visual quality not nearly in the same league as motion imo
to me the sweet spot is still probably a 1440p 144hz monitor. buy hardware that can use it well. then get a 4k 144hz monitor when that technology has become reasonable in price and new hardware to go with it.
i got monitor #1 with a 7700k and a 1080 ti a couple years ago. in a few more years when they make a graphics card that will work with 4k @144hz, i’ll get a new monitor and hardware. i figure the 3080 or 3080 ti (or whatever) will probably do the trick, and by then the monitors will be much more reasonable.
Well yeah of course why not both lol
But most people aren’t willing to spend the $700 for a gpu that can push 1440p high refresh.
And in a lot of new games, even a 1080ti (or even 2080 to) isn’t able to reliably do it without considerable settings reductions.
If the Australian Summer doesn’t result in mass GPU failure, I’m confidant you’ll be fine in your US “Summer” (unless you live in Nevada, then you’ll understand Summer). These things are designed to run a lot hotter than humans can phsyically withstand, and fan curves mean that the higher the temperature gets the more the fan works so the difference isn’t as much as it would be just based on the ambient.
But, yes, 144fps is much harder on your GPU than 60fps - it’s literally demanding 240% as much of everything. It’s not the same as just increasing your resolution, however, since that imposes a different type of load (a 2160p screen as opposed to 1080p will use 4x the raster ops, up to 4x the pixel shader ops, but still has the same basic amount of geometry and texture). You could always “simulate” it by running the game with a 144fps limit without V-sync, just to see how it fares (which will also give you an indication of whether your GPU will see the full benefit).
The human mind is a wonderful thing. You adapt to them fairly readily, kind-of like adapting to the distortion from glasses. Which is to say if you look for it you’ll find it quite easily, but if you’re paying attention to what you’re seeing rather than how you’re seeing it you’ll almost never even notice.
1 Like
Aren’t you running G-sync?
1 Like
Nope, ASUS VG248QE
1 Like
How do you even play at that screen size
1 Like
Larger than that 1080p looks terrible. I don’t mind 24" at all. I’m also right in front of it so I don’t see the problem.
I also don’t want to get a 1440p monitor because my GPU won’t push the fps I want at that resolution.
Additionally, at 1080p, I get the most out of my overclock.
1 Like
I’m in front of a 43 inch screen and I’m able to see everything
I had a 27 inch screen at 1080p but I kinda hate it due to everything so tiny
1 Like
Im secure in my size.
Are you?
1 Like
to properly see a 43" screen, you need to be sitting almost 4 1/2 feet away.
Thats not “different for everyone” - thats legit science. Unless you’re some kind of mutant that has a wider range of vision than the rest of humanity.
43" is way too big for a desktop monitor. Way too big. About the biggest monitor you can see sitting 24-32" (the average for a desk) away is about 30".
1 Like
Idk about you then but I can see the whole screen from corner to corner
This is how I see the monitor at my angle
The monitor is not right up close to my face 
Desk is 5 feet in width btw
43 inch is perfect for a 4k monitor to me
So yea I’m pretty sure I’m past the 4 1/2 feet “acceptable” range 
1 Like
Yeah, I’d be doing a whole lot of head tracking with a screen that size up close.
Also, a lot of it would be outside my viewable range at that distance (eyeglasses) so head tracking movement and objects in your setup would make me throw up probably
1 Like
Its not what you think either
I literally do not move my head at all
The picture is a bad shot sure but when I sit down, I can see everything from corner to corner
1 Like
I’m just saying - i have a 24" and it takes up probably about 70% of my visible field of view (my eyeglasses).
If i nearly doubled the size of the display at the same distance from my face, a lot of it would not be visible without me moving my head.
1 Like
sitting too close to the screen isn’t bad because it fills your field of view, it is bad because you start to see pixels.
you can sit very, very close to 4k tv’s without seeing pixels, depending on what source you’re looking at. Forbes says the ideal distance to look at a 43 inch 4k tv is 2.9 feet. you can watch a 70 inch tv from 4.5 feet away. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2017/11/01/when-a-4k-tv-looks-just-like-a-1080p-tv/#381774404db7
Another example to show
This is how it looks like when I’m sitting down, tried my best taking the picture but what you see is what I sit down and play
Playing on the Wii U, game is Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker
I’m sitting pretty far what others claim I’m not
1 Like
Yeah i don’t see pixels at all when I’m playing WoW
I would have if this desk was not big enough
1 Like
I don’t think you really understand what i’m saying. If i look dead center at my 24" monitor, my wifi antenna which is just behind it not more than 4" higher, is outside my eyeglasses field of view. i have to tilt my head up to see the antenna. i imagine if the display was large enough to encompass the area where my wifi antenna presently is, i would also have to tilt my head up to see whatever is happening on the top of the screen.
With my present 24" monitor, i can see everything in my field of view (although obviously i can’t focus on it all) but stuff outside my field of view (eyeglasses) are blurry as hell because i’m blind as a bat.
get bigger glasses?
i have a 27 inch monitor, and i just measured sitting here i’m almost exactly 3 feet from the screen, it’s really not even close to filling up my field of view. i’d happily have a larger one but it’s only 1440p and i think i’d start to see pixels if it was a lot bigger. admittedly i think 43 would be a bit much. but 32-34 certainly.
1 Like