Your computer costs more than my cars. Yes. Both of them combined. :P

LOL. Well, technically all I have now is this one lone laptop (I had two self build nice rigs but alas no more) but if I do get a new rig, it will be due to the generosity of my family, not to me. For some reason they have always insisted on taking good care of me, even when I don't deserve it (which is most of the time lol). It's one of the reasons why I do giveaways myself. I am the recipient of such good generosity that it only seems fair to pay some of it forward.

But yeah, they're talking about getting me "the last rig you'll ever need" which means top of the line stuff. I'm not at all interested in VR, and that's where I think computer gaming is heading, so it may very well be the last rig I ever need even if I lived another 20 years (which I won't lol).

I'll start by quoting what Ancient-Red-Dragon said.
That sums pretty much the current situation of 4k monitors. As I pointed out in my first post with the link to that article, 4k high refresh monitors will be available only next year.

IMHO, 4k gaming is not worth it right now. Most games are not running at consistent 4k high frame rate on the present hardware. Please watch this youtube video to see how some of the most popular games run on top current hardware at 4k. This is a very good channel, you find many videos with games performance on all kinds of hardware and resolutions.

Keep in mind that SLI doesn't double the FPS, in most cases is just a 20-50% performance increase and many games are not even optimized for SLI and could perform worse than on a single graphics card. I would advise against SLI, IMHO is just wasted money for some performance increase. What will you get consistent from SLI is more power consumption and heat, probably noise too and maybe extra time spent configuring the games. You might wanna read this.

For me, the best monitor for gaming now would be a 27" IPS panel, 2560 x 1440 resolution and above 100Hz refresh rate with G-Sync (nvidia) or FreeSync (AMD). Also, I use two monitors, so you might want multiple monitors.

Check these links regarding 2018 monitors and a list of most popular high refresh rate monitors. Hope you can find what you really want there and keep us updated. :)

Silly man, that makes you worth it. Being generous is part of its own reward. But when others give to you, you get yours back:)

And my own computer costs a bit more than one of my cars.

Thank you.

I only looked at the 144Hz list (it was a long one) but EVERY SINGLE MONITOR over 27 inches did not support G-SYNC. Is there some reason for this?? All of them over 27" either supported Freesync or no sync at all. As I mentioned above, because of my eyes, I'm leaning more toward a 32 inch monitor now. I'm not going away from Nvidia though.

Hm, not sure, never looked into that. Maybe because G-SYNC is more expensive and I think it requires some controller inside the monitor. Quote from wikipedia "FreeSync was developed by AMD and released in 2015 in response to Nvidia's proprietary, closed, and more expensive G-Sync. FreeSync is royalty-free, free to use, and has no performance penalty."

Check the List of 200Hz monitors on that site, it has a few 35" with G-sync. And on wikipedia is a list too.

Yes, there is a reason. The reason is because G-Sync is a proprietary chip made by NVIDIA in order so that they can implement it as a nickel-and-diming scam against consumers. The inclusion of G-Sync needlessly causes a $200-300 USD price increase in the cost that the consumer pays for the monitor. And it also causes the designers of monitors to need to plan for how to implement it during the design stage.

In other words, G-Sync is uncommon because it's a ripoff. G-Sync should be free, but it isn't. Monitor manufacturers don't want to pay for G-Sync because it increases their costs too much and it also greatly reduces the number of people who will be willing to buy that monitor. Consumers don't want to pay for G-Sync either, because it costs too much money out of their pockets. There are a few exceptions to this, but the exceptions are a small niche market of super hardcore gamers who are willing to pay extremely high & unfair prices.

On the other hand, FreeSync is common because it's easy and free to implement into monitors, since AMD does not charge for it.

The downside to FreeSync is that AMD cards suck extremely badly compared to NVIDIA cards.

You can still use a FreeSync monitor with any NVIDIA card though. That's what most people do, since most modern monitors have FreeSync, and most gamers use an NVIDIA card. You just won't be able to use the FreeSync feature of the monitor if you use an NVIDIA card with it, but the monitor will still function exactly the same in every other way.

Thank you for this info. I did not know any of this. Now I wish AMD built better cards.

I want to thank everyone for all of their responses (I tried to plus 1 every as it went but I'm going to double check after posting this just to make sure I didn't miss any).

I have decided NOT to get a 4K monitor (well, even if I do get a new system which is still not 100%). I think watching those videos ariaspi linked me to was the difference maker. The first thing that shook me was the G-Sync/FreeSync thing. What nvidia did was so.... wrong...(IMO) that they may have lost me as a customer. I just can't see myself going to an AMD so I may just stay with this laptop as long as I can and if ultimately the day comes I have to get another, then I may just try AMD again. But I checked individual monitors and the EXACT SAME MONITORS on free sync would be $200 (or more) less than the G-sync monitors. Bullshit. Fuck you Nvidia.

Anyway, thanks again. And sorry for asking for nothing since I guess I'm not getting one.

I think is a good decision to wait some time. Hopefully next year AMD will launch a better Vega series. Actually, at the moment Vega is not that bad. Vega 64 & Vega 56 are not much behind the GTX 1080 & GTX 1070, and they perform better in a Ryzen system. The problem is those damn miners, which exploded the prices for all AMD cards.

IMO, a good solution will be to buy this relatively cheap monitor and connect it to your laptop, until you get the new PC and bigger monitor.
It's a nice 23.8" IPS panel with FreeSync up to 75 Hz.

I think even with nvidia cards and the right cable will run at 75 Hz, without FreeSync. But you can limit the games' FPS at 75 with V-sync or MSI Afterburner / Rivatuner Statistics Server, or with nvidia Inspector directly in the driver. This will eliminate some of the screen tearing. I don't remember noticing any tearing on my system, but I have the FPS capped at 60, maybe that's why.

So give it some thought and don't forget the Black Friday next month.

Edit: fixing broken links

That happens to everyone, I guess. Probably the reason why all those super-smart people seem gloomy all the time: they can see the flaws all around them. "Now that I have traveled in first class I can't go back to coach!"

Here is something I noticed: I go to a store to see the TVs. Here is a nice 24" screen! I like it. And here is a 32" one. A bit on the large side. Oh, look at this 40" one! Who would buy such a thing?! And... this last one here is HUGE! This costs a ton of money! It does have a great picture, though. <admire the screen for a few minutes> OK, back to reality! Err... now the 24" screen seems a little small to me... Yeah, I think I will take the 32".

Ignorance is bliss. :-)