Should I go with either a lower end/budget-ish 4K 60 hz monitor OR should I go with a higher end 144 hz 1440p monitor?

Both will be very similar in price so now I'm left to deciding which one should I look to get with price left out of the equation. I'm building a PC around a 1080 but when I see that the card doesn't hit consistent 60 frames at 4K, I'm left feeling that the only way to appreciate 4K is with an SLI set up.

Help guide me PC gurus.

everyone here is all about framerate. and even with the 1080 it doesn't sound like you're going to get sterling performance. i'd say if you're a glutton for pure fidelity at the cost of smoothness go 4k, otherwise 1440p all the way.

my pick is 1440p. hell i still have to be able to run games on it at 60fps plus

I would probably go for the 144hz 1440p as the difference between 2k and 4k probably isn't as huge a difference as (60hz with sub 60fps) and (144hz and frame rate higher than 60fps). Granted my only experience with 1440p is downsized on my 4k tv with both at only 60hz, i typically play games at a res between 1440p and 1080p on my 980. It may also be worth while to look into a gsync monitor as well which could make a 4k monitor a bit more enticing if you can get frames between 40 and 60. Ultimately just decide on what you think is more valuable higher frames or higher res.

1440p 144hz monitor with either Gsync or Freesync. I've got an Acer predator and I love it.

I'm all about the hz, man. 144 hz sound amazing! I prefer higher frames over resolution, but that's just me.

1440p is a pretty sweet spot right now and I don't plan on getting into 4k until we're able to run it a lot easier.

What resolution are you referring to as "2k" here? 1080p? Since when did that become known as 2k?

Just ordered a 144hz 1440p Monitor. I hear that 144hz vs 60hz is night and day, so Im excited.

@mike 2k typically refers to 1440 on most sites like Newegg, but often needs to be clarified because some people will say 1080 is 2k.

Definitely a 144hz 1440p monitor. If you haven't used a 144hz monitor before you're in for a treat. Even in Windows everything moves so smoothly. I have an ACER XB270HU.

You can also find out just how crazy those people are that think the human eye can't see above 60fps.

Definitely 1440. I bought a used 4K monitor, and after the initial period of marveling at its clarity faded away, I set the resolution down to 1920x1080 because everything was so small and Windows scaling isn't very good. You would need a better reason than gaming to go for a 4K monitor, and 1440p is great for typical screen sizes.

The 4k monitors are so nice though, at work i'm using 5k 27-inch retina display and the screen looks amazing, at home I use a laptop with resolution of 3200 x 1800 but it's only 13.3 inches, still looks gorgeous though.

I've never used a 144hz monitor but i don't know, how many games are you even going to manage to get fps that high in? I'd go for the 4k monitor.

That's a good point since a game like The Witcher 3 averages at around 70 FPS at 1440p. That being said I would still go with 1440p because being able to hit at least that 60FPS in everything is just so nice to have. I'm running a GTX 1080 at 1440p and it's great never having to worry about a game not performing well with everything turned all the way up.

Depends on the size of your monitor. Are you gonna get a 24 inch monitor? Then 2k seems adequate. Do you want a 30+ inch monitor? Then I would go 4k.

Depends on the kind of games you play. Do you play Fighting games or FPS (FIRST PERSON SHOOTER) games at a competitive level? Then I would go 144 hz. Do you value color fidelity and play slower games like rpgs? Then a 4k ips panel would seem the better way to go.

As far as FPS (FRAMES PER SECOND) limitations at 4k go, that's for some games not others. You could always drop to 2k (or something in between) for things that don't hit that 60 fps mark and still have the added benefits of an IPS panel (Color Depth, Viewing Angle). A thing I hate about my 144hz TN panel is the viewing angle is bad when I slouch in my chair but then again I love fighting games so the low (11ms) input lag i have on my panel is important for me.

Remember when you're shopping that Response Time does not equal input lag. For whatever panel you're looking at you should google the input lag. For most high performance 144 hz monitors the standard is at about 10ms at the center (or average).

::EDIT::

I think for most things unless you play competitive FPS (FIRST PERSON SHOOTER) games 60hz is pretty smooth. Probably smooth enough. It gets hard to tell the difference. The driving factor for "smoothness" is really FPS (FRAMES PER SECOND). Really depends on what you play and at what level.

::EDIT 2::

It's also worth mentioning there are higher frame rate IPS panels also that run at 4k. Theres also panels like the Asus Pb287q which is a TN panel which runs at 60hz but has only 1ms response time and 11ms of input lag which is an interesting compromise.

::EDIT 3::

Last one, I promise. I thought about it a bit and if I were in your shoes and I wasn't super competitive about First person Shooters (i mean play pro league) or Fighting games (if you care about fighting games the choice of least input lag {144 hz} is clear) I would DEFINITELY get the 4k panel and I would get a nice big size for several reasons.

1) There is an immense luxury about a nice big screen if you can afford it.

2) PS4 and Xbox are both moving in the direction of 4k resolutions one way or the other. That means whatever you get on the PC will likely be tuned for those standards.

3) A quality monitor is a longer term investment than your PC (usually). I've had certain displays for many years. You'll eventually get a new gpu or a new rig altogether or a 4k console or who knows. It would probably be smart to get a panel with more scalable resolutions for when your PC or future PCs are behind or ahead of the times.

4) Honestly the difference between 60 and 120hz is hard to see. You can definitely tell if you look but in my opinion when you're playing it's really not that big a deal. Frame rate differences are a much bigger issue. Also most videogames are designed for televisions which usually run around 60 hz anyways.

At the end you can rest easy knowing that, whatever decision you make, you're purchase will soon be obsolete. The OLEDs are coming.

I am still using 1080p60. If you have a 1440p144 you would need a really powerfull PC to run all games at 144fps and if you don't run games at the native hz you get screen tearing or maybe that is not as big of a problem on a 144hz screen as a 60? Looking at a review of a 1080 card it hits around 70-113fps in the 11 different games tested at 1440p. 144hz seems like overkill just like 4k since still not even a 1080 can hit that target.Looking at 4k performance it hits between 36 and 62fps, only one game lets you play in 4k60hz. Not even at 1080p it hits 144 fps in all games. they run at 98 to 161fps.

So can someone explain to me the point of a 1440p144hz or a 4k60hz monitor is?

In case someone wants the source http://www.sweclockers.com/test/22255-evga-geforce-gtx-1080-sc-acx-3-0/5#content it is in Swedish but you can easily understand the benchmark anyway.

@dagas: "So can someone explain to me the point of a 1440p144hz or a 4k60hz monitor is?"

Your GPU will usually spit out frames whenever it calculates them. It may not be at a consistent rate. Your monitor will refresh consistently at whatever refresh rate your'e at. So if you're running 60 fps at 60 hz it very possible to drop frames (maybe your monitor refreshes once or twice before a new frame gets to it or just doesn't line up with the frame rate in such a way that it cyclically will refresh once or twice without a frame) and experience undesirable side effects like skipping or tearing. If you run at 120hz or 144hz for 60fps you're unlikely to have this problem because you're probably going to refresh before a new frame is ever pooped out. Another solution is to use vsync which buffers the image your gpu calculates and times it with your refresh rate which is all well and good as long as your refresh rate isn't bigger than your frame rate. If that happens then the buffer will force your frame rate to drop trying to get frames lined up. The new fangled solution is Gsync or Freesync where your card (nvidia or amd respectively) communicates with your monitor and your monitor refreshes whenever your gpu spits out a new frame. This is a great solution. However, if you play games where reaction time is important vsync, gsync and freesync can dramatically impact input lag (see the SFV input lag fiasco). In that case a lot of competitive gamers would rather just refresh the monitor way the hell faster (more than twice) than the frame rate (which for many games is locked at 60fps) to make sure frames don't get dropped that way.

I definitely favor higher framerates so I've enjoyed pairing a gtx 980ti with the acer xb270hu. It's 1440/144hz/Gsync so you get a nice resolution upgrade and 70-110 fps while maxing out graphics settings.

Unfortunately 4k gaming hasn't hit its stride yet. My buddy has SLI 980tis for 4k gaming. Playing Doom, he was forced to choose to either meticulously lower graphics settings, drop to 1080, or play with sub-30 fps. He ended up just lowering it to 1080.

4k is also a bit jarring in that, depending on your screen size and distance from it, static UI can make things difficult to read. More games are figuring it out but it sucks when you lose your mouse cursor in 4k cause it's so tiny.

4k is just more trouble than it's worth atm.

@s10129107: thanks for the info. If my monitor ever breaks I might pick up a faster refresh one then =) But mine is sufficient for me I am not playing competitively.

@casey25: Doom SLI support didn't work for some time. I'm not sure if they got it working or if it works well. Haven't been paying attention.

I would give this a read before considering 4k monitors or TVs. It has a cute little calculator on the page that lets you see if you'll benefit from 4k at all.

Given that's for TVs and this thread is about monitors, I don't expect anyone to be sitting more than ~1-2ft away from their monitors. At that distance regardless of size you will see a benefit.

That said, in regards to the OPs question I would take a 1440p GSync monitor all day over 4k. Seeing as a 1080 can't even achieve 60fps at that resolution unless you're willing to sacrifice a lot on frame rate or visuals 4k is still a pipe dream. If you get a nice 1440p GSync monitor you will get the benefit of higher resolution than 1080p and you will have a much smoother experience even if you dip below 60fps.

@mike: I think 1080p is usually referred to as 1k right? I mean 1440p when i say 2k.

Assuming you could run games at a good framerate I'd go for a 1440p monitor. You need to spend a fortune to play in 4K and frankly I don't see the point of having such a high resolution. I have a 1440p g-sync monitor, the desktop is huge and I zoom in many websites.

1440/144/Gsync was easily the best upgrade I ever made. Everything from desktop use to games is significantly better. It's a bit of a kick in the wallet, but if you can swing it(and have the rig to power it), there's nothing better.

1440P still gives you enough headroom (especially with a 1080) to hit higher framerates.

I wish we would go back to the good old days of just saying the actual resolution instead of increasingly meaningless monikers that doesn't even take aspect ratio into consideration. Though sadly I think we lost the aspect ratio battle a long time ago... so I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point.

But to your point, 1k seems wildly inappropriate for 1080p... that should be reserved for 720p. 1080p "should" be 2k.

"<1k" -

640 x 480 (VGA/NTSC) - 4:3

768 x 576 (PAL) - 4:3

"1k" -

1024 x 576 (PAL-wide) - 16:9

1280 x 720 (720p/HD) - 16:9

"2k"-

1920 x 1080 (1080p/HD) - 16:9

2048 x 1080 (actual 2K) - 17:9

"quarter-step-to-4k" -

2560 x 1440 (1440p/2K) - 16:9

"4k" -

3840 x 2160 (UHD/4k) - 16:9

4096 x 2160 (actual 4k) - 17:9

"5k" -

5120 x 2880 (5k) - 16:9

@eternalshades: hmm, good info to know i had no idea. I just usually read people put 1k for 1080 and 2k for 1440p etc, so i figured that was the universal generic term for it these days. TBH coming from mostly console gaming, i'm still relatively new to all these resolutions only been gaming above 720 for like 3 years now and just moving up to anything above 1080.

Put me in the 144hz 1440p camp, it's the sweet spot for my set up R9 390x. I'm running Doom on ultra and with vsync on I get around 60fps, with it off I've seen 100fps at times. I'll upgrade to 4k and a new card in a couple years as the prices go down.

A 4K monitor is a reasonable idea... if you're not going to play video games. 4K is good for productivity, but if you want 4K for the video games and want them to run well you'll need a bajillion dollars.

Higher refresh rates are great. You can definitely notice the difference when moving the mouse pointer around. It's so smooth.

I'm investing in a 4k monitor in August for photo editing and extra screen real estate personally.

If you are interested in photo editing or design work, 4k is a very nice value add indeed, for gaming, you're just going to accept you won't be running many games at 4k unless you upgrade often!

I asked Jeff Bakalar this exact same question, and the rotating seat himself said 4K isn't quite worth it yet.

Once you experience the 120hz mouse pointer you can never go back into that dark past.

I have a 2k monitor, and it hurts my eyes. I think I need glasses.

Depends on what you want to do with your monitor and if resolution means a lot to you. If it's just gaming then I would hands down get that 144hz 1440p monitor. It won't be for another 2 years where we can reasonably run 4k games at almost max settings on a single card.

1440p only just now hit the sweet spot for gaming on single cards

@sterling: lol, you definitely have to set the scaling up to like 150% or so, and i have it at 200% for 4k.

144hz, 1440p.

4k is great for productivity if you are a programmer, or working with video/photo/audio editing, but for gaming we've still got a few years until hardware is fast enough to handle 4k. Even the fastest graphics card on the market now can only handle 4k/60hz, and that's not even at high settings.

The good thing about 4k is that 1080p is exactly 1/4th the resolution, so 4k downscales to 1080p perfectly. If you wanted to you could use a 4k monitor at native resolution for everything but then run games at 1080p without any scaling issues. You'd still be stuck at 60hz until somebody comes out with a 120hz or 144hz 4k panel, but that's a decent trade-off if you need the screen real estate and size of a 4k monitor.