Hello all I've spent the last week doing some very extensive research on monitors and im very conflicted on my findings and how some of the tech actually works on some of these monitors. People are buying stuff thinking its awesome or better but have no clue what it was that gave them that impression or if it even is better. I saw a guy the other day at best buy looking for an hdmi cable and the guy that worked there was like "get this one it's 4k high-speed AND gold plated!" He takes the cable and starts looking around and i go up to him and ask him about it i said, "hey man i see he told u to get that but what monitor do u have etc." I told him to follow me outside real quick and gave him one of my hdmi cables that i had laying around extra!" He was about to pay 40 plus dollars for a cable he wasn't even gonna use really and a regular hdmi would have worked fine! They even had cheaper hdmi cables for 20 bucks that would have worked but the person who works there doesn't even know what hes talking about. Some people go there because they want help from the "experts per say" or at least someone who is somewhat knowledgeable about it. He had a 1080p 60rr monitor no sound even lol!
 
(side note for anyone who may not be familiar rr=refresh rate, rt=response time.)
 
Okay so lets say someone builds a top of the line rig 1080ti 7700k the works. They buy a 120rr monitor with gsync with a 1rt and 4k. One they aren't even using gsync because they are always above the rr on the monitor anyway and gsync only works when frames dip below the rr of monitor from what I gathered on how the gsync hardware works. They don't even use 3d etc, and they currently dont even own a game the supports 4k so what gives???
 
I'm looking for someone on the forum who works on monitors and/or actually knows them in and out. I'm tired of seeing people who say "this monitor was wayy better get a gsync this or that" when the better performance they saw was not from some of the features that they claimed did the job. For exp someone using a 1080p standard lcd 5rt 60rr buys a newer monitor with ips, led backlit, 1rt, 60rr, 4k and gsync and they think its because of gsync it sooo good. Now this is just an example but i have seen this and many others.
 
If u have a slower gpu and your fps is an issue because its under the rr of your current monitor imo i think it would be a better solution to spend a couple hundred bucks on a newer gpu than a 500+ plus monitor with gysnc! Also seems the market is very conflicted because nvidia/amd don't want to give in and both do nearly the same thing when compared but one is smarter imo and the other cost more (hardware). Nvidia had a great idea but the problem is its actual hardware that does the job so monitor manufactures now have to take this into account and build their monitors including it. Amd's approach was smarter imo and more adaptable because it's software driven and manufactures don't have to worry so much on creating a monitor and worrying about that additional hardware.
 
They both have there pros and cons but imo the amd approach is smarter, easier, cheaper, and will generate faster profits and consumers because its cheaper. Now i didnt say amd's way was better but only smarter keep this in mind. That being said their stuff only works on amd as gysnc only works on nvidia. I would be afraid today to buy either one atm and restricting myself to a specific brand gpu for my monitor. I have a feeling this tech will change very soon and a better solution will be brought forward. From what i gathered if nvidia's hardware on gsync combined with amd freesync essentially it would be perfected on both sides for con issues. We all know however this will not happen.
 
Okay no gimmicks i would like a monitor for my situation and i would like to know what would be a true upgrade from my current monitor?
 
I have an asus tn monitor 27inc, 1080p, 1rt, 60rr, led back lit etc here is a link to it here asus vs278q-p!
 
I have just built a new machine i7 7700k water cooled, 1080ti water cooled, gigabyte gaming 8 mobo also water cooled, 16g ram, nvme os drive, raid 0 ssds. I play fps and some rts games here is an example, tom clancey ghost recon and division, dawn of war 2/3, eve online, bf 4. Im looking for a price to match what i need and not things i really dont need or will use. That extra 100 dollars for 4k this or that and i don't need it i don't want it. I actually only own 1 4k capable game! I'm looking for something that's 27inch and a really low rt. The rr and res and panel type im not sooo sure and I get a little confused and have not had any hands on with the better monitors to come up with some decisions. Then i learned about this thing called input lag and how vsync and rr can affect this which even opened a bigger can of worms for me. I'm not very knowledgeable in monitors and im learning but it seems it's a very steep curve tons marketing tricks or specs not mentioned because they aren't that good. I got even more confused to see some monitors say 1ms rt in the heading then the spec sheet say its 5ms but once again another gimmick to watch out for, like if its actually led backlit or just has an led light on the monitor behind there logo. For those that actually read this sorry i typed a book im sort of frustrated atm.

I don't think response time is really a useful measure of anything anymore. It was always a nebulous measurement as there was no standard (measuring grey to grey vs black to white), and these days most panels are plenty fast for the rated rr.
 
If you want to learn more about high rr and sync monitors check out https://www.blurbusters.com/
 
I've used high refresh rate monitors since 2010. Once I got my first one I couldn't go back. It's one of those things I think you need to see in person to really get; I remember playing Portal 2 co-op with a buddy at a LAN party side by side, just seeing the 120 hz versus his 60 hz side by side was enough to convince him to buy one. I personally think frame rate syncing (I've only used G-sync) is equally impressive. Personally I'd take high rr and sync over more resolution (currently have a 1440p 144 Hz + G-sync and a 60 hz 4k monitor hooked up to my system, do all my gaming on the 1440p for sure).
 
I really like the combination of G-sync and Fast Sync on Nvidia's side (not really up to speed with freesync stuff). G-sync means no tearing below rr, and Fast Sync means no tearing above rr, all with very little input lag. You are correct that if you are always above rr G-sync doesn't make sense, but it's harder than you think to maintain 144+ FPS at all times in all games.
 
Also I think you are underestimating the number of 4k capable games you have, literally every game you listed supports 4k, I'd say it's more common for games to support 4k than not.
 
As for suggestions for you, I would say either pick up a used high refresh rate monitor to start (find a deal from someone upgrading to one of the newer monitors) and see if you like it before dropping the extra on freesync or G-sync. Or, I really really like the monitor I have, Dell S2716DGR, which if you spend the time to hunt for a deal can be had for $450-$500.
 
Not going to get into the whole freesync vs g-sync debate, they both have their pluses and minuses but it's like arguing politics or religion, nothing productive will come from it and it's better to let people make up their own mind.

@bca thanks for the list i will check them out.
 
@somethingc001
Thanks for the info i need to look more into the games then, i just went off this http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/5-best-4k-games-the-best-looking-titles-to-play-in-4k-1296513 and i only had one out of the lot. I didn't know my games really supported 4k. I need to do my homework on 4k and games it seems!
 
Im just really conflicted on the whole subject of it and when i think i got it figured out the hole gets deeper everytime. Im very used to the old school way where response times were big along with screens outside the 24inch range in hd. I did own the acer gd235hzbid Monitor and Nvidia 3d vision kit right after it came out. At the time i had a 28inch hans g 3rt and 60rr 1920x1200 and needless to say i sold that 3d monitor and kit withing a month because it was just a 24inch and when i wasnt using the 3d i liked my 27 inch better because of the res and size.
 
I didnt really notice a big difference between the 2 game wise because once again i had top of the line rig with sli etc and fps was not an issue exp after vsync enabled they both felt the same to me. Now i did not get to run them both side by side at the same time only one at a time. The smaller screen and super high rr of the acer didnt give impact me enough to play on the smaller screen for the performance over my 27 it was that bad that i didnt notice a difference.
 
At the time i had lan parties all the time and we played cod and battlefield a ton. I felt no edge or performance gain over my hans at the time so i always turned my head at the monitors since and kept them simple. It's been awhile since i bought a new monitor and the tech has overwhelmed me. With all the marketing and advertisements i keep finding myself saying well 80$ more i can get 4k and 100$ more i can get gsync and its out there so much almost seems like your buying the wrong monitor if its not in there! I feel like well im already investing the money now so maybe i need these things and if i dont get it im wasting my money when in reality depending on the situation its the other way around!

Like I said earlier, RT was never a standardized measurement, some manufacturers measured black to white, some grey to grey, some overdrove the pixels to get better rt but that messes up the real world picture. 60 Hz = 16.6 ms per frame, 120 Hz = 8.3 ms, 144 Hz = 6.94 ms. So as long as the response time is faster than required for the refresh rate there is no issue. IMHO just ignore RT, it's not a useful measurement of anything and pretty much all displays have acceptable RT these days.
 
Color Gamut is how much of the color space can be shown by the monitor, larger gamut means better color reproduction. Not super important unless you are into photography but it's a decent indicator of the color quality of the panel. 

skarface
 So instead of rt then what am i looking for measurement wise black to white or grey to grey?

There is not a standard measurement for RT, that's my whole point. You can compare display RT within the same panel manufacturer but comparing them between manufacturers does not really work.
 

skarface
Tbh no one would would even care about rt because like u said there arent monitors that have that issue with rr and the rt times.

 
I know of no one that does care. You're the first person I've even heard talking about RT in years. Panels have gotten fast enough that it is not an issue for the most part.

Gsync is legit. Once you see it you'll never go back. If you play newer games at all it's a must because you will have varying framerates, but with gsync you won't likely notice it.