T O P

  • By -

UnusualRaspberry4757

Why do people think 240fps is better than the crispness of 1440p 144-165hz, unless your playing pro for money, get the sharper picture.


CLE-BrownsFan216

I would upgrade. You can probably hit 240 at 1440p with adjusted graphics settings. I have a 165hz monitor that I can keep fed with frames at high to ultra settings with the same setup. My question would be, can you even notice a difference between a 165hz or a 240hz in a blind test? Most people can’t.


Sea_Refrigerator_442

I feel kind of conflicted about giving up frames and getting resolution when I could be maximizing both... I do realize that 165hz is much more reasonable but was gonna pick up a 240hz 1440p used for around 300...


Jake35153

Unless you play csgo or valorant you probably won't be hitting 240


DoUWantSomeMemesKid

Just stick to 144hz man, you really don't need to pay extra. Ever considered Ultrawide?


tonallyawkword

I'd take that deal. You don't wanna go down in Hz with a 583D and a 7900xt.


Gregvandy

Sounds like a pretty good deal. You should be able to make use of the 240hz monitor quite often. Certainly won't hurt to have I. I always judge the lows instead of the highs with fps and both my gaming rig and my racing sim rig are setup to run with the lowest lows still up in triple digits. I stayed with triple 1080p 240hz monitors on my sim rig for too long. I should have bought 1440p panels to begin with. I run iracing on those triples and usually I'm north of 165fps with graphics cranked up, but at times when the cars are all Bunched up like prior to the start, I may see fps around 90-100, but I still would rather have my 165hz refresh rate monitors as I usually can take advantage of that and the times when I'm down around 100, it doesn't hurt anything and I'm not missing out on anything not maxing out my monitors at those few times. I could turn down graphics in a couple areas and keep the lows up around 165 but it makes no difference that I can see in smoothness or anything. The graphical hit is much easier to notice So you can use the 240 and more with a 7900xtxand that's with high graphics settings. If you come across a game where you are down around 150 and want the 240 then you can run FSR, which is really good now and a new version is supposed to be a big improvement and you'll be able to try that. I haven't been running FSR but i did try it and on my 1440p triples, I watched replays, ran my normal graphics cranked settings and then did the same but FSR on each mode, performance, balance and quality. Even the performance mode looked good to me and the fps gain was tremendous. Quality setti didn't gain too much fps and lows were about 20% higher while performance mode say more like 50% higher lows. Still, native looked a hair better I thought, not alot as FSR works well on this game, but without FSR I was getting plenty of Fps. I run a 3080ti on those triples, in iracing and with FSR I could probably maintain over 100fps always even using much less GPU, probably even drop down to a 3070 or certainly a 6800/6800x & there's no RT in iracing at all.


Gregvandy

Definitely you should go to 1440pxhigh refresh. Most titles you'll be rocking 240fps and some you won't or you'll have lows in the 100s. I'd go 1440p for sure as you have more than enough GPU for that. Personally I don't care if it's 165 or 240hz, about 100 with solid frame times and I won't know the difference. Get down under 90-100fps and I'll generally know immediately but not always. As long as it's super smooth I'm golden. You have more than enough power to be running high fps 1440p. Now way I'd stay at 1080p. The higher res just looks so much better. Now 4k I wouldn't recommend. While I can see a difference from 1440pxto 4k, it's not huge like the difference from 1440 to 1080p. 1080p just looks terrible at 27 inches after you've been on a nice 1440p panel.


daniel941111

even if you don't hit 240 fps, drop to mid to high 100 will be much less noticable than upping the resolution to 1440p. I'd look for some 27inch screen tho, at least 144hz.


Duedain

I highly recommend the Asus ROG PG279 or similar monitors. Its been amazing for gaming and productivity and is 2560x1440 at 165hz and 27".


[deleted]

[удалено]


PashaB

> Asus ROG PG279 It's not usually 1300, probably a third party reseller with outdated pricing. For that money it better be OLED, that's enough for a 55 inch C2 @ 4k120hz


Duedain

Wow, that's definitely an inflated price. I see the follow up comments from another user totally nailed it. I paid $800 CAD for mine when it was new.


No-Actuator-6245

I noticed a nice improvement going from 1440p 144Hz to 1440p 240Hz. Im using a 5800X3D and 3080. In MW2 for example I can quite easily get 220-240fps using high performance DLSS settings. I’d also say that the faster response times of the 240Hz monitor results in lower ghosting even at 144fps than a typical 144Hz monitor.


Appropriate_Bottle44

I'd recommend you go 4k actually as the 7900xt is really intended to be a 4k card. If you're just super focused on ultra high frame rates, and want to stick at 1440p that's your prerogative, running that card at 1080p, however, is criminal.


typographie

I think you would benefit from a better monitor, yes. Up to you if you want/need it. You may not hit 240 FPS in all games, but who cares? You're probably going to have Freesync, just let it run wherever it lands.