I'm currently using a 1080p-resolution monitor with a refresh rate of 60 Hz. Suppose I want to drive a 24" adaptive-sync and lightboosted TN monitor with a +10% overclocked nVidia 1080 GTX GPU: Does 4k@60Hz make more sense than a 1080@144Hz?

I have seen a Youtube video of a PC gamer saying that he enjoyed gaming in 144 Hz, but he was amazed by 4k. However, I've also read a review by someone saying that you won't enjoy the 4k resolution until you hit 40" as the pixel density is too high at lower screen sizes.

Of course we're comparing apples and oranges here, but I would still like to ask someone informed whether an increased pixel density will satisfy the average gamer more than the increased refresh rate.


The benefit of framerate is not lineary increasing, as your eye does not notice the difference between 60 and 120 Hz as succintly as 30 vs 60 (if at all). Please consult:

On the other hand, human eye has effective resolution of about 8 Mpx (please see for detais: What Is The Resolution Of The Eye?). The problem whether you see a difference is well discussed here: Can you see the difference with a 4K monitor? (brief: yes, you'll definietely see a difference, unless monitor is too small/you sit too far).

It's a question worth thinking about, but I'd go for crisp picture or would consider something in between: ex. WQHD (1440p) resolution and 120 Hz. Also, keep in mind, that color quality and even back-light are also very important factors.

  • Please don't answer questions that have been closed. That defeats the entire purpose of closing them.
    – ArtOfCode
    Aug 22 '16 at 8:49
  • Also, at normal visual acuity and field, the resolution of the eye is way above the megapixels range. It's 324.648 gigapixels.
    – ArtOfCode
    Aug 22 '16 at 8:53
  • Please don't comment answers that handle questions that have been closed. That defeats the entire purpose of criticizing them.
    – comicurus
    Aug 22 '16 at 9:41

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.