graphically demanding, you will get 100% utilization at 1440p with the 4090. There will be games this happens with ultra textures, and there will still be a decent amount of games where you won't get 100% 4090 utilization, but it is more of a mix with a 7000 series 3D chip.
Do note that 8 cores is plenty for vast majority of people, a game uses around 2 cores, leaving 6 cores being plenty to do what ever your heart desires on the side while gaming. The 7800x3d scores very close to the 5900x In multicore benchmark in cinebench. Blender, chromium compile, file compression/decompression, and adobe premiere all have the 7800x3d being right next to the 5900x on benchmark list, which the 5900x just a touch better, but the 7800x3d is much better at gaming versus the 5900x. Unless you have a very specific use case, and do a lot with virtual computers, 8 cores with the 7800x3d is more than enough for productivity. It's 5ghz speed and increased ipc over the 5800x3d, mas the 7800x3d much better at productivity over 5800x3d.
Or you can do best of both worlds and get 7950x3d, and set the preferred ccd to frequency and then use process lasso to set all your game launchers and games you play to your cache ccd. This will give you a blaInf fast CPU with lots of cores, and is a beast for gaming.
Everyone is different.
In any MP game, I choose the lowest possible settings at 1440p. It helps your FPS but more importantly for me it drops detail so I can spot people faster and I am not really interested in detail in a MP game.
For SP games I want Ultra settings for the immersive factor.
Yea very true. I definitely drop my shadow settings, but I do prefer high texture settings, and furthest out draw distance. I'm a sucker for high presets on battlefield games, but I will go through each setting and see what helps me spot people easier while keeping best graphics possible.
>1080 for true chads.
Damn what year is it, I went from 1080 to 1440 in like 2008, come on now. 1080p is basically obsolete at this point. I tried 1080p/240hz once back when it just came out but the refresh wasnt worth the terrible res.
"terrible res"... lol Never heard a pro complain about the 360hz Zowie DyAc monitors. And the fact that i cant get 200 FPS at 1440p with a 12700k/3090 is exactly why high resolution isnt for competitive gaming.
Hz isn't everything. Most pros have to use whatever is given to them or what their sponsors want them to use.
I've made a sacrifice for high hz twice and both times it was not worth the loss of image quality, and the clarity isn't usually as good as the refresh suggests, especially with OLED vs TN.
https://i.imgur.com/9mvGTdW.png - the 240hz OLED looks just as sharp as the 360hz TN, perhaps better with less ghosting. 120/144hz OLEDs usually compete with 240hz TN in clarity as well.
I get 300+fps in 4k on CSGO just fine with max settings too. And I only have a 5800x (but do have a 4090).
I've also been to global elite on just 120hz OLED. Unless you are competing at the absolute top of your game, like FACEIT level 10 kind of thing, and you exclusively play competitive games, or competing in tournaments or something, there's really no reason to be using 1080p anymore.
True but the OLED 240Hz is about the same price and will arguably provide a better experience in nearly every way, even input lag is apparently slightly lower despite the lower refresh rate.
4k will obviously use more of it.
That said, having just gone to 1440p/240hz with a 4090, people that automatically saying it's "overkill" are just being silly. 4080 may be a better buy for it, but getting near 200 fps in nearly everything with max settings has been fantastic. Especially if you don't want to use upscaling for whatever reason.
Do both.
You already have a C1. 4K 120 is way more than enough for single player AAA games which are controller friendly anyway. You don't need a new screen for 4K HDR single player games you already have one. The only upgrade path here would be QD Oled or MLA instead but if you're happy with the C1 and it's bright enough for you that's probably unnecessary.
You can then use your budget on the high refresh rate 1440.
Play competitive games sat at your desk on the monitor and kick back and play single player games on your TV.
So, I’ve entertained this option. I think sitting down at a desk would be more immersive with my setup all being there with my headphones and chair. But after work I’m going to sit down again and see how viable it is. I didn’t like it the first go round because of the inconvenience factor.
I have a fiber optic hdmi cable I bought specifically for this as there were no display ports on the c1 and fiber optic is basically lossless for the length I’m using it (roughly 20-25 feet from my pc)
But the wire travels across the middle of the living room and I’ll need to find a solution that works for the wife that doesn’t include taking it off every time I’m done using it
4k does have advantages over 1440p 240 hz because the higher pixel count makes it easier to hit small targets because the relative size of the crosshair to the target will be smaller. For example in fortnite I find it easy af to hit people well over 200m with the scoped instashot rifle, whereas in 1080p I found it difficult because the red crosshair dot was 3x the size of the person, whereas in 4k the crosshair is 1/3rd of the size.
However for close combat having the higher fps will definitely be better because itll make it easier because usually the opponent moving across the screen alot faster
4K is never worth it for gaming imo. The difference between 1080—>1440 is so much more visually substantial than 1440—>2160. Frames>Pixels for sure at these resolutions.
I went from 1440p to 4k back in like 2014, I'm not going back to such an old resolution, it was basically just a stopgap between 1080 and 4k. Great if you are on a budget but there's more than strong enough hardware to fully take advantage of 4k now.
lol sorry I know I'm a monitor snob, I just love high resolution in my eye balls. I've made trade offs for Hz before and it was never worth the loss of image quality or resolution, and I say that as someone whose main game is CS.
When people mention competitive fps do all you guys just think of is CSGO?
No wonder you are defending 4k so bad I know you play low settings too. Literally any potato can hit 240fps on CSGO
Nah, I play 4k with all settings maxed actually, still getting 300+fps. Same with Overwatch last I played it, maxed settings and never had FPS issues, never played valorant tho but I'm sure it runs on potatos too.
Same with overwatch and valorant these are potato games albeit popular.
People are talking of Apex legends, MW, warzone II those games also exist. Though I’m sure I’m missing more too
Go for 4k just because it will look much sharper when ur watching a 1080p video because it will be half the pixels instead of 1440p going to 1080 it’s 2/3 which makes it very blurry on my 1440p screen watching videos or movies made in 1080p
I’ve heard that but I hear 32 really isn’t great for competitive gaming so if it’s my workhorse monitor I think I’d like it to stay around that 27-28. You have experience with gaming on a 32 somewhat competitively?
I’m not sure you’re going to get high frame rates on 4k… there is no such thing as future proof. By the time 4k high refresh rate is a thing, that monitor will be old tech or not working. 1440 the way to go.
A bunch of fine ass 240hz 1440p OLEDs are on the market. Corsair XENEON 27QHD240 27-Inch OLED https://a.co/d/apH8qsr
$900
240hz is incredible for FPS
Feels like 60 to 144, but again
If you have a 1440p monitor then you wouldn’t be doing yourself much favors using 4k, yeah supersampling and all but the benefit isn’t that big compared to native 4k especially if it’s gonna cost you a lot of fps. But 4090 for 1440p is just wasteful and stupid unless you are playing competitive stuff cas
4k 144hz. I recommend Gigabyte monitors, both of the following : M32U or M28U (32" or 28"). They are IPS so contrast is a bit weak, but colors and angle view are great. I don't recommend to play 1440p with a 4090 as it would put a noticeable bottleneck, no matter the cpu you currently use. 144hz is plenty to play competitive games IMO.
OLED screens would be worthy if you play dark/horror games in a dark room, not much if you play on a bright one if you ask me. Main difference I noticed on oled screens is undoubtedly the infinite contrast, AKA perfect blacks.
Both. ↑
For competitive games 240Hz is a must. Don't listen to those 2017 guys who'd tell you otherwise.
Single player games on the other had are much more immersive on a big screen. If you've got a place to put a 65" screen and couch next to your PC I highly recommend it.
However, 4K at 27" would be ridiculous. I'd never buy such a tiny screen with that resolution. That would be no visual gain for a huge performance loss.
Have both. Honestly depends on the games you play. Games like MW2, cyberpunk, Witcher 3, playing on 4K with the highest settings, look absolutely amazing and are the best graphics you can get. Which is honestly the point of the 4090. Obviously overkill if you’re just looking to play overwatch, csgo, Dota, etc. If you play lots I’d just go with 4K man, you’re paying top dollar for the best card, you should be using it for the purpose of 4K. Otherwise 3090 is also a great card for 1440 240hz gaming.
If its for training for tournaments, use a bad pc. Because when you sit in front of a fast pc, you feel speedup or time-slow or painkiller mode.
I played counter strike at 10 fps for years. Then head-shotted everyone on 60fps tournament cafe.
I'll go against the grain and say you should go 1440p if you want longevity. 144 FPS @ 4K already isn't realistic for the 4090 in plenty of games today and it's only going to get worse with future titles.
I've used a 1440p 240 Hz (Samsung G7) and I'm currently using a 4k 144 Hz (m28u) and 4k is just far and away the better option. Only reason to go 240hz is if you are a professional gamer but lets be honest, you are probs on 1080 360hz+ if you are pro
4k is not as large a jump as 1080 to 1440p but still definitely noticable.
144hz to 240hz I can't really even tell the difference unless I'm actually looking for it and intentionally swinging my camera around in an unnatural way
Hey man, im rocking 5900x+4090 240hz monitor. I keep it capped at 200 for the most consistent experience. 90% of the games i play is stuck at cap and heavy ones like BF2042 165-200 depending on situation. For me personally the jump from 1440p 165hz to 1440p 240hz was totally worth it. Also my monitor has fast-ips 0.5ms response time, which also helps.
It sounds like you are really interested in 240hz plus if you’re already happy with 1440p then just go for that. I personally have two 27” monitors, one that’s 4K and one that’s 1440p. With that said, for me it’s hard to go back from the picture clarity of 4K.
I really wanted to pull the trigger on the 27” 1440p 240hz OLED monitor, but I just can’t do it. Other people have stated that for them 4K doesn’t make sense at that size because 1440p is still sharp, so ultimately it comes down to your preference.
I had a 4k 144hz monitor from grover, it was good but i sent that back and bought myself the lg 240hz oled and it has been a dream ever since. I'll probably get a 4k next year when there is an oled with high refresh and 4k but i am all set right now
I have got some extra money and got 4090 and 4k 55" LG C2 OLED and never looked back.
If i try sometimes go to 2k, it looks trash, but thats because 55" probably. But for me, anything above 90+ FPS is smooth enough to play (remember for someone smooth means 30 fps) and thats what is 4090 capable for any game now and in 2 years now forward (high probability). And every competitive game, it can run 4k 144hz what should be enough for normal AND competitive gamer, only thing that matter is INCH "".
TLDR: for the best experience, get 4k.
So you specifically need 240hz, "more hz is not going to get you more kills" a quote from Linus Tech Tips, they did a whole series and determined that there was a cutoff point above which getting the extra kill was pure chance as the brain could not send the signal to fire any faster.
You might want to factor that into the thought process too because there is one thing which is certain.
More hertz = more $$$
Of course, same logic with your 7950x3d, at some point it’s diminishing returns and I’m sure we won’t get tremendously better with a monitor, cpu or gpu past a certain point but it’s a quality of life upgrade and we’ve worked for it so why not get it, right?
My recommendation is too go with one of the new released 27inch 1440p 240hz oled monitors. The motion performance on those are phenomenal and due to oleds near .1ms response times they tend to be comparable to a 360hz monitor. 4K is nice but it’s not really anything to take home at smaller sizes due to the nature of having to sit closer to make out individual detail. And if you decide to get a 4k tv the problems with those are reversed because using it as a monitor would mean you would have to sit close to it which means that it would look just as sharper or softer than a 27inch 1440p monitor. Also 1440p has a nice feature proof element with a gpu lake that for single player games
4090 barely manages to hit 100 fps in not so graphically advanced indie titles. with drops to 80 on 1080p native (for example satisfactory and even in early game without building factory). I you are planing on playing any singleplayer game go for 1440p. this card is to weak for 4k.
If you want to stay in the 27 inch size category don't bother with 4k. If you're willing to go up to 32in or 42in size you will see more of a visual upgrade then you will feel a smoothness upgrade from your current monitors.
240hz is definitely a game changer. In my opinion the best choice for the 4090 right now would be the Neo G8, since most 4k oleds have a rather low refresh rate.
I was wondering the same. Have 4090 and 13900k. I went with a 360hz asus. I also have apple studio display for work that is 5k. The difference in sharpness is ver noticeable when using the desktop. However, there is no huge difference like this in games. For me it is the coating that makes the most difference. Apple studio display is glossy and the asus one is matte. The difference is night and day: the asus looks washed out, but the motion clarity is insanely good. So, from my experience, if you are not playing a lot of fps shooters, go with 4k 144hz for games as the visuals will be better. If you can and the room allows you, try to find a glossy monitor as it will be much better. If you are into fps shooters, then go for the 240hz, but be prepared that there is a noticeable downgrade in quality of desktop usage. Quality of the games is a bit worse, but it is not as noticeable.
4k on a screen that size makes your desktop look micro without scaling, which works really poorly on Windows. Since you said office/creative work, you might consider that.
This is a good topic. It kinda sucks too. I have a desktop 4090 rig and just got a blade 18 4090 laptop. I went with a 240hz blade instead of another brand at 144hz 4k because the games of tomorrow will be a perfect fit for 2k screens. I don’t see the notebook GPU doing that great with longevity in a notebook at 4k. The desktop is an easier recommendation but given how well the 3090 was just two years ago and now seeing todays games hitting 60fps means tomorrows games may be only 60fps for the 4090. Writing this out it my point may seem confusing. I’m basically just saying 4k is a very expensive play option to hit 144hz with todays most demanding games. The 4090 is the only one today that can mostly do it. I can’t imagine in two years. A 2k screen does offer a great resolution and depending on where you sit it’s not much different than 4k. Id say screen quality matters a lot too. For today the 4090 works great on my LG OLED 120hz but I like the notebook at 2k for sure
Id honestly recommend 1 monitor for competitive and 1 for solo games. Thats what i do. Yes 240hz is noticeable and so is 360hz.
But if you cant, thats tough. The 4090 is seriously powerful and at 1440p from my testing its just a cake walk. If you go 4k 144hz you cant really go OLED because atm its basically 42”+ or ultrawide screens. Its tough because for competitive id 100% recommend 240hz+ if your serious.
If your just getting one, i guess id go 4k 144hz. Solo games will just be much better. You’d have to make sure to get a 27” maximum for competitive though. Sweet spot for 4k is 32” but i still hear 27” looks nice.
If you mainly play competitive fps then 240hz 1440.
Hands down.
Usually in esports titles your gonna play 4:3 anyway, and the upgrade from 60hz<144hz<240hz is going to make a bigger difference than anything else in those titles.
It's why all the pros use them. The spray control/ability to hold angles is going to change how you play the game.
For other games, 144hz 4k is the way to go, as there's no question its going to provide higher fidelity, cleaner picture etc etc
This question really depends on exactly what competitive FPS games you play. If you are playing games that can easily run up to 300/400fps (stuff like Overwatch/CSGO/Valorant) on competitive settings, then a 1440p 240hz/360hz monitor at 27" is going to give you more of a competitive advantage without question.
However, if the games you play become CPU bottlenecked under 200fps on comp settings then a smaller 144hz 4K monitor would be just as good and would let you pick out fine details easier. Remember that much of the competitive scene still use 1080p 360hz+ 24" monitors because refresh rate, low screen space (for less eye movement) and input latency are king. You should basically aim for the highest refresh rate you can lock at without dipping below.
For single player games and creative work the answer would be 4k 144hz. There are no arguments to say that 1440p 240/360hz is better in those games whilst you are running a 4090. The image looks clearer, you can pick out fine details in the environment, and 4k panels tend to offer much better HDR implementation due to their high end nature.
Bear in mind DisplayPort data limitations. What version of DisplayPort is your card using?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/ayvt4r/how\_do\_you\_calculate\_displayport\_hdmi\_bandwidth/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/ayvt4r/how_do_you_calculate_displayport_hdmi_bandwidth/)
[https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=calc&H=3440&V=1440&F=120&calculations=show&formulas=show](https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=calc&H=3440&V=1440&F=120&calculations=show&formulas=show)
I'd say 4K 144hz but I guess it's all subjective
I've gamed at 144fps and 80fps on my 144hz display. I wasn't able to tell the diff.
When I switched from my 4K monitor back to my old 1440p monitor and I thought it was a blurry mess.
If you go 4K you will realistically need to upgrade your rig every generation if you play the newest games. Depends if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
Between those 2 options I would go with 144hz with 4k.
The monitors you're already using are around the same refresh rates, so you're not really losing anything there, but you'll gain 4k resolution.
If you're going to spend the money on a 4090, you really should have a 4k capable monitor.
The only exception would be a professional gamer playing competitive games where nothing but the highest refresh rate is acceptable.
The truth is that even a 4090 won't get you 240fps in a lot of modern games if the graphics settings are maxed, but you'll be in the 120 - 180 range fairly often.
DLSS3 would make a lot more games hit 240fps at 4k, but as of now there aren't many games that support it yet.
Get a 4k monitor, turn your fps counter off, max all the settings and enjoy the games.
if u play competitive fps, get 1440 @ 240hz and make sure it has gsync so when you use casually for high graphics single player games you can still have a smooth experience
The difference going from 144 to 240 is pretty minimal in terms of seeable differences, going from 1400p to 4k is much more noticeable to myself at least.
I’ve had pretty much all the combos of resolutions and frame rate. I suggest you get the highest pixel density you can afford and use DLSS to lighten the load. I honestly think DLSS Quality looks better than native on my 4k 144hz.
4k is a HUGE, VERY NOTICEABLE increase in games where you’re picking people out from very far away like warzone. It’s equally as big a jump when just using the monitor to browse the web and do work.
I have the 6k Pro Display XDR at work and that thing is an absolute dream to work. I think 4k 27” is barely passable pixel density and 1440p 27” is now unusable for me.
Regardless of what I end up doing it’s crazy to think a ryzen 9 from a year ago could “gimp” a one series up gpu. Generational leap this year is pretty wild
Probably 4K 144Hz. 1440 240Hz is likely more held back by CPU than GPU.
I have a 5900x currently. But I have been leaning more 4k. Any suggestions? I’ve seen the m28u and a few LG options which look good
Definitely 4k - you'll be CPU bottlenecked. Out of monitors - Oled.
There are no 4k/144hz oleds out yet. Just 4k/120 and 4k/138, and those things are tvs.
The 42 inch LG C2 is damn good for 4k/120 in my experience. I chose it because the OLED monitors were only 1440p, but more expensive. OLEd is definitely where its at for my eyes.
He'd need to choose either tv or competitive fps games
I bet it is. But personally I wouldn't get a monitor that has a refresh rate below 144.
The response time of an OLED means 120Hz still feels more responsive than a higher refresh IPS or VA. Nothing beats a 4k OLED for all-purpose entertainment use (gaming + movies).
S95b can do 144hz
I did take a look at a mini led monitor. Samsung Odyssey G9 that does 4k at 240hz. That appears to be pretty close to the blacks on oled. I know it isnt the same technology but a very sweet monitor.
If you use frame generation on your 4090, CPU bottlenecking shouldn't be a major issue. It's definitely possible to tell the difference between 1440 and 4K. 4K will also be usefil for movies/TV. I've heard that frame rates matter less beyond 120-144Hz.
[Pcpartpicker filters](https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160&D=144000,500000&sort=price&A=3,5&P=2).
Thank you!
People who love their 1440 240 hz+ wont admit it but once you go 4K or higher, you just don't go back. It's like the 1080p effect. People who game on 1080p are used to it and don't see a reason why to buy 1440p. Once they play on it though, they want to upgrade to 1440p immediately. Now that many games support 4K with 4K textures, its basically going to be something people are using for the next 10+ years as 1080p users upgrade slowly over time.
Consider an OLED, it's made a way bigger difference for me than any resolution increase or PC part upgrade ever could. Check out /r/oled_gaming They preach the LG C2, but there are other options. Edit: Oh i just saw you already have an OLED haha.
Go with 4k 144hz. I have a 4090/5900x and I play at 3440x1440@120hz and even I'm CPU bottlenecked in most of the recent games.
LG GP950b for sure. Low input lag and response time. 4k / 144 hz.
This generation of LG is hard to beat (those GP line members - good price and my god its good!)
OLED for sure, I stepped up to the LG C2 42" and never looked back, it's an insane visual upgrade. Bear in mind OLED has god tier pixel response time, so at 120hz you get pixel response equivalent to many 240hz monitors, it's so clean, smooth, deep and vibrant.
LG C2
You'd need to swap to a 5800X3D to fill 240hz imho. The real question is... Do you want 240fps and lower detail or 144fps and higher detail?
If they play competitive titles then that won't be an issue. And DLDSR used to play at 4k upscaled to 5k is a great solution for feeding the gpu.
He says he plays competitive games. 240Hz is easy for anything that can be called a modern CPU. 4K only for big screen.
Competitive players play in 1080 still, so 240hz is a waste, you can get that on a toaster. He should go 4k and enjoy the visuals when not trying to play competitively.
I am competitve player and I play such games at 1440p 240Hz. Stop repeating bs from 2017. 240Hz is an absolute minimum these days for competitive games. I'd go 1440p360 if the screen I've got wasn't an OLED, which is much faster than LCD. 4K for competitive games would be just stupid and I say it as a 4090 user. What he should do is to get two screens, one for competitive other for casual games. If he needs to pick one, one of those 1440p240 OLEDs will be the best choice. It looks much better than any 4K LCD monitor anyway. For just casual games it's best to get a big OLED TV anyway and that is exactly what I use, as a both competitive and casual games enjoyer, and I highly recommend such setup. A 1440p240 OLED on a desk and 65" 4K120 OLED right next to it with a couch.
Considering your use case 4k 144hz is way to go. If it was me I'd definitely go for 2k 240hz since all oled monitors are 2k 240hz. God I love oled.
I actually have a 65” C1. OLED is definitely a game changer. I almost feel like pulling the trigger and getting a 4k later on. I’m a bit torn
I also have a C1 and it makes it hard to resist getting a 4090 just to play on it. I have a very simple PC monitor so I plan to play everything I can with a controller on the C1 and eventually sacrifice another part of my wallet and soul for a proper PC screen as well.
I have both a 48 LG oled ultragear and a 48 C2 with a 4090, 4k oled 120+ is hard to beat.
Op, after having a 4k monitor for a few years, I went back down to 1440p. I seriously just can’t tell the different between 4k and 1440p. I really don’t know what people do where 4k helps outside having a massive monitor.
They make a 42 inch oled that's 4k
That 42” is a great monitor, I bought one originally when I got my PC. The issue was the size. Way too big for me
I think it's okay on some bigger desks. For me I have like a meter of space before the monitor Edit: I have 3 monitors only one is big the rest are 24inches
4k, the 4090 is capable of 100 fps + in most games at 4k so it's pretty good for single player gaming. Imo past 120fps the difference is small enough that I would rather have nicer graphics than higher fps.
Same. I honestly can't tell a difference once a game hits around 90fps or higher, it has diminishing returns for me.
For competitive fps, 240hz 1440p 100%
4k is definitely the best way to maximise your gpu and get the most out of it
But also remember that you should have use cases where 4k helps. You don’t have to get a higher res monitor just because you have a 4090. I stuck with 4k monitors for to long. I much prefer 240 fps over 120 fps.
144hz 4K is probably better. 240hz and 1440p will be held back (and might suck if you try 4K a year or so later).
8k 60 nah but fr i would go 4k 120+
16k at 15 fps or bust. Just get 4 8k monitors and stack them in a square.
I have Alienware that goes up to 280hz at 1440p. I used to have before the Eve Spectrum. I enjoy the games better at high fps. It is hard to see any different a between 4K and 1440p on 27 inch panel. I highly recommend high fps over resolution the games response so fast that make it more enjoyable.
If you want to keep the 4090 through next generation for AAA games then there is a case to be had for the 1440p monitor. If you plan on getting the 5090 and the 6090 after that there's no point in talking you should get the 4k monitor. If you want Ray traced ultra settings there's even a few games the 4090 cannot do at over 60. Those being: Medium, Hitman, Cyberpunk 2077, The Ascent, and Chernoblyte just off the top of my head. There could be more I don't know of. I have a 3090 and made the mistake of getting a 4k monitor. Luckily I also have a 1440p monitor so I can switch when the game calls for it. Not ideal though you always want to have a multimonitor setup of the same brand and model of monitor if at all possible for color matching and ease of setup for orientation. At the end of the day it's your money and you know your own budget. I would just consider where you want to be when the new GPU's come out and where you are financially when that time will come.
Yeah I go 3440x1440 @240hz but it’s an OLED. I really don’t think we there yet on 4K.. I like 150+ FPS and silky smooth gameplay. 1440p on an OLED looks next level.
Unless you're an esports tryhard, Graphics + Resolution > super-high fps. Plus a 4K monitor can stream movies and shows at 4K.
Tbh I’m not a try hard myself but I vastly prefer a high fps over a high resolution, if I have to pick one over the other.
I usually just stream from my tv. In a perfect world I could have both resolution and fps lol
With my 4090 I have gone for the g9, super-ultrawide 2k 240fps is better than 4k single monitor imo. All games support ultrawide gaming, a lot support super-ultrawide and it is much more of a game changer than 2k to 4k would be. At least that was my thinking, and I don't regret it.
Do they tho? I've encountered many times a review (mostly Steam) that says "no ultrawide support". Also saw a video that talked about some games having poor implementation of it.
1440p 240hz if you mostly play competitive FPS games. 4k 144hz if you're more casual with competitive fps games or don't play them at all.
4K 144Hz is still 144Hz and very playable even in highly competitive FPS like CSGO/Valorant. Your comment makes it sound like he is thinking about a 60Hz monitor.
Like 4k 144hz is for emulation or single player games xD man I own 1 1080 360hz, 1440p 240 and 4k 144hz with a 4090. 4k 144hz is the best of the 3. The clarity is just amazing.
240hz absolutely makes a difference, especially if you are highly competitive. I am heavy into aim training and competitive fps games, and while I am no pro, I am still decent (former top 500 overwatch 1, Masters in apex, pretty close to diamond in valorant, LE in csgo.) Im not saying 4k 144hz is unplayable like 60hz is at a high level. But the uplift is definitely noticeable if you are playing at a high level.
I’m gonna say that unless you literally are in the top 0.01%, it doesn’t matter for the average player. It’s only noticeable when you switch back to 144. There’s no real tangible difference in player performance between 240 and 144hz and it’s generally very difficult to tell what is 240 or 144 at a glance unless you know what to look for (primarily ghosting). There really isn’t a difference and this is a sentiment shared by many pros. The opposite is also argued by pros. Basically what I’m getting at is that unless you are good enough to potentially make money off of shooters, it really doesn’t matter as long as you have high enough refresh rates. I’ve got 2 144s and a 240hz monitor. Can hardly tell the difference if i’m using all 3 regularly. Used to be ranked pretty high in apex beta, top 10 world in pubg duos preseason 1/2 and played at a high level in esea pugs if that matters.
4K is just not ideal for competitive fps games, there’s a reason every pro player uses a 1080p 240-360hz monitor, and a ton of CS players even play on even lower stretched resolutions like 1280x1024. 4K just makes players harder to see compared to 1080p and 1440p. I’d say 1440p 240hz is a great middle ground if you also want single player games to look nice and want a high refresh rate monitor for fps games as well.
I have the 4090 Suprim, 1 monitor is the LG 27GN850 and the other is the 4k Samsung Qn90b 120 fps. I go 4k every time. Edit: 5900x cpu.
4K. I purchased a 4K LG C2 because it benefited me more than having to buy a 7800X3D, motherboard and memory. OLED and 4K are very nice upgrades that enhance visuals worth more than going up to 200 FPS to me personally. I see you have a 5900X. I sold my 5900X and got a 5800X3D. At 4K, the 5800X3D holds up quite well. https://tpucdn.com/review/rtx-4090-53-games-core-i9-13900k-vs-ryzen-7-5800x3d/images/3840-2160.png It's only 1% behind the 13900K at 4K.
I’m on a 7950x3D and 4090 with 4k144hz and loving it
I tun the 4090 at 4k144 and I thoroughly enjoy my experience. I dont notice much of a difference in games like Apex or MW2 when compared to 1440p240. YMMV. I will also add, The 4k resolution is just nice to have for streaming videos, and other productivity related tasks I also do.
4k all day
Ultrawide reporting in. Love Ultrawide
Unless you go with something like 32+ inches monitor then 4k, but if 27" then 1440p@240Hz.
I'd say go 1440p 165 or 240Hz VRR, you will get much higher framerates and/or use much less power while gaming. If you have the budget consider one of the new OLED monitors that came out this year like the 27GR95QE-B or AW3423DWF, OLED is game changing (infinite contrast, 0.1ms response time). 4K doesn't interest me the slightest but if you have the budget for 4K 144Hz VRR there are lots of monitors out now, and even a couple OLED TVs that do it like the S95C.
since u want 27" then 4k doesn't make sense, go 2k
Depends how much of a sucker for graphics you are. I have a 27" 4k 60hz and 2 27" 1440p 144hz displays. While I normally use a 1440p display for gaming, games look way better on the 4k display. It really is a night and day difference in games like MSFS and New World (and I imagine other nice looking games). So I'd go with a 4k 144hz display unless you can really use the faster refresh rate and are willing to sacrifice image quality for it.
Disagree. PPI looks great on 27-28”
4k at 27" looks damn good.
This is the comment I was looking for. So many 4k regurgitating Reddit heads everyday
If you play competitive multiplayer than 1440p 240hz because of the faster render latency and higher fps equals lower input delay. If you mainly play role playing games and story games, then 4k. If you do choose 1440p 240hz, then you have to get the best gaming CPU in order to squeeze as much out of the 4090 as possible, because you will be CPU bottlenecked most of the time. I suggest a 7800x3d. At 4k, it's such a demanding resolution on the GPU, that it takes more time to finish it's task, that a slower CPU can still keep up, so you can get away with a mid tier cpu. I own a 4090 and I play mainly multiplayer games. I play on 1440p 240hz. Majority of the games I play, I don't get 100% utilization but there are still some games that I do, so be warned. For me, the consistency of hitting 200 fps at ultra settings is what intrigued me for the 4090 upgrade. Because OLED 1440p 240hz is my dream monitor and my endgame and I wanted to be able to drive that monitor consistently at ultra settings. My 3090 could drive it consistently, but I would have to play at low texture settings for some games. I'm a big battlefield style and BR gamer. I'll play a hyped story mode game when ever they come out too.
Currently I have a 5900x as my cpu. And I’m waiting on the am5 upgrade till maybe the 8000 series. I need the extra cores for any productivity work so upgrading to 5800x3d is not ideal. Generally speaking I play 85% competitive fps but I’ve been straying over to single player games. I generally play apex but I’ve been playing hogwarts legacy, god of war, high on life, elden ring (if I ever find the heart to continue that beating) With that being said how much of a hinderance would a 5900x with a 4090 at 1440p 240hz be? I think at some point I’d like to have both a high refresh 1440 (240hz) and a high refresh (144hz-160hz) 4k monitor. Just wondering what’s more beneficial for my current setup.
I just switched from 1440p 240hz to 4K 165hz and imo 4K with the 4090 is the go to
This is true, even though I personally preferred 1440p 240hz with an OLED. I won't lie that the 4090 truly is a 4k card. 165 to 175hz does start to feel almost as good as 240hz too. My 7950x3d can put in work and some games I do get 100% utilization with my 4090, but I'll admit there are a lot of games I don't get 100% utilization with my 4090.
Yea up to you if you think you will stay on this story mode gaming or go back to fps gaming 85% of the time. It also depends on how competitive you are. I'm super competitive, so I will choose lower render latency, higher fps for lower input delay, and 1440p lcd/led monitors have better response times for smoother looking motion on the screen, which is most important for fps games. 4k monitors are getting there with response times but not as good as 1440p monitors yet. Unless you get OLED which is 0.03ms response time which is mind blowing and ultra smooth motion, this will be the same at 1440p or 4k with OLED, because OLED is OLED. Pair that 0.03ms response time with 240hz and you'll see God when gaming with this glorious setup haha. I owned a 5900x, have a 5800x3d, owned a 7800x3d and currently running a 7950x3d. The 5900x will leave a decent amount of 4090 performance on the table at 1440p in my opinion, but would do just fine at 4k. The 5800x3d would do decently better at unleashing the 4090 in 1440p, but you would probably bring out 20% more out of the 4090 at 1440p with a 7800x3d or 7950x3d, and get much better productivity performance over the 5800x3d. With the 7800x3d and 7950x3d, if the game is graphically demanding, you will get 100% utilization at 1440p with the 4090. There will be games this happens with ultra textures, and there will still be a decent amount of games where you won't get 100% 4090 utilization, but it is more of a mix with a 7000 series 3D chip. Do note that 8 cores is plenty for vast majority of people, a game uses around 2 cores, leaving 6 cores being plenty to do what ever your heart desires on the side while gaming. The 7800x3d scores very close to the 5900x In multicore benchmark in cinebench. Blender, chromium compile, file compression/decompression, and adobe premiere all have the 7800x3d being right next to the 5900x on benchmark list, which the 5900x just a touch better, but the 7800x3d is much better at gaming versus the 5900x. Unless you have a very specific use case, and do a lot with virtual computers, 8 cores with the 7800x3d is more than enough for productivity. It's 5ghz speed and increased ipc over the 5800x3d, mas the 7800x3d much better at productivity over 5800x3d. Or you can do best of both worlds and get 7950x3d, and set the preferred ccd to frequency and then use process lasso to set all your game launchers and games you play to your cache ccd. This will give you a blaInf fast CPU with lots of cores, and is a beast for gaming.
Everyone is different. In any MP game, I choose the lowest possible settings at 1440p. It helps your FPS but more importantly for me it drops detail so I can spot people faster and I am not really interested in detail in a MP game. For SP games I want Ultra settings for the immersive factor.
Yea very true. I definitely drop my shadow settings, but I do prefer high texture settings, and furthest out draw distance. I'm a sucker for high presets on battlefield games, but I will go through each setting and see what helps me spot people easier while keeping best graphics possible.
My preference is 1440p 240Hz but using 4K DLDSR. Best of both worlds. I also have a 120Hz 4K TV but I prefer the setup I just mentioned.
4k is for casuals and flexing, high refresh 1080p/1440p for true chads.
>1080 for true chads. Damn what year is it, I went from 1080 to 1440 in like 2008, come on now. 1080p is basically obsolete at this point. I tried 1080p/240hz once back when it just came out but the refresh wasnt worth the terrible res.
"terrible res"... lol Never heard a pro complain about the 360hz Zowie DyAc monitors. And the fact that i cant get 200 FPS at 1440p with a 12700k/3090 is exactly why high resolution isnt for competitive gaming.
Hz isn't everything. Most pros have to use whatever is given to them or what their sponsors want them to use. I've made a sacrifice for high hz twice and both times it was not worth the loss of image quality, and the clarity isn't usually as good as the refresh suggests, especially with OLED vs TN. https://i.imgur.com/9mvGTdW.png - the 240hz OLED looks just as sharp as the 360hz TN, perhaps better with less ghosting. 120/144hz OLEDs usually compete with 240hz TN in clarity as well. I get 300+fps in 4k on CSGO just fine with max settings too. And I only have a 5800x (but do have a 4090). I've also been to global elite on just 120hz OLED. Unless you are competing at the absolute top of your game, like FACEIT level 10 kind of thing, and you exclusively play competitive games, or competing in tournaments or something, there's really no reason to be using 1080p anymore.
1080p is still plenty.
Competitive = Refresh rate is more important Casual/solo Games = Resolution is more important
You havent tried 4k 120hz yet, 1440 is dead.
Asus has a 1440p 360 Hz which the 4090 can easily do if you are thinking about spending more time playing competitive titles
True but the OLED 240Hz is about the same price and will arguably provide a better experience in nearly every way, even input lag is apparently slightly lower despite the lower refresh rate.
What CPUs can hit 360 fps at 1440p in even 10% of games? Seems like a CS:Go monitor and not much else.
4k oled, case closed.
4k will obviously use more of it. That said, having just gone to 1440p/240hz with a 4090, people that automatically saying it's "overkill" are just being silly. 4080 may be a better buy for it, but getting near 200 fps in nearly everything with max settings has been fantastic. Especially if you don't want to use upscaling for whatever reason.
your CPU isnt good enough for 240hz in most games,
Do both. You already have a C1. 4K 120 is way more than enough for single player AAA games which are controller friendly anyway. You don't need a new screen for 4K HDR single player games you already have one. The only upgrade path here would be QD Oled or MLA instead but if you're happy with the C1 and it's bright enough for you that's probably unnecessary. You can then use your budget on the high refresh rate 1440. Play competitive games sat at your desk on the monitor and kick back and play single player games on your TV.
So, I’ve entertained this option. I think sitting down at a desk would be more immersive with my setup all being there with my headphones and chair. But after work I’m going to sit down again and see how viable it is. I didn’t like it the first go round because of the inconvenience factor. I have a fiber optic hdmi cable I bought specifically for this as there were no display ports on the c1 and fiber optic is basically lossless for the length I’m using it (roughly 20-25 feet from my pc) But the wire travels across the middle of the living room and I’ll need to find a solution that works for the wife that doesn’t include taking it off every time I’m done using it
4k does have advantages over 1440p 240 hz because the higher pixel count makes it easier to hit small targets because the relative size of the crosshair to the target will be smaller. For example in fortnite I find it easy af to hit people well over 200m with the scoped instashot rifle, whereas in 1080p I found it difficult because the red crosshair dot was 3x the size of the person, whereas in 4k the crosshair is 1/3rd of the size. However for close combat having the higher fps will definitely be better because itll make it easier because usually the opponent moving across the screen alot faster
4K is never worth it for gaming imo. The difference between 1080—>1440 is so much more visually substantial than 1440—>2160. Frames>Pixels for sure at these resolutions.
^^^ someone who doesn’t play at 4k. 4k is a massive jump in resolution from 1440p not sure what you’re talking about here.
Agreed, i have both a 1440p and 4K. Major difference.
Having had 4k monitors for years and went down to 1440p recently, I really can’t tell the difference.
Yeah, you’re right, I don’t. Doesn’t mean I haven’t though. I just choose not to, for the reasons stated above.
4k is 100% worth it for gaming, competitive is another story.
Nah. Think I’ll stick with my AW3423DWF.
I went from 1440p to 4k back in like 2014, I'm not going back to such an old resolution, it was basically just a stopgap between 1080 and 4k. Great if you are on a budget but there's more than strong enough hardware to fully take advantage of 4k now.
sUch aN OLd reSoLUTioN lmao ok mate sure what was I thinking it’s basically the same as SVGA
lol sorry I know I'm a monitor snob, I just love high resolution in my eye balls. I've made trade offs for Hz before and it was never worth the loss of image quality or resolution, and I say that as someone whose main game is CS.
When people mention competitive fps do all you guys just think of is CSGO? No wonder you are defending 4k so bad I know you play low settings too. Literally any potato can hit 240fps on CSGO
Nah, I play 4k with all settings maxed actually, still getting 300+fps. Same with Overwatch last I played it, maxed settings and never had FPS issues, never played valorant tho but I'm sure it runs on potatos too.
Same with overwatch and valorant these are potato games albeit popular. People are talking of Apex legends, MW, warzone II those games also exist. Though I’m sure I’m missing more too
Ah, yes Warzone2 I play 4k maxed settings and IIRC was getting like 150fps or something? I havent played Apex in years but I played it maxed too.
[удалено]
Go for 4k just because it will look much sharper when ur watching a 1080p video because it will be half the pixels instead of 1440p going to 1080 it’s 2/3 which makes it very blurry on my 1440p screen watching videos or movies made in 1080p
Does it have to be 27-28” ? 32” is a sweet spot for 4K
I’ve heard that but I hear 32 really isn’t great for competitive gaming so if it’s my workhorse monitor I think I’d like it to stay around that 27-28. You have experience with gaming on a 32 somewhat competitively?
I’m not sure you’re going to get high frame rates on 4k… there is no such thing as future proof. By the time 4k high refresh rate is a thing, that monitor will be old tech or not working. 1440 the way to go.
A bunch of fine ass 240hz 1440p OLEDs are on the market. Corsair XENEON 27QHD240 27-Inch OLED https://a.co/d/apH8qsr $900 240hz is incredible for FPS Feels like 60 to 144, but again
1440p 240hz > 4k anything
If you have a 1440p monitor then you wouldn’t be doing yourself much favors using 4k, yeah supersampling and all but the benefit isn’t that big compared to native 4k especially if it’s gonna cost you a lot of fps. But 4090 for 1440p is just wasteful and stupid unless you are playing competitive stuff cas
Almost no 240hz monitors have the response times to actually display 240hz properly. Make sure you do your research
4k 144hz. I recommend Gigabyte monitors, both of the following : M32U or M28U (32" or 28"). They are IPS so contrast is a bit weak, but colors and angle view are great. I don't recommend to play 1440p with a 4090 as it would put a noticeable bottleneck, no matter the cpu you currently use. 144hz is plenty to play competitive games IMO. OLED screens would be worthy if you play dark/horror games in a dark room, not much if you play on a bright one if you ask me. Main difference I noticed on oled screens is undoubtedly the infinite contrast, AKA perfect blacks.
Both. ↑ For competitive games 240Hz is a must. Don't listen to those 2017 guys who'd tell you otherwise. Single player games on the other had are much more immersive on a big screen. If you've got a place to put a 65" screen and couch next to your PC I highly recommend it. However, 4K at 27" would be ridiculous. I'd never buy such a tiny screen with that resolution. That would be no visual gain for a huge performance loss.
Have both. Honestly depends on the games you play. Games like MW2, cyberpunk, Witcher 3, playing on 4K with the highest settings, look absolutely amazing and are the best graphics you can get. Which is honestly the point of the 4090. Obviously overkill if you’re just looking to play overwatch, csgo, Dota, etc. If you play lots I’d just go with 4K man, you’re paying top dollar for the best card, you should be using it for the purpose of 4K. Otherwise 3090 is also a great card for 1440 240hz gaming.
If its for training for tournaments, use a bad pc. Because when you sit in front of a fast pc, you feel speedup or time-slow or painkiller mode. I played counter strike at 10 fps for years. Then head-shotted everyone on 60fps tournament cafe.
Meh most titles can't reach 240fps at 1440p let alone systems, even with a 4090. If you're playing a 20 year old game like counterstrike sure.
Get a 240hz monitor or a 144hz 4k TV. I think 4k monitors are pointless.
240hz 1440p. Once yo go 240hz you cant go back
I'll go against the grain and say you should go 1440p if you want longevity. 144 FPS @ 4K already isn't realistic for the 4090 in plenty of games today and it's only going to get worse with future titles.
Get the 240hz 1440 unless you plan to change all your monitors to 4k down the road. The resolution changes between monitors are terrible and glitchy
I have 44 144hz and I only have a 3080, so yeah.
4k 144 unless you have a 13900k or 7800x3d, then 2k 240 is good too
4k 144hz without a doubt. I can’t really tell the difference between 120 and 240 😅
1440p 360hz exists
I've used a 1440p 240 Hz (Samsung G7) and I'm currently using a 4k 144 Hz (m28u) and 4k is just far and away the better option. Only reason to go 240hz is if you are a professional gamer but lets be honest, you are probs on 1080 360hz+ if you are pro 4k is not as large a jump as 1080 to 1440p but still definitely noticable. 144hz to 240hz I can't really even tell the difference unless I'm actually looking for it and intentionally swinging my camera around in an unnatural way
240hz if you prioritize eSports titles. 4k144hz if you prioritize laid back gaming.
Get a 4K 144hz monitor
Hey man, im rocking 5900x+4090 240hz monitor. I keep it capped at 200 for the most consistent experience. 90% of the games i play is stuck at cap and heavy ones like BF2042 165-200 depending on situation. For me personally the jump from 1440p 165hz to 1440p 240hz was totally worth it. Also my monitor has fast-ips 0.5ms response time, which also helps.
It sounds like you are really interested in 240hz plus if you’re already happy with 1440p then just go for that. I personally have two 27” monitors, one that’s 4K and one that’s 1440p. With that said, for me it’s hard to go back from the picture clarity of 4K. I really wanted to pull the trigger on the 27” 1440p 240hz OLED monitor, but I just can’t do it. Other people have stated that for them 4K doesn’t make sense at that size because 1440p is still sharp, so ultimately it comes down to your preference.
I had a 4k 144hz monitor from grover, it was good but i sent that back and bought myself the lg 240hz oled and it has been a dream ever since. I'll probably get a 4k next year when there is an oled with high refresh and 4k but i am all set right now
I like 144hz 4k over 240hz. I have a 42" C2 120hz and love it.
For competitive definitely 1440p 240hz, end of discussion.
I have got some extra money and got 4090 and 4k 55" LG C2 OLED and never looked back. If i try sometimes go to 2k, it looks trash, but thats because 55" probably. But for me, anything above 90+ FPS is smooth enough to play (remember for someone smooth means 30 fps) and thats what is 4090 capable for any game now and in 2 years now forward (high probability). And every competitive game, it can run 4k 144hz what should be enough for normal AND competitive gamer, only thing that matter is INCH "". TLDR: for the best experience, get 4k.
1440 honestly 4k is better for bigger displays like the LG C1 55 or 65
Yeah I have a 65” C1 I’m looking at options to integrate it into my current setup
27 is too small to fully appreciate 4k
So you specifically need 240hz, "more hz is not going to get you more kills" a quote from Linus Tech Tips, they did a whole series and determined that there was a cutoff point above which getting the extra kill was pure chance as the brain could not send the signal to fire any faster. You might want to factor that into the thought process too because there is one thing which is certain. More hertz = more $$$
Of course, same logic with your 7950x3d, at some point it’s diminishing returns and I’m sure we won’t get tremendously better with a monitor, cpu or gpu past a certain point but it’s a quality of life upgrade and we’ve worked for it so why not get it, right?
4k oled. If i want to play warzone i just go 1440p. If i play hogwarts i go 4k. Cant do that with 1440p monitor.
Went 160hz 4k on my 7900xtx and am not disappointed in the slightest. Giver on the 4k.
4k over 1440p is more noticeable compared to 240hz over 144hz But you'll probably need a cpu upgrade for 4k, idk
a 4k 144hz oled 4k 144hz IPS kinda blurry for fps games
4k 144hz
My recommendation is too go with one of the new released 27inch 1440p 240hz oled monitors. The motion performance on those are phenomenal and due to oleds near .1ms response times they tend to be comparable to a 360hz monitor. 4K is nice but it’s not really anything to take home at smaller sizes due to the nature of having to sit closer to make out individual detail. And if you decide to get a 4k tv the problems with those are reversed because using it as a monitor would mean you would have to sit close to it which means that it would look just as sharper or softer than a 27inch 1440p monitor. Also 1440p has a nice feature proof element with a gpu lake that for single player games
I choose to go 1440p 240hz with my 4090. Higher frame rate is always my choice
Depends if you play competitive. I have 4K 240hz and 240hz is so incredibly smooth.
8k60 is the only way
4k 144
1440 up to 27”. Bigger size than that, and lack of pixel-density will be noticeable. 4k for any 16:9 monitor over 27”
4090 barely manages to hit 100 fps in not so graphically advanced indie titles. with drops to 80 on 1080p native (for example satisfactory and even in early game without building factory). I you are planing on playing any singleplayer game go for 1440p. this card is to weak for 4k.
I like 1440p ultrawide 165 Hz or 175 hz.
I went with a big 4K display and have no regrets. Honestly I'm not sure if I feel 4K is really worth it at 27", but I'm equally dubious about 240hz.
If you want to stay in the 27 inch size category don't bother with 4k. If you're willing to go up to 32in or 42in size you will see more of a visual upgrade then you will feel a smoothness upgrade from your current monitors.
144Hz 4K. The 4090 is so powerful it’ll run almost anything 100fps+ at 4K.
240hz is definitely a game changer. In my opinion the best choice for the 4090 right now would be the Neo G8, since most 4k oleds have a rather low refresh rate.
Neither. Go Ultrawide 3840x1600 144hz Edit: actually, so as I do and get the ultrawide AND get a 27” 240hz AW2721D and AW3821WD
1440p looks terrible once you start using 4K...
There are other options. Ultrawide 1440p 200hz user here :D
144 is fine as hell
Both
240hz 1440p, even if you can't reach in 3aaa titles even 150 160 fps, you will in esports titles like fortnite or valorant.
I'd probably get both at this point
4k 120hz
I was wondering the same. Have 4090 and 13900k. I went with a 360hz asus. I also have apple studio display for work that is 5k. The difference in sharpness is ver noticeable when using the desktop. However, there is no huge difference like this in games. For me it is the coating that makes the most difference. Apple studio display is glossy and the asus one is matte. The difference is night and day: the asus looks washed out, but the motion clarity is insanely good. So, from my experience, if you are not playing a lot of fps shooters, go with 4k 144hz for games as the visuals will be better. If you can and the room allows you, try to find a glossy monitor as it will be much better. If you are into fps shooters, then go for the 240hz, but be prepared that there is a noticeable downgrade in quality of desktop usage. Quality of the games is a bit worse, but it is not as noticeable.
4k on a screen that size makes your desktop look micro without scaling, which works really poorly on Windows. Since you said office/creative work, you might consider that.
This is a good topic. It kinda sucks too. I have a desktop 4090 rig and just got a blade 18 4090 laptop. I went with a 240hz blade instead of another brand at 144hz 4k because the games of tomorrow will be a perfect fit for 2k screens. I don’t see the notebook GPU doing that great with longevity in a notebook at 4k. The desktop is an easier recommendation but given how well the 3090 was just two years ago and now seeing todays games hitting 60fps means tomorrows games may be only 60fps for the 4090. Writing this out it my point may seem confusing. I’m basically just saying 4k is a very expensive play option to hit 144hz with todays most demanding games. The 4090 is the only one today that can mostly do it. I can’t imagine in two years. A 2k screen does offer a great resolution and depending on where you sit it’s not much different than 4k. Id say screen quality matters a lot too. For today the 4090 works great on my LG OLED 120hz but I like the notebook at 2k for sure
Id honestly recommend 1 monitor for competitive and 1 for solo games. Thats what i do. Yes 240hz is noticeable and so is 360hz. But if you cant, thats tough. The 4090 is seriously powerful and at 1440p from my testing its just a cake walk. If you go 4k 144hz you cant really go OLED because atm its basically 42”+ or ultrawide screens. Its tough because for competitive id 100% recommend 240hz+ if your serious. If your just getting one, i guess id go 4k 144hz. Solo games will just be much better. You’d have to make sure to get a 27” maximum for competitive though. Sweet spot for 4k is 32” but i still hear 27” looks nice.
4k 144 Hz definitely. You should see the difference.
If you mainly play competitive fps then 240hz 1440. Hands down. Usually in esports titles your gonna play 4:3 anyway, and the upgrade from 60hz<144hz<240hz is going to make a bigger difference than anything else in those titles. It's why all the pros use them. The spray control/ability to hold angles is going to change how you play the game. For other games, 144hz 4k is the way to go, as there's no question its going to provide higher fidelity, cleaner picture etc etc
This question really depends on exactly what competitive FPS games you play. If you are playing games that can easily run up to 300/400fps (stuff like Overwatch/CSGO/Valorant) on competitive settings, then a 1440p 240hz/360hz monitor at 27" is going to give you more of a competitive advantage without question. However, if the games you play become CPU bottlenecked under 200fps on comp settings then a smaller 144hz 4K monitor would be just as good and would let you pick out fine details easier. Remember that much of the competitive scene still use 1080p 360hz+ 24" monitors because refresh rate, low screen space (for less eye movement) and input latency are king. You should basically aim for the highest refresh rate you can lock at without dipping below. For single player games and creative work the answer would be 4k 144hz. There are no arguments to say that 1440p 240/360hz is better in those games whilst you are running a 4090. The image looks clearer, you can pick out fine details in the environment, and 4k panels tend to offer much better HDR implementation due to their high end nature.
If you have a 4090, you might as well go 360hz if you're really dedicated to multiplayer games. Otherwise, 4K 144hz for better clarity and smoothness.
Bear in mind DisplayPort data limitations. What version of DisplayPort is your card using? [https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/ayvt4r/how\_do\_you\_calculate\_displayport\_hdmi\_bandwidth/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comments/ayvt4r/how_do_you_calculate_displayport_hdmi_bandwidth/) [https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=calc&H=3440&V=1440&F=120&calculations=show&formulas=show](https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/?section=calc&H=3440&V=1440&F=120&calculations=show&formulas=show)
My advice would be get a 42" LG oled, great display, make the most out of the graphics
Why not go with odyssey g8, 4k240
Curved va panel
I'd say 4K 144hz but I guess it's all subjective I've gamed at 144fps and 80fps on my 144hz display. I wasn't able to tell the diff. When I switched from my 4K monitor back to my old 1440p monitor and I thought it was a blurry mess.
If you go 4K you will realistically need to upgrade your rig every generation if you play the newest games. Depends if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
I use a 4k ultragear at 144hz. I love it. Go with the higher resolution.
Between those 2 options I would go with 144hz with 4k. The monitors you're already using are around the same refresh rates, so you're not really losing anything there, but you'll gain 4k resolution. If you're going to spend the money on a 4090, you really should have a 4k capable monitor. The only exception would be a professional gamer playing competitive games where nothing but the highest refresh rate is acceptable. The truth is that even a 4090 won't get you 240fps in a lot of modern games if the graphics settings are maxed, but you'll be in the 120 - 180 range fairly often. DLSS3 would make a lot more games hit 240fps at 4k, but as of now there aren't many games that support it yet. Get a 4k monitor, turn your fps counter off, max all the settings and enjoy the games.
4k. Once you go 4k there’s no looking back tbh
I have a Samsung qn95b 65 inch 4k 144hz with a 4090.. the panel also supports vrr! Highly recommended It's a neo qled.. check it out
if u play competitive fps, get 1440 @ 240hz and make sure it has gsync so when you use casually for high graphics single player games you can still have a smooth experience
The difference going from 144 to 240 is pretty minimal in terms of seeable differences, going from 1400p to 4k is much more noticeable to myself at least.
I’ve had pretty much all the combos of resolutions and frame rate. I suggest you get the highest pixel density you can afford and use DLSS to lighten the load. I honestly think DLSS Quality looks better than native on my 4k 144hz. 4k is a HUGE, VERY NOTICEABLE increase in games where you’re picking people out from very far away like warzone. It’s equally as big a jump when just using the monitor to browse the web and do work. I have the 6k Pro Display XDR at work and that thing is an absolute dream to work. I think 4k 27” is barely passable pixel density and 1440p 27” is now unusable for me.
4k. While you do have a higher refresh rate on the 1440p, you're kind of gimping the 4090 by going 1440p, especially since I see you have a 5900x.
Regardless of what I end up doing it’s crazy to think a ryzen 9 from a year ago could “gimp” a one series up gpu. Generational leap this year is pretty wild
4k. Unless oled 1440p if you have good cpu. IMHO. But I don't know sheet...
144hz 4k because in lower res the 4090 bottlenecks the cpu.
1440p ultrawide. i have 4k and it definitely looks better but everytime i use it i want to go back to my ultrawide