After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap. Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled

After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap. Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled

I disagree Even at high refresh rates tearing and stuttering is clearly noticable (to me at least). Besides.. Even with a powerfull SLI setup you will be CPU limited before reaching 120+fps anyway. G-sync brings a clear improvement in comparison to a fixed refresh rate IMO. The only scenario where having a G-sync monitor has litte to no advantage is when your game runs at a fixed 144fps.

Why these ultra wide screen monitors?? Really don't get the point for gaming anyway but maybe for other types of work it would make sense.

I have a Samsung CF791 (3440x1440 100hz, no g-sync) - Honestly (for me personally) I don't notice tearing or stuttering in games much, but I think this is because currently my setup is really balanced and pretty much any game runs around 100fps - some games like D3 I just put a manual fps limit of 110 in game and that works great too. Also I really feel it's a lot more immersive then a flat panel 16:9 screen, This for me is noticable when gaming on my 55" tv compared to the monitor. In all fairness tho, I bought an Ultrawide cause of music production (and some video edeting/photoshop), which was my nr1 priority, and that's where it really shines. They're not for everyone, but they are actually great for games too imo (apart from some games having minor issues in menu's or UI). I even run older games like SimCity4 and Command and conquer Generals fine on it, altho then you have black bars left and right cause they run in 16:9. Last point - They're to expensive for what you get, that's my only issue, but if you use them mostly for other stuff then pure gaming they're great :P If you "must' have 4k you can get those 40+ inch (60hz) screens at around 5 to 700 euro's.

After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap. Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled

Your comment reeks of ignorance. There is no turning back from FreeSync or G-sync. (I upgraded from static 144 Hz ASUS VG248QE to FreeSync 144 Hz ASUS MG278Q.)

Nice, wish they at least made it 38" and a little higher resolution.

LG 38UC99-W Says hello 🤓 http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor

a lot of ppl seem to be telling me to avoid and not go for curved screens yet, as they usually start having issues in 2-3yrs.. and that really shunned me away from it. haha, I wonder if there is any validity in that.. and to wait a couple more years for curved screen monitors to really become stable/mature.

a lot of ppl seem to be telling me to avoid and not go for curved screens yet, as they usually start having issues in 2-3yrs.. and that really shunned me away from it. haha, I wonder if there is any validity in that.. and to wait a couple more years for curved screen monitors to really become stable/mature.

Curved screens haven't even been out that long. The earliest models at that time probably had issues because the tech was so new. LCDs and Plasma TVs both had the same problems when they were first released.

From what I've read/heard elsewhere the colorshift on these panels (the AOC one uses the same panel) is pretty bad.

Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO? I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.

Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO? I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.

It's one of those things you have to kind of experience to understand. I have 3 monitors, a 144Hz G-Sync panel and two 60 Hz panels. Even at just the desktop I can instantly tell the difference between them. Everything on the 144Hz panel is so much smoother and more responsive. Even if we exclude gaming completely I feel there is no contest, higher refresh rate is always better. Sure there is going to be a point of diminishing returns, at least in terms of desktop use but I see no reason to ever go with a 60Hz panel ever again. For future display tech, Nvidia was showing of a 16,000 Hz panel for VR and it had massive benefits.

Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO? I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.

Why does it make your hardware look older, faster? If anything I feel like it makes the monitor future proof. As I buy new GPU's, all these games I play suddenly are capable of going up to the 144hz. As of right now, the games I play where I can reliably hit 4K @ 75Hz+ are: HOTS, Overwatch, CS:GO & R6 Siege and then basically every single older title - this monitor is 50% smaller than 4K - so there are probably a fair number of other games where I can 75+ if I buy this. And then, when I drop my post Volta/Navi card or whatever in - any titles I missed now, I can go back and play at 4K, 100+Fps easily and the monitor is capable. With my Ti, I'm seriously considering buying one of the $2K Acer/ASUS 4K 144Hz G-Sync monitors. I can run most games at 60+fps at 4K - even newer ones, you turn down 1-2 settings that barely impact visual quality. The way I see it, every single frame over 60 makes a 60+Hz monitor that much better than a 60hz one. I don't think of it like "I need 144fps to make this monitor worth it".. I think of it "I need 60+ fps to make this monitor worth it, every frame after that is just that much better". And I get new GPU's, the monitor just gets better and better because a whole slew of games that once were limited to below 60, or I'm turning down settings to hit, are now at 100+ fps. That's my take on it anyway. Edit: Radiolobster brings up a good point too. I have a XB270HU and 2 QHD Dell monitors and just browsing the desktop on the 60hz dell monitors annoys me. That being said, you said 75hz - which when I owned my Qnix, there was definitely a big difference between 60hz and when I overclocked it to 75hz.

You both guys make good points, and I have never played using a 144Hz monitor. I'll give it a try whenever I have the chance, thanks.

You both guys make good points, and I have never played using a 144Hz monitor. I'll give it a try whenever I have the chance, thanks.

Honestly once you try it you can't go back. At least in FPS games having 144hz is a huge advantage. But even at desktop looking at low hz monitors looks terrible once you are used to 144.

multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other).

You are talking about monitor specific issues that you had. Those issues don't apply to every Gsync monitor. I don't have any of those Tearing is still noticeable to me on 144hz and Gsync is definitely much smoother than without, especially with variable frame rate.

Hilbert, your article says the monitor doesn't have ULMB but according to the US amazon page, the Acer Z35P does have ULMB. Whose right? Link: https://www.amazon.com/Acer-Predator-Z35P-bmiphz-3440x1440/dp/B06ZZDYVQM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495136978&sr=8-1&keywords=Z35p

I´m looking for a new monitor and after asking some gurus for opinions, all of them said the same thing to me: buy a 144Hz screen!!! So i´m going to follow their opinion and buy one. I´m eyeing 2 from Asus, the Asus MG279Q IPS 27 144Hz (560€) and the Asus MG278Q TN 27 144Hz (487€). The problem is that they are a little pricey for my taste but it seems i have to sacrifice my wallet for the greater gaming experience...