Hardware Inquiry

Can't really say whether you should be getting more as you didn't specify the settings. Though it is an older CPU with 6 cores and 12 threads the CPU power should be fine I would think. GPU is also very good. Your main bottleneck will be your RAM as the game (and other games) does like higher bandwidth RAM. I guess it is possible PCI-E slot speed might limit the 1070 a bit, depends what gen it is (at this point I wouldn't worry though).

I think a 1440p monitor would be a good choice. It will probably make your 1070 run harder and perhaps a little hotter but it is not a power hungry card and doesn't run hot. The higher resolution should also reduce any CPU bottleneck there might be. Ashes scales very well with resolution. You could turn on 1440p resolution support in the nvidia control panel and run the game at 1440p now, on your 1080p, and see what FPS you will get but I don't think it will drop much.

The game may well run at less than 60FPS in which case having a 60hz monitor or 120hz won't make much of a difference. I would still get the 120/144Hz monitor though for when it is above 60Hz and for other games.

Basically getting a 1440 144hz should be really nice for Ashes and other games and would fit your system fine. Nothing to worry about

You should absolutely go for the 1440.  Your system will easily handle it, at least for Ashes, and the visual advantage over 1080 will far offset any drop in performance.  And there are other general benefits to 1440 including much more screen real estate.  I wouldn't want to go back even to 1920 x 1200.

I run Ashes on a 680 GTX at 2560x1440, it's a negligible change over 1080p.

The 144 Hz represent the top refresh rate the monitor supports not the fps you need when playing games on it. Having a monitor that supports 144 Hz is like saying you have wheels on your car than can go up to 300 km/h. Do you need to have a car that can drive that fast to use them? No. So basically a 144 Hz monitor gives you the ability to have 144 fps and brings frames faster to the screen once rendered but doesn't require more horsepower.

The 1440 is going to require more processing power but you should be fine on that end.

I agree with you.

But I'll be the first person to tell you that the human eye can't really process much faster than 30fps.

30fps usually looks like fluid movement to us, unless something is moving really fast over a longer distance.

It is hard to get the illusion of movement to look even more "fluid" (144hz) than "fluid" (60hz).

So in that sense, a car that has the CAPACITY to drive 300mph is a total waste of money, if you paid for the extra speed.

Because, for the most part, you can't drive faster than 75mph.

So what would be the point?

Even worse than owning a car that drives 300mph is owning one with 300mph tires, even though the car is simply incapable of accelerating to that speed. 

Now that -- THAT -- is wasteful folly. 

I would take very close to zero pleasure in admitting that I bought a monitor whose capabilities I couldn't use.

And then there would be the car that forces you to drive in second gear when using the high-capacity tires.

This is the car that I would find most disconcerting of all.

I don't ever want to own this car. Ever.

It is, arguably, counter productive. 

TO put it in more concrete terms, I am most worried about  the scenario where my machine can't actually handle 1440p very well (never mind 144hz). I've read in places that it looks worse if you switch to 1080 on a 1440. I just don't want to make a silly purchase, simply so I can say I have the CAPACITY to do the better performance, and then be forced to downgrade the game appearance, so that it is worse than I would experience if I just went with 1080 native.

And it simply doesn't make sense to me to spend extra on the 144, if I can't use it.

Ultimately, I suppose this exercise really boils down to curiosity for me. 

Grass is maybe greener in the next yard over?

I've bought the computer components thoughtfully over time, and my computer now seems to have a lot of horsepower.

So I'd like to see what it can do.

I'm curious whether the new monitor would introduce a noticeable improvement.

I guess you could call it my potentially costly experiment.

Appreciate the feedback.

Am curious on one hand, and don't want to waste $$ on other.

Considering:

ASUS ROG PG278Q (TN)

ASUS ROG PG279Q (IPS)

ACER XB270HU (non-predator, 2015)

ACER XB271HU (predator, 2016)

BenQ Zowie 27" (cheaper, but no G-sync)

ViewSonic XG2703-GS

Anyone have any strong thoughts?

Just curious.

Ugh, moronic science entry...

This is right up there with "dogs can't feel anything for, and aren't smart enough to understand, their owners".  It's one of those scientific conclusions that was made by someone who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, and became a commonly held belief somehow.  It's also instantly disproved the first time you meet a dog that isn't really fucking stupid.  My dad had one that you couldn't even spell bath around, or he'd disappear.

I can tell the difference between 60 and 72.  60 is barely tolerable, 30, or the 24 commonly used in theaters, drives me batshit.  Movies give me headaches.  I can see the 120Hz flicker in fluorescent lighting, and most monitors give me a massive headache because the PWM dimmed backlights, which typically run at a few hundred hertz, are still slow enough that they drive me nuts.  My primary is a high end Samsung, but several years old, and it has a nice and fast 400Hz flicker at full brightness, it's still obvious at 67%.

It's entirely possible you've got brain dead vision genes and would starve for sure as a hunter, but if you don't, don't buy the bullshit and tell yourself the eye strain is supposed to be there.  It's a product of bad technology backed up by utterly bogus science, and it actually makes some people seriously ill.

I only see florescent flicker when they are dying.

A brand new bulb in a properly working socket, solid as a rock.

Movies, look pretty damn fluid to me too.

Same with TV (30 frames).

Movies and TV don't exactly feel like a flip book to me -- ever.

So, if that means I'm going to starve as a hunter... Then congrats.... Your genes will probably endure. 

Not likely, I'm unlikely to reproduce.

Firstly....the actual advantage of a car that CAN do 300 but you only go '75' is that IF it's designed for 300 it will [should] also be designed to handle and brake for higher speeds than 75.

That means when driving at 75 you at no time exceed the potential of the car.  Whether or not you are an idiot driver whose capabilities do not match the car....that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Observe those peanut-brained individuals who get their bog-standard people mover and chuck on 22" 35 profile tyres on the assumption it will somehow be 'better' while the saucer-plate discs are now clearly visible proving the car's braking ineptitude.  [not to mention it's a people mover and its c of g is higher than the owner's IQ.

Meanwhile, my nice new G-sync monitor tells me at the moment I'm ticking along at 60hz.....when I get into a game it's considerably higher....and issue-free...;)

Edit....

Forgot to mention.....the new one is a ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q IPS 27" LCD Monitor 

Whatever is IPS, 144Hz, 2560x1440/1600 27" and has G-sync (if you have/plan to stick to Nvidia) at the same time.  And does not cost arm and leg.

IPS or TN?

 IPS seems like it has some light bleeding issues.

Light bleeding is a matter of bad housing.  These super thin bezel monitors are terrible about it, whether it's IPS or not is irrelevant.  There is IPS glow(light bleeds through the screen), but neither technology produces a good black.  VA is better, but they're not particularly great either in other ways.  CRT displays had better contrast levels than any of them.

TN panels are the worst of the bunch, the actual display is thick, and whatever color is furthest out is the one you're stuck seeing at any significant angle.  They're fast and cheap, but their color is poor, and for a larger display even sitting dead center leads to substantial color shift.  If you can afford a 144Hz IPS, it's a vastly superior display to anything you can get in TN.

The only issue actually true to IPS, and not just bad cabinet design or manufacturing defects, is that they are a substantially more complicated device.  This results in higher cost, power utilization, and latency.  PLS panels are of a similar quality, with similar issues.  The only thing you can get that is definably superior to a high end IPS/PLS monitor, is OLED, and those are an arm and a leg.

What psychoak said...;)

Hrmm... this one?

ASUS PG278QR 27" 1ms 165Hz G-SYNC Eye Care Gaming Screen LCD Monitor

https://www.amazon.com/PG278QR-G-SYNC-Gaming-Screen-Monitor/dp/B01N4ENDXR/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1484927770&sr=1-1&keywords=ASUS+ROG+Swift+PG279Q+IPS+27%22+LCD+Monitor

Looks like a deal, but not IPS?

Does that necessarily mean TN?

EDIT: Yeah, did some research. It is TN.

I recommend you look for hardware on Newegg, even if you don't plan to purchase it there.  Much more comprehensive technical information and reviews.  Naturally, it still lacks that detail.

You might run into monitors not stating they're one of the more expensive screens, but it would be terrible marketing on their part.  You're not going to find a 1ms display outside of TN.  If ghosting is a primary concern and you want as little latency as possible, TN is the only reasonable option for you.  You'll be stuck with 16.7 million colors instead of 1.07 billion.

Typically, the only thing I get noticeable ghosting on is my cursor, and I have 5 and 4ms response times on mine.  Long gone are the days of 20ms plus response times that made fps gaming completely untenable on anything but a TN panel.

I am running a 1080p HP2509 monitor from 2010 that I like an awful lot. But it has started to flicker. So... it's just time to replace.

But I like the quality of that screen very much. It's nice and bright, and very crisp. Glossy screen, I think. 

It is 5ms, and that seems perfectly fine to me, since my apm is nowhere near pro.

I have no doubt that anything I get will likely be better than what I have.

I've used newegg and amazon to do my search -- and you're right that newegg is better equipped for the searching.

If I want 1440, g-sync, 144, IPS, and 26"-27", with at least two ports...

There really aren't a whole lot of different options.

I think I've pretty much narrowed to:

ASUS ROG PG279Q (IPS)

ACER XB271HU (predator, 2016)

... both are pretty expensive, which isn't thrilling.

... and both are apparently made with the same AUO panels...

... and both apparently have LOTS of QC problems...

... so it sounds like getting a winning screen might be a crapshoot ...

... but if you get a good one, it sounds like they're both terrific ...

So... I dunno...

We'll see.

Not afraid to pay if I get my money's worth, but an $800 screen with deadspots and light bleed doesn't sound like a terrific idea.

If I forego the G-sync, then there is the Zowie, I guess.

Hard to tell what is a legit issue, because people seem to make a lot of noise complaining about both models.

Just doesn't seem like a monitor has been released that is REALLY loved and stable.

* Shrug *

Yeah...

Monitors can be a dud when you're after pretty narrow feature sets.

They are relatively new models....so as with any new tech there may be production quality issues.  In other words, you may get a dud, but a dud can be exchanged.

Mine isn't a dud. It performs exactly as expected...;)

In AUD it was $1200, but in my case it was replacing [adding to] a monitor which was about 10 years old and 10 years more primitive...;)

Just want to follow up on this.

I listened carefully to all the advice from folks in this forum and elsewhere.

I listened to everyone who told me I should get the "uber" monitor.

I placed faith in those who told me I would definitely notice the difference.

I tried to think of my long term interests.

And I did ultimately get my new monitor.

FWIW... to all those who are considering the same options (ROG vs. Predator): 

1) The ASUS won the day, for issues and reasons that don't really matter (ex. joystick was easy to use, but I only used it for initial config, and now doesn't matter).

2) The picture quality is great, brightness superb, couldn't ask for a better monitor in terms of vibrance and clarity.

3) There is significant light bleed, but you will never, ever notice it when there is anything on the screen (unless you turn off all the lights, and are staring at a black screen, which I generally don't do for long periods of time.. or ever). 

4) I can now run at faster than 60fps with my 1070 and g-sync... and ultimately it really looks no different than 40fps.

5) I also can see everything at 2K resolution, which IS a noticeable improvement. (ex. there is an intricate pattern of lines in the oval drone-spawning dreadnaughts with the blue tops!)

I'm very happy with the monitor in a general way, and don't think my particular unit is a special case in any sort of "monitor lottery."

I probably just received the same poorly manufactured panel as everyone else.

... so awful that I'm keeping mine without complaint.

I'm really just a normal guy... not a technophile.

This purchase was not crucial to my identity.

And although I haven't ever seen or handled the Predator monitor in real life, I imagine my reaction would be quite similar.

I just play and enjoy... as most people do.

Final analysis:

No doubt, if you are reading this, you are someone who is trying to make a choice between the same two monitors

... and given where you are in the purchase process, you probably won't listen to good and honest sense.

... so I will simply suggest that you are more than welcome to pay too much for a monitor that is 2K, IPS, 145hz... with all the "cool" stuff that ultimately won't make any difference in your gaming experience....

Personally, knowing what I now know, I would have probably been equally happy with a good, high resolution non-gamer model with decent resolution and response time.... and then spend the balance that I saved on something else.

(And actually... I really can't vouch for the importance of response time either... the effect of 2 extra nanoseconds is probably negligible and significantly faster than human reaction time anyhow... I'd be the first to honestly admit that I don't do much at the tempo of nanoseconds.)

Someone who i trust told me that there are some really nice and huge BenQ monitors out there, and they are supposed to be quite good in terms of image quality, clarity, blackness, etc.

Second time around, I would probably look in that direction.

Or maybe a really good Viewsonic.

Meh. Who knows... 

GL with your purchase.

May it be the monitor of your dreams.

Apparently, my dreams are pretty mundane these days.