I mean... Pretty good movie experience. Or you could refresh your memory of the classics like Bioshock, Portal, Mass Effect. Should run just fine. Don't get swayed by the hype of ever newer, ever more demanding games.
i recently upgrade from GTX 1070 which i sold for 1/4 of new rpice from 8 years ago and i swap from old 12 Years old iiyama to used RX 6800XT and cheap gaming monitor from iiyama FHD 100HZ freesync which cost 110 euro best purchase so far! and change from 60hz to 100hz was MASSIVE.
800 USD = 1,191.42 Australian Dollars; My last box cost me $750 (Later i brought a 6700 for $450, the 6700xt was at the time $150 more, a week after i brought the 6700, (the 6700xt was $500), my 32'' 1440p (75hz, on special) died after 18 months, brought a second hand 32'' 1440p, died after 2 weeks, couldn't find the receipt; Was on my old system for a month, then just went out and got a cheap 1080p (old monitor has a DVI connector...sigh); a week later price drop meant for the same price i could have gotten a 180hz monitor (instead of what i got...), it's been a challenging year, next year is going to be a lot more so...
Everything in the PC space is expensive. If you keep this monitor 10 years, it's only $80 a year. Unfortunately $800 is a good price for a gaming monitor. Otherwise I'd recommend the ASUS TUF VG27A. It's a nice middle ground between budget and expensive. It's 1440p 165hz. Great color
The only times I've seen Tim actually angry are for that godawful Razer 165Hz monitor that was also super expensive, and that Asus laptop that was overheating due to bad vent placement
I'm not upgrading my 1080p 60Hz monitor any time soon, only if it breaks. Why? Because I don't know what is to game at 1440p at high refresh rate, and I'm happy with it. I suspect once I've seen what, then I'll have to spend on a new monitor and a new GPU to get the most of it. So I prefer to live in ignorance and be happy gaming at 1080p at 60Hz 😂😂 (I don't do multiplayer)
higher resolution(1440p and 4K) means that the image is sharper and less blurry due to more pixels. higher refresh rate is more frames so the image quality is smoother. once you play a game at 1440p + high refresh rate you will never want to go back to 1080p/60 fps. it's the same as going from 1080p/30 fps to 1080p/60 fps. can you go back to 30 fps? i highly doubt it. if you can afford to at least upgrade to 1440p/144-165hz then go for it. you won't regret it.
@@SapiaNt0mata That's exactly what I've said: "once you play a game at 1440p + high refresh rate you will never want to go back to 1080p/60", because I know that, I don't want to try it properly 😂😂. Right now I have a 1660Ti, and I can ply RDR2 or similar just fine at 1080p60. When I try to play a game that doesn't allow me to do that (lately I don't game that much), then I'll think about upgrading.
Bought a 4k 120, love the looks, then went back to 1080p and capped at 120fps. Saved 80-120W at times on the GPU. My cartoon trees still looked like cartoon trees either way.
@@yordan9669while this is in part true, the thing is that most people had never seen a mini led, Oled or micro LED in person, also a lot of people had never seen 1440p neither say 4k, so while the intention of the video is likely promotion of the other channel, the things said here are true... My friends get crazy with my Mini Led TV and my OLED monitor, more than with the Fps of my PC... (Even when I have a high end PC)
@@centuryt91Basically the video is explaining to gamers than the "extremely high quality, refillable and refined fountain ink pen" writes so much better than the cheap ahh Bic pen
Jokes are self evident It doesn't read as a joke more like sarcasm mate! A complete fail and apologising for your delivery doesn't help. Context has to be in the TEXT, not your mind because you didn't give readers permission to read your mind.
I like 1080p because it makes my gpu last longer for high refresh rate gaming which is really important to me. I've never seen any higher res so I don't know what I'm missing :)
I did that bought 2 1440p monitors last year one at 165Hz and the second at 75Hz after saving up post upgrading from a 5500xt to the 3060 in 2022. Now I'm upgrading my GPU to a 7900xt after updating my build from a 5600x to 7800x3d build.
It's not a good time to buy a monitor for the long term. Right now you have to pick your poison between OLED's poor brightness in high APL scenes or Mini-LED's blooming and dim small highlights. I'd wait until OLED monitors can at least reach fullscreen brightness levels of typical LCD screens (~300-400 nits). Even the best OLED monitors right now can only do ~250 nits fullscreen.
I upgraded my monitor to 1440p high refresh, but then immediately realized I needed to upgrade my RX 580 to a 7900 xt to receive the full benefit of the monitor upgrade
Depends on what games you play and yeah the 580 is deff underpowered for a 1440p high refresh rate experience, but if the lack in GPU isn't so extreme I think 1440p medium settings can look much better than the same game at ultra settings 1080p. For 1440p I believe the 7700XT to be an amazing well rounded entry point.
I did the same thing, but I simply went a barely used 6600xt (Nitro+) for like 1440p. You don't have to actually get a 7900 XT to enjoy a lot of things at 1440p; it's just they don't age as well for it. The RX 580 could only pull high frames at basically switch graphics 💀.
Tim argues that people should be upgrading to away from 1080p monitors because upscaling techniques work better at higher resolutions. He seems to be forgetting that people who use upscaling at 1080p might have certain budgetary constraints and GPUs that, upscaling or not, struggle to perform at FullHD, let alone a resolution with nearly double the pixel count.
@@FuncleChuck I can't stand 60Hz on mouse and keyboard it's just awful... But you can have a nice display for 200bucks new or even better one second hand.
@@FuncleChuck A good 1440p 165hz monitor costs 200$ (Dell G2724D). Upgrading monitor is the most noticeable thing you can do also upscaled 1440p looks better than native 1080p
@@nickpetriashvili2863 My exact monitor! It's such a huge upgrade over the 1080p 24" 75Hz monitors I used to have for work. Solid 1440p 165Hz monitors like this one aren't expensive at all and provide a huge improvement to the experience.
I figured this little fact out after I built my first gaming computer. Like many folks, I put all my money into the computer and used a 1080p 60hz TV as my monitor(I know, I know). I thought it would suffice until I could pick up a cheap monitor, which unfortunately was a cheapo 1080p 60hz as well. I honestly had no idea I was killing my experience because no one ever told me what Tim's saying here, the monitor is so important. When I got a "real" gaming monitor, one with 1440p at 165hz, my gaming experience really went full tilt. I thought it was my computer that needed upgrading, it was just the monitor! I wish I knew this from the out and I tell anyone new to this to make at least a high refresh rate monitor a must have item when setting up their gaming rig, it's necessary for best performance. Thank you Tim for highlighting this fact, it's so important!
man!! especially if your specific use case allows high refresh rates. I never knew I would love roblox at 144hz, i feel like the playground bully sometimes lol.
It's not something you expect people to not know which is why you rarely see it. It's like buying a fast sports car and limiting it to 20% of its horsepower and being like "I never knew if I unlocked the other 80% then I'd get a much better experience". Getting a fast pc but being stuck on 60hz is like you never bought a fast PC.
@@RestTarRr It's a budget thing mainly, the monitor is always going to be last on the list instead of first. And no, not everyone is going to know this out of the gate, name me any computer build video that talks about the monitor as part of the build or even adds one to the total price, not many do, and that's the truth. It always ends up separately if at all. Tim did good here, and I commend him for it.
@@dragon2knight The monitor kind of gets lumped in with the keyboard and mouse scenario, where you can spend more on the PC because you've got them already kind of thing. I can relate. My laptop is starting to have issues (3 vertical lines, repeating 3 key and overheating) so I'm picking parts for a new PC and I'm finding the monitor the hardest to choose!
I feel like the HDR section needs a bit more emphasis on "real" HDR hardware, as opposed to the shit-tier edge-lit "HDR" that nearly every monitor seems to advertise these days, but literally looks worse than just turning it off.
if you have an AMD gpu you don't need HDR. the Adrenalin software of AMD has video presets that change colors, etc, and Vivid preset does what HDR does: higher color gamut, darker shadows, brighter highlights, etc. the video presets work on firefox browser. and you can further tweak colors, etc from the Adrenalin software and make it even better. for video games you can use reshade to make the game look like HDR using different injectors like clarity, colorfulness, etc. you only need 4-6 injectors: clarity(this removes the blur and make everything look much better), lightroom(similar to Photoshop photo editing program), colorfulness(to make the colors pop more), adaptive sharpen, and the other 2 are Fake HDR(if you combine it with other injectors it's like true HDR) and RTGI which is the lighting part of ray tracing. RTGI = ray tracing global illumination. this injector don't have the reflection part of RT. only the illumination. but there is an FPS performance drop. and you can add more injectors like DPX, Curves(another injector that darkens the shadows and brights the highlights), Bloom, DOF, etc. reshade is very underrated.
@@SapiaNt0mata I think you probably haven't seen proper HDR. It's not something that can be done with software. Your second point about the various software effects that are available being underrated might be true, but I have to disagree with your initial premise.
@@SapiaNt0mata What? HDR is not another "effect". HDR is about REAL physical brights, blacks, and colors. Not just "brighter" and washed out lights but really brighter lights. Not just "darker" shadows but shadows in which you can actually see something. And not that oversaturated "gamut" but real vivid color gamut. NO software effects can exceed the physical limitations of your old monitor.
@@CrazyPCman "NO software effects can exceed the physical limitations of your old monitor." wrong. i see it in front of my eyes. with lighroom injector you can make the shadows darker without crushing them and make lights brighter(it has shadows, blacks, highlights, midtones, levels so you can tweak the shadows and lighting in depth). then there's curves which darkens the shadows and bright the highlights and there are sliders to tweak the intensity as to not crush the blacks and shadows and tone down the highlights. fake HDR has sliders for the range of light for light sources. same goes for colors. also, you can use LUT presets and have various color palettes. btw, you think that a a $280 monitor has real HDR? nope. these cheap monitors have bad HDR. generally speaking, if you think that a $280 monitor is displaying real HDR you are delusional. since you're not getting the real HDR it's better to use cheaper alternative method like reshade. in order to get a real HDR you have to buy an expensive monitor. preferably an OLED or QD-OLED.
Still proposed monitors are expensive as hell. People who play games on 1080p doing it because they are poor and can't afford OLED. Stop recommending OLED when9 out of 10 players can't afford it. Where is the list of affordable 250-350 USD monitors? HDR on affordable monitors just a gimmick pointing at top brightness. So no, it's not much of an improvement unless someone plays on ancient TN. HDR400 is marketing bs. Pleases climb down from your OLED cloud to mere mortals that is 95% of your subscribers. --------------- Since i criticize i need to offer a solution. Take a price range of 250-350 USD. Look throght main markets worldwide and propose top 10 monitors in this pricerange for each region. Guess most of the subsribers will be grateful for the list.
I think after the 1800p 60hz, recommendations you lost me. If you already have a 144hz monitor from 5 years ago, you're better off saving all the money you can until you absolutely need a new component. I keep seeing HDR support, but does anyone actually use it? HDR 400 cert is kinda of a joke, Microsoft made it useless in Windows, and half the time it just darkens the monitor when used in a game. And as other comments have said, you're better off building around a game or resolution. "Upgrading" to a different resolution or refresh rate becomes a zero sum game. You then can begin an arms race in needing to get newer/faster to support the new thing. Overall, spend the money that best supports your goals. Meh video.
we constantly see those benchmarks showing low performance in 4k and 1440p. this definitely discourages us from upgrading to high resolution monitors, and by extension, it discourages monitor upgrades overall
@@EmblemParadeI've heard it makes the game hella stuttery, but would love to try it since I'm guessing my 7900 GRE could push 120+ ultra settings at my current 1080p res.
I was given some advice years ago. Build a PC around your monitor resolution and refresh rate target. 1080P 60hz Monitor requires a lot cheaper GPU/system build than a 1440P 165hz Monitor.
Same and the gpu I paired with the 1080p monitor is the rx580. Then WFH happened and I upgraded to 1440p 144hz and gave the 1080p monitor to my kid. The plan to upgrade the gpu with my criteria of double performance at 200-300 usd might never happen. Might go with an OLED steamdeck instead for portability and the rx580 can still be decent at 720p for streaming.😊
I've been on a 4k60 monitor since 2015 so my pc always turned out quite expensive. I was lucky to get a 1080 ti for 650 and my sapphire 7800 xt for 540 ar launch so it's not like I've been buying 90 class cards but at 1440p I'd only need a 7600 xt or similar
Id say a higher end monitor with a lower end pc will provide a better gaming experience than the other way round. (Assuming the PC isnt ridiculously underpowered)
Then people buy that higher resolution screen and find out they need a much better gpu to run it properly.. it all depends on your personal setup. Only grab a monitor with a higher resolution if your gpu can handle pushing more pixels.
Yeah, but you can just use a smaller resolution if your GPU isn't good enough to use it yet, which is rarely the case for ALL games. I bet you can get away just fine with games from 2015 at a high resolution no problem, and use a smaller resolution on 2024 games.
@@futuza Running at non native resolution is garbage and looks awful. And upscaling really only doesn't look bad at 4k, primarily because upscaler has just enough input data to work with to make it look decent. I'd rather play 1080p native on 1080p monitor than upscaled on 1440p monitor. Shimmering, sizzling, smearing, blurry soft edges... just no.
@@Micromation Most games have render scale or even DLSS. With Renderscale just the game internally renders at e.g. 1440p instead 4k, while the monitor can remain at 4k. Thats absolutely great and looks identical to real 1440p. For example Quake Champions. Looks identical on Render Scale 1440p on my 4k OLED compared to my previous 1440p monitor
@@De-M-oN Yeah, I've just made the switch myself from 1080p TN (used TN panels exclusively for like 11 years) to 1440p OLED and I'm still stunned and getting used to the colours.
@@De-M-oN it probably will be and likewise noticeable upgrade when I make the jump to OLED. But I switched to IPS many years ago, when OLED was only available on TVs and very expensive 😅 My PC is also for work-ish things and I buy stuff for a long time, so not quite ready to go OLED yet. Though I am excited to see those near-perfect response times and colours
@@De-M-oN Was thinking about getting oled but as someone who nowadays has more static content than games on the screen I didn't think it's worth it. Also I paid 330 euros for my screen and the cheapest oled was around 600
Went from 1440p 165hz VA to 4k OLED 120hz (LG TV) last year. Complete game changer. And my previous screen wasn't even bad. So yeah, until you're in a horrible financial situation, you really shouldn't be using a cheap, old 1080p 60hz LCD screen
yes but is not that impressive in the long run, yes I don't have screen tearing anymore and games do feel more snappier, because of higher refresh rate but the image quality, that didn't jumped at all from my previous 1080p 60hz 3D capable screen, in some ways, I feel my new screen has slightly less quality but could be my mind playing tricks.
Been sitting on Benq 144hz 1080p for 10 years and I am with RTX 4090 and 13900k Don't listen to this. Buy what you want. I bought Asus .5 ms response 1440p 270hz monitor and began to have insane migraines due to that LCD refresh rate. Put back my 1080p 144hz and no issues Almost forgot, 1440p also resulted in drop of eye sight. Like 30-40% eye sight drop. Because the clarity of screen my eyes stopped focusing on other sides of the world, besides of monitor. After I stepped back to 1080p I have zero issues. Remember, bros, bigger and faster is not always better. Be careful about upping hz above 144hz, if you experience migraines step back to 144hz monitor. Changing hz in monitor settings will result in smudges and faded image. Native 144hz is a way for me
Upgraded to a 1440/144hz VA monitor back in 2018 from a 1080p/24inch/60fps panel, and finally in 2022 to a 34inch 21:9 HDR OLED monitor. Best upgrade of my life.
How is reaching out to people with cheap monitors about to buy another GPU to let them consider an alternative purchase propaganda? Ive seen way too many people running high end PC's with a trash monitor.
For what? My troubled 3060ti has trouble keeping 1080p 60Hz at low fan rotation. So much I have to undervolt it and run personal fan profiles. I have a Sony Bravia 55'' 4k TV with 120Hz VRR Gsync compatible, why on Earth I would buy a 4K OLED monitor even more expensive than my 1000€ TV (2021). My next move is to upgrade my GPU and keep my old 27'' 1080p 60hz LG Flatron (2HDMI out, 1st 1080p conversion cable from hdmi to display port it works fine), when I want 4k or 1440p 120hz I play on the TV, It's on the left side of my Monitor, I just rotate it and use a usb extension and an extra mechanical keyboard and the Bluetooth mouse, with a board over my legs and play from 2 m. For some games 1080p 60hz it's fine and better because they're so heavy in performance, some won't allow upscale at 1440p on a 4k TV/monitor forcing 4k, 4k with DLSS performance with less fps and higher noise and temperatures, less quality than 1440p DLSS quality. So I will buy a 5070 or a 5080, then try it on the TV and then choose the best monitor for me, that will be 31.5'' 1440p 144hz/160hz. 4k monitor only valid for 4090 or 5090, with a good GPU I prefer to play 1440p ultra native at higher frame rates, with RT on some games. And I HATE HDR in gaming, it hurts my eyes. I'm unsubscribing.
If you stream 1080p videos don't get a 1440p monitor because they will look bad I had to return mine and get a 1080p monitor. I will only upgrade when 4k high hz monitors are cheap because 1080p scales well to 4k and budget $300 gpus can do 4k comfortably.
3:12 Wow... now that is a silly take. That sounds like something, a person who has nothing but the best PC tech would say. The only time that is remotely true is for fast paced shooters. Honestly nothing else comes to mind, besides some bullet hell games. Come on Tim, not everyone has 4090s, otherwise everybody would agree. Sure it's hard to go back to sub 120hz monitors, but that doesn't make that argument correct. There are people out there who play on crazy outdated hardware and they would surely disagree with that take aswell. Even though I have a 3080 and a 1440p 165 hz monitor. I'm pretty sure it's more than enough sir. Because I have to play some games at 60hz and, really it's not bad.
I went for a PC and a 4k TV in 2021. I needed a new TV so I bought one 55'' Sony Bravia 4k 120hz now it has VRR, love the blacks it's a good VA panel, don't notice big difference at 10ms, I don't play esports. Next I will spend my money on a new GPU to allow me a try of 4k and 1440p . I will only change my monitor because I want it bigger than 27'', I want 31.5'' not only for gaming, but for multiple window sports watching, bigger it's better. Movies I watch on the TV, its google TV.
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 That's never a question that ever gets proudly answered and tends to get left out lol. Probably at least $1,100. Such is the 1440p "sweet spot" that people push with the fakest of grins.
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 It's just what some ppl tend to push as the "sweet spot" BS. I meant 1440p in general. Decent 1440p VA monitors are now down to $250, but such people conveniently leave out the part that to comfortably run 1440p outside of e-sport fps titles, you'd need at least a RTX __70Ti class GPU which sets you another $700, otherwise you'd hardly ever touch 60+ fps without cranking down settings in modern raytraced AAA games. Most people are still using 1080p, and there's a reason why it's dominated for so long: it's simply good enough for most people. If you're stuck at 1080p 60Hz TN or IPS, the best upgrade you can do is bump up to a cheap 100Hz VA monitor with FreeSync at STILL 1080p at about $100. Then just chill out until OLED or at least mini-LED arrives cheaply which are a much more dramatic improvement than 1440p.
There's one key benefit of a new monitor that you missed: you don't have to get rid of the old monitor and having two monitors on your PC can be incredibly useful - gaming on one monitor and chat on the other, for example. BTW your high-end gaming setup took me back: I did have a RTX 2080 Ti, but I paired it with an Acer Nitro 4k XV273K monitor BTW2 With regard to OLEDs I think a lot of people are waiting on the results of your burn-in test.
This doesn't make that much sense. Going to a higher resolution and/or higher refresh rate means you usually end up needing a better GPU. You then throw the bottleneck back to the GPU and end up upgrading it anyway. Apart from HDR, the only other target audience here would be people with powerful/overkill GPUs running at 1080p 60hz, which is rarely the case.
You only need a better gpu if you need to max out your display. As they mentioned, this is not necessary, I have a 2060 super and a 4k 144hz monitor, and I sometimes play at 4k, sometimes at 144hz, sometimes both on older/2d games. Yes, if I want to max that out on most modern games, I'd need a gpu upgrade, but having the flexibility of choosing either a 4k 60 experience for most "experience based" games, or a 1080p 144 for "reaction based games" is honestly a really big deal, even if some modern games make me actually go for 1440p 60 "sub optimal" experience.
@@iurigrang Upgrading the monitor and then limiting it isn’t really a lot of sense either. Eh, 1080p on a 32” (I’d say even 27”) or bigger 4k screen looks like crap. Only decent way to upscale is dlss quality, which is still internally 1440p. With dlss performance you start to see the blurriness and artifacts. Either way a lot of titles still lack good dlss implementations.
An entry level xx60 tier GPU can handle 1440p nowadays. Going from 1080p 60hz SDR into 1440p 120hz+ HDR is a massive difference compared to if you were the spend the same amount of money on a GPU upgrade.
This video is half bs and half ignorance. I guess it's easy to recommend people stick with stuttery low tier gpus when you don't deal with the issues day in and day out and only know the benchmarks.
Just because something doesn't apply to you it doesn't mean it's out of touch. This was aimed at people with both the disposable income and the intention of upgrading their GPU soon, so that they get a better deal in upgrading their 1080p 60hz cheapo monitor instead.
@@MinosML nah the video is terrible. his argument ends at 60hz > 144hz because there its worth it to turn down your settings to hit the target. Its only good for the people who actually built a PC that was "overkill" for their monitor. And its shit for one reason and one reason only. To hit the higher res/refresh rate target you need more performance or you turn down your settings also sacrificing visual performance. He also yaps about HDR, forgetting to mention that HDR is only truly great on OLED & Mini LED monitors. In other words, high end monitors. Otherwise 99% of the time you are better of leaving it disabled. (or in another example: wow my full image is slightly less blurry, ill sacrifice that over enabling better shadows, better light refraction, or maybe even rtx) TL;DR unless you over specced your PC while building it GPU>Monitor upgrade most of the time. UNLESS you are making the move from 60Hz to 144Hz or from an LCD to OLED/Mini LED. (+ He did NOT mention that a used GPU is a serious and in most places widely available option while a used Monitor simply isn't)
@@MinosML A cheapo 1080p 60Hz monitor or a 1080p monitor with higher refresh rates has more value than using Raytracing, an overpriced 4090 GPU + 4k monitor set to 4k resolution with overall 40FPS while gaming and taxing your RAM, GPU too much and wasting much more electricity. Meaning, you flush several hundreds for the sake of better visuals but getting bad performance. You can flush the money down the toilet and brag about your very expensive setup and having low FPS. That's the irony you don't see.
@@MinosML Why did you assume that what I said was "Just because" it "doesn't apply to me" ? You're right, it doesn't apply to me. My 4090 drives my 100Hz wide gamut ultra-wide just fine. But that's not why this video is "out of touch" ... Tim talks like he has no idea how big the low-end market is, and what people are coping with, and that purchase options are often biassed towards simply being able to play! It's the same reason people get miffed when he calls a constant 30fps "unplayable". Don't get me wrong, the point of of the video is a good one to make! It's good to shift people's attention a bit, especially with the low-end GPU market being garbage... but the way the story is told, is what feels "out of touch". He says things like: "Some people believe that 60hz is sufficient for gaming, and those people are wrong!" ...Sure Tim...Sure.
They're mainly cheap because they put so many ads in them lol. And I'm pretty sure the latency is typically atrocious on the cheaper ones for TVs (not as important for playing games you would be playing on a TV anyway lmao)
? TV's have notoriously high input delay and usually only have 60hz, which only supports up to 60fps. You are losing a lot, unless you are playing on a non-standard TV. Also many cheap 4k TV's now are not as good as monitors even at the same refresh rate.
I've been saying for a while that the biggest bottleneck for most folks is their monitor. I've always wondered why someone would drop $800 on a GPU to then play on a $89 1080p 60hz monitor. In my sport, folks spend $$$ on their airgun and then only want to spend $89 on a cheap amazon scope.. then complain about accuracy. There's a balance there. Find the balance and then enjoy the benefits. Cheers AGW
Lol. 1080/60 to 1080/165 OR 1440/60 I guess you said: YES. I made the same mistake - sadly YT is 60FPS locked. Else we could now look YT in 2k/165Hz ;+)
You bought a new monitor in less than an hour after this came out? And if so, you might want to watch the video again, as you missed some key points, like the fact that you can turn those settings down until you can upgrade your rig to run the higher resolution. Also the new swamp biome is tanking everyone's fps, it's a bug. Doesn't matter if you have a 4090, your rig will never be good enough to render its way through the bugs.
If I understand you correctly, you had Helldivers 2 playing at 38 FPS, and then you upgraded your monitor. So you gained a bit of response time and better image quality and no tearing but didn't gain framerate.
Currently running a Asus ROG Swift PG279Q 27" and am still happy with it tbh, but i might not know what I'm missing what would be a decent upgrade to this that i will notice the difference? something like the AOC AGON Pro AG276QZD 27" OLED QHD 240Hz??
My problem with OLED at the moment is burn in I can't afford to pay that much for a monitor and then not be able to use it for a long time the way I want it and maybe have to pay again for a new monitor a few years later, because there are icons that just stay. I know it is less at this point, but still too much and too expensive for me
@@Safetytrousers well I can't stand the auto hiding task bar often have stuff that is on the same place on the screen "It just doesn't happen with a modern Oled if you are not stupid" I don't want to buy an expensive monitor just so I need to watch out how to use it, because it could burn in. This is just way too much money for me if I then have to watch out how to use it. Then I rather keep LCD for now. I often keep my monitors for at least half a decade. Maybe not as main monitor, but as secondary or other use. And an OLED is not the right thing for me there I saw someone say this. And it still seems to be true "And yes, an OLED panel will suffer burn in and degrade no matter what - the question is how long it will take." Burn in is still a thing as far as I know. And it will stay for a bit. So either the Monitors need to be way cheaper or last longer. As long as they are expensive and don't last a time that is ok in my eyes without me needing to purposefully change stuff so it lasts longer I am not that interested in it
@@cybernd6426 Half a decade? People are keeping their monitors forever since they do not malfunction and work just as well. I still have my original monitor from 2013 in my home as my secondary screen. That is a decade of use and it will accumulate another decade of a very infrequent use.
@@cybernd6426 Why would my Oled suddenly burn in after 3 years of not? The only thing I do to watch mine is put on a full screen slideshow video on if I go out for a short time.
I have an Acer Predator X34 I bought in 2016 (3440x1440 100hz IPS GSync) and I have no idea what to upgrade it to. I don't want OLED because I have a lot of static content on my screen for several hours a day when working and it will burn in really fast. I don't like VA monitors and almost all ultrawide monitors still are 3440x1440 and the refresh rate alone doesn't seem that big of an upgrade to warrant buying a new one (most are 165hz). I also don't like the super big 49" monitors, so I have no idea what to upgrade to.
I have an Acer X34P (just a hair better than your X34) I bought before the pandemic. I have experience using several high-end displays at work, so I can guarantee anything less than a high-end 38" display will feel like a waste of money upgrading from a X34. My rtx 3090 with various mods on a BIG custom loop is power limited to ~275W for gaming at 115fps max. Yes, I run a rtx 3090 @ 275W because I'm bottlenecked by the Acer X34P, just to give you my example in case you game on the same PC.
@@CapaNoisyCapa Well, I have a 4090 and a Ryzen 9 5950X so I'm more "bottlenecked" by the monitor than you are, lol. I like those 38" 3840x1600 IPS monitors but I kind of wish there was at least a 240hz one. I'd feel that's the right upgrade for the X34.
I have a 6700XT + 7600 build with a 1080p 165hz monitor should i buy a 1440p monitor?? Tho I'm afraid 6700XT won't be able to play 1440p in the long run
HDR for $280? No one is getting a proper HDR experience at $280 lets be honest. You need FALD. If your budget is only $280, concentrate on everything else BUT supposed HDR support because...it will not have good HDR, dont let it be a factor. Once you got enough for mini-LED with FALD or OLED, then you can start thinking about HDR.
The AOC Q27G3XMN has an MSRP of $280 USD and has 336 dimming zones. Both RTINGS and Monitors Unboxed have reviewed this monitor, and it turned out to be a pretty decent monitor.
@@insertnamehere4419 ??? it literally has FALD. In the "HDR Picture" section of RTING's review of the monitor, they state that "The AOC Q27G3XMN has impressive picture quality in HDR. It uses Mini LED backlighting to produce a good local dimming feature, so it displays deep blacks next to bright highlights. It also displays bright and dark colors well, but it has limited coverage in the Rec. 2020 color space, so some content doesn't look as realistic as it should."
@@TheApol93 It has 336 dimming zones according to RTINGS, Which is not a lot and black smearing. I stand by what I said, you're not getting a good monitor for $280. You're missing the point.
Unfortunately I am stuck on a 60 hz display because there are no modern gaming displays with a 16:10 aspect ratio. 16:9 just isn't suitable for productivity. If any of the big players would make a 2400p high end gaming monitor they would likely make a killing.
@@mryellow6918 I want more screen real estate, not less. The extra vertical space might not seem like a lot when you just look at the numbers, but makes a huge difference in day to day use.
you can "not recommend" all you like.... better monitors cost better money which obviously most people don't have. I think the disconnect here is... for some budgets it's more important to get the game running to begin with or to make it run better than to make it look better. High end buying is different to low end buying. Some people just don't get how others just don't have the money to worry about how good games look or how "the experience" is. "want to need" is not a legitimate "need".
Really? there are a ton of 1440 p monitors for incredibly cheap now with a better than 60 refresh rate. The price has come down significantly across the board.
@@frankytanky5076 Coming down from high does not automatically mean low.... just lower than it used to be. Especially if it was extremely high to begin with. The same people that used to only be able to afford 1080p five years ago are the same people that can only afford 1080p now..... and even those monitors are more expensive than they used to be in many cases. Beware the illusion of general affordability (because of bubbles of wealth) and keep in mind that most of the world does not have healthy economies with strong currencies.... and even in the one's that do a slow moving depression is looming because of idiot politicians playing economists. This being exacerbated by margin driven manufacturers who are exploiting what they think are bottomless pits of revenue. I understand the desire to force a standards upgrade..... but this time it just does not seem viable. You can even measure viability by console, there is no cheap PS6 with either stable mainstream 1440p or 2160p output and generally bought TV's to match..... the required hardware just costs too much for the common consumer. To put it another way, if crime jumps 200% over a decade and in a year a mayor reduces it by 20%..... has crime reduced usefully or is he just saying he reduced it for votes?
Fortunately went I went all-in on building PC's in 2015, I started with 1080p/144hz/1ms at 250 USD. What a great start. At the start of 2021 I got a far too late upgrade to 1440p/144hz/1ms at 240 USD again. Big upgrade, especially with the new build I had built in 2017. Then in late 2022 and 2023, I got 2 4k/1ms monitors (1 with 160hz/HDR 8, the other with 144hz/HDR 10) for about 450-500 USD each. That 4k difference with HDR... is the biggest leap yet. Absolutely cannot state how big of a leap that is. Next leap I plan to do is 4k160hz/1ms OLED, but that is probably not going to be at a price point I want until 2027, which I am okay with waiting for.
The video is well intentioned and I get was he's trying to say - don't neglect including your monitor in your upgrade cycle. But I think Tim got tunnel vision with what he's trying to say. Suggesting a RTX2060S, an old 8GB card, paired with a 4K monitor (the M27U)? See at 12:28 Take a step back and think about that. He'd have us look at a heavily upscaled (prob. with frame gen), clear-as-mud image (albeit on a nice monitor)? Hard no for me.
I couldn't follow the video. I'm now rock'n a 4090 and a AW3423DW OLED. I just need to figure out how to reduce my food intake until I cover the 3500 I paid...
Nope. Buy better GPU first. It's better to play in lower native resolution than in higher with DLSS-like shitties. You buy a 4K HDR 960 HZ monitor to play with fake graphic? You buy high frame rate monitor and set motion blur in games later? LOL
I did just this almost 3 years ago during Covid. Worst mistake ever. Bought a LG 4K monitor to replace my dell ultrasharp 1440p monitor and it immediately rendered my evga gtx1080 useless. Ended up having to overspend again to buy a GPU, during covid again, just to play some current games at 4K. Of course, it was my own fault for not doing proper research at what was needed to run 4K. The $1K 3080 is a daily reminder to not make that mistake again.
He did mention this in the video, that you could've just played the games at 1440p on your 4k monitor, until you get your eventual GPU upgrade. That's what I've been doing, my 1070 is definitely starting to show it's age, that I've started to play newer games at 1080p on my 1440p ultrawide Here's hoping there'll be a nice sale on some mid end 30 or 40s series soon
I did it the other way around - I bought a 4080 Super to replace a broken 2080ti ,running a pair of 4k60m27" panels . I got tired of seeing the GPU chilling with games maxed out 😂 so replaced one of the panels with a 4k144 32" LG one a month back. Enjoying the results even if it cost a fair deal
I can't understand why people don't realise this simple concept; it's the same as buying expensive DAC's transports and power amps, but keeping the same tiny bookshelf speakers that you got second-hand in exchange for a pair of platforms in the 1970's.
I spent my entire paycheck on one of those new 32" QDOLEDs to experience HDR gaming for the first time (upgrading from a 32" TN) and HDR is hardly a game changer. Everything looks different but it's hard to call it better. Absolutely not worth the price premium
Had the opposite experience, got a good price and found the increased brightness and contrast very pleasant and overall was a great and memorable upgrade.
Bought a ROG SWIFT PG278Q in 2014 and it's still great, 1440p 144hz. Yeah it's TN, but the viewing angels are near 180 and the colors are fine enough. It's TN because IPS just didn't have the response time back then, now there are loads of 1ms IPS panels. At this point I'm just waiting for OLED panels to not be $600+
Yeah, no. I much rather have a beefy GPU to handle Max graphics instead of a trash GPU with games on low/mid graphics settings and a monitor that requires a more powerful PC to actually make it make sense. That's why I got a 4090 and used 1080p 144hz TN monitor por half a year. Not an ideal monitor, but I can still play Cyberpunk 1440p 120 FPS with Path Tracing. Good luck trying to do that with a trash GPU and your "cool new monitor". Regardless, I'm finally getting a new QD-OLED monitor and it costs the same as a 4080.
But s.o. with a 4090 and for example an old Dell 24" 1080p 60hz IPS will not have an ideal Cyberpunk experience. It's about balancing your budget. I guess Tim tries to emphazise more on the 60Hz than on 1080p. So if you use a 360hz or more 24" 1080p monitor noone will tell you to upgrade.
@@CeceliPS3 Don't think it is smart to game with a 2022 GPU and a 2007 monitor is all he or I are saying. And no: you don't have to buy a 4090 and an OLED at the same time. Do it time-delayed. That is not what balancing a budget means. And if you have a 4090 and are considering buying a 1k OLED I don't get what your point is?
Tim’s example at 4:35 of having a 1080p 60 Hz monitor that is upgraded to 1440p 144 Hz is spot on. I jumped from 1080p 60 Hz to 4K 144 Hz and find it a wonderful improvement. I also had the pleasure of gifting that 27” 1080p to someone who was using a 17” 720p.
Getting a good headset/speakers is another thing to look to upgrade for a better all round experience. Wait for 5000 series for gpu price drops and performance upgrades.
I'm excited to see what AMD offers this time around. Based on the current rumors, they're taking the "make last gen performance more efficient and cheaper" approach.
I like pro consumer rumors. I generally purchase budget>>value>>quality upgrading when things break, become obsolete, or if there is value to improving quality of life. It would be a shame if my cheap headset were to break..
Funnily enough with speakers I still use my Logitech X230s which I've daily drived for 17 years now , they are so good for the age that to upgrade would even now cost a fortune
I would argue a soundcard can also be a great upgrade it you care about good sound. Most people play with onboard sound, but I've been using a dedicated soundcard for over 10 years and don't want to go back. Of course that only makes sense if you're pairing it with a good sound system.
not headset, but headphones. even Philips SHP9500 at $80 is better than a "gaming" headset. you also need something to make the sound better. i use Peter's Equalizer APO which is free and Boom 3D. Boon 3D can make stereo headphones into 3D surround.
I'm ready to buy a monitor but they don't make what I want. My Omen 32 1440p goes to 75hz. I was ready to buy an LG 45" to pair with new decent rig of 14900k/4090 BUT the widescreens at 21:9 have horrible text clarity and cost 1k, so I am waiting for someone to make a decent curved, no way I am spending 1k on a 4k 32", I want a massive size and resolution upgrade.
I upgraded after 10+years on 1080p. Finally found the 1440p in the size I wanted, 165hz, ips, gsync, and 24" super sharp it's 123ppi. I paid a bit more to import the AOC but I'm happy with it since Oct. 2023. Using a 4070 Super with it.
A monitor upgrade could benefit you even on 60fps, lower monitor response times improve motion clarity. The fact that your old monitor is only 60fps means either that it's old and likely slow or that it's cheap and almost certainly slow by modern standards. Higher refresh displays are very affordable now, so if you're upgrading go for that right away. If you can't hit higher refresh rates currently, doesn't matter. It's already an improvement, with room to grow upon your next PC iteration.
While I can agree to some degree, I think it's absurd that modern games require essentially 4k>=120hz just to minimize the blur, smearing and sizziling introduced by TAA/DLSS/FSR and rendering pipelines that neccessitate temporal upscaling (low res particles, nanite etc). Also what's really the point of having a high refresh monitor if I only have the hardware to run it at 60hz anyway? I mean sure if I drop below that the monitor can render each frame twice and maintain freesync but that's about it. Motion clarity won't be affected in any way since most modern games essential simulate a 30+ year old LCD with their dogshit TAA and even if you replace that with DLSS that might do a slightly better there's still going to be worse motion clarity compared to a non-TAA game on a 20 year old LCD.
The point I think you're missing is that if you limit yourself to a 1080p/low refresh rate monitor (or whatever you might be at), you can't play at a higher resolution for ANY of your games. If you have a higher resolution monitor, sure you can't play new games at high settings, but your old games? They'll probably run at 1440p just fine, and you can just run the newer games at lower settings/resolutions. It's the choice between limiting everything, and just limiting some. One thing Tim doesn't mention though is that once you go up a resolution/refresh rate, you won't want to go back. So there is some merit to just staying on a bad monitor so you don't spoil yourself.
Better pixel response time gives better clarity even at the same FPS. An OLED at 60fps will look significantly clearer than a VA panel at the same FPS.
I have many problems regarding your statements about 1080p monitors and then recommending monitors with higher resolutions: 1) Money and electricity consumption are very important. You cant just blindly waste money on a product that increases your electricity bills.That is a very important concern for consumers. 2) Despite the many benefits 1440p and 4k monitors bring, those two are very expensive compared to 1080p monitors. Their prices, especially 4k monitors, are close or the same as mid- or high-tier GPUs depending on the models. 3) Higher resolutions and high refresh rates means wasting more electricity and taxing your own hardware. That means, the consumer is maybe then forced to upgrade the system or in the worst-case scenario, build a new one further wasting money. It depends on the situation. 4) Energy labels and power efficiency: This goes hand in hand with 1). Bigger sized monitors, higher resolutions and refresh rates means the manufacturer didn't seem to bother considering alternatives to reduce power consumption. This increases not only electricity bills but the overall product is more expensive the higher the specs go. Manufacturers, who aren't willing to improve the power consumption by researching technologies and developing new methods to reduce power consumption aren't worth my money. That's why energy labels are there for and people can find out through more researches if the manufacturer was lying about the claims and the efficiency category the manufacturer claimed how good the product is in terms of energy consumption. 5) "Graphics visuals look better on higher resolutions". Please give certain hardware examples as to why that's the case. Me being a developer, it doesn't make sense to make use of certain visual features, when it's only accessible for consumers with expensive monitors. a) It's unfair for other consumers b) you are putting a bit more pressure on the hardware, so what's the point here? Game optimization is important. c) Sure, it is beneficial for video and photo editing as well as production but for average gamers, where is the point? It's a question of taste. 6) Consumers don't always play modern Triple A games. They play also old Triple A games, indie games and retro games. Not all of those games are optimized going above their designed FPS. Many games have either a 30 or 60FPS lock for various reasons. It's because their game engines were designed that way for various different reasons. There are games with mods that disable the FPS locks and can run fine, were other games can't simple handle higher refresh rates because, again, the engines weren't designed that way. 7) Artifacts: Tim, do you know basics of game engines? Artifacts can appear on any resolution. Sure, higher resolutions can reduce more artifacts but the problem with artifacts on 1080p monitors aren't a significant problem to point where it massively bothers the player. If that's the case, then the game was poorly optimized. The problems with visual artifacts also stems from engines how they deal with visuals. If players see small amounts of artifacts and find this very annoying, then it's subjective. 8) "Games are easier to play on higher refresh rates": I agree that games running on higher refresh rates look more fluid and lively but your point, although true, can be misleading. People can play games at 60Hz (lower or higher) perfectly fine and can have a great experience. Your point trying to justify purchasing monitors with higher specs wont sit well with other people since it's just laughable and doesn't make much sense. Average gamers aren't hardcore speed-runners or competitive players who focus on frame exploitation and they will definitely find monitors with higher refresh rates more beneficial. 9) No, only because a certain high-end monitor is cheap in your region, doesn't mean it's cheap in the other nation. There are nations where high-end monitors are much more expensive than you have suggested otherwise. 10) I don't deny the many benefits monitors with higher specs (1440p or 4k monitors with higher refresh rates) bring. However, there are 1080p monitors with higher refresh rates, too. Players should lower their expectations, what is realistic for them to archive and demands because this is a typical topic for graphic w* loosing their minds willing to waste hundreds and why console players find it amusing those types of gamers waste their money. 1080p monitors aren't terrible and still to this day fulfill the demands of many people. The problems you have presented are largely subjective and motivate people, in certain scenarios, to waste their money, when they don't need to. The utility of higher resolution monitors is subjective and varies depending on individual needs and preferences. For many users, especially those not focused on high-end gaming or professional visual work, 1080p monitors remain adequate and cost-effective. So how come you have not considered this? Especially, when you looked at the survey from Steam. Tim, please evaluate your own script before presenting your own points. In case someone fully or you, Tim, disagrees to what I said, you are proving my point, especially 1), 9) and 10).
I moved to 1440p 10 years ago and you have to put a gun to my head to make me go back to 1080P. The difference in visual quality is immense and the difference in price is negligible. By your logic we should still use 480p monitors since they were perfectly adequate 20 years ago.
To point 4) I have forgotten here and there words: The problem with the industry is that, instead of doing research to develop a new technology or improve it more, they just slap any available technology into the product. Thus resulting to the current situation we have where high-end monitors consume a lot of power. That's what I wanted to mention. Many manufacturers don't seem to be willing to invest more time and money to come up with something new in order to reduce the power consumption by a lot. As things stand, 1080p monitors with lower refresh rates to at least 100Hz are the most power efficient monitors, if the overall hardware is not shoddy. To point 5) I have forgotten to add something. The difference of visual improvements is actually minor. Run a triple A game on 1080p and 60FPS, then go higher with the refresh rates. Then later, go higher with the resolution and refresh rates. Do you notice differences? Depending on the game and monitor, the differences are so minor and others are barely noticeable. What is noticeable for me in some games is that text quality and colors look a little bit more smooth. Whether or not those differences are noticeable, it's really up to personal tastes. Meaning, your point is still baseless and completely subjective. This is a a poor point trying to justify a purchase of monitors with higher resolutions. What's the point if you have already good graphics but then wasting further money just to get slightly better visual improvements? It doesn't make sense. If a game looks visually awful, has excessive and annoying motion blur, too much artifacts, poor rendering of lighting textures, etc., then it's 100% the problem of the game's engine and poor optimization. You are just supporting the idea to unnecessarily waste money when you don't need to. To point 6) I forgot to add that, even if there are FPS locks, FPS locks are not equal to in-game stutters and big FPS drops. There are plenty games out here with FPS locks that run super smooth. Having a monitor with higher refresh rates and playing a game with either FPS lock or not but experiencing a lot of performance issues I mentioned does not solve the performance issues at all. Meaning, again, the engine wasn't optimized well. To point 7) Even if there are small, barely noticeable artifacts, what's the point of complaining? Why suggesting seeking monitors with higher resolutions considering, if game engines are well optimized when it comes to rendering visuals, when all is fine and good on 1080p? Your point doesn't make any sense. Finally: 4k is not everywhere well optimized when it comes to visual alignment. So, why bother using it if it isn't well optimized not to mention it's hardware intensive while playing a triple A game. It doesn't make sense for other people. Your video is complete BS and only made for graphic w*. I am really sad having this sad because, you guys are actually a great channel and I have ever imagined you put out a video like this with terrible misinformation and advice. Most of the problems you have presented are due to how game engines are. Throwing money at it will not always solve the problem. Your own preferences when it comes to PC gaming are not the same like anyone else. Meaning, your comments are actually propaganda at this point. With this terrible misinformation you are the type of people who are causing unnecessary headache for developers (like me) and further proving points of game companies who don't care about optimization and good visuals even at lower settings forcing the consumer to waste more money for better hardware. Again, this is all because of optimization. Again, throwing money at it will not always solve anything. I will consider unsubscribing because I have high standards and demands when it comes to presenting factual information. This is terrible and needs to be corrected. As I have said previously: if anyone fully disregards what I have said, then you are proving my point. Just use whatever you need and want, play whatever game and game settings you prefer. Consider what is personally best for you, your hard-earned money and what options are realistic enough for you to realize. Do not listen to this terribly misleading video.
@@benedict9016 "By your logic we should still use 480p monitors since they were perfectly adequate 20 years ago." I have never said or implied that buddy...
@@forestmanzpedia The difference between 1080p and 1440p is night and day, likewise for 60hz vs 144hz+. If you struggle to see much difference or consider it minor I suggest taking an eye test.
🔥Bro, you HAVE to talk about gaming TVs at some point. You can't continue avoiding this since many PC/console users prefer that experience. Other than that, excellent video!👍🏻
Unless it's a brand new 720p monitor, my frames aren't going anywhere upwards Speaking of which, I don't suppose you have a 720p monitor lying around...
I went from a 49" samsung VA to a 49" Samsung OLED. I didnt expect it to be such a difference. The games FEEL like they're running at much higher framerates, the HDR is jawdropping. I was playing through Ghost of Tsushima and some scenes look epic now, instead of great. Honestly, input / output devices ar what we experience, and they are extremely important in almost every situation (cars as well, for example). They're the hardest to quantify also, but they are what we actually touch, see and hear and no matter how fast your pc is it sucks having a crappy monitor, mouse/keyboard or speakers/headphones. These things, usually, also have the longest usable lifespan and should be a no-brainer...
"You can buy a highend oled that will last you many generations of hardware" - yeah, how about no. There is a reason why no one offers a burnin warranty longer than 3 years, with no options of paying to extend it either... oled is a shortterm purchase, and that's just a fact. For that reason i and many others are still waiting for new tech to emerge without that CONSIDERABLE downside. And if you have a highend gaming monitor from 5 years ago, stuff doesn't really look that much better today. Don't even get me started on hdr barely working in most pc games. In 9 times out of 10 people will gain more from a more powerful pc than a new monitor...
OLED looks a lot better, and that it is fast enough for the high refreshrates is a nice bonus unlike the IPS which are too slow in response time for the higher refreshrate ..
I bought an OLED tv in 2020. Zero burn-in. So I bought an HDR OLED gaming monitor last year and it's fantastic. Most of my games support HDR, and those that don't look much improved over my previous 5 year old 144hz IPS anyway.
I was running a 3070ti and a 60hz 1080p monitor from 2012 till recently. When I upgraded to a 1440p 165 hz monitor, first of all I didn't see any improvement in smoothenes, not the mouse or scrolling, not in games, no advantage in esports shooters. Only disadvantages. The first one is that every netflix or prime series looks now laggy as hell. While you see minor sharpness increase due to resolution I find it negligible, but it takes 2x the power and halves my fps. I've been playing max raytracing everywhere in 1080p and now even couldn't turn it on. So I had to upgrade GPU aswell to 4070 ti super to even play games. People with 60 series cards or older 70 series cards should not even think about going 1440p. Go 1080p 165 hz at best if you see the difference with higher refreshrate. For me there is only few 1440p cards on the market. Being 3090/ti, 4070 ti super (non ti and non super mainly being 1080p cards for newer games, because you need at least dlss balanced or peformance to reach playable fps in CP2077 or Alan Wake 2 with everything maxed out in 1440p), and the 4080/super, the only ture 4k card is the 4090. So 4k is off the table anyways for everyone who doesn't have 4k€ lying around for a rig + monitor. 1440p is just for very high midrange cards where you need to invest at least 1,5k with monitor and gpu to become a playable experience. Every one else is stuck to 1080p. The only exception to this is if you're only playing 6 year old games. Then you can go 1440p even on older cards, but theres only few pople solely sticking to old games. AMD cards are off the table due to bad RT performance (7900 xt has literally half of the FPS in Alan Wake or CP 2077 what even a 4070ti super can offer). FSR is still far worse than DLSS even with FSR 3.1. Intel has nothing powerfull enough yet. I barely get 60 fps with DLSS quality in CP2077 with drops to 50 on my 4070ti super in 1440p, with FG I get 90-100. there is no way ppl with weaker cards even the 3090/ti are having really good esperiences in 1440p besides old/indie games.
100% right, but whenever I upgrade my GPU i sell my old one and buy used so i get a pretty good deal. Last time i traded my 3060 for a 6700 for an extra $35 I'm not comfortable buying a used monitor and they don't hold their value as much as GPUs these days. I want to get a 1440p monitor but as a college student I don't have a lot to spare. If like me you are stuck with a 1080p monitor, running games at higher resolutions with any type of temporal anti-aliasing improves sharpness a lot and reduces the blurry nature of TAA/DLSS/FSR/XESS Currently playing Elden ring at 1700p and it makes a huge difference particularly in foliage
Or be happy with what you have. I tried (admittedly years ago) a high refresh rate gaming monitor that other people raved about. I thought the image quality was poor. So I sent it back and got a great 24 inch 60hz 1920x1200 monitor with great image quality and low lag (fast response). I've been using it for years and still love it. It has a nice reading mode for work that is fine for everything else. A consequence is that I have no interest in super fast refresh rates, so no interest in £1000+ GPUs and no interest in fake frames or resolution scaling. I'm not interested in RT either. Yeah, I don't have HDR. But overall, less is more. One day I'll no doubt get a new monitor, when I can get one that has 16:10, 2560x1600, 24 to 27 inches, low lag, great image quality, and a fair price. Such a screen doesn't currently exist. Despite all that I do agree that a good screen is a worthy investment.
3:00 When a person needs to use upscaling, it means that their underlying horsepower (most often than not the GPU) is insufficient and needs upgrading. If said person's target resolution is 1080p, than they really need to upgrade their GPU. Further, upscalling fundamentally changes the output picture. Edges are less refined, there is a more oily diffuse feeling to a scene. If you can't see it, great, go for upscaling. Unfortunately, for some of us, it is not a comfortable solution. 3:20 I would agree on the more responsive part, but stating that preferring to stay at 60 fps is "wrong" is reductive. I rarely play games requiring fast reaction times. I prefer to have a stable frame rate anchored at some point. I have experienced play on a friends overclocked 160 fps display. While neat, I feel that the premium I would need to pay on the GPU is not worth the gain. 6:00 What about burn in issues with OLEDs in the longer range, let's say 10+ years? As mentioned, monitor is not bought for three years. 7:10 I agree that if one has a TN monitor at least move to an IPS panel. The base color and comfort difference is staggering. 17:00 Agreed. The monitor is important. I would add that it is important to understand on a personal level what would I want from it and don't overshoot. I.e. in situations when a person is perpetually in the low end, I would suggest to spend the save up and spend on components to at least meet the 1080p@60fps performance gate. Having a nice monitor, but being forced to play under 60 fps or at 1080p with upscaling would not be acceptable in my book. 17:30 For reference my primary driver is a nice 1080p@60fps 24" IPS display from four years ago for about 200 euro. 🧡💛🧡
What a nonsense. The whole market is a nightmare, especially since Corona. Just because monitors improved and got cheaper in comparison to products that are overpriced by up to 500 %, it doesn't mean they're worth the money either. But sure, get your QD OLED DP 1.2 "true purple experience" today, when playing in 240 HZ later. Apples and eggs, my dear.
I realy do not understand how buying new monitor will UP your fps?? If you have 2080ti and you buy 4k 240hz display now (and you had 1440p monitor), you bill LOWER your fps and will have worse experience with nicer colours. Hey Tim, why don't you use 4k monitor with 5yo GPU? Sorry, but these advices are very entitled. I have 3080 and 1440p monitor. I will not get better experience if I buy 4k monitor, because instead of haveing 80-100 fps now, I will have 50fps. How does this improve my experience?
And at the end you say "if someone with modern rig play on 10yo monitor". But PC from 5-6 years ago is not a modern rig. It is 2-3 GPU generations behind. So the video is actually for ppl with 30xx and 40xx series cards with 10-15yo monitors. For that I agree, the argumentation stands only in this case.
New monitor will make you want a new gpu. Overclock your monitors refresh rate, costs nothing. if you're using a 60hz monitor try overclock it to 66hz or 72hz, most of the time it'll do this no problem. I've done this with my TV, laptop and my Steam deck.
But I'm fine with 60hz?🤷♂ I've heard if many people saying they can't go back to 60hz after upgrading. If I'm fine with 60hz why would I complicate my life with high refresh rate gaming?
The problem is you'll NEED a better GPU to run a higher resolution or refresh rate monitor so that the upgrade is worthwhile. Sticking with a 1080p 144Hz display is the best thing I have done. I even have a newer 1440p display I got at a huge discount with existing, about to expire, Lenovo credit and I'm not going to set it up until I upgrade my aging i7-8700 based CPU and 3060Ti.
@@LexusYachtClub I have 1440p on my laptop so I know what I'm missing. My first computer was a TI99/4A and I grew up with pixels the size of your thumb so 1080p doesn't bother me at all. I'd much rather the frame rate than the resolution.
Instructions unclear, I'm now running a 4k 240Hz OLED with a 1050.
Should look glorious. Even if you turn it down to 1080p.
I mean... Pretty good movie experience. Or you could refresh your memory of the classics like Bioshock, Portal, Mass Effect. Should run just fine.
Don't get swayed by the hype of ever newer, ever more demanding games.
even at 4k 60hz, the experience will still be awesome.
Imagine your 1050 is running flat out , or at least hard enough to turn the fans on rendering Windows at 4k 240hz 😂
Saaaame, i’m running a 4k 240Hz with RX 5700 XT. However, i don’t game much. Desktop and movie experience, though, are incredible.
HU : "Don't upgrade your GPU, upgrade your monitor instead"
Me suffering with 1050ti : "Thanks for the tips tim ❤"
I don't even have a pc🗿
Same, but RX570 xD
I'll keep my 15 years old 24" FHD screen for a while, thank you very much.
"ti"!? show off
i recently upgrade from GTX 1070 which i sold for 1/4 of new rpice from 8 years ago and i swap from old 12 Years old iiyama to used RX 6800XT and cheap gaming monitor from iiyama FHD 100HZ freesync which cost 110 euro best purchase so far! and change from 60hz to 100hz was MASSIVE.
That's Tim.
Ha! Joke's on you. I upgraded my GPU, CPU *and* my monitor last year... though that did require me to downgrade my bank account...
i fell into this upgrade monitor trap and upgraded my display to 1440p. then i had to upgrade my whole computer to feed that monster.
1440 is mid until u re having an ips panel a 4070 will be more then enough for that
I ran an odyssey ark at 1080p for 6mo before i could serve it justice at 4k
@@Qwickxilver yeah a 4070 is the same price accounting inflation as a 1080 Ti was lol
lol wat I upgraded to 1440p in like 2012
@@derekschommer1465
And I got out of 768p last year :D
You lost me at "only $800".
Am I the only one hit by the recession?
Makes two of us at least.
in 2017 my whole platform upgrade was 650€ (mobo-cpu-ram)
Yes
800 USD = 1,191.42 Australian Dollars; My last box cost me $750 (Later i brought a 6700 for $450, the 6700xt was at the time $150 more, a week after i brought the 6700, (the 6700xt was $500), my 32'' 1440p (75hz, on special) died after 18 months, brought a second hand 32'' 1440p, died after 2 weeks, couldn't find the receipt; Was on my old system for a month, then just went out and got a cheap 1080p (old monitor has a DVI connector...sigh); a week later price drop meant for the same price i could have gotten a 180hz monitor (instead of what i got...), it's been a challenging year, next year is going to be a lot more so...
Everything in the PC space is expensive. If you keep this monitor 10 years, it's only $80 a year. Unfortunately $800 is a good price for a gaming monitor. Otherwise I'd recommend the ASUS TUF VG27A.
It's a nice middle ground between budget and expensive. It's 1440p 165hz. Great color
Moving from 60hz to 144hz is a revelation even on the desktop. Daily computing tasks feel so much more responsive and natural.
Ok but you have to lock games to 60fps anyway.
@@aweigh1010if your computer can handle games at like even 1080p 144 fps why would you lock to 60 fps😂?
@@aweigh1010 I wonder why you think this. There is a slight trick to lock the fps 3 hz below your screen however?
I agree, Think 2019 was when I went 1440P 32 165hz.
Do you not know about VRR? Free sync? Because boy do I have good news for you if not
This is the angriest I've ever seen Tim.
lol
The only times I've seen Tim actually angry are for that godawful Razer 165Hz monitor that was also super expensive, and that Asus laptop that was overheating due to bad vent placement
The emus still won the australia-emu war.
@@BlackJesus8463Hey, wasn't your name "Proprietary Curiez" or something similar before?
Why did you change your name?
full power tim
I'm not upgrading my 1080p 60Hz monitor any time soon, only if it breaks. Why? Because I don't know what is to game at 1440p at high refresh rate, and I'm happy with it. I suspect once I've seen what, then I'll have to spend on a new monitor and a new GPU to get the most of it. So I prefer to live in ignorance and be happy gaming at 1080p at 60Hz 😂😂 (I don't do multiplayer)
higher resolution(1440p and 4K) means that the image is sharper and less blurry due to more pixels. higher refresh rate is more frames so the image quality is smoother.
once you play a game at 1440p + high refresh rate you will never want to go back to 1080p/60 fps. it's the same as going from 1080p/30 fps to 1080p/60 fps. can you go back to 30 fps? i highly doubt it. if you can afford to at least upgrade to 1440p/144-165hz then go for it. you won't regret it.
@@SapiaNt0mata That's exactly what I've said: "once you play a game at 1440p + high refresh rate you will never want to go back to 1080p/60", because I know that, I don't want to try it properly 😂😂. Right now I have a 1660Ti, and I can ply RDR2 or similar just fine at 1080p60. When I try to play a game that doesn't allow me to do that (lately I don't game that much), then I'll think about upgrading.
This is not unreasonable! I just don’t have the discipline to lay off that kind of upgrade when I can afford it. I admire your restraint!
high refresh rates are lowkey a trap. I feel like I can never game at 60 fps again with my 144hz monitor because it just feels terrible
Bought a 4k 120, love the looks, then went back to 1080p and capped at 120fps. Saved 80-120W at times on the GPU. My cartoon trees still looked like cartoon trees either way.
Don't upgrade your PC, upgrade your gaming chair instead
*Buys new monitor with way higher resolution* --> *Suddenly needs an upgrade of the GPU because everything is SLOW* Instructions unclear
Gets tired of the heat, reverts back to 1080p medium and cap at 150fps. And save 80W on the GPU.
One important thing to note is how many of those 1080p gamers are on a laptop? That would explain a lot about the statistics.
very good point !
And or cs2 bot accounts
the video is basically promotion for the other channel. I would ignore the information presented
@@yordan9669while this is in part true, the thing is that most people had never seen a mini led, Oled or micro LED in person, also a lot of people had never seen 1440p neither say 4k, so while the intention of the video is likely promotion of the other channel, the things said here are true... My friends get crazy with my Mini Led TV and my OLED monitor, more than with the Fps of my PC... (Even when I have a high end PC)
Also Cybercafe stations, unless Steam has started weeding those out.
The ultimate monitor sales pitch.
truthful benefits are always the best sales pitch
@@BenState sell me this pen
The best sales pitch are the ones with no lies in them. Nice.
If it's giving you the good experience rather than buying expensive gpu and still not getting the visuals and fps benefits to your liking so why not.
@@centuryt91Basically the video is explaining to gamers than the "extremely high quality, refillable and refined fountain ink pen" writes so much better than the cheap ahh Bic pen
Today's sponsor spot Monitors Unboxed and their new line of Tim monitor videos.
His advice is sound, give a argument for why it is not?
@@TheReferrer72 it's a joke mate
Jokes are self evident It doesn't read as a joke more like sarcasm mate! A complete fail and apologising for your delivery doesn't help. Context has to be in the TEXT, not your mind because you didn't give readers permission to read your mind.
@@air-iq How is this a joke? It's more like sarcasm.
Hub: Don't upgrade your gpu.
Me: I don't have any gpu.
I like 1080p because it makes my gpu last longer for high refresh rate gaming which is really important to me. I've never seen any higher res so I don't know what I'm missing :)
Ignorance in this regard is bliss. If they hadn't stopped selling 1080 TV's I'd still be gaming in 1080.
Buy a monitor that'll last you the next decade, then upgrade GPU a couple times throughout at most.
I did that bought 2 1440p monitors last year one at 165Hz and the second at 75Hz after saving up post upgrading from a 5500xt to the 3060 in 2022. Now I'm upgrading my GPU to a 7900xt after updating my build from a 5600x to 7800x3d build.
That’s what I’ve done twice now- pretty much I upgrade when new tech comes out that’s a “game changer.” Eg IPS to OLED.
Not how that works
It's not a good time to buy a monitor for the long term. Right now you have to pick your poison between OLED's poor brightness in high APL scenes or Mini-LED's blooming and dim small highlights. I'd wait until OLED monitors can at least reach fullscreen brightness levels of typical LCD screens (~300-400 nits). Even the best OLED monitors right now can only do ~250 nits fullscreen.
If you want to have a decade future proof monitor then why not wait until dp2.1 monitors flood the market 🤔?
I upgraded my monitor to 1440p high refresh, but then immediately realized I needed to upgrade my RX 580 to a 7900 xt to receive the full benefit of the monitor upgrade
Depends on what games you play and yeah the 580 is deff underpowered for a 1440p high refresh rate experience, but if the lack in GPU isn't so extreme I think 1440p medium settings can look much better than the same game at ultra settings 1080p. For 1440p I believe the 7700XT to be an amazing well rounded entry point.
I did the same thing, but I simply went a barely used 6600xt (Nitro+) for like 1440p.
You don't have to actually get a 7900 XT to enjoy a lot of things at 1440p; it's just they don't age as well for it. The RX 580 could only pull high frames at basically switch graphics 💀.
high refresh rate monitors have a large vrr range so it should be better if you were on a 60hz non vrr display
My dilemma right now. I have an RX6600 and my 1440p is making me feel like I need to upgrade to a RX6700XT or 6800 at least.
bro made a record for biggest upgrade
For me the monitor prices are screwed up too. The AOC Q27G33XMN cost here in Sweden 405 dollars.....😪 It makes it so much harder to justify it..
Including VAT.
same speculation as with gpus. 4k was supposed to be the standard by 2020. Greediness prevailed
2nd hand shop from overseas.. usually most dealers are willing to ship overseas and you could also score yourself a bargain
Well low end gpus cost even more in comparison, so that monitor definitely is better buy in Sweden.
AOC seems more pricey in EU. Noticed the same checking out AOC in Germany, which made me pick another brand.
Kind of naive of Tim to think 1080p 60hz is the bottleneck of a budget gamers setup, when lots of "budget gamers" aren't even getting that.
Yep we need DLSS quality to run 1080p at 60hz on some games. In Hellblade II we don't even get 50fps at 1080p medium DLSS quality.
Tim argues that people should be upgrading to away from 1080p monitors because upscaling techniques work better at higher resolutions. He seems to be forgetting that people who use upscaling at 1080p might have certain budgetary constraints and GPUs that, upscaling or not, struggle to perform at FullHD, let alone a resolution with nearly double the pixel count.
The video is targeted at people with $800 they’d spend on a GPU.
But it’s also completely elitest trash, plenty of good gaming happens at 1080/60
@@FuncleChuck I can't stand 60Hz on mouse and keyboard it's just awful... But you can have a nice display for 200bucks new or even better one second hand.
@@FuncleChucktry watching the video again but listening this time 😂
@@FuncleChuck A good 1440p 165hz monitor costs 200$ (Dell G2724D). Upgrading monitor is the most noticeable thing you can do also upscaled 1440p looks better than native 1080p
@@nickpetriashvili2863 My exact monitor! It's such a huge upgrade over the 1080p 24" 75Hz monitors I used to have for work. Solid 1440p 165Hz monitors like this one aren't expensive at all and provide a huge improvement to the experience.
I figured this little fact out after I built my first gaming computer. Like many folks, I put all my money into the computer and used a 1080p 60hz TV as my monitor(I know, I know). I thought it would suffice until I could pick up a cheap monitor, which unfortunately was a cheapo 1080p 60hz as well. I honestly had no idea I was killing my experience because no one ever told me what Tim's saying here, the monitor is so important. When I got a "real" gaming monitor, one with 1440p at 165hz, my gaming experience really went full tilt. I thought it was my computer that needed upgrading, it was just the monitor! I wish I knew this from the out and I tell anyone new to this to make at least a high refresh rate monitor a must have item when setting up their gaming rig, it's necessary for best performance. Thank you Tim for highlighting this fact, it's so important!
man!! especially if your specific use case allows high refresh rates. I never knew I would love roblox at 144hz, i feel like the playground bully sometimes lol.
True. Gaming hardware hierarchy is gpu, monitor, cpu. mouse, ram. mobo, psu, case, cooling. keyboard.
It's not something you expect people to not know which is why you rarely see it. It's like buying a fast sports car and limiting it to 20% of its horsepower and being like "I never knew if I unlocked the other 80% then I'd get a much better experience". Getting a fast pc but being stuck on 60hz is like you never bought a fast PC.
@@RestTarRr It's a budget thing mainly, the monitor is always going to be last on the list instead of first. And no, not everyone is going to know this out of the gate, name me any computer build video that talks about the monitor as part of the build or even adds one to the total price, not many do, and that's the truth. It always ends up separately if at all. Tim did good here, and I commend him for it.
@@dragon2knight The monitor kind of gets lumped in with the keyboard and mouse scenario, where you can spend more on the PC because you've got them already kind of thing. I can relate.
My laptop is starting to have issues (3 vertical lines, repeating 3 key and overheating) so I'm picking parts for a new PC and I'm finding the monitor the hardest to choose!
I feel like the HDR section needs a bit more emphasis on "real" HDR hardware, as opposed to the shit-tier edge-lit "HDR" that nearly every monitor seems to advertise these days, but literally looks worse than just turning it off.
I bought an LG tv with that fake HDR and it looked AWFUL. Worst $800 I've ever spent.
if you have an AMD gpu you don't need HDR. the Adrenalin software of AMD has video presets that change colors, etc, and Vivid preset does what HDR does: higher color gamut, darker shadows, brighter highlights, etc. the video presets work on firefox browser. and you can further tweak colors, etc from the Adrenalin software and make it even better.
for video games you can use reshade to make the game look like HDR using different injectors like clarity, colorfulness, etc. you only need 4-6 injectors: clarity(this removes the blur and make everything look much better), lightroom(similar to Photoshop photo editing program), colorfulness(to make the colors pop more), adaptive sharpen, and the other 2 are Fake HDR(if you combine it with other injectors it's like true HDR) and RTGI which is the lighting part of ray tracing. RTGI = ray tracing global illumination. this injector don't have the reflection part of RT. only the illumination. but there is an FPS performance drop. and you can add more injectors like DPX, Curves(another injector that darkens the shadows and brights the highlights), Bloom, DOF, etc. reshade is very underrated.
@@SapiaNt0mata I think you probably haven't seen proper HDR. It's not something that can be done with software.
Your second point about the various software effects that are available being underrated might be true, but I have to disagree with your initial premise.
@@SapiaNt0mata What?
HDR is not another "effect". HDR is about REAL physical brights, blacks, and colors. Not just "brighter" and washed out lights but really brighter lights. Not just "darker" shadows but shadows in which you can actually see something. And not that oversaturated "gamut" but real vivid color gamut. NO software effects can exceed the physical limitations of your old monitor.
@@CrazyPCman "NO software effects can exceed the physical limitations of your old monitor." wrong. i see it in front of my eyes. with lighroom injector you can make the shadows darker without crushing them and make lights brighter(it has shadows, blacks, highlights, midtones, levels so you can tweak the shadows and lighting in depth). then there's curves which darkens the shadows and bright the highlights and there are sliders to tweak the intensity as to not crush the blacks and shadows and tone down the highlights. fake HDR has sliders for the range of light for light sources.
same goes for colors. also, you can use LUT presets and have various color palettes.
btw, you think that a a $280 monitor has real HDR? nope. these cheap monitors have bad HDR. generally speaking, if you think that a $280 monitor is displaying real HDR you are delusional. since you're not getting the real HDR it's better to use cheaper alternative method like reshade. in order to get a real HDR you have to buy an expensive monitor. preferably an OLED or QD-OLED.
Still proposed monitors are expensive as hell. People who play games on 1080p doing it because they are poor and can't afford OLED. Stop recommending OLED when9 out of 10 players can't afford it. Where is the list of affordable 250-350 USD monitors? HDR on affordable monitors just a gimmick pointing at top brightness. So no, it's not much of an improvement unless someone plays on ancient TN. HDR400 is marketing bs. Pleases climb down from your OLED cloud to mere mortals that is 95% of your subscribers.
---------------
Since i criticize i need to offer a solution. Take a price range of 250-350 USD. Look throght main markets worldwide and propose top 10 monitors in this pricerange for each region. Guess most of the subsribers will be grateful for the list.
I think after the 1800p 60hz, recommendations you lost me. If you already have a 144hz monitor from 5 years ago, you're better off saving all the money you can until you absolutely need a new component. I keep seeing HDR support, but does anyone actually use it? HDR 400 cert is kinda of a joke, Microsoft made it useless in Windows, and half the time it just darkens the monitor when used in a game.
And as other comments have said, you're better off building around a game or resolution. "Upgrading" to a different resolution or refresh rate becomes a zero sum game. You then can begin an arms race in needing to get newer/faster to support the new thing.
Overall, spend the money that best supports your goals. Meh video.
we constantly see those benchmarks showing low performance in 4k and 1440p. this definitely discourages us from upgrading to high resolution monitors, and by extension, it discourages monitor upgrades overall
In Steam surveys are Laptops/FULL Prebuilds (incl. Monitor) included
-> low Specs pre programmed.
Native resolution rendering hasn't been necessary for a while, though. Upscaling can look fantastic.
Instructions unclear, spent $3k on video hardware, playing Elden Ring locked at 60.
4k or 8k is a thing?
Psst, there is a mod that unlocks the framerate of Elden Ring...
1080p TN monitor, right?
@@EmblemParadeI've heard it makes the game hella stuttery, but would love to try it since I'm guessing my 7900 GRE could push 120+ ultra settings at my current 1080p res.
I was given some advice years ago. Build a PC around your monitor resolution and refresh rate target. 1080P 60hz Monitor requires a lot cheaper GPU/system build than a 1440P 165hz Monitor.
Underrated advice tbh
Best advice someone could give, does depend on what games you'll play and settings but still
Same and the gpu I paired with the 1080p monitor is the rx580. Then WFH happened and I upgraded to 1440p 144hz and gave the 1080p monitor to my kid. The plan to upgrade the gpu with my criteria of double performance at 200-300 usd might never happen. Might go with an OLED steamdeck instead for portability and the rx580 can still be decent at 720p for streaming.😊
I've been on a 4k60 monitor since 2015 so my pc always turned out quite expensive. I was lucky to get a 1080 ti for 650 and my sapphire 7800 xt for 540 ar launch so it's not like I've been buying 90 class cards but at 1440p I'd only need a 7600 xt or similar
Id say a higher end monitor with a lower end pc will provide a better gaming experience than the other way round. (Assuming the PC isnt ridiculously underpowered)
Then people buy that higher resolution screen and find out they need a much better gpu to run it properly.. it all depends on your personal setup. Only grab a monitor with a higher resolution if your gpu can handle pushing more pixels.
Yeah, but you can just use a smaller resolution if your GPU isn't good enough to use it yet, which is rarely the case for ALL games. I bet you can get away just fine with games from 2015 at a high resolution no problem, and use a smaller resolution on 2024 games.
@@futuza Running at non native resolution is garbage and looks awful. And upscaling really only doesn't look bad at 4k, primarily because upscaler has just enough input data to work with to make it look decent. I'd rather play 1080p native on 1080p monitor than upscaled on 1440p monitor. Shimmering, sizzling, smearing, blurry soft edges... just no.
@@Micromation Most games have render scale or even DLSS. With Renderscale just the game internally renders at e.g. 1440p instead 4k, while the monitor can remain at 4k. Thats absolutely great and looks identical to real 1440p. For example Quake Champions. Looks identical on Render Scale 1440p on my 4k OLED compared to my previous 1440p monitor
As an old fart, I don’t think more than 60hz would matter to me but a 144hz with variable frame rate was a massive improvement. I can never go back. 😂
0:17 in that’s all I needed! Thanks!!
just upgraded from 144hz TN to 240hz IPS and its a big upgrade
Yeah! Most noticeable upgrade I've ever made to my setup was switching from TN to IPS. That difference in colours was amazing!
@@noer0205 wouldve been far bigger step going to OLED though. Also for the pixel response. OLED is fast enough for the high refreshrate
@@De-M-oN Yeah, I've just made the switch myself from 1080p TN (used TN panels exclusively for like 11 years) to 1440p OLED and I'm still stunned and getting used to the colours.
@@De-M-oN it probably will be and likewise noticeable upgrade when I make the jump to OLED. But I switched to IPS many years ago, when OLED was only available on TVs and very expensive 😅
My PC is also for work-ish things and I buy stuff for a long time, so not quite ready to go OLED yet. Though I am excited to see those near-perfect response times and colours
@@De-M-oN Was thinking about getting oled but as someone who nowadays has more static content than games on the screen I didn't think it's worth it. Also I paid 330 euros for my screen and the cheapest oled was around 600
Went from 1440p 165hz VA to 4k OLED 120hz (LG TV) last year. Complete game changer.
And my previous screen wasn't even bad.
So yeah, until you're in a horrible financial situation, you really shouldn't be using a cheap, old 1080p 60hz LCD screen
I have to say moving to a variable refresh rate monitor blew my mind
I personally see no difference
@@zeroxception Yeah, same. The fact that randomly dropping from 67 FPS to 43 doesn't seem to cause tearing is amazing.
Same, combined with going from TN (after VA) to OLED - another SSD moment of upgrade
yes but is not that impressive in the long run, yes I don't have screen tearing anymore and games do feel more snappier, because of higher refresh rate but the image quality, that didn't jumped at all from my previous 1080p 60hz 3D capable screen, in some ways, I feel my new screen has slightly less quality but could be my mind playing tricks.
@@TheZoenGaming vsync my dude. why are you running at a quality that outputs at 43fps?
Been sitting on Benq 144hz 1080p for 10 years and I am with RTX 4090 and 13900k
Don't listen to this. Buy what you want. I bought Asus .5 ms response 1440p 270hz monitor and began to have insane migraines due to that LCD refresh rate. Put back my 1080p 144hz and no issues
Almost forgot, 1440p also resulted in drop of eye sight. Like 30-40% eye sight drop. Because the clarity of screen my eyes stopped focusing on other sides of the world, besides of monitor.
After I stepped back to 1080p I have zero issues.
Remember, bros, bigger and faster is not always better. Be careful about upping hz above 144hz, if you experience migraines step back to 144hz monitor.
Changing hz in monitor settings will result in smudges and faded image. Native 144hz is a way for me
What's the point of upgrading monitor when your PC is already struggling putting FHD 165 Hz Maximum?
Upgraded to a 1440/144hz VA monitor back in 2018 from a 1080p/24inch/60fps panel, and finally in 2022 to a 34inch 21:9 HDR OLED monitor. Best upgrade of my life.
now upgrade your gtx1650
i'm thinking about a massive jump from 1080p 60hz to 4k 240hz
@@manhdepzai2k3try 1440p first. Its a huge upgrade and the hardware to run 4k at above 120hz can be pricey.
not everyone is that rich tho
the al;ienware dwf right?
Monitor unboxed propaganda
Yeah! We hate monitors here, Tim! D:
How is reaching out to people with cheap monitors about to buy another GPU to let them consider an alternative purchase propaganda? Ive seen way too many people running high end PC's with a trash monitor.
😂😂
I think he's already assuming people have at least a midrange gpu
For what? My troubled 3060ti has trouble keeping 1080p 60Hz at low fan rotation. So much I have to undervolt it and run personal fan profiles. I have a Sony Bravia 55'' 4k TV with 120Hz VRR Gsync compatible, why on Earth I would buy a 4K OLED monitor even more expensive than my 1000€ TV (2021). My next move is to upgrade my GPU and keep my old 27'' 1080p 60hz LG Flatron (2HDMI out, 1st 1080p conversion cable from hdmi to display port it works fine), when I want 4k or 1440p 120hz I play on the TV, It's on the left side of my Monitor, I just rotate it and use a usb extension and an extra mechanical keyboard and the Bluetooth mouse, with a board over my legs and play from 2 m. For some games 1080p 60hz it's fine and better because they're so heavy in performance, some won't allow upscale at 1440p on a 4k TV/monitor forcing 4k, 4k with DLSS performance with less fps and higher noise and temperatures, less quality than 1440p DLSS quality. So I will buy a 5070 or a 5080, then try it on the TV and then choose the best monitor for me, that will be 31.5'' 1440p 144hz/160hz. 4k monitor only valid for 4090 or 5090, with a good GPU I prefer to play 1440p ultra native at higher frame rates, with RT on some games. And I HATE HDR in gaming, it hurts my eyes. I'm unsubscribing.
If you stream 1080p videos don't get a 1440p monitor because they will look bad I had to return mine and get a 1080p monitor. I will only upgrade when 4k high hz monitors are cheap because 1080p scales well to 4k and budget $300 gpus can do 4k comfortably.
3:12 Wow... now that is a silly take. That sounds like something, a person who has nothing but the best PC tech would say. The only time that is remotely true is for fast paced shooters. Honestly nothing else comes to mind, besides some bullet hell games. Come on Tim, not everyone has 4090s, otherwise everybody would agree. Sure it's hard to go back to sub 120hz monitors, but that doesn't make that argument correct. There are people out there who play on crazy outdated hardware and they would surely disagree with that take aswell. Even though I have a 3080 and a 1440p 165 hz monitor. I'm pretty sure it's more than enough sir. Because I have to play some games at 60hz and, really it's not bad.
I already did I, didn't push my gpu beyond 4070 and went with new OLED 1440p 240hz screen. Amazing for fps games and movies
I went for a PC and a 4k TV in 2021. I needed a new TV so I bought one 55'' Sony Bravia 4k 120hz now it has VRR, love the blacks it's a good VA panel, don't notice big difference at 10ms, I don't play esports. Next I will spend my money on a new GPU to allow me a try of 4k and 1440p . I will only change my monitor because I want it bigger than 27'', I want 31.5'' not only for gaming, but for multiple window sports watching, bigger it's better. Movies I watch on the TV, its google TV.
how much did you pay?
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 That's never a question that ever gets proudly answered and tends to get left out lol. Probably at least $1,100. Such is the 1440p "sweet spot" that people push with the fakest of grins.
@@ponraul1221 1440p 240Hz OLED is pretty high end so that's likely, also wut 1100 dollars the sweetspot for 1440p?
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 It's just what some ppl tend to push as the "sweet spot" BS. I meant 1440p in general. Decent 1440p VA monitors are now down to $250, but such people conveniently leave out the part that to comfortably run 1440p outside of e-sport fps titles, you'd need at least a RTX __70Ti class GPU which sets you another $700, otherwise you'd hardly ever touch 60+ fps without cranking down settings in modern raytraced AAA games.
Most people are still using 1080p, and there's a reason why it's dominated for so long: it's simply good enough for most people. If you're stuck at 1080p 60Hz TN or IPS, the best upgrade you can do is bump up to a cheap 100Hz VA monitor with FreeSync at STILL 1080p at about $100. Then just chill out until OLED or at least mini-LED arrives cheaply which are a much more dramatic improvement than 1440p.
There's one key benefit of a new monitor that you missed: you don't have to get rid of the old monitor and having two monitors on your PC can be incredibly useful - gaming on one monitor and chat on the other, for example.
BTW your high-end gaming setup took me back: I did have a RTX 2080 Ti, but I paired it with an Acer Nitro 4k XV273K monitor
BTW2 With regard to OLEDs I think a lot of people are waiting on the results of your burn-in test.
He uploaded an OLED burn in test on the other channel recently
@@rsac43 Yes, but it's only been a few months.
This doesn't make that much sense. Going to a higher resolution and/or higher refresh rate means you usually end up needing a better GPU. You then throw the bottleneck back to the GPU and end up upgrading it anyway.
Apart from HDR, the only other target audience here would be people with powerful/overkill GPUs running at 1080p 60hz, which is rarely the case.
You only need a better gpu if you need to max out your display. As they mentioned, this is not necessary, I have a 2060 super and a 4k 144hz monitor, and I sometimes play at 4k, sometimes at 144hz, sometimes both on older/2d games. Yes, if I want to max that out on most modern games, I'd need a gpu upgrade, but having the flexibility of choosing either a 4k 60 experience for most "experience based" games, or a 1080p 144 for "reaction based games" is honestly a really big deal, even if some modern games make me actually go for 1440p 60 "sub optimal" experience.
@@iurigrang Upgrading the monitor and then limiting it isn’t really a lot of sense either.
Eh, 1080p on a 32” (I’d say even 27”) or bigger 4k screen looks like crap. Only decent way to upscale is dlss quality, which is still internally 1440p. With dlss performance you start to see the blurriness and artifacts.
Either way a lot of titles still lack good dlss implementations.
An entry level xx60 tier GPU can handle 1440p nowadays. Going from 1080p 60hz SDR into 1440p 120hz+ HDR is a massive difference compared to if you were the spend the same amount of money on a GPU upgrade.
If you can play comfortably at 1080p you can technically do the same at 4K when upscaling from 1080p with DLSS/FSR while enjoying much better visuals.
@@anitaremenarova6662 The 4060 is a 1080p card, it doesn’t do 1440p 120hz comfortably in most new titles.
This video is half bs and half ignorance. I guess it's easy to recommend people stick with stuttery low tier gpus when you don't deal with the issues day in and day out and only know the benchmarks.
ahhhhhhh i see what you're doing here! trying to get us to watch monitors unboxed!!
.............well it worked, damn it!
😂
2:50 well yes Upscaling does work better if the monitor resolution is high. But guess what you don't need at 1080p? Upscaling.
1080p is poo poo though
This video sounds so incredibly out of touch 😅
He is always talking about high end monitors/ gaming. Someone needs to talk about the high end stuff.
Just because something doesn't apply to you it doesn't mean it's out of touch. This was aimed at people with both the disposable income and the intention of upgrading their GPU soon, so that they get a better deal in upgrading their 1080p 60hz cheapo monitor instead.
@@MinosML nah the video is terrible. his argument ends at 60hz > 144hz because there its worth it to turn down your settings to hit the target.
Its only good for the people who actually built a PC that was "overkill" for their monitor.
And its shit for one reason and one reason only. To hit the higher res/refresh rate target you need more performance or you turn down your settings also sacrificing visual performance. He also yaps about HDR, forgetting to mention that HDR is only truly great on OLED & Mini LED monitors. In other words, high end monitors. Otherwise 99% of the time you are better of leaving it disabled. (or in another example: wow my full image is slightly less blurry, ill sacrifice that over enabling better shadows, better light refraction, or maybe even rtx)
TL;DR unless you over specced your PC while building it GPU>Monitor upgrade most of the time. UNLESS you are making the move from 60Hz to 144Hz or from an LCD to OLED/Mini LED. (+ He did NOT mention that a used GPU is a serious and in most places widely available option while a used Monitor simply isn't)
@@MinosML A cheapo 1080p 60Hz monitor or a 1080p monitor with higher refresh rates has more value than using Raytracing, an overpriced 4090 GPU + 4k monitor set to 4k resolution with overall 40FPS while gaming and taxing your RAM, GPU too much and wasting much more electricity. Meaning, you flush several hundreds for the sake of better visuals but getting bad performance. You can flush the money down the toilet and brag about your very expensive setup and having low FPS. That's the irony you don't see.
@@MinosML Why did you assume that what I said was "Just because" it "doesn't apply to me" ? You're right, it doesn't apply to me. My 4090 drives my 100Hz wide gamut ultra-wide just fine. But that's not why this video is "out of touch" ... Tim talks like he has no idea how big the low-end market is, and what people are coping with, and that purchase options are often biassed towards simply being able to play! It's the same reason people get miffed when he calls a constant 30fps "unplayable". Don't get me wrong, the point of of the video is a good one to make! It's good to shift people's attention a bit, especially with the low-end GPU market being garbage... but the way the story is told, is what feels "out of touch". He says things like: "Some people believe that 60hz is sufficient for gaming, and those people are wrong!" ...Sure Tim...Sure.
Bold of you assume I don’t play on a 4K TV. I refuse to pay monitor prices.
They're mainly cheap because they put so many ads in them lol. And I'm pretty sure the latency is typically atrocious on the cheaper ones for TVs (not as important for playing games you would be playing on a TV anyway lmao)
4K60Hz which is still not high refresh rate
? TV's have notoriously high input delay and usually only have 60hz, which only supports up to 60fps. You are losing a lot, unless you are playing on a non-standard TV. Also many cheap 4k TV's now are not as good as monitors even at the same refresh rate.
4k TV delay response time
I've been saying for a while that the biggest bottleneck for most folks is their monitor. I've always wondered why someone would drop $800 on a GPU to then play on a $89 1080p 60hz monitor. In my sport, folks spend $$$ on their airgun and then only want to spend $89 on a cheap amazon scope.. then complain about accuracy. There's a balance there. Find the balance and then enjoy the benefits.
Cheers
AGW
I need to upgrade my wallet first 😁
Where I live, I'd have to sell my liver in order to afford a new monitor so this doesn't apply...
I listened to you & now Helldivers 2 plays at 38fps when it rains 😢 but I have gsync & 1440p 165Hz so yay me?
Lol.
1080/60 to 1080/165 OR 1440/60
I guess you said: YES.
I made the same mistake
- sadly YT is 60FPS locked.
Else we could now look YT in 2k/165Hz ;+)
Is there no upscaling or graphical tweaks on that game
You bought a new monitor in less than an hour after this came out?
And if so, you might want to watch the video again, as you missed some key points, like the fact that you can turn those settings down until you can upgrade your rig to run the higher resolution.
Also the new swamp biome is tanking everyone's fps, it's a bug. Doesn't matter if you have a 4090, your rig will never be good enough to render its way through the bugs.
If I understand you correctly, you had Helldivers 2 playing at 38 FPS, and then you upgraded your monitor. So you gained a bit of response time and better image quality and no tearing but didn't gain framerate.
Hell yeah, an HD4850 is gonna last forever!!
Thank gawd I still have one lying around somewhere
I already have RTX 4080 so I guess you're right
Currently running a Asus ROG Swift PG279Q 27" and am still happy with it tbh, but i might not know what I'm missing what would be a decent upgrade to this that i will notice the difference? something like the AOC AGON Pro AG276QZD 27" OLED QHD 240Hz??
What you been smoking there Tim?
Please do series of productivity setups. Would help as not everyone plays games for majority of their time. Thanks
Channels think twice about making videos for a minority. They do mention productivity for CPU reviews and high end GPUs.
My problem with OLED at the moment is burn in
I can't afford to pay that much for a monitor and then not be able to use it for a long time the way I want it and maybe have to pay again for a new monitor a few years later, because there are icons that just stay. I know it is less at this point, but still too much and too expensive for me
I've had my Oled on for 3 years with zero burn in (that's about 16,000 hours). It just doesn't happen with a modern Oled if you are not stupid.
@@Safetytrousers well I can't stand the auto hiding task bar often have stuff that is on the same place on the screen
"It just doesn't happen with a modern Oled if you are not stupid" I don't want to buy an expensive monitor just so I need to watch out how to use it, because it could burn in. This is just way too much money for me if I then have to watch out how to use it. Then I rather keep LCD for now. I often keep my monitors for at least half a decade. Maybe not as main monitor, but as secondary or other use. And an OLED is not the right thing for me there
I saw someone say this. And it still seems to be true "And yes, an OLED panel will suffer burn in and degrade no matter what - the question is how long it will take."
Burn in is still a thing as far as I know. And it will stay for a bit. So either the Monitors need to be way cheaper or last longer. As long as they are expensive and don't last a time that is ok in my eyes without me needing to purposefully change stuff so it lasts longer I am not that interested in it
@@cybernd6426 Half a decade? People are keeping their monitors forever since they do not malfunction and work just as well. I still have my original monitor from 2013 in my home as my secondary screen. That is a decade of use and it will accumulate another decade of a very infrequent use.
@@cybernd6426 Why would my Oled suddenly burn in after 3 years of not? The only thing I do to watch mine is put on a full screen slideshow video on if I go out for a short time.
@@Safetytrousers I would obsess over burn-in, so I stick with IPS
I have an Acer Predator X34 I bought in 2016 (3440x1440 100hz IPS GSync) and I have no idea what to upgrade it to. I don't want OLED because I have a lot of static content on my screen for several hours a day when working and it will burn in really fast. I don't like VA monitors and almost all ultrawide monitors still are 3440x1440 and the refresh rate alone doesn't seem that big of an upgrade to warrant buying a new one (most are 165hz). I also don't like the super big 49" monitors, so I have no idea what to upgrade to.
I have an Acer X34P (just a hair better than your X34) I bought before the pandemic. I have experience using several high-end displays at work, so I can guarantee anything less than a high-end 38" display will feel like a waste of money upgrading from a X34.
My rtx 3090 with various mods on a BIG custom loop is power limited to ~275W for gaming at 115fps max. Yes, I run a rtx 3090 @ 275W because I'm bottlenecked by the Acer X34P, just to give you my example in case you game on the same PC.
@@CapaNoisyCapa Well, I have a 4090 and a Ryzen 9 5950X so I'm more "bottlenecked" by the monitor than you are, lol. I like those 38" 3840x1600 IPS monitors but I kind of wish there was at least a 240hz one. I'd feel that's the right upgrade for the X34.
I have a 6700XT + 7600 build with a 1080p 165hz monitor should i buy a 1440p monitor?? Tho I'm afraid 6700XT won't be able to play 1440p in the long run
Best advice ever, biggest upgrade i ever experienced.
HDR for $280? No one is getting a proper HDR experience at $280 lets be honest. You need FALD. If your budget is only $280, concentrate on everything else BUT supposed HDR support because...it will not have good HDR, dont let it be a factor. Once you got enough for mini-LED with FALD or OLED, then you can start thinking about HDR.
The AOC Q27G3XMN has an MSRP of $280 USD and has 336 dimming zones. Both RTINGS and Monitors Unboxed have reviewed this monitor, and it turned out to be a pretty decent monitor.
@@superpork1superboy771 Nope, sorry, that thing doesnt have good HDR. You need FALD for proper HDR.
@@insertnamehere4419 ??? it literally has FALD. In the "HDR Picture" section of RTING's review of the monitor, they state that "The AOC Q27G3XMN has impressive picture quality in HDR. It uses Mini LED backlighting to produce a good local dimming feature, so it displays deep blacks next to bright highlights. It also displays bright and dark colors well, but it has limited coverage in the Rec. 2020 color space, so some content doesn't look as realistic as it should."
@@insertnamehere4419 It has FALD...
@@TheApol93 It has 336 dimming zones according to RTINGS, Which is not a lot and black smearing. I stand by what I said, you're not getting a good monitor for $280. You're missing the point.
Unfortunately I am stuck on a 60 hz display because there are no modern gaming displays with a 16:10 aspect ratio. 16:9 just isn't suitable for productivity. If any of the big players would make a 2400p high end gaming monitor they would likely make a killing.
How is it not? Just get some card board and over like a tiny bit on the left and right of your screen.
@@mryellow6918 I want more screen real estate, not less. The extra vertical space might not seem like a lot when you just look at the numbers, but makes a huge difference in day to day use.
@@guderian557 then just sit closer or get a bigger screen.
@@mryellow6918 I want to, but as mentioned, there are no 16:10 high end gaming monitors available.
@@guderian557 whats 16:10 got to do with not being able to get a larger screen.
you can "not recommend" all you like.... better monitors cost better money which obviously most people don't have.
I think the disconnect here is... for some budgets it's more important to get the game running to begin with or to make it run better than to make it look better. High end buying is different to low end buying. Some people just don't get how others just don't have the money to worry about how good games look or how "the experience" is.
"want to need" is not a legitimate "need".
Really? there are a ton of 1440 p monitors for incredibly cheap now with a better than 60 refresh rate. The price has come down significantly across the board.
@@frankytanky5076 Coming down from high does not automatically mean low.... just lower than it used to be. Especially if it was extremely high to begin with. The same people that used to only be able to afford 1080p five years ago are the same people that can only afford 1080p now..... and even those monitors are more expensive than they used to be in many cases.
Beware the illusion of general affordability (because of bubbles of wealth) and keep in mind that most of the world does not have healthy economies with strong currencies.... and even in the one's that do a slow moving depression is looming because of idiot politicians playing economists. This being exacerbated by margin driven manufacturers who are exploiting what they think are bottomless pits of revenue.
I understand the desire to force a standards upgrade..... but this time it just does not seem viable. You can even measure viability by console, there is no cheap PS6 with either stable mainstream 1440p or 2160p output and generally bought TV's to match..... the required hardware just costs too much for the common consumer.
To put it another way, if crime jumps 200% over a decade and in a year a mayor reduces it by 20%..... has crime reduced usefully or is he just saying he reduced it for votes?
Fortunately went I went all-in on building PC's in 2015, I started with 1080p/144hz/1ms at 250 USD. What a great start. At the start of 2021 I got a far too late upgrade to 1440p/144hz/1ms at 240 USD again. Big upgrade, especially with the new build I had built in 2017. Then in late 2022 and 2023, I got 2 4k/1ms monitors (1 with 160hz/HDR 8, the other with 144hz/HDR 10) for about 450-500 USD each. That 4k difference with HDR... is the biggest leap yet. Absolutely cannot state how big of a leap that is.
Next leap I plan to do is 4k160hz/1ms OLED, but that is probably not going to be at a price point I want until 2027, which I am okay with waiting for.
Thanks, I'm now playing my games at 720p on my 4K monitor
Makes sense! Just use fsr to increase the resolution from 540p to 720p and you gpu should be just fine!
The video is well intentioned and I get was he's trying to say - don't neglect including your monitor in your upgrade cycle. But I think Tim got tunnel vision with what he's trying to say. Suggesting a RTX2060S, an old 8GB card, paired with a 4K monitor (the M27U)? See at 12:28
Take a step back and think about that. He'd have us look at a heavily upscaled (prob. with frame gen), clear-as-mud image (albeit on a nice monitor)? Hard no for me.
What about the recommendation right above it which he is also literally talking about, you'd disregard the whole video for that?
He suggests that if you play multiplayer titles.
Bought a 4k 43" 144hz qled super thin TV, mounted in the wall and now is the perfect monitor.
What model?
I couldn't follow the video. I'm now rock'n a 4090 and a AW3423DW OLED. I just need to figure out how to reduce my food intake until I cover the 3500 I paid...
Nope. Buy better GPU first. It's better to play in lower native resolution than in higher with DLSS-like shitties. You buy a 4K HDR 960 HZ monitor to play with fake graphic? You buy high frame rate monitor and set motion blur in games later? LOL
I did just this almost 3 years ago during Covid. Worst mistake ever. Bought a LG 4K monitor to replace my dell ultrasharp 1440p monitor and it immediately rendered my evga gtx1080 useless. Ended up having to overspend again to buy a GPU, during covid again, just to play some current games at 4K. Of course, it was my own fault for not doing proper research at what was needed to run 4K. The $1K 3080 is a daily reminder to not make that mistake again.
Is it at least 10gb 3080?
He did mention this in the video, that you could've just played the games at 1440p on your 4k monitor, until you get your eventual GPU upgrade.
That's what I've been doing, my 1070 is definitely starting to show it's age, that I've started to play newer games at 1080p on my 1440p ultrawide
Here's hoping there'll be a nice sale on some mid end 30 or 40s series soon
I did it the other way around - I bought a 4080 Super to replace a broken 2080ti ,running a pair of 4k60m27" panels . I got tired of seeing the GPU chilling with games maxed out 😂 so replaced one of the panels with a 4k144 32" LG one a month back. Enjoying the results even if it cost a fair deal
Why would you jump from 1080 to 4k?
That's an 8x increase in requirements.
@@formdoggie54x
I can't understand why people don't realise this simple concept; it's the same as buying expensive DAC's transports and power amps, but keeping the same tiny bookshelf speakers that you got second-hand in exchange for a pair of platforms in the 1970's.
cause people lack knowledge. it's so simple.
I spent my entire paycheck on one of those new 32" QDOLEDs to experience HDR gaming for the first time (upgrading from a 32" TN) and HDR is hardly a game changer. Everything looks different but it's hard to call it better. Absolutely not worth the price premium
It just hurts my eyes. I think he's an Aussie so i guess he's used to having his retinas nuked by UV light
very true
Had the opposite experience, got a good price and found the increased brightness and contrast very pleasant and overall was a great and memorable upgrade.
Bought a ROG SWIFT PG278Q in 2014 and it's still great, 1440p 144hz. Yeah it's TN, but the viewing angels are near 180 and the colors are fine enough. It's TN because IPS just didn't have the response time back then, now there are loads of 1ms IPS panels.
At this point I'm just waiting for OLED panels to not be $600+
Yeah, no. I much rather have a beefy GPU to handle Max graphics instead of a trash GPU with games on low/mid graphics settings and a monitor that requires a more powerful PC to actually make it make sense. That's why I got a 4090 and used 1080p 144hz TN monitor por half a year. Not an ideal monitor, but I can still play Cyberpunk 1440p 120 FPS with Path Tracing. Good luck trying to do that with a trash GPU and your "cool new monitor". Regardless, I'm finally getting a new QD-OLED monitor and it costs the same as a 4080.
But s.o. with a 4090 and for example an old Dell 24" 1080p 60hz IPS will not have an ideal Cyberpunk experience. It's about balancing your budget.
I guess Tim tries to emphazise more on the 60Hz than on 1080p. So if you use a 360hz or more 24" 1080p monitor noone will tell you to upgrade.
@@TheGuWie balancing budget is stupid because I'd have to upgrade 2 things instead of one.
@@CeceliPS3 Don't think it is smart to game with a 2022 GPU and a 2007 monitor is all he or I are saying. And no: you don't have to buy a 4090 and an OLED at the same time. Do it time-delayed. That is not what balancing a budget means. And if you have a 4090 and are considering buying a 1k OLED I don't get what your point is?
@@TheGuWie I don't even know what you're going on about, but I got that tone of low testosterone of yours.
Tim’s example at 4:35 of having a 1080p 60 Hz monitor that is upgraded to 1440p 144 Hz is spot on. I jumped from 1080p 60 Hz to 4K 144 Hz and find it a wonderful improvement. I also had the pleasure of gifting that 27” 1080p to someone who was using a 17” 720p.
Getting a good headset/speakers is another thing to look to upgrade for a better all round experience. Wait for 5000 series for gpu price drops and performance upgrades.
I'm excited to see what AMD offers this time around. Based on the current rumors, they're taking the "make last gen performance more efficient and cheaper" approach.
I like pro consumer rumors. I generally purchase budget>>value>>quality upgrading when things break, become obsolete, or if there is value to improving quality of life. It would be a shame if my cheap headset were to break..
Funnily enough with speakers I still use my Logitech X230s which I've daily drived for 17 years now , they are so good for the age that to upgrade would even now cost a fortune
I would argue a soundcard can also be a great upgrade it you care about good sound. Most people play with onboard sound, but I've been using a dedicated soundcard for over 10 years and don't want to go back. Of course that only makes sense if you're pairing it with a good sound system.
not headset, but headphones. even Philips SHP9500 at $80 is better than a "gaming" headset. you also need something to make the sound better. i use Peter's Equalizer APO which is free and Boom 3D. Boon 3D can make stereo headphones into 3D surround.
I'm ready to buy a monitor but they don't make what I want. My Omen 32 1440p goes to 75hz. I was ready to buy an LG 45" to pair with new decent rig of 14900k/4090 BUT the widescreens at 21:9 have horrible text clarity and cost 1k, so I am waiting for someone to make a decent curved, no way I am spending 1k on a 4k 32", I want a massive size and resolution upgrade.
I upgraded after 10+years on 1080p. Finally found the 1440p in the size I wanted, 165hz, ips, gsync, and 24" super sharp it's 123ppi. I paid a bit more to import the AOC but I'm happy with it since Oct. 2023. Using a 4070 Super with it.
so am I wrong to enjoy playing at 60fps?
You can enjoy a game at any refresh rate, but it is just objectively better at a higher refresh rate.
A monitor upgrade could benefit you even on 60fps, lower monitor response times improve motion clarity. The fact that your old monitor is only 60fps means either that it's old and likely slow or that it's cheap and almost certainly slow by modern standards.
Higher refresh displays are very affordable now, so if you're upgrading go for that right away. If you can't hit higher refresh rates currently, doesn't matter. It's already an improvement, with room to grow upon your next PC iteration.
Not in the slightest
Yep
While I can agree to some degree, I think it's absurd that modern games require essentially 4k>=120hz just to minimize the blur, smearing and sizziling introduced by TAA/DLSS/FSR and rendering pipelines that neccessitate temporal upscaling (low res particles, nanite etc).
Also what's really the point of having a high refresh monitor if I only have the hardware to run it at 60hz anyway? I mean sure if I drop below that the monitor can render each frame twice and maintain freesync but that's about it. Motion clarity won't be affected in any way since most modern games essential simulate a 30+ year old LCD with their dogshit TAA and even if you replace that with DLSS that might do a slightly better there's still going to be worse motion clarity compared to a non-TAA game on a 20 year old LCD.
The point I think you're missing is that if you limit yourself to a 1080p/low refresh rate monitor (or whatever you might be at), you can't play at a higher resolution for ANY of your games. If you have a higher resolution monitor, sure you can't play new games at high settings, but your old games? They'll probably run at 1440p just fine, and you can just run the newer games at lower settings/resolutions. It's the choice between limiting everything, and just limiting some.
One thing Tim doesn't mention though is that once you go up a resolution/refresh rate, you won't want to go back. So there is some merit to just staying on a bad monitor so you don't spoil yourself.
even if the framerate is low, the higher refreshrate gives still better motion clarity and less input lag
Better pixel response time gives better clarity even at the same FPS. An OLED at 60fps will look significantly clearer than a VA panel at the same FPS.
@@ascissordollynamedgwen9409 try watching the video next time before commenting 😊
With all due respect this is BS. What a disappointing video filled with misinformation
Convinced me to go from an LG 27GK750F 1080p TN 240hz 27inch at 300€ in 2020 to a LG Oled 1440p 240hz 27GR95QE at 600€ lol
1024 X 768 gang smash the thumbs up. 👍
i have a 1080p 144hz monitor but in newer games i gotta play with lower resolutions cuz i have a gtx 1060 3gb
I have many problems regarding your statements about 1080p monitors and then recommending monitors with higher resolutions:
1) Money and electricity consumption are very important. You cant just blindly waste money on a product that increases your electricity bills.That is a very important concern for consumers.
2) Despite the many benefits 1440p and 4k monitors bring, those two are very expensive compared to 1080p monitors. Their prices, especially 4k monitors, are close or the same as mid- or high-tier GPUs depending on the models.
3) Higher resolutions and high refresh rates means wasting more electricity and taxing your own hardware. That means, the consumer is maybe then forced to upgrade the system or in the worst-case scenario, build a new one further wasting money. It depends on the situation.
4) Energy labels and power efficiency: This goes hand in hand with 1). Bigger sized monitors, higher resolutions and refresh rates means the manufacturer didn't seem to bother considering alternatives to reduce power consumption. This increases not only electricity bills but the overall product is more expensive the higher the specs go. Manufacturers, who aren't willing to improve the power consumption by researching technologies and developing new methods to reduce power consumption aren't worth my money. That's why energy labels are there for and people can find out through more researches if the manufacturer was lying about the claims and the efficiency category the manufacturer claimed how good the product is in terms of energy consumption.
5) "Graphics visuals look better on higher resolutions". Please give certain hardware examples as to why that's the case. Me being a developer, it doesn't make sense to make use of certain visual features, when it's only accessible for consumers with expensive monitors. a) It's unfair for other consumers b) you are putting a bit more pressure on the hardware, so what's the point here? Game optimization is important. c) Sure, it is beneficial for video and photo editing as well as production but for average gamers, where is the point? It's a question of taste.
6) Consumers don't always play modern Triple A games. They play also old Triple A games, indie games and retro games. Not all of those games are optimized going above their designed FPS. Many games have either a 30 or 60FPS lock for various reasons. It's because their game engines were designed that way for various different reasons. There are games with mods that disable the FPS locks and can run fine, were other games can't simple handle higher refresh rates because, again, the engines weren't designed that way.
7) Artifacts: Tim, do you know basics of game engines? Artifacts can appear on any resolution. Sure, higher resolutions can reduce more artifacts but the problem with artifacts on 1080p monitors aren't a significant problem to point where it massively bothers the player. If that's the case, then the game was poorly optimized. The problems with visual artifacts also stems from engines how they deal with visuals.
If players see small amounts of artifacts and find this very annoying, then it's subjective.
8) "Games are easier to play on higher refresh rates": I agree that games running on higher refresh rates look more fluid and lively but your point, although true, can be misleading. People can play games at 60Hz (lower or higher) perfectly fine and can have a great experience. Your point trying to justify purchasing monitors with higher specs wont sit well with other people since it's just laughable and doesn't make much sense. Average gamers aren't hardcore speed-runners or competitive players who focus on frame exploitation and they will definitely find monitors with higher refresh rates more beneficial.
9) No, only because a certain high-end monitor is cheap in your region, doesn't mean it's cheap in the other nation. There are nations where high-end monitors are much more expensive than you have suggested otherwise.
10) I don't deny the many benefits monitors with higher specs (1440p or 4k monitors with higher refresh rates) bring. However, there are 1080p monitors with higher refresh rates, too. Players should lower their expectations, what is realistic for them to archive and demands because this is a typical topic for graphic w* loosing their minds willing to waste hundreds and why console players find it amusing those types of gamers waste their money. 1080p monitors aren't terrible and still to this day fulfill the demands of many people. The problems you have presented are largely subjective and motivate people, in certain scenarios, to waste their money, when they don't need to. The utility of higher resolution monitors is subjective and varies depending on individual needs and preferences. For many users, especially those not focused on high-end gaming or professional visual work, 1080p monitors remain adequate and cost-effective. So how come you have not considered this? Especially, when you looked at the survey from Steam.
Tim, please evaluate your own script before presenting your own points.
In case someone fully or you, Tim, disagrees to what I said, you are proving my point, especially 1), 9) and 10).
Thank you pulled the words out of my mouth. This feels like an add for their monitor unboxed channel than actual informative video lol
I moved to 1440p 10 years ago and you have to put a gun to my head to make me go back to 1080P. The difference in visual quality is immense and the difference in price is negligible. By your logic we should still use 480p monitors since they were perfectly adequate 20 years ago.
To point 4) I have forgotten here and there words: The problem with the industry is that, instead of doing research to develop a new technology or improve it more, they just slap any available technology into the product. Thus resulting to the current situation we have where high-end monitors consume a lot of power. That's what I wanted to mention. Many manufacturers don't seem to be willing to invest more time and money to come up with something new in order to reduce the power consumption by a lot. As things stand, 1080p monitors with lower refresh rates to at least 100Hz are the most power efficient monitors, if the overall hardware is not shoddy.
To point 5) I have forgotten to add something. The difference of visual improvements is actually minor. Run a triple A game on 1080p and 60FPS, then go higher with the refresh rates. Then later, go higher with the resolution and refresh rates. Do you notice differences? Depending on the game and monitor, the differences are so minor and others are barely noticeable. What is noticeable for me in some games is that text quality and colors look a little bit more smooth. Whether or not those differences are noticeable, it's really up to personal tastes. Meaning, your point is still baseless and completely subjective. This is a a poor point trying to justify a purchase of monitors with higher resolutions. What's the point if you have already good graphics but then wasting further money just to get slightly better visual improvements? It doesn't make sense. If a game looks visually awful, has excessive and annoying motion blur, too much artifacts, poor rendering of lighting textures, etc., then it's 100% the problem of the game's engine and poor optimization. You are just supporting the idea to unnecessarily waste money when you don't need to.
To point 6) I forgot to add that, even if there are FPS locks, FPS locks are not equal to in-game stutters and big FPS drops. There are plenty games out here with FPS locks that run super smooth. Having a monitor with higher refresh rates and playing a game with either FPS lock or not but experiencing a lot of performance issues I mentioned does not solve the performance issues at all. Meaning, again, the engine wasn't optimized well.
To point 7) Even if there are small, barely noticeable artifacts, what's the point of complaining? Why suggesting seeking monitors with higher resolutions considering, if game engines are well optimized when it comes to rendering visuals, when all is fine and good on 1080p? Your point doesn't make any sense.
Finally: 4k is not everywhere well optimized when it comes to visual alignment. So, why bother using it if it isn't well optimized not to mention it's hardware intensive while playing a triple A game. It doesn't make sense for other people.
Your video is complete BS and only made for graphic w*. I am really sad having this sad because, you guys are actually a great channel and I have ever imagined you put out a video like this with terrible misinformation and advice. Most of the problems you have presented are due to how game engines are. Throwing money at it will not always solve the problem. Your own preferences when it comes to PC gaming are not the same like anyone else. Meaning, your comments are actually propaganda at this point. With this terrible misinformation you are the type of people who are causing unnecessary headache for developers (like me) and further proving points of game companies who don't care about optimization and good visuals even at lower settings forcing the consumer to waste more money for better hardware. Again, this is all because of optimization. Again, throwing money at it will not always solve anything. I will consider unsubscribing because I have high standards and demands when it comes to presenting factual information. This is terrible and needs to be corrected.
As I have said previously: if anyone fully disregards what I have said, then you are proving my point. Just use whatever you need and want, play whatever game and game settings you prefer. Consider what is personally best for you, your hard-earned money and what options are realistic enough for you to realize. Do not listen to this terribly misleading video.
@@benedict9016
"By your logic we should still use 480p monitors since they were perfectly adequate 20 years ago."
I have never said or implied that buddy...
@@forestmanzpedia The difference between 1080p and 1440p is night and day, likewise for 60hz vs 144hz+. If you struggle to see much difference or consider it minor I suggest taking an eye test.
don't upgrade to a 500 dollar graphics card, upgrade to a 1000 dollar monitor
Perfect logic 😂
But those 2fps are going to be so crisp and clear!
🔥Bro, you HAVE to talk about gaming TVs at some point. You can't continue avoiding this since many PC/console users prefer that experience. Other than that, excellent video!👍🏻
Unless it's a brand new 720p monitor, my frames aren't going anywhere upwards
Speaking of which, I don't suppose you have a 720p monitor lying around...
I went from a 49" samsung VA to a 49" Samsung OLED. I didnt expect it to be such a difference. The games FEEL like they're running at much higher framerates, the HDR is jawdropping. I was playing through Ghost of Tsushima and some scenes look epic now, instead of great.
Honestly, input / output devices ar what we experience, and they are extremely important in almost every situation (cars as well, for example). They're the hardest to quantify also, but they are what we actually touch, see and hear and no matter how fast your pc is it sucks having a crappy monitor, mouse/keyboard or speakers/headphones. These things, usually, also have the longest usable lifespan and should be a no-brainer...
"You can buy a highend oled that will last you many generations of hardware" - yeah, how about no. There is a reason why no one offers a burnin warranty longer than 3 years, with no options of paying to extend it either... oled is a shortterm purchase, and that's just a fact. For that reason i and many others are still waiting for new tech to emerge without that CONSIDERABLE downside. And if you have a highend gaming monitor from 5 years ago, stuff doesn't really look that much better today. Don't even get me started on hdr barely working in most pc games. In 9 times out of 10 people will gain more from a more powerful pc than a new monitor...
OLED looks a lot better, and that it is fast enough for the high refreshrates is a nice bonus unlike the IPS which are too slow in response time for the higher refreshrate ..
I bought an OLED tv in 2020. Zero burn-in. So I bought an HDR OLED gaming monitor last year and it's fantastic. Most of my games support HDR, and those that don't look much improved over my previous 5 year old 144hz IPS anyway.
I was running a 3070ti and a 60hz 1080p monitor from 2012 till recently. When I upgraded to a 1440p 165 hz monitor, first of all I didn't see any improvement in smoothenes, not the mouse or scrolling, not in games, no advantage in esports shooters. Only disadvantages.
The first one is that every netflix or prime series looks now laggy as hell. While you see minor sharpness increase due to resolution I find it negligible, but it takes 2x the power and halves my fps. I've been playing max raytracing everywhere in 1080p and now even couldn't turn it on.
So I had to upgrade GPU aswell to 4070 ti super to even play games. People with 60 series cards or older 70 series cards should not even think about going 1440p. Go 1080p 165 hz at best if you see the difference with higher refreshrate. For me there is only few 1440p cards on the market. Being 3090/ti, 4070 ti super (non ti and non super mainly being 1080p cards for newer games, because you need at least dlss balanced or peformance to reach playable fps in CP2077 or Alan Wake 2 with everything maxed out in 1440p), and the 4080/super, the only ture 4k card is the 4090.
So 4k is off the table anyways for everyone who doesn't have 4k€ lying around for a rig + monitor. 1440p is just for very high midrange cards where you need to invest at least 1,5k with monitor and gpu to become a playable experience. Every one else is stuck to 1080p. The only exception to this is if you're only playing 6 year old games. Then you can go 1440p even on older cards, but theres only few pople solely sticking to old games.
AMD cards are off the table due to bad RT performance (7900 xt has literally half of the FPS in Alan Wake or CP 2077 what even a 4070ti super can offer). FSR is still far worse than DLSS even with FSR 3.1. Intel has nothing powerfull enough yet.
I barely get 60 fps with DLSS quality in CP2077 with drops to 50 on my 4070ti super in 1440p, with FG I get 90-100. there is no way ppl with weaker cards even the 3090/ti are having really good esperiences in 1440p besides old/indie games.
100% right, but whenever I upgrade my GPU i sell my old one and buy used so i get a pretty good deal. Last time i traded my 3060 for a 6700 for an extra $35
I'm not comfortable buying a used monitor and they don't hold their value as much as GPUs these days.
I want to get a 1440p monitor but as a college student I don't have a lot to spare.
If like me you are stuck with a 1080p monitor, running games at higher resolutions with any type of temporal anti-aliasing improves sharpness a lot and reduces the blurry nature of TAA/DLSS/FSR/XESS
Currently playing Elden ring at 1700p and it makes a huge difference particularly in foliage
Or be happy with what you have. I tried (admittedly years ago) a high refresh rate gaming monitor that other people raved about. I thought the image quality was poor. So I sent it back and got a great 24 inch 60hz 1920x1200 monitor with great image quality and low lag (fast response). I've been using it for years and still love it. It has a nice reading mode for work that is fine for everything else. A consequence is that I have no interest in super fast refresh rates, so no interest in £1000+ GPUs and no interest in fake frames or resolution scaling. I'm not interested in RT either. Yeah, I don't have HDR. But overall, less is more.
One day I'll no doubt get a new monitor, when I can get one that has 16:10, 2560x1600, 24 to 27 inches, low lag, great image quality, and a fair price. Such a screen doesn't currently exist.
Despite all that I do agree that a good screen is a worthy investment.
3:00 When a person needs to use upscaling, it means that their underlying horsepower (most often than not the GPU) is insufficient and needs upgrading. If said person's target resolution is 1080p, than they really need to upgrade their GPU. Further, upscalling fundamentally changes the output picture. Edges are less refined, there is a more oily diffuse feeling to a scene. If you can't see it, great, go for upscaling. Unfortunately, for some of us, it is not a comfortable solution.
3:20 I would agree on the more responsive part, but stating that preferring to stay at 60 fps is "wrong" is reductive. I rarely play games requiring fast reaction times. I prefer to have a stable frame rate anchored at some point. I have experienced play on a friends overclocked 160 fps display. While neat, I feel that the premium I would need to pay on the GPU is not worth the gain.
6:00 What about burn in issues with OLEDs in the longer range, let's say 10+ years? As mentioned, monitor is not bought for three years.
7:10 I agree that if one has a TN monitor at least move to an IPS panel. The base color and comfort difference is staggering.
17:00 Agreed. The monitor is important. I would add that it is important to understand on a personal level what would I want from it and don't overshoot. I.e. in situations when a person is perpetually in the low end, I would suggest to spend the save up and spend on components to at least meet the 1080p@60fps performance gate. Having a nice monitor, but being forced to play under 60 fps or at 1080p with upscaling would not be acceptable in my book.
17:30 For reference my primary driver is a nice 1080p@60fps 24" IPS display from four years ago for about 200 euro.
🧡💛🧡
I ate a 4090 today
What a nonsense.
The whole market is a nightmare, especially since Corona. Just because monitors improved and got cheaper in comparison to products that are overpriced by up to 500 %, it doesn't mean they're worth the money either.
But sure, get your QD OLED DP 1.2 "true purple experience" today, when playing in 240 HZ later. Apples and eggs, my dear.
I realy do not understand how buying new monitor will UP your fps?? If you have 2080ti and you buy 4k 240hz display now (and you had 1440p monitor), you bill LOWER your fps and will have worse experience with nicer colours.
Hey Tim, why don't you use 4k monitor with 5yo GPU?
Sorry, but these advices are very entitled.
I have 3080 and 1440p monitor. I will not get better experience if I buy 4k monitor, because instead of haveing 80-100 fps now, I will have 50fps. How does this improve my experience?
And what does higher refresh rate gives me if I go from 144hz to 240hz if I will go from 100fps to 50fps in the same games?
And if I buy 1440p 240hz monitor, what GPU will I need to have only 120fps in most AAA and AA games?
And at the end you say "if someone with modern rig play on 10yo monitor". But PC from 5-6 years ago is not a modern rig. It is 2-3 GPU generations behind. So the video is actually for ppl with 30xx and 40xx series cards with 10-15yo monitors. For that I agree, the argumentation stands only in this case.
New monitor will make you want a new gpu. Overclock your monitors refresh rate, costs nothing.
if you're using a 60hz monitor try overclock it to 66hz or 72hz, most of the time it'll do this no problem.
I've done this with my TV, laptop and my Steam deck.
But I'm fine with 60hz?🤷♂
I've heard if many people saying they can't go back to 60hz after upgrading. If I'm fine with 60hz why would I complicate my life with high refresh rate gaming?
The problem is you'll NEED a better GPU to run a higher resolution or refresh rate monitor so that the upgrade is worthwhile. Sticking with a 1080p 144Hz display is the best thing I have done. I even have a newer 1440p display I got at a huge discount with existing, about to expire, Lenovo credit and I'm not going to set it up until I upgrade my aging i7-8700 based CPU and 3060Ti.
Why not try the 1440p? It can display a 1080p signal.
You're wrong for waiting
@@Safetytrousers Yes a blurry 1080p.
@@LexusYachtClub I have 1440p on my laptop so I know what I'm missing. My first computer was a TI99/4A and I grew up with pixels the size of your thumb so 1080p doesn't bother me at all. I'd much rather the frame rate than the resolution.
@@sammyfromsydney It depends on the screen. My LG Oled does 1080p like native.