KSP1 Computer Building/Buying Megathread

[KocLobster]

52 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Would you call this accurate?

 

lol very funny actually

[Alphasus]

9 hours ago, KocLobster said:

Sorry, this is going to be a large post..

@Alphasus

Was able to properly look over all the new posts. Just curious, but why does it seem so many (or maybe it was just you, I can't remember) are trying to push me into getting AMD over Nvidia? (Please don't misunderstand me, this is pure curiosity, I'm not angry or trying to be rude by any means; I ask because I genuinely don't know). That R9 Nano has 4096-bit, HBM memory...that seems like an explosion better than GDDR5 256bit cards, does it not? I do want to mention again that I would prefer Nvidia. I have no experience with AMD cards; I have always had Nvidia, have never had any issues with them, and have always had a smooth experience. Of course that isn't to say AMD wouldn't be the same, but just that I'd be more comfortable with Nvidia, and I feel like more people choose Nvidia over AMD (pure speculation). Also, I see a lot of people hold EVGA very highly, and they only make Nvidia cards. This is what I really have my sights on: EVGA GTX 980. I generally filter Newegg results by Most Reviewed, and try to pick components from brands I have firsthand experience with, as well as very highly rated/reviewed brands/specific components.

As far as 6 cores go, I was also thinking about this lately. While I don't see myself needing 6 cores right now or soon, I could need them in the future. I typically don't do much multitasking; generally the biggest workout I give a CPU is running one game and maybe a web browser with streaming video at the same time. That's it; I don't edit or play with video software, or anything else that is generally considered very CPU intensive. Also, most games, and most games I play, are more GPU dependent than CPU (which is why I am now very much leaning towards a GTX 980, not a 970, as a minimum). Like I said earlier, I mostly play Minecraft and KSP right now, and once I get this new computer, I'll also start playing GTA5, maybe go back to some CS:S and The Long Dark as well.

So anyways...I would like a 6 core processor, but don't think I can afford one. Unfortunately, there are only two 6 core processors on Newegg, and you picked the cheapest one. It's still an extra $110 more than the 4 core CPU we picked earlier...I don't know if I can swing that AND get the 980 over the 970 like I want to do. Also, just so you know, our shopping carts differ a little. I want this power supply, a G2 series, not GS. It's a bit better. I want this monitor, it's better than the one I picked earlier, with a 144Hz refresh rate and a 24" screen instead of 27" (very much the 'sweet spot' for 1080p, apparently). Finally, I also want this GPU, the EVGA 980, for all the reasons we've already talked about. I've also got a keyboard, headphones, and thermal paste (not important to include, but does affect price). That's what's in my shopping cart that isn't in yours, and it brings the total to $1918 after tax and shipping costs. So I'm basically already over budget; which is okay because it's only by ~$100, but I can't really spend anymore. I still have to have money for a cheap desk, computer chair, and a little wiggle room. My absolute total budget was $2200, which is why I want this system to cost ~$1800.

Sorry for such a long post, I probably could of put more effort into keeping things shorter. TL;DR: I really want to stick with the GTX 980, and I just can't afford a 6 core CPU right now, nor do I think I would truly need one for quite some time. I suppose if I wanted, I could get a 970, or other AMD card, and then I could afford getting a 6 core CPU, but I don't want to make that trade-off. Like I said, I'm more concerned with my GPU than my CPU; most things I plan on doing/playing are much more GPU intensive than CPU intensive.

edit: forgot to also mention I'd much rather stick with Skylake than go down to Haswell. I have no experience with either but Skylake is newer and I hear better things about it...not that it matters anyway because of budget restraints

Umm that is haswell-e. The enthusiast series. The reason I mentioned it is because it makes it easier to just pop a new video card in to supplement your other one(SLI). I mentioned AMD because they perform better vs the 980. Go above the 980, 980ti, and then we will talk. Nvidia has the high end crown.

9 hours ago, KocLobster said:

Sorry, this is going to be a large post..

@Alphasus

Was able to properly look over all the new posts. Just curious, but why does it seem so many (or maybe it was just you, I can't remember) are trying to push me into getting AMD over Nvidia? (Please don't misunderstand me, this is pure curiosity, I'm not angry or trying to be rude by any means; I ask because I genuinely don't know). That R9 Nano has 4096-bit, HBM memory...that seems like an explosion better than GDDR5 256bit cards, does it not? I do want to mention again that I would prefer Nvidia. I have no experience with AMD cards; I have always had Nvidia, have never had any issues with them, and have always had a smooth experience. Of course that isn't to say AMD wouldn't be the same, but just that I'd be more comfortable with Nvidia, and I feel like more people choose Nvidia over AMD (pure speculation). Also, I see a lot of people hold EVGA very highly, and they only make Nvidia cards. This is what I really have my sights on: EVGA GTX 980. I generally filter Newegg results by Most Reviewed, and try to pick components from brands I have firsthand experience with, as well as very highly rated/reviewed brands/specific components.

As far as 6 cores go, I was also thinking about this lately. While I don't see myself needing 6 cores right now or soon, I could need them in the future. I typically don't do much multitasking; generally the biggest workout I give a CPU is running one game and maybe a web browser with streaming video at the same time. That's it; I don't edit or play with video software, or anything else that is generally considered very CPU intensive. Also, most games, and most games I play, are more GPU dependent than CPU (which is why I am now very much leaning towards a GTX 980, not a 970, as a minimum). Like I said earlier, I mostly play Minecraft and KSP right now, and once I get this new computer, I'll also start playing GTA5, maybe go back to some CS:S and The Long Dark as well.

So anyways...I would like a 6 core processor, but don't think I can afford one. Unfortunately, there are only two 6 core processors on Newegg, and you picked the cheapest one. It's still an extra $110 more than the 4 core CPU we picked earlier...I don't know if I can swing that AND get the 980 over the 970 like I want to do. Also, just so you know, our shopping carts differ a little. I want this power supply, a G2 series, not GS. It's a bit better. I want this monitor, it's better than the one I picked earlier, with a 144Hz refresh rate and a 24" screen instead of 27" (very much the 'sweet spot' for 1080p, apparently). Finally, I also want this GPU, the EVGA 980, for all the reasons we've already talked about. I've also got a keyboard, headphones, and thermal paste (not important to include, but does affect price). That's what's in my shopping cart that isn't in yours, and it brings the total to $1918 after tax and shipping costs. So I'm basically already over budget; which is okay because it's only by ~$100, but I can't really spend anymore. I still have to have money for a cheap desk, computer chair, and a little wiggle room. My absolute total budget was $2200, which is why I want this system to cost ~$1800.

Sorry for such a long post, I probably could of put more effort into keeping things shorter. TL;DR: I really want to stick with the GTX 980, and I just can't afford a 6 core CPU right now, nor do I think I would truly need one for quite some time. I suppose if I wanted, I could get a 970, or other AMD card, and then I could afford getting a 6 core CPU, but I don't want to make that trade-off. Like I said, I'm more concerned with my GPU than my CPU; most things I plan on doing/playing are much more GPU intensive than CPU intensive.

edit: forgot to also mention I'd much rather stick with Skylake than go down to Haswell. I have no experience with either but Skylake is newer and I hear better things about it...not that it matters anyway because of budget restraints

Also, you could go hexacore and r9 nano as far as I know. Like I said, in the 400-500 price range, AMD makes sense. They have smaller, cooler running, and faster cards for the same price tag.

EDIT: you could try SLI GTX 960s. That would give you 4 GBs VRAM, and more graphical grunt than a 980.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Alphasus

[Alphasus]

Newegg charges too much for 980 ti GPUs. It's like a $75 overcharge. Couple that with the monitor that is $100 more, and there you go. If you used Amazon for the same video card, and dropped the monitor for something cheaper, you could get a 980ti. Of course, that is ultimate overkill, but you will see all 144 fps on most games with max settings.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Alphasus

[briansun1]

13 hours ago, KocLobster said:

Sorry, this is going to be a large post..

@Alphasus

Was able to properly look over all the new posts. Just curious, but why does it seem so many (or maybe it was just you, I can't remember) are trying to push me into getting AMD over Nvidia? (Please don't misunderstand me, this is pure curiosity, I'm not angry or trying to be rude by any means; I ask because I genuinely don't know). That R9 Nano has 4096-bit, HBM memory...that seems like an explosion better than GDDR5 256bit cards, does it not? I do want to mention again that I would prefer Nvidia. I have no experience with AMD cards; I have always had Nvidia, have never had any issues with them, and have always had a smooth experience. Of course that isn't to say AMD wouldn't be the same, but just that I'd be more comfortable with Nvidia, and I feel like more people choose Nvidia over AMD (pure speculation). Also, I see a lot of people hold EVGA very highly, and they only make Nvidia cards. This is what I really have my sights on: EVGA GTX 980. I generally filter Newegg results by Most Reviewed, and try to pick components from brands I have firsthand experience with, as well as very highly rated/reviewed brands/specific components.

As far as 6 cores go, I was also thinking about this lately. While I don't see myself needing 6 cores right now or soon, I could need them in the future. I typically don't do much multitasking; generally the biggest workout I give a CPU is running one game and maybe a web browser with streaming video at the same time. That's it; I don't edit or play with video software, or anything else that is generally considered very CPU intensive. Also, most games, and most games I play, are more GPU dependent than CPU (which is why I am now very much leaning towards a GTX 980, not a 970, as a minimum). Like I said earlier, I mostly play Minecraft and KSP right now, and once I get this new computer, I'll also start playing GTA5, maybe go back to some CS:S and The Long Dark as well.

So anyways...I would like a 6 core processor, but don't think I can afford one. Unfortunately, there are only two 6 core processors on Newegg, and you picked the cheapest one. It's still an extra $110 more than the 4 core CPU we picked earlier...I don't know if I can swing that AND get the 980 over the 970 like I want to do. Also, just so you know, our shopping carts differ a little. I want this power supply, a G2 series, not GS. It's a bit better. I want this monitor, it's better than the one I picked earlier, with a 144Hz refresh rate and a 24" screen instead of 27" (very much the 'sweet spot' for 1080p, apparently). Finally, I also want this GPU, the EVGA 980, for all the reasons we've already talked about. I've also got a keyboard, headphones, and thermal paste (not important to include, but does affect price). That's what's in my shopping cart that isn't in yours, and it brings the total to $1918 after tax and shipping costs. So I'm basically already over budget; which is okay because it's only by ~$100, but I can't really spend anymore. I still have to have money for a cheap desk, computer chair, and a little wiggle room. My absolute total budget was $2200, which is why I want this system to cost ~$1800.

Sorry for such a long post, I probably could of put more effort into keeping things shorter. TL;DR: I really want to stick with the GTX 980, and I just can't afford a 6 core CPU right now, nor do I think I would truly need one for quite some time. I suppose if I wanted, I could get a 970, or other AMD card, and then I could afford getting a 6 core CPU, but I don't want to make that trade-off. Like I said, I'm more concerned with my GPU than my CPU; most things I plan on doing/playing are much more GPU intensive than CPU intensive.

edit: forgot to also mention I'd much rather stick with Skylake than go down to Haswell. I have no experience with either but Skylake is newer and I hear better things about it...not that it matters anyway because of budget restraints

I would stick with the 980 over 6 core CPU. AS you have mentioned most games are GPU dependent right now. And there aren't many games that could use the full 6 cores anyways. As for AMD vs Nvidia. AMD has slightly better $ to performance compared to Nvidia. However AMD doesn't have a truly Ultra high end card like the GTX Titan yet. With Nvidia you're paying for brand and bells and whistles. You could then of course go into the "Nvidia are anti-gamer/anti consumer" thing. I'm not going to go into much detail on that unless asked. And you still haven't really answer why it must be 144hz.

@Alphasus To my knowledge Skylake can do SLI/Crossfire just fine. I wouldn't really recommend it over just one really good card though. There are more issues that just one. Also AMD cards aren't really smaller or cooler running.

[Alphasus]

1 hour ago, briansun1 said:

I would stick with the 980 over 6 core CPU. AS you have mentioned most games are GPU dependent right now. And there aren't many games that could use the full 6 cores anyways. As for AMD vs Nvidia. AMD has slightly better $ to performance compared to Nvidia. However AMD doesn't have a truly Ultra high end card like the GTX Titan yet. With Nvidia you're paying for brand and bells and whistles. You could then of course go into the "Nvidia are anti-gamer/anti consumer" thing. I'm not going to go into much detail on that unless asked. And you still haven't really answer why it must be 144hz.

@Alphasus To my knowledge Skylake can do SLI/Crossfire just fine. I wouldn't really recommend it over just one really good card though. There are more issues that just one. Also AMD cards aren't really smaller or cooler running.

The R9 Nano is smaller than the 980 with a 175W TDP vs the 200W 980.... R9 Nano in specific is also faster.

[briansun1]

15 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

The R9 Nano is smaller than the 980 with a 175W TDP vs the 200W 980.... R9 Nano in specific is also faster.

In that example yes. But in general not really.

[Alphasus]

46 minutes ago, briansun1 said:

In that example yes. But in general not really.

I was talking about specifics...

[KocLobster]

@Alphasus

I certainly hope I didnt offend you earlier with my post..? You've given me some new things to think about. I'd like to avoid overkill status; I'd definitely prefer not to do SLI/crossfire. It'll be too expensive and unnecessary, i have zero experience running two or more GPUs, and more potential issues could arrise. I think I'd like to stick with the 4 core Skylake for now as well, I can't afford to upgrade it this time around and keep the same GPU. I really feel that this selection of CPU & GPU is the way to go for me. Don't you?

As for the ongoing debate between AMD vs. Nvidia, I'm still quite firmly on the green team as far as preference goes. In my opinion, I wouldn't be saving enough money switching to a similarly performing AMD GPU as the 980; the small savings wouldn't be enough to justify switching, and I'd still prefer Nvidia. If it was a huge amount of savings, I'd be more inclined to pull the trigger on a similar card on the red team.

You say Newegg charges an extra $75 for 980Ti's, was that a typo and you meant 980's? Because I won't be splurging on a Ti; I've already got an overpowered card. As for the monitor I've picked, you think I can find it much cheaper on Amazon? Am I understanding you correctly?

@briansun1

What exactly is this Nvidia anti-gamer/anti-consumer thing? I've picked a 144Hz monitor because it's really not that much more expensive than the previous monitor I picked. Most importantly, many games I see myself having FPS that high, and to avoid screen tearing w/o reducing my FPS, I need a higher screen refresh rate. This is my understanding at least, and that 1080p & 144Hz is definitely the way to go. Do you disagree or something?

[briansun1]

3 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

@Alphasus

I certainly hope I didnt offend you earlier with my post..? You've given me some new things to think about. I'd like to avoid overkill status; I'd definitely prefer not to do SLI/crossfire. It'll be too expensive and unnecessary, i have zero experience running two or more GPUs, and more potential issues could arrise. I think I'd like to stick with the 4 core Skylake for now as well, I can't afford to upgrade it this time around and keep the same GPU. I really feel that this selection of CPU & GPU is the way to go for me. Don't you?

As for the ongoing debate between AMD vs. Nvidia, I'm still quite firmly on the green team as far as preference goes. In my opinion, I wouldn't be saving enough money switching to a similarly performing AMD GPU as the 980; the small savings wouldn't be enough to justify switching, and I'd still prefer Nvidia. If it was a huge amount of savings, I'd be more inclined to pull the trigger on a similar card on the red team.

You say Newegg charges an extra $75 for 980Ti's, was that a typo and you meant 980's? Because I won't be splurging on a Ti; I've already got an overpowered card. As for the monitor I've picked, you think I can find it much cheaper on Amazon? Am I understanding you correctly?

@briansun1

What exactly is this Nvidia anti-gamer/anti-consumer thing? I've picked a 144Hz monitor because it's really not that much more expensive than the previous monitor I picked. Most importantly, many games I see myself having FPS that high, and to avoid screen tearing w/o reducing my FPS, I need a higher screen refresh rate. This is my understanding at least, and that 1080p & 144Hz is definitely the way to go. Do you disagree or something?

I was just a bit curious on the 144hz thing. Don't necessarily disagree. Just thought that maybe you should also look at some 60hz ones like the UltraSharp I posted.

As for the Nvidia thing. The most recent example was them lying about and then attempting to cover up the fact that the 970 really only has 3.5 gb of Ram  and not the 4 that there were and still are advertising. Then there's also Nvidia gameworks. Which is a group of graphical tools designed to be a one size fits all kind of thing. It has been implemented well in the past some times, but a lot of the time it fails spectacularly casing a bunch of issues. Sometimes for everything except Nvidia cards and sometimes for all GPU's. There are tons of examples out there that probably explain things better than me.*

*Note: I am biased against Nvidia, but tried to be as neutral as possible. It's also why I almost always only recommend AMD cards.

[KocLobster]

I really want to avoid having a bottleneck in my performance, and I feel that if I got a 60Hz monitor then that's exactly what would happen. I'd basically be stuck with no higher than 60FPS unless I wanted screen tearing. With as beefy as a GPU and system that I'll be getting, I feel it'd be a bit wasteful to get a monitor that can't take full advantage of that.

[Alphasus]

 

1 hour ago, KocLobster said:

I really want to avoid having a bottleneck in my performance, and I feel that if I got a 60Hz monitor then that's exactly what would happen. I'd basically be stuck with no higher than 60FPS unless I wanted screen tearing. With as beefy as a GPU and system that I'll be getting, I feel it'd be a bit wasteful to get a monitor that can't take full advantage of that.

One problem. When the 980 can't do 144 fps, it will look HORRIBLE. Inconsistent frame rates are much worse than a consistent, lower frame rate. Look at constant 30 fps vs 60fps inconsistent. It looks absolutely horrible.

 

[Camacha]

11 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

One problem. When the 980 can't do 144 fps, it will look HORRIBLE. Inconsistent frame rates are much worse than a consistent, lower frame rate. Look at constant 30 fps vs 60fps inconsistent. It looks absolutely horrible.

You can cap the monitor, you can cap the game, you can cap the video card output frame rate. Plenty of options, although I feel that a game fluctuating between a high fps and an even higher fps rate will not be that noticeable.

[Alphasus]

Just now, Camacha said:

You can cap the monitor, you can cap the game, you can cap the video card output frame rate. Plenty of options, although I feel that a game fluctuating between a high fps and an even higher fps rate will not be that noticeable.

Not all games can be capped, but thanks for clarifying.

[KocLobster]

5 minutes ago, Alphasus said:

 

One problem. When the 980 can't do 144 fps, it will look HORRIBLE. Inconsistent frame rates are much worse than a consistent, lower frame rate. Look at constant 30 fps vs 60fps inconsistent. It looks absolutely horrible.

 

This is why I'm so glad I have you guys; I wouldn't have known this. Is it really that pronounced? Won't I be sacrificing a large amount of eye sex (performance) by getting a lower refresh rate monitor? The next lower option is all the way down to 60Hz...this seems like a brutal drop.

Surely there is a way to manually limit my FPS on super demanding games like this, like v-sync or something? If I get a 60Hz monitor, I will never ever be able to run more than 60FPS unless I want screen tearing and a lame experience...

I very much feel I'm missing something...

[Camacha]

6 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

This is why I'm so glad I have you guys; I wouldn't have known this. Is it really that pronounced? Won't I be sacrificing a large amount of eye sex (performance) by getting a lower refresh rate monitor? The next lower option is all the way down to 60Hz...this seems like a brutal drop.

No, it is not that pronounced. It is a thing where the returns are ever diminishing, to the point they are not there any more. The difference between 60 and 75 Hz is quite pronounced. The difference between 120 and 144 Hz will be hard for many people to spot, and not as relevant if they do. Fluctuating frame rates can be a bit of a bother, but mostly if they drop into clearly visible ranges and shoot back up again. If you have a card that will do 120 and 160 Hz, with your monitor showing 144, I would be surprised if you would be able to tell with any kind of consistency.

I would not bother with a 60 Hz monitor, unless there are other reasons for it (like IPS/proper colour reproduction). Like I suggested in my previous post - limiting your monitor to a lower frame rate is easier than pushing it to a higher frame rate. The latter often is not possible, or just a little bit.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Camacha

[KocLobster]

2 minutes ago, Camacha said:

I would not bother with a 60 Hz monitor, unless there are other reasons for it (like IPS/proper colour reproduction). Like I suggested in my previous post - limiting your monitor to a lower frame rate is easier than pushing it to a higher frame rate. The latter often is not possible, or just a little bit.

This is the impression I was under; I have multiple options. If I end up playing a game that is so incredibly demanding at the settings I choose to run, then the best course of action is to...reduce the monitor refresh rate to match approximately what my FPS is running at?

Or would I want to cap my FPS to a lower number if I'm not longer hitting ~140 FPS? Honestly, I'm not that sure that I'll be hitting 140FPS all that often, although I don't really know. Games like KSP and Minecraft, with all the absolute highest possible settings, may not be hitting ~140. What do I do? Games like GTA5 I know for a fact I will get no where near that kind of FPS. Even on one step down from ultra settings, I'd probably be lucky to get a constant 60fps.

I guess I'm a little confused on how to properly manage things so I don't have a bad graphical experience, regarding fps, refresh rates, etc.

Getting a 60Hz monitor seems like a total disaster, and if I did that then why even spend thousands on such a powerful gaming system? It'd go to waste, right?

[Camacha]

2 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

I guess I'm a little confused on how to properly manage things so I don't have a bad graphical experience, regarding fps, refresh rates, etc.

Getting a 60Hz monitor seems like a total disaster, and if I did that then why even spend thousands on such a powerful gaming system? It'd go to waste, right?

Personally, I feel 60 Hz is not the best experience, though it also very much depends on the monitor. 75 Hz is already a lot more reasonable.

How to manage it? You just play and enjoy. Do not worry about it too much. Only when you feel the experience is not quite what you would expect or want, you start fiddling with the settings. People fiercely debate subjects like these and that in itself probably means the differences are too small to yield any kind of solution that is obviously better than the other solutions. Besides, if you really are paying that much attention to these kinds of details, you should probably look for another game that actually manages to retain your attention.

[Alphasus]

4 hours ago, KocLobster said:

This is the impression I was under; I have multiple options. If I end up playing a game that is so incredibly demanding at the settings I choose to run, then the best course of action is to...reduce the monitor refresh rate to match approximately what my FPS is running at?

Or would I want to cap my FPS to a lower number if I'm not longer hitting ~140 FPS? Honestly, I'm not that sure that I'll be hitting 140FPS all that often, although I don't really know. Games like KSP and Minecraft, with all the absolute highest possible settings, may not be hitting ~140. What do I do? Games like GTA5 I know for a fact I will get no where near that kind of FPS. Even on one step down from ultra settings, I'd probably be lucky to get a constant 60fps.

I guess I'm a little confused on how to properly manage things so I don't have a bad graphical experience, regarding fps, refresh rates, etc.

Getting a 60Hz monitor seems like a total disaster, and if I did that then why even spend thousands on such a powerful gaming system? It'd go to waste, right?

To be fair, however... all those monitors are TN. IPS will look better for you, and the colors will be more accurate. Also, 980s wont always max out games, especially not in future. Then the IPS will look far better than the TN improved FPS, once a 980 can't do 144 fps. 980 vs 780 Bench

780 is 2 years old, and 2/3 as fast in FPS already. So you will see about 96 fps instead of 144 from the GPU. In 4 years, maybe 1/3 of the speed, 1/2 if lucky. So between 72 and 48 fps. IPS will look better the entire time, which is my point. Also... if you are willing to buy from Amazon...25" 1440p Monitor

Or from Newegg:25" 1440p Monitor Newegg

You will benefit from both of those, and can push them. You can choose between them, but at that price, 1440p is an option.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Alphasus

[KocLobster]

Oh I'm definitely willing to order from Amazon, but it's just simpler to do everything all at Newegg, and I have always had outstanding service from them. Amazon on the other hand I have no computer component buying experience with (and no RMA experience, which is kind of scary). Plus, it's always nice the day it arrives in the mail and its all there, and I don't have to potentially wait another day or two for the monitor (or parts); can't begin the fun until I get both.

I feel like what I've read about graphics in general is conflicting with what you're saying. Yeah, an IPS is nice and has better colors and I can look at the monitor sideways (which is a feature I care absolutely nothing about), but it also is slower; it comes with a 4ms response time, and a 60Hz refresh rate. That is something I suspect I will notice, even without the experience of 1ms/144Hz beforehand. I didn't realize earlier that I could afford a 1440p monitor, but that was because I was always searching for 1440p with a 144Hz refresh rate. Just a few posts ago, @Camacha says that it's a lot easier to lower your monitor to a lower refresh rate than raising (a 60Hz) rate to higher than what it is. Also, from what I read, I'd be a lot better of with a 27" if I was going 1440p.

I feel like this is another trade-off situation, and personally, I don't think getting a 60Hz monitor just so I can experience 1440p is worth it. Again, I'm not an expert...but from what I've read and some of what Cam has said, I think I'd have a much better experience getting a 24" 1080p 144Hz monitor. I care more about response times than sideways viewing or a monitor that will stand the test of time because it's IPS. IPS is slower, and what you gain from it being slower does not seem important to me- just like how more CPU power at the cost of GPU power absolutely doesn't sound worth it for my preferences.

So granted, I don't have current plans to play a ton of FPS or 'fast' action games, but the idea of being able to because I have a monitor that has fast pixel responses and refresh rates is great. The downside to TN monitors? It looks bad viewed from most angles that aren't straight on; and truly this makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't care about a 3 monitor setup. I mean no offense whatsoever and I always appreciate your time and help, but everything I'm reading is basically pointing towards the kind of monitor I've chosen. It could be we just see this particular issue differently? But the idea of a TN monitor sounds better than IPS to me, and a 60Hz monitor sounds like a huge bottleneck, and a giant waste of money in regards to my beefy GPU/system. If I can run 1080p on ultra and draw very high FPS, why would I limit myself to 60? Or the other way: if I am limiting myself to 60, why not spend dramatically less on my system? Honestly, to me the monitor I've chosen sounds perfect, the only thing it seems it's missing is GSync, which I definitely can't afford.

The more I read, the more good things I hear about BenQ and how well made their monitors are. They have monitors with the ability to scale down your refresh rate from 144 to 120/100/etc., which sounds a bit like GSync/FreeSync essentially, for a lot cheaper. They call this 'game refresh rate optimization management' (probably just a selling point). Isn't this standard with all monitors, or at least 3rd party software can be downloaded for free to do this? I was under the impression that it was for pretty much all 144Hz monitors. This will obviously be a useful feature when I can't push really high FPS, like will be the case when I play GTA5 on high settings. This ability will be really important since I won't have a GSync monitor...can I accomplish this with the monitor I picked (ASUS's VG248QE)?

[Alphasus]

 

4 hours ago, KocLobster said:

Oh I'm definitely willing to order from Amazon, but it's just simpler to do everything all at Newegg, and I have always had outstanding service from them. Amazon on the other hand I have no computer component buying experience with (and no RMA experience, which is kind of scary). Plus, it's always nice the day it arrives in the mail and its all there, and I don't have to potentially wait another day or two for the monitor (or parts); can't begin the fun until I get both.

I feel like what I've read about graphics in general is conflicting with what you're saying. Yeah, an IPS is nice and has better colors and I can look at the monitor sideways (which is a feature I care absolutely nothing about), but it also is slower; it comes with a 4ms response time, and a 60Hz refresh rate. That is something I suspect I will notice, even without the experience of 1ms/144Hz beforehand. I didn't realize earlier that I could afford a 1440p monitor, but that was because I was always searching for 1440p with a 144Hz refresh rate. Just a few posts ago, @Camacha says that it's a lot easier to lower your monitor to a lower refresh rate than raising (a 60Hz) rate to higher than what it is. Also, from what I read, I'd be a lot better of with a 27" if I was going 1440p.

I feel like this is another trade-off situation, and personally, I don't think getting a 60Hz monitor just so I can experience 1440p is worth it. Again, I'm not an expert...but from what I've read and some of what Cam has said, I think I'd have a much better experience getting a 24" 1080p 144Hz monitor. I care more about response times than sideways viewing or a monitor that will stand the test of time because it's IPS. IPS is slower, and what you gain from it being slower does not seem important to me- just like how more CPU power at the cost of GPU power absolutely doesn't sound worth it for my preferences.

So granted, I don't have current plans to play a ton of FPS or 'fast' action games, but the idea of being able to because I have a monitor that has fast pixel responses and refresh rates is great. The downside to TN monitors? It looks bad viewed from most angles that aren't straight on; and truly this makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't care about a 3 monitor setup. I mean no offense whatsoever and I always appreciate your time and help, but everything I'm reading is basically pointing towards the kind of monitor I've chosen. It could be we just see this particular issue differently? But the idea of a TN monitor sounds better than IPS to me, and a 60Hz monitor sounds like a huge bottleneck, and a giant waste of money in regards to my beefy GPU/system. If I can run 1080p on ultra and draw very high FPS, why would I limit myself to 60? Or the other way: if I am limiting myself to 60, why not spend dramatically less on my system? Honestly, to me the monitor I've chosen sounds perfect, the only thing it seems it's missing is GSync, which I definitely can't afford.

The more I read, the more good things I hear about BenQ and how well made their monitors are. They have monitors with the ability to scale down your refresh rate from 144 to 120/100/etc., which sounds a bit like GSync/FreeSync essentially, for a lot cheaper. They call this 'game refresh rate optimization management' (probably just a selling point). Isn't this standard with all monitors, or at least 3rd party software can be downloaded for free to do this? I was under the impression that it was for pretty much all 144Hz monitors. This will obviously be a useful feature when I can't push really high FPS, like will be the case when I play GTA5 on high settings. This ability will be really important since I won't have a GSync monitor...can I accomplish this with the monitor I picked (ASUS's VG248QE)?

OK then. Your build, your monitor. But, I will say that many people swear by 60Hz IPS over 144Hz TN at the forums of toms hardware.Tom's Hardware on your issue.

They pretty much say it is your choice, and that you wouldn't recognize the 144Hz.

[briansun1]

1 hour ago, Alphasus said:

 

OK then. Your build, your monitor. But, I will say that many people swear by 60Hz IPS over 144Hz TN at the forums of toms hardware.Tom's Hardware on your issue.

They pretty much say it is your choice, and that you wouldn't recognize the 144Hz.

I myself am firmly in the 60hz IPS camp. I don't see the difference between 1ms response time and 4ms. I rather have the better colors. But ya it is your money. All we can do is make suggestions.

I don't think Hz is changeable unless the monitor specifically allows it.

Edited March 25, 2016 by briansun1

[KocLobster]

4 hours ago, briansun1 said:

I myself am firmly in the 60hz IPS camp. I don't see the difference between 1ms response time and 4ms. I rather have the better colors. But ya it is your money. All we can do is make suggestions.

I don't think Hz is changeable unless the monitor specifically allows it.

@Alphasus

Can you confirm this about the changing of Hz? If that's the case maybe I better get a BenQ monitor instead, with their GROM technology?

[Alphasus]

10 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

@Alphasus

Can you confirm this about the changing of Hz? If that's the case maybe I better get a BenQ monitor instead, with their GROM technology?

You can change the refresh rate.http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/correct-monitor-flicker-refresh-rate#1TC=windows-7

[KocLobster]

5 hours ago, Alphasus said:

 

OK then. Your build, your monitor. But, I will say that many people swear by 60Hz IPS over 144Hz TN at the forums of toms hardware.Tom's Hardware on your issue.

They pretty much say it is your choice, and that you wouldn't recognize the 144Hz.

Considering that both setups of monitors, both the 60Hz IPS and 144Hz TN work just fine for my system, it comes down to speculative preference (I don't have any experience at greater than like 75Hz from old CRT monitors back in the day, nor have I ever had an IPS monitor).

Since it's purely going to be preference, 144hz TN just sounds better to me. I want a lightning fast monitor, I don't care much about the brilliant color reproduction of an IPS that much, and I absolutely don't care one bit about the viewing angles of an IPS. Thanks for that link to Tom's, there have been a ton of people basically asking the exact same thing as me. It would appear it's purely preferential, and people are pretty divided on the issue. Many say they can't go back to less than 144 once they try it. Others swear by the colors of IPS.

Either way, I greatly appreciate your help. It's harder to speculate when I haven't tried either, and honestly there's probably minimal difference in my eyes, being so naive. With that said however, TN technology just sounds a lot better to me, pure and simple.

Edited March 25, 2016 by KocLobster

[Alphasus]

45 minutes ago, KocLobster said:

Considering that both setups of monitors, both the 60Hz IPS and 144Hz TN work just fine for my system, it comes down to speculative preference (I don't have any experience at greater than like 75Hz from old CRT monitors back in the day, nor have I ever had an IPS monitor).

Since it's purely going to be preference, 144hz TN just sounds better to me. I want a lightning fast monitor, I don't care much about the brilliant color reproduction of an IPS that much, and I absolutely don't care one bit about the viewing angles of an IPS. Thanks for that link to Tom's, there have been a ton of people basically asking the exact same thing as me. It would appear it's purely preferential, and people are pretty divided on the issue. Many say they can't go back to less than 144 once they try it. Others swear by the colors of IPS.

Either way, I greatly appreciate your help. It's harder to speculate when I haven't tried either, and honestly there's probably minimal difference in my eyes, being so naive. With that said however, TN technology just sounds a lot better to me, pure and simple.

I still think that 1440p + IPS is definitively better than TN at 144Hz.