-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Thinking of purchasing a ASUS VG279Q 1080p 144Hz monitor
- Thread starter wingman99
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #22
Well I purchased the Acer predator XB2 240Hz 1080p with G-Sync. Oh my GOD!!!!!! I have never played like this in 22 years of PC gaming. In BFV starting at 170-200 FPS absolutely no blur no mater how fast I sweep the mouse even with running in the game at the same time. When the FPS drops below 170 then the blurring starts. G-Sync is heaven also, so smooth not a single stutter or micro stutter. With both no blur and no stutters it feels like I'm gaming in liquid it is so smooth, that is the only way I can describe it. With G-Sync disable I have stutters and micro stutters like the MSI Optix G27C2 27" 1080p 144Hz and all the other monitors I have had in 22 years.
Playing at 170-200 FPS with 240Hz G-sync monitor is like just siting in your chair and looking around the room with your eyes fixed strait while moving your head or body, is another way I will try and describe it.
Playing at 170-200 FPS with 240Hz G-sync monitor is like just siting in your chair and looking around the room with your eyes fixed strait while moving your head or body, is another way I will try and describe it.
- Thread Starter
- #24
27" at 1080p for my viewing distance (desk) isn't optimal (pixel density there is visibly low for me), but glad you are enjoying your new monitor!!!
Have you tried Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests in post #16 the way I suggested? With my new 240Hz monitor I can max the 3840 pixels per second in Blur Busters UFO motion test with absolutely no blur.
I will just show what 240 FPS with 240Hz looks like with no blur. I know it is a screen shot and screen shots of FPS will not show blur.
Last edited:
I tried that years ago when I got this monitor (My 2560x1440 144 Hz IPS Predator).
What I commented on was the pixel density and look of a 27" monitor with 1080 resolution. I too waffled with a similar choice at that time. I wanted a bigger monitor, but not at such a huge expense of pixel density (~82 PPI vs 109 PPI for 27" FHD or WQHD). That is part of the reason I jumped up in res with the larger monitor. At an arm's length away, I could easily see the pixels on a 27/28" FHD monitor.
What I commented on was the pixel density and look of a 27" monitor with 1080 resolution. I too waffled with a similar choice at that time. I wanted a bigger monitor, but not at such a huge expense of pixel density (~82 PPI vs 109 PPI for 27" FHD or WQHD). That is part of the reason I jumped up in res with the larger monitor. At an arm's length away, I could easily see the pixels on a 27/28" FHD monitor.
- Thread Starter
- #26
I tried that years ago when I got this monitor (My 2560x1440 144 Hz IPS Predator).
What I commented on was the pixel density and look of a 27" monitor with 1080 resolution. I too waffled with a similar choice at that time. I wanted a bigger monitor, but not at such a huge expense of pixel density (~82 PPI vs 109 PPI for 27" FHD or WQHD). That is part of the reason I jumped up in res with the larger monitor. At an arm's length away, I could easily see the pixels on a 27/28" FHD monitor.
The reason why I wanted you to run Blur Busters UFO Motion Test is because you said this in post #13.
The way I read your statements on gaming, you like to play with lower than pined 144 FPS with increased blur? I like to have the best advantage in gaming to win, I don't like to play to lose, otherwise what is the point of playing games? That is some of the reason I'm on overclock forums to know and help how to push the limits.
You could purchase two monitors one for 240Hz 1080p G-Sync gaming and one for 4k.
Last edited:
Quite obviously, the IDEAL situation is to peg games to the refresh rate of your monitor... however that doesn't always happen and isn't a BAD thing when it doesn't. Just like 100 Hz is better/less blurry in motion than 60Hz, 130-144Hz+ is better than 100Hz. It's still a lot better than 60 Hz was my point (and is where you were coming from). The more FPS and higher Hz, the less motion blur you get, this is known already and I do not need to test to see what I already know.
So, again, yes. If I was in your shoes, and I was, I would rather have made the jump to 2560x1440 144 Hz IPS and not pegged the FPS and still have a MUCH better gaming experience than 60 Hz. In my situation, I need the screen real estate and pixel density more so than I needed zOMG 240 hz becauseiamaprogamer. There is value in your choice, but since I'm not a pro gamer and the difference between 60-144 is marked anyway, I didn't see the need to go even faster hz for a low res (1080p) monitor.
So, again, yes. If I was in your shoes, and I was, I would rather have made the jump to 2560x1440 144 Hz IPS and not pegged the FPS and still have a MUCH better gaming experience than 60 Hz. In my situation, I need the screen real estate and pixel density more so than I needed zOMG 240 hz becauseiamaprogamer. There is value in your choice, but since I'm not a pro gamer and the difference between 60-144 is marked anyway, I didn't see the need to go even faster hz for a low res (1080p) monitor.
Who plays them to lose?
Again, you made a great choice for you. I play PC games to win too and chose the higher res, IPS 144-165Hz monitor since I don't like the low pixel density of 27" 1920x1080 and enjoy the increased real estate for when I don't game (most of the day) and is quite smooth and notably better over 60 Hz. In fact, I have 2 2560x1440 monitors for increased real estate (one 144-165hz the other 75hz). To each their own..
Again, you made a great choice for you. I play PC games to win too and chose the higher res, IPS 144-165Hz monitor since I don't like the low pixel density of 27" 1920x1080 and enjoy the increased real estate for when I don't game (most of the day) and is quite smooth and notably better over 60 Hz. In fact, I have 2 2560x1440 monitors for increased real estate (one 144-165hz the other 75hz). To each their own..
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #30
Who plays them to lose?
You aren't a professional gamer though right? You play with friends and likely in a clan for fun (always to win) and do not get paid by someone to play competitively, correct?
Some folks just play and lose all the time and don't want to play that much.
That is correct I play PC games competitively for fun 22 years.
Your suggestion for the 1440p, 144Hz does not give me much of a advantage in gaming do to the lower minimum frame rates compared to 1080p with my RTX 2070. Matching my FPS with monitor Hz does gives a big advantage in game play by reducing motion blur and I tried to show you and explain how. Every millisecond on what you can see counts. The posting of mouse without stutter counts.If I was a payed gamer I would have SLI 2080Ti two monitors one for 240Hz 1080p G-Sync gaming and one for 4k. I don't want to spend that much money every generation for a GPU upgrade. If person like me upgrades all the time to keep current using 1440p if is more costlier to keep up to current hardware for gaming advantage just for more Pixel density. I'm so use to 1080p I don't see the Pixels and could care less about 1440p, 4k on 27" and the reason is most of the time new generation games are more demanding on hardware and hardware most of the time just keeping up with the games. So I will take 1080p monitor as long as it will last.
I do understand your goals.
To me, image quality makes a difference so I have the best of both worlds (higher res and higher hz). There is simply no way I can go 1080p on a 27" monitor and sit arms length away. I can count the pixels... no amount of Hz will overcome that 'shortcoming' (for my uses).
Though I have to wonder if it really does cost more to maintain ~144 FPS at WQHD res than it does to run 240 FPS at 1080p. Sounds remarkably similar to me, honestly.
... but again I get your needs, they are just different than mine. Enjoy that monitor!
PS - Do you play any PUBG or just BF V? Also, Battle Royale mode in BF V or other BRoyale games?
To me, image quality makes a difference so I have the best of both worlds (higher res and higher hz). There is simply no way I can go 1080p on a 27" monitor and sit arms length away. I can count the pixels... no amount of Hz will overcome that 'shortcoming' (for my uses).
Though I have to wonder if it really does cost more to maintain ~144 FPS at WQHD res than it does to run 240 FPS at 1080p. Sounds remarkably similar to me, honestly.
... but again I get your needs, they are just different than mine. Enjoy that monitor!
PS - Do you play any PUBG or just BF V? Also, Battle Royale mode in BF V or other BRoyale games?
- Thread Starter
- #32
I don't play PUBG and mostly like war games and car games. BFV is my favorite game now. I'm not maintaining the full potential of my 1920X1080p 240HZ now with one RTX 2070 In BFV, depending on the map with low in game setting I have motion blur when the FPS drops to around 155 FPS. The reason I know that when BFV blurs, I look at my FPS counter. however, around 170-200 FPS is smooth sailing.
however, around 170-200 FPS is smooth sailing.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #36
I never give up, on anything I like.
Sometimes hardware does not work well like they think it does wen they make it. Just one old example, is it better to run the old Vsync off or on or use adaptive V-sync when they finely came out with it?
Adaptive V-sync is all they use now, it's only a FPS limiter to V-sync, the old stepping Vsync has been gone for many years. The reason I know? I can't remember what year it was. however, it about 6 years ago with G-Sync or later than that nvidia stopped using first rendition stepped Vsync. With the Vsync on the FPS would jump down and up in intervals causing the frame to stop = lag and stutter matching the monitor HZ with CRT monitor VBLANK hardware.
Hardware advantages and setup is not about making me a great player, it about doing just a little better each day, like slow technology progress. Technology progress and me don't win a lot, but we keep trying.
I would like 240 Hz IPS panel instead of the old TN with updates or another way to do it completely, not invented yet.
Reason for edit, unorganized thoughts. LOL
on anything I like. Sometimes hardware does not work well like they think it does wen they make it. Just one old example, is it better to run the old Vsync off or on or use adaptive V-sync when they finely came out with it?
Adaptive V-sync is all they use now, it's only a FPS limiter to V-sync, the old stepping Vsync has been gone for many years. The reason I know? I can't remember what year it was. however, it about 6 years ago with G-Sync or later than that nvidia stopped using first rendition stepped Vsync. With the Vsync on the FPS would jump down and up in intervals causing the frame to stop = lag and stutter matching the monitor HZ with CRT monitor VBLANK hardware.
Hardware advantages and setup is not about making me a great player, it about doing just a little better each day, like slow technology progress. Technology progress and me don't win a lot, but we keep trying.
I would like 240 Hz IPS panel instead of the old TN with updates or another way to do it completely, not invented yet.
Reason for edit, unorganized thoughts. LOL
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
240Hz IPS panels will be on laptops this year, uncertain when they are coming to desktop monitors, but they have been developed. And yet another refresh of 240Hz TN should be coming to desktop monitors soon, this one is suppose to have even better viewing angles and 2k panels. I would carry you guys, but I don't play BF, that's for casuals.
I don't play casual it is either win or lose.
