A single 970 is not going to run 1440p and 144hz.  So you are better off buying the 1080p/144 monitor but I doubt the 970 will reach over 100 fps on newer games even at 1080p.  I had the 970 and was getting 60fps on Witcher 3 @1440p, Ultra, AA off.   I now own the 980 ti and get 90-100fps @1440p, Ultra, AA off. 
 
So if you want 144fps then go for a 1080p monitor, I would rather take more frames vs resolution.  Basically this is the general consensus:
 
Everything on Ultra, AA off
1080p/60fps = 970
1080p/60-144fps = 980
1440p/60fps = 980
1440p/60-144 = 980 ti
4k/30fps, medium settings = 980 ti
 
Again this is just an idea, sure I can get 120fps with an overclocked 980 on Battlefield 4 but newer games like witcher 3, GTA V you are not going to get 144  even with a Ti but many older games you will reach 144+ easily.  The 970 offers the best value because is the perfect 1080p/60 card, the 980 is sightly faster than the 970 and when you overclock it, it can be the perfect 1080p/144 card and the Ti is considered the best 1440p/144 card today.   There is not single 4k/60 card today .

that's a really interesting topic and it would be great if more guys post their experience with resolution vs. frame rates.
indeed some claim the higher resolution compensates for the lower frame rates.
but is this true even for fast-paced FPS games!?

It would mostly depend on what you're playing. Back when I healed in MMO's all the time, I needed as much monitor space I could get for heal bars, so I wanted a larger, higher resolution monitor. Frames per second was not as much of a concern because even everything was on timers and I knew when things were going to happen anyways.
 
People that play first person shooters for example tend to favor higher refresh rates so everything looks smoother and some say it helps them play better. I personally do not see an improvement in gameplay, but it definitely looks nicer. Then again, I tend to favor co-op shooters such as Payday 2 or Killing Floor instead of the more competitive PvP shooters.

Run an Asus Rog Swift here and it's great, couldn't go back to 60hz now games are so much smoother at 144 frames. As for can a GTX 970 run 1440p at 144 frames...



Yes, will it max games out? No. Is that an issue, only the op can decide.

I recently down graded to a 780 from a Titan X whilst it's away for RMA and playing Battlefield 4 I honestly couldn't tell the difference between high and ultra, there's too much going on :D

From someone who owns a 970 and 1440p and built friends computers with 970s and 1440p, I can say that a 970 is enough for 1440p/60.  And many others on this board have 970s at 1440p and get great frame rates.
 
As to whether you should go 144Hz or 1440p, I would go 1440p all the way.  1440p has 1.6 Million more pixels than 1080p, which is almost double the resolution.  You are getting a lot more detail.  If you are a hardcore FPS shooter, then I would say maybe get the 144Hz monitor as that is the genre of games that benefits the most from it.  But as a guy with 1350+ hours in BF4, I still would rather have a 1440/60 monitor over a 1080/144 (I own a 1440/120 monitor by the way).

ManBearPig
From someone who owns a 970 and 1440p and built friends computers with 970s and 1440p, I can say that a 970 is enough for 1440p/60.  And many others on this board have 970s at 1440p and get great frame rates.
 
As to whether you should go 144Hz or 1440p, I would go 1440p all the way.  1440p has 1.6 Million more pixels than 1080p, which is almost double the resolution.  You are getting a lot more detail.  If you are a hardcore FPS shooter, then I would say maybe get the 144Hz monitor as that is the genre of games that benefits the most from it.  But as a guy with 1350+ hours in BF4, I still would rather have a 1440/60 monitor over a 1080/144 (I own a 1440/120 monitor by the way).

+1...

1440p = 55.25% more pixels than 1080p, so that's the overhead in upping the resolution.
144hz = 240% more overheard than 60hz (if you're trying to game AT that framerate, locked). If you're not running VSYNC, you're still going to have tearing, it just won't be as noticeable.
 
The choice between 1080p/144 and 1440p/60 is and has always been - "Do you prefer more fluid motion, or a sharper, more detailed image?" I absolutely love the way that a game looks at a locked 60fps with VSYNC, so I'm choosing 1440p/60 (my new monitor ships Tuesday and should be here next week).

Personally I want refresh rate over resolution no matter what game I'm playing, but that's just a personal opinion. Everyone is going to have a different opinion. I think once you get used to high refresh rates, it's hard to go back. It all depends on what you are used to.

jasonkresge
Thank you, you're correct. I was a bit tired when I did this and used the wrong numerator/denominators.

lol, happens to me all the time

There are tons of videos where some people can't even see the difference between 60Hz and 144hz. Not saying that there is not a noticeable difference but 1080p vs 1440p is very noticeable. I mean, as far as the percentage of increase in Hz and pixels, imagine if there was hardware and games capable of even more... If a game could be played in 576hz do you really think you could see that much difference? Where as if you could play a game in 8k on a screen that was big enough, you would notice a ton of difference. Things like anti aliasing wouldn't even need to be done with pixels that small and with so many. Of course, optimally, having both would be cool but to me, as long as you are staying around 60 fps, I'd much rather have a higher resolution.

sahafiec
a side question from me, are all the 1440p monitors 27" and above?
nothing smaller sized with 1440p resolution one can suggest?
I'm not a fan of big monitor frames...

Noope, this is the one I have & it's great & decently priced. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-U2515H-25-Inch-Monitor-2560/dp/B00P6O3YYO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441653142&sr=8-1&keywords=dell+1440p
 
I had a 970 first with the 1440p monitor & it struggled. I had a BenQ 120Hz 1080p panel previosuly & the 970 did great with that

I don't want to hi-jack the thread but what about this monitor?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009849
 
I know people have reservations about Acer products but I think almost every monitor I own right now is an Acer and I love them all. This is 75Hz and 2K. I'm thinking it looks pretty good...

How would that work on a single 970gtx? Say if you had a 2k monitor running at 60Hz and 60fps but if it could, it would hit say 80fps at times.... Would the same monitor but with a 144Hz rate preform exactly the same only hitting the 80 fps when it was able? In other words, does moving up to a 144Hz refresh rate hinder anything as opposed to staying with 60Hz?
And since it's just me sitting right in front of the monitor, a tn panel doesn't matter too much.

agent8
I don't want to hi-jack the thread but what about this monitor?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009849
 
I know people have reservations about Acer products but I think almost every monitor I own right now is an Acer and I love them all. This is 75Hz and 2K. I'm thinking it looks pretty good...

http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=12520
 
Was on sale for $299.99 until about 2 hours ago (I ordered one over the weekend). Still a solid monitor at $460.
 
-27"
-1440p
-AHVA (same as IPS/PLS, not to be confused with VA)
-all inputs (DP, DVI, VGA, HDMI)
-Stand allows for tilt, height, and swivel
-Acer sells a monitor using the exact same panel, but with fewer inputs and a cruddy stand, and it costs more
-WARNING: full on glossy (sheet of glass)
-It's basically an Apple Cinema Display minus the great speakers, USB, and camera (wife has an ACD, I'm a huge fan, which is why I ordered it
 
As has been pointed out, the monitors you're looking at are TN. You'll hear a lot of IPS fans (fanboys?) say that IPS is superior. The truth is that each panel type has pros and cons, and while IPS has the fewest cons, it still has weaknesses. There's no perfect panel, and each panel type addresses something that some individuals are susceptible to noticing. Some examples (not a definitive list):
 
TN - Has the fastest response times (NOT to be confused with input lag, two TOTALLY different things), which means less ghosting, but has poor vertical viewing angles (screen darkens or washes out from above/below), and average horizontal viewing angles (gamma shift from the sides). Color quality is typically 6-bit + frc (262k colors + dithering to fake 16.7m colors), but some are 8-bit. Assume 6-bit unless specifically advertised as 8-bit (ROG Swift is 8-bit). Best used for budget displays, or for gaming where a person is highly susceptible to motion blur/ghosting.
 
VA - Has the best contrast ratio, which gives the illusion of seeing deeper into the image in high contrast scenes. Response times are the poorest of the panels (VA advertised as 1ms means ULMB strobing, so it's fake and not applicable to all usage scenarios. 4ms advertised generally means gross overdrive leading to reverse ghosting). Vertical viewing angles are good, but horizontal viewing angles are pretty bad. It's like TN flipped 90 degrees in that sense. Panels are typically 8-bit. Best used for media/movie consumption, and gaming where a person is not susceptible to motion blur/ghosting, but is highly annoyed by IPS glow.
 
IPS/AHVA/PLS/ - Response times are between TN and VA. Viewing angles are outstanding except when IPS glow shows (dark rooms, bright scenes) which can wash out the display, but only at extreme angles. Contrast is the worst of the three but acceptable. Typically 8-bit panels, but some are now 6-bit + FRC. Best used for content creation and color critical work, and gaming where all-around visual quality is preferred at the expense of mild ghosting and poorer contrast.
 
There you have it, in terms of the basics. Anyone who tells you that XXX panel type is the best is misinformed or biased. The best panel for you is the one that is strong in the 1-2 areas where you easily perceive imperfections. I've used all three and I can't settle on one. I'd really prefer to have one of each to use for specific scenarios. Hopefully Quantum Dot and/or OLED get PC-ready soon (the first QD display is coming out in October/November, but it's not real QD, just QD backlighting for an IPS panel).

jasonkresge
http://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=12520
 
Was on sale for $299.99 until about 2 hours ago (I ordered one over the weekend). Still a solid monitor at $460.

Just wanted to point out it's back on sale but for $269.99 now. I won't get mine until Friday, but I'll be calling during normal business hours to see if I can get the $30 credited to me.