Any 1440p monitor will be either IPS (more likely) or VA. That's where the latency comes from, not from the resolution.

And in my opinion, those little extra ms won't be enough to bother you, but the better and richer colours of the panels will make the games more vivid.

All right. So 5ms is okay for gaming?

Which is better then, IPS or VA?

I think the answer to that is subjective, both types of panels (and its numerous variants) have pros and cons. You can read more at tftcentral.

But the deciding factor may be availability and price. There are far more IPS panels than VA ones.

I went from a 2ms 23inch 2048x1152 monitor to a "12ms" 27inch 2560x1440 monitor and I can honestly say I don't notice the lag difference in games. I got the Qnix QX2710 display, which uses a Samsung PLS panel, and I couldn't be happier with it. Just don't use the internel speakers :)

Should I buy a 250x1440 or a 1920x1080p? I want a 27 inch.

Is these good moniter for gaming?

Asus MX279H (27 inch IPS 1920x1080, 5ms, 76hz) - 300 Euros

Asus PB278Q (27 inch PLS 2560x1440, 5ms, 60hz) - 500 Euros

Asus VG278HE (27 inch TN 1920x1080, 2ms, 144hz) - 375 Euros

Which to get?

Also, what's the difference between PLS and TN?

Can somebody help me? I'm desperate to get proper equipment and buy a new gaming PC. I want it so bad.

If you really want a 27" monitor, then I think you'll better with a higher resolution screen. After all, if you have a big monitor with a small resolution, the pixels will have to be bigger to fill it, so you'll see them more easily, which will be bad for games (for the jaggies and all that, you'll have to use more AA).

As for PLS vs TN, a PLS panel is similar to an IPS one so the differences should be the same as between an IPS vs a TN panel : IPS/PLS has better colours and viewing angles (if you move left and right or up and down you still see the same colours while in TN panels they become more washed out), while TN panels have lower latency and are cheaper.

Does it has to be ASUS? I'm curious because there are many other options (Dell, HP, Samsung, etc).

Okay, but about res... isn't it a huge benefit to run games in native resolution? If I run a game in say 1680x1050 on my current 1920x1080 screen it looks blurry, washed out and looks like shit. And 2560x1440 demands almost twice the rendering power than 1920x1080 does, so it will be taxing no matter which GPU I choose (especially for upcoming, next gen games like Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition). I plan to play some older but demanding games too, like a heavily modded Oblivion for example, and that doesn't even support 2560x1440 I think.

All in all 1920x1080 will probably remain my prefered resolution in nearly all games, so how would that look on a 2560x1440 moniter?

I like ASUS as a brand, so I listed comparable screens from them, but it could also be a Samsung. I don't trust HP or Dell, not sure why, but I associate them with poor quality.

Let me start by saying that I only have a 1080p screen so what I'm going to say is just a guess (you'll need someone with a 1440p screen to give you a proper answer, like Permalite). With that said, unlike 1680x1050 which is 16:10, both 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 are 16:9 so running the former on the later won't be as bad. Will that mean that it will look good? I have no idea. But you would need to use more AA.

And Dell is a good brand. I'm using a Dell monitor and it has been flawless.

All right. This is very difficult.

Do you have an opinion on update frequency? How bad is 60hz (or 76hz for the ASUS IPS panel I listed)? Of course it depends on if I plan to run 3D which I dont (well I would like to, but then I'm limited to TN panels?), and wether I play online shooters which I don't (or at least very seldom). But beyond those casess, let's say I run Skyrim in a resolution and settings that give me a 80fps, will those 20 extra fps be totally wasted if my screen only supports 60hz?