What 1080p G-SYNC high refresh rate monitor should I get?

[nerif.tafu]

I am in an odd position as I want my purchase to be based around a single game, that being "Rust". My current PC specs are a 12900k, 32GB 6000mhz DDR5 and an RTX 2070 super, and I usually get around 90-120Hz in-game, with dips in high action down to about 40-60fps at 1080p windowed.

I currently have a 3440x1440 75Hz SJ55W which is giving me issues. Given this monitor's "high" resolution, I am getting performance numbers at around 60-80 FPS, dipping to 30-45 in combat. Not only that, but the frame times I am getting in-game are horribly inconsistent when running at native resolution.

1080p and the PC specifications may seem like a weird pairing, but given that I almost solely (95% of the time) play Rust, I think going with a 1080p monitor would be best for smooth gameplay.

Now that I have my reasoning out of the way, I'll move on to monitor choice. I am looking for the "BEST" G-Sync 1080p high-ish refresh rate monitor; I say high-ish given that I can't reach FPS numbers higher than 144 99% of the time. I don't mind about the price limit and instead am simply looking for the best features for my use case.

It seems like a lot of 1080p monitors are more budget-focused or crazy high refresh rate focused (<240Hz), which don't match what I am looking for. Something to bear in mind is the minimum refresh rate for a lot of these G-Sync compatible monitors is 60Hz, which I will most likely see during hectic gameplay sometimes. https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/pr ... ors/specs/

Currently, it seems like the MSI Optix MAG251RX fits my bill quite well (IPS, Good refresh rate, low response time, good colours), but I would love to hear your opinion. I'm slightly worried about this option, given that it does not have dedicated G-Sync hardware and is just G-Sync compatible, which may not be ideal given the variable frame rate.

[lizardpeter]

I have a few questions for you. First, what settings do you use? When I play Rust at 1080p on my RTX 2080 Ti, it usually doesn’t even use more than 20 to 30% of my GPU because I have the game very optimized with low and medium settings for the highest FPS and greatest visibility. Have you tried putting everything on low and playing at 3440x1440 to see what GPU usage is like then?

But yeah, 75 Hz is not enough for a good experience. What’s your budget? If you like ultrawide monitors and anticipate not hitting over 200 FPS (and also have a high budget) there is definitely one prime candidate that will give you a competitive advantage.

[Chief Blur Buster]

It seems like a lot of 1080p monitors are more budget-focused or crazy high refresh rate focused (<240Hz), which don't match what I am looking for. Something to bear in mind is the minimum refresh rate for a lot of these G-Sync compatible monitors is 60Hz, which I will most likely see during hectic gameplay sometimes. https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/pr ... ors/specs/

Since 240Hz has arrived to 1080p IPS, I suggest you not dismiss 240Hz which is not crazy refresh rates. Even 240Hz is visible during web browser scrolling (1/4th motion blur during scrolling). It's half as much motion blur as a 120Hz iPad. So 240Hz benefits non-gaming scenarios too.

Remember that you don't need 240fps to benefit from 240Hz.

1. If you love G-SYNC, you want a VRR range permanently wider than your framerate range.
   If your game briefly spikes to 150 or 160fps, you can get input latency on a 144Hz G-SYNC monitor. You get more consistent performance.
   .
2. For VRR, scanout latency is locked to max Hz.
   Those 70fps refresh cycles will "paint itself onto the screen" in 1/240sec That's why 70fps feels lower lag during 240Hz G-SYNC than 70fps during 144Hz G-SYNC. Not all pixels refresh at the same time, see high speed videos.
   .
3. Fewer low-Hz LFC stutters with wider VRR ranges
   When framerates fall below min Hz of your VRR range, erratic LFC stutter can appear. Erratic LFC stutter error margin is linked to halftime of max Hz refresh cycle. So your erratic stutter error margin is 0.5/240sec on a 240Hz monitor. That's 2ms. 2ms of erratic stutter error on consistent-stutter 33ms frametimes (30fps) is invisible to human eyes = LFC stutter is invisible to human eyes on ultrawide VRR ranges. 240Hz means your VRR looks like a 1Hz-240Hz range, the human-visibleness of LFC erratic stutter disappears. Getting a big versus tight VRR, 48Hz-240Hz versus 48Hz-120Hz can mean the difference between this smooth 30fps and stuttery 30fps. So even if you never get above 144fps, having a wider VRR range makes your min-Hz erratic stutters disappear! (*LFC erratic stutters only. Excludes game-engine-related and disk-access-related erratic stutters)
   .
4. 240Hz benefits non-gaming situations too
   Your web browsing, window dragging, and other effects will be smoother. People need to geometrically upgrade refresh rates to see human-visible differences, aka 60Hz -> 120 -> 240 -> 480 -> 960. Double Hz on LCDs = half motion blur in browser/window scrolling. Quadruple Hz on LCDs = quarter the motion blur in browser/window scrolling.

If you're sticking to 1080p G-SYNC, can you tell me why you don't want a 240Hz monitor? 240Hz benefit you even if you never exceed 144fps

Modern 240Hz IPS already can exceed the quality of yesterday's 144Hz TN in many attributes too. The main reason to avoid 240Hz for G-SYNC use cases is when 240Hz is not available (e.g. 55" TVs) or the resolution is not available (e.g. 4K 240Hz), or botique sizes (e.g. ultrawides 3440x1440), or for cost reasons (240Hz more pricey). 240Hz used to mean some compromises like being stuck with TN. But that is no longer true. And today, 240Hz is now available in all panel tech (VA, TN, IPS).

Repeat After Me: 100fps low frame rates have lower input lag on 240Hz G-SYNC than 144Hz G-SYNC

But you're looking for 1080p, you're looking at G-SYNC / FreeSync, so you should be aware of this information why you should go 240Hz if you want G-SYNC / FreeSync at bog-standard 1080p.

If you're sticking to standard 1080p, why not reduce your low-framerate input lag by raising the max-Hz of your VRR range? It costs only a few dollars more, and saves you a few milliseconds of G-SYNC lag even if you never exceed 144fps. That's the tip for low-lag esports G-SYNC -- make the max Hz the highest Hz you can afford -- in order to lower the input lag of your low frame rates -- people who play competitively with G-SYNC, should always remember G-SYNC is somewhat bottlenecked by scanout latency. That's why you should spring for 240Hz when playing competitively with G-SYNC, even if your frame rates never exceed 100fps.

If you use "competitive" and "G-SYNC" in the same sentence, always remember raising your max Hz is useful to lower the input lag of your low frame rates!

[nerif.tafu]

Thank you both of you, I made that post before a day of scrolling this forum and other reputable review sites, and I now feel much more informed than before. I had a lot of misconceptions before I made this post, so hopefully, it didn't come off as too "stupid".

In the end, I decided to go with the Dell Alienware AW2521H as at the price point I managed to get it at (£290/$394.23), I felt it was a good balance of features and performance.

I appreciate the wealth of information forums and website provides, kudos to all the hard work!

[nerif.tafu]

When I play Rust at 1080p on my RTX 2080 Ti, it usually doesn’t even use more than 20 to 30% of my GPU because I have the game very optimized with low and medium settings for the highest FPS and greatest visibility. Have you tried putting everything on low and playing at 3440x1440 to see what GPU usage is like then?

I like to play with medium-ish settings, at 3440x1440 and 2460x1440 I get 100% GPU utilisation and at 1920x1080 i get around 70% utilisation. I would rather have a prettier game than gaining 10 fps ish (from testing low settings and medium settings).

I think I will miss ultrawide but the benefits of not playing at 20 fps while roaming will be nice

[Chief Blur Buster]

You made a good choice going 240Hz "1ms" IPS.

They now currently produce among the best desktop G-SYNC experience for 1080p, no matter what framerate you get.

The size downgrade is noticeable, but you can always re-upgrade to a 240Hz 1440p (and soon 4K) or ultrawide once the GPU shortages abate further and new GPUs arrive.

[lizardpeter]

Remember that you don't need 240fps to benefit from 240Hz.

[*]240Hz benefits non-gaming situations too

Repeat After Me: 100fps low frame rates have lower input lag on 240Hz G-SYNC than 144Hz G-SYNC

This is all such great advice that I wish more reviewers, YouTubers, influencers, etc understood. There is SOOOOOO much misinformation out there about arbitrary refresh rates being seen as "overkill" or excessive or unnoticeable. I really like a lot of them, but it's very hard to take them seriously when they just parrot nonsense. I'm sure you're excited for the new QD-OLED monitors coming out. While I'd like to see higher refresh rates soon, it will be interesting to see just how much clarity in motion there is with these panels at 175 Hz but also with such fast pixel response times.