Guild Wars 2

So I buy this pc next week:
i5 6600k
8GB ram 2400Mhz
SSD 850 EVO
rest of the parts.

Anyway, for now no GPU, but whenever Nvidia or AMD have new ones, I buy.

For now I have a big problem with choosing a monitor… there are so many different times like TN, IPS, LCD, LED, 60HZ, 120HZ, 144HZ, FreeSync, Gsynce and etc…

For this game, what should I go for/focus on?
an IPS screen, or 144Hz? (FHD, 22~24 inches)

By the way, I was told LG has the best monitors to offer:
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-25UM56-P-ultrawide-led-monitor IPS 60Hz
or
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-24GM77-B-gaming-monitor TN 144Hz

Thanks.

I have an Samsung, 27" IPS screen running at 1440p and ive never seen an image as good, the screen type will really come down to what you use the computer for, and how much you are willing to spend.

Depends on the game you play and how high end you go for your GPU. I had a BenQ XL2430T for a bit (144Hz TN panel) and, while the 144Hz was nice in the games that took advantage of it, the colors were just awful compared to my Asus VS239H-P so I sold it and just use the Asus.

If you play a lot of Counterstrike, League, TF2, games that run at 144+ FPS easily it can be worth it but if you want nicer pictures IPS is the way to go

Fermi.2409:

If you play a lot of Counterstrike, League, TF2, games that run at 144+ FPS easily it can be worth it but if you want nicer pictures IPS is the way to go

GW2 doesn’t seem to benefit though from anything over 60 fps. I mean from my experience in WvW and in PvE content. Maybe there is an advantage in true PvP, in sPvP maps.

I’d go for the IPS if you don’t play first person shooters like CSGO a lot. Better colors and better performance from many games. Not many games I’ve played really went beyond 70 to 90 fps. So to me the cost of 90 to 144 limit, wasn’t worth it.

KayCee.4653:

GW2 doesn’t seem to benefit though from anything over 60 fps. I mean from my experience in WvW and in PvE content. Maybe there is an advantage in true PvP, in sPvP maps.

That’s why I didn’t mention GW2

nVidia and AMD have competing methods to dynamically adjust the refresh rate of a monitor to help to eliminate issues caused by the monitor updating at a fixed rate while the game is completing frames at a variable rate. They aren’t compatible to each other, the AMD is cheaper and IIRC monitors that feature them do have a high refresh rate. It prevents tearing like VSync does but also provides, if the system is capable, a higher frame rate.

Now if you want great color reproduction, well that’s what IPS panels are known for as well as a wide field of view. You would see graphic artists picking IPS panels.

LED tends to mean that the backlight of the monitor is provided by LEDs rather than florescent bulb (which they may designate as LCD which is a misnomer because short of having a monitor that uses Organic LED tech, they are all LCD panels). Some larger more expensive ones may use and array of LEDs behind the panel and selectively dim them to provide a much wider contrast than a monitor that doesn’t do that.

IMO, adaptive refresh (G-sync and FreeSync) will be the future of gaming monitors. It’s something you need to see in person to appreciate as you can’t capture it on Fraps, nor are compressed internet video of a screen playing it representative either. Unfortunately, it’s still very new and standards are yet to be settled on.

G-Sync (nVidia’s) is the more technologically mature, but it is proprietary, monitors tend to have a single DP port input, and would typically cost a hundred+ more than an equivalent FreeSynch monitor. Also they tend to be 16:9 aspect ratio, with a few very expensive exceptions. On the plus side, it seems to scale up to higher refresh rates, including some 21:9 IPS monitors at 100+ hz (120 or 144, I can’t recall). Again these are really expensive.

FreeSync is AMD’s open source version and incorporated into the DP 1.2a standard. It is cheaper, monitors have your usual HDMI/DVI/DP ports (although DP are the only ports that can use the FreeSync function) and has a wider selection of aspects ratios (tons of 21:9 at varying price points). There is even rumors of Intel supporting this standard with its iGPUs in 1 or 2 generation, and extending FreeSync to the HDMI standard. Technically it has had teething problems… the early (cheaper) LG widescreens have a very narrow range where it would work 48-60hz I believe, and the higher end IPS monitors seem to top out at 90hz.

As mentioned above, IPS monitors are no longer limited to 60hz as long as your pockets are deep enough, but TN panels are also improving in colour reproduction. You just need to go through the reviews carefully (TFTcentral is a good source), and be prepared to manually calibrate if you want to optimize it. Still not as good as a well calibrated IPS and the more limited viewing angles still exist.

Personally, I’m holding off on a new monitor (I’m still on 1050p) because despite AMD’s GPUs generally lagging behind nVidia’s, I believe FreeSync will have wider adoption purely due to cost which may force nVidia to come to the party. Also, both companies will be releasing/announcing new GPUs based on 14/16nm processes and HBM2 memory, and I’m really hoping AMD has a good showing so I can grab a FreeSync monitor.

Edit:
As mentioned above, I agree that you shouldn’t buy a monitor JUST for GW2. GW2 won’t run at 144 fps consistantly and few people really care about accurate colour in games. The only specs that you may care about for GW2 is adaptive sync and 19:6 vs 21:6… wider means you see more onscreen. Otherwise, you do need to consider what other use cases you have for your monitor.

So from what I understand, more hz for this game specific won’t change anything serious. I do want to know if that’s right to buy a IPS 60Hz panel with FreeSync support for the game, because right now I have an old Samsung’s TV 720p instead of a monitor and my eyes “get burned” (eyes become ‘dry’) even with low brightness. The addition reason for buying a new monitor is for “eyecare” features which are offered with some panels (or that’s a gimmick)

Any more opinions? someone had the same situation and gained experience in this matter?

Eye strain is a topic I think is more subjective and your results may vary, but there is some reasoning behind the advertising. These tend to focus on 2 things… flicker-free displays and low blue light. I can’t comment on low blue light, but I think flicker-free does have it’s merits. Some displays adjust brightness levels by rapidly switching its backlight on and off. The cheap LED bulbs I have on a dimmer switch does this, and although only barely perceptible, it drives me bananas. Turn them up to full brightness fixes this, but it’s probably not the best idea for a monitor.

Most times, the monitor makers do advertise this fact, but if they don’t, have look through its specs (or look up the review at TFTcentral) and see if it uses PWM or non-PWM backlighting. Non-PWM is what you want.

Edit:
AFAIK, this feature doesn’t add much cost or degrade the monitor performance, so you’re not losing anything by getting it.

A way to combat eye strain, which I had when I first started using triple monitors. I had to get a back lights to light the wall behind the monitors enough to make the transition not so harsh. Now, I rarely have any issue, unless I have a fan or something on now blowing in my general area.

The backlighting is similar to this, but not this exactly… http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/04/lightpackic.jpg