What is the Best Plan of Attack for a Gaming Monitor

[whiskiz]

Just wondering what peoples plan of attack for their gaming monitor is, to get the best of everything as much as possible with things like motion blur, input lag, response times and a few other things (ghosting, stuttering, tearing etc) being the top priority.

I feel a monitor with Adaptive Sync over Motion Blur Reduction (since you apparently can't have both active at the same time) is essential since MBR doesn't help tearing or anything else sync related, while Adaptive Sync and other options can help motion blur (like a monitors response time) if i understand the info on this site and in general correctly.

The build i'm personally going with, that will go along with said monitor will be:
GTX108TI
Ryzen 3700X (12C/24T, 4.2 base clock 5.0 turbo boost) in a couple months
1440P or QHD
120hz, 144hz or 165hz

From there where do you go for a monitor for the best possible display/experience?

What Hz and at what FPS? As well as any other additional setup. (i've read that framerate and refresh rate should actually match, be 3FPS under the monitors' max Hz, but then V-Sync also comes into it but then becomes murky in terms of using Adaptive Sync as well.)

So what are your guys' plans either in the future or currently for a gaming monitor and your display setup?

[Chief Blur Buster]

From there where do you go for a monitor for the best possible display/experience?

People are sensitive to different things.
- Some people are color blind
- Some people sensitive to motion blur
- Some people are sensitive to excess brightness
- Some people are sensitive to poor color
- Some people are sensitive to input lag
etc.
Monitor priorities vary a lot between people.

There are also overriding mandatory needs that interacts with the above too
- Like need for good colors for PhotoShop worl
- Like need for ultralow lag for paid competitive eSports play
- Like need for PWM-free to eliminate headaches if you have a painful flicker sensitivity
- Like needs for blur reduction to eliminate headaches if you have a painful motion-blur sensitivity
Etc.

What Hz and at what FPS? As well as any other additional setup. (i've read that framerate and refresh rate should actually match, be 3FPS under the monitors' max Hz, but then V-Sync also comes into it but then becomes murky in terms of using Adaptive Sync as well.)

Most modern games won't be able to stay continuously at max framerate, and that's where VRR can help your gaming quality.

Others play older but popular games, such as CS:GO players who like excess framerate, e.g. 300fps or 500fps capability.

Other highly detailed games, can favour a VRR range to successfully smooth the entire range of framerates in their wide variety of games. You definitely want to avoid skimpy VRR ranges like "40Hz-60Hz" and stick to wide ranges where possible, like "30Hz-144Hz" or "48Hz-240Hz". And if you want VRR at lowest lag, you definitely want a very high max-Hz. "30-240Hz" VRR displays will generally do 75fps with lower lag than "30-144Hz" displays due to the lower scanout latencies, for the same framerate-for-framerate, if lowest-lag VRR is important to you at any framerate. You may have seen GSYNC 101 for all the recommended advice.

The framerate cap "3fps below for VRR" is simply to avoid the lag-increase effect that occurs when framerates are faster than a VRR monitor can handle it. It's common advice because VSYNC ON latencies only activates whenever framerates try to exceed refresh rate on a VRR display (FreeSync, GSYNC, Adaptive Sync). When framerates maxes themselves out, this can start to add some latencies, that then suddenly disappear when going below. Most people cannot feel this but this can be noticeable on some lower-Hz VRR monitors, with the transition between VSYNC ON and VRR. It might not even be important to you nor any casual player, but it can be a useful tool for a competitive game player to keep input lag low and consistent, so that's the common advice of "cap framerates about 3fps below Hz" since it stems from our past findings in GSYNC tests.

[lossofmercy]

Excellent advice as always.

Adaptive sync is important, especially if you like playing a wide variety of games and if you want to buy a monitor that's bigger than 1080p. Yes, you might be able to run CS at 300 FPS, but Adaptive Sync will let you play Battlefield V at it's native, highly variable refresh rate as well. Which, as we know, can hit below 60s with raytracing on.

I would highly recommend getting at least 120hz. Higher is better though. 120hz is the ideal frame rate for a wide variety of media consumption (24, 30, 60) while also being noticeably better than 75. 120 has all the advantages already mentioned.

Resolution wise, I went with 1440p. I think my ideal monitor is actually the 34" ultrawide 3440x1440p monitor, but I got the 16:9 one, which is mostly fine. However, there are very few models that even sell with these kind of requirements, so ymmv.

[whiskiz]

Thanks, definitely some great insight.

I did see that some things are preferentially more important over others, depending on who it's for, but i thought i'd ask for the best possible way of getting as best as you can overall since i don't know what i may or may not be sensitive to personally, since i have an old rig that i've had for years that i'm upgrading from. I'm so used to it that i don't know the difference or any better in any of the specific areas. Maybe i should have added that background. What do you do when you don't know about any of that, how do you then go for as best you can in every area just in case?

Then asking specifically what other people are going with and how they are going about it, for some more ideas and examples.

After a quick look online, by VRR you mean Freesync only right and not Gsync or Adaptive Sync in general?

I chose Gsync only because the 1080TI is a Nvidia card (even if they did just start testing rando monitors for Freesync compatibility - much simpler and less margin for error this way.) which i just saw online has the added benefit of having an automatic range: of 35hz to the monitors max hz, in every monitor.

So that would solve the VRR range issue but then i see you say "And if you want VRR at lowest lag, you definitely want a very high max-Hz. "30-240Hz" VRR displays will generally do 75fps with lower lag than "30-144Hz" displays due to the lower scanout latencies"

So i guess there is then a benefit to Freesync/VRR over Gsync, which is increasing the max range past the monitors refresh to reduce (input?) lag?

How much of a difference does this make? I was looking at getting the higher end "ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q" monitor as its 165Hz and has slightly slower response time being an IPS panel, but with all the benefits and quality of both Asus and IPS while also only having like 6ms of input lag. Would the lower lag from a higher VRR range still make as much of a difference?

I'm guessing a 240hz 1440p would cost more but may even out with Freesync.

EDIT: I also actually did see the Gsync 101 page and have it bookmarked, as well as alot of other pages online in general about monitors and PC building. A whole new world. Another good thing with 1440p 165Hz is i probably won't be needing one of those frame limiters in fear of reaching frames over that refresh rate haha. (in all but the oldest games maybe.)

[Chief Blur Buster]

What do you do when you don't know about any of that, how do you then go for as best you can in every area just in case?

A monitor with multiple features. A high-Hz GSYNC/FreeSync monitor with a blur reduction feature. That way, you have a choice of (A) high-Hz, (B) optional variable refresh rate (C) optional blur reduction.

The PG279Q is one example that would tick all the above boxes.

After a quick look online, by VRR you mean Freesync only right and not Gsync or Adaptive Sync in general?

Yes, VRR stands for Variable Refresh Rate -- that includes all of them in general -- FreeSync, GSYNC, Adaptive-Sync.

I chose Gsync only because the 1080TI is a Nvidia card (even if they did just start testing rando monitors for Freesync compatibility - much simpler and less margin for error this way.) which i just saw online has the added benefit of having an automatic range: of 35hz to the monitors max hz, in every monitor.

So that would solve the VRR range issue but then i see you say "And if you want VRR at lowest lag, you definitely want a very high max-Hz. "30-240Hz" VRR displays will generally do 75fps with lower lag than "30-144Hz" displays due to the lower scanout latencies"

So i guess there is then a benefit to Freesync/VRR over Gsync, which is increasing the max range past the monitors refresh to reduce (input?) lag?

Latencies of variable refresh rate are much lower on high-Hz variable refresh rate monitors even when they are running at lower framerate than max.

How much of a difference does this make? I was looking at getting the higher end "ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q" monitor as its 165Hz and has slightly slower response time being an IPS panel, but with all the benefits and quality of both Asus and IPS while also only having like 6ms of input lag. Would the lower lag from a higher VRR range still make as much of a difference?

Not really, 165Hz versus 240Hz is only a 2ms difference in worst-case scanout latency (difference of 1/165 and 1/240) -- the GtG is a bigger latency differential though. However, unless you're a professional/paid player, I don't think the IPS versus TN situation matters all that much. Some of us are more picky about getting that little extra motion clarity that 240Hz gives.

The 165Hz IPS GSYNC panels come really highly recommended. There's also the FreeSync options if you want to save money because the latest NVIDIA drivers now functions with FreeSync monitors. That said, you will get better quality sticking to the genuine G-SYNC options as none of the 165Hz FreeSync monitors are NVIDIA approved at this time.

I'm guessing a 240hz 1440p would cost more but may even out with Freesync.

That brand new Lenovo Y27g -- 240Hz 1440p has me drooling. Colors looked good to the point where I thought it was an IPS panel until I started leaning from underneath (to see the characteristic TN viewing angle limitation). The motion looked really clean with its 0.5ms pixel response. You'll need humongous GPU horsepower to get the framerates up in that necessary stratosphere at 1440p.

The Lenovo Y27g -- 240Hz 1440p price may be a bit of a sticker shock for some -- approximately a grand. I have a feeling it's currently creme de la creme by 240Hz standards, so I'd love to get my hands on that one.

[RealNC]

So what are your guys' plans either in the future or currently for a gaming monitor and your display setup?

I've been using a 1440p 27" 165Hz IPS G-Sync monitor for a while now (XG2703-GS,) and I'm extremely happy with it, especially since I got a good unit that doesn't suffer from backlight bleed. I posted my impressions here a while back.

I use it in g-sync mode 90% of the time. Sometimes I use ULMB blur reduction mode, but g-sync is preferable to me since I place high importance in low input lag and judder-free and tear-free motion. My personal preference leans heavily towards these characteristics rather than lowering motion blur. (Note that compared to normal 60Hz monitor, 100Hz and up has vastly reduced motion blur even when not using ULMB blur reduction, which is "good enough" for me personally, so I use g-sync most of the time. If one day we get a solid implementation of VRR+BR at the same time this will be a moot point, but right now, VRR it is for me personally.)

However, these IPS monitors are apparently getting successors "really soon now (TM)" with new 165Hz IPS panels from LG. So if you decide to go the IPS route, it might be worth waiting a bit to see when they come out.

[MonarchX]

It depends on the person, but acceptable static contrast ratio for image immersion > all is where I start...

[whiskiz]

Awesome, thanks alot guys.

I'll check out the PG279Q, the Lenovo Y27gq even though "You'll need humongous GPU horsepower to get the framerates up in that necessary stratosphere at 1440p" which is what has stopped me from looking at 240Hz generally until now.

Especially if otherwise "165Hz versus 240Hz is only a 2ms difference in worst-case scanout latency" although you then did say "the GtG is a bigger latency differential though"

I'll also check out the 165Hz with VRR and a motion blur reduction tech (though i really can't see motion blur being used over VRR because there isn't much answer for tearing/stuttering etc without VRR as far as i'm aware. Vsync with input lag?)

And finally, thanks for the tip: "However, these IPS monitors are apparently getting successors "really soon now (TM)" with new 165Hz IPS panels from LG. So if you decide to go the IPS route, it might be worth waiting a bit to see when they come out." I'll definitely look into these successors too.

Apparently Freesync 2 and HDR 2 is coming as well (Maybe that's what you meant) although i'm guessing HDR 2 at the very least would carry a big, big price tag.

Also static contrast ratio does seem to be where it's at colour/graphics wise and i haven't researched the specs of all applicable monitors thoroughly, but it seems hard to get a top-notch ratio with top-notch response time and input lag for gaming (seen ratios 1000:1 but apparently 5000:1 is where it's at, or maybe that's just overkill.)

EDIT: Damn, the Lenovo Y27gq -- 240Hz 1440p does look pretty beastly, also rocking that 0.5ms response time (as well as HDR, naturally.) I guess "You'll need humongous GPU horsepower to get the framerates up in that necessary stratosphere at 1440p." doesn't matter so much when as mentioned "Not really, 165Hz versus 240Hz is only a 2ms difference in worst-case scanout latency (difference of 1/165 and 1/240) -- the GtG is a bigger latency differential though" so you're still getting something out of it even though you can't match those frames (until you can match those frames....)

Ima start a gofundme haha.

EDIT: 2 After some research, according to https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/model/58d31735 the Lenovos 0.5ms response time is the "minimum response time," with an "average response time time" of 3ms. Interesting. Apparently marketed response time is always the "minimum response time" which is actually measured with grey to grey changing pixels because it's easier, instead of a realistic color environment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comme ... onse_time/