Can't really say whether you should be getting more as you didn't specify the settings. Though it is an older CPU with 6 cores and 12 threads the CPU power should be fine I would think. GPU is also very good. Your main bottleneck will be your RAM as the game (and other games) does like higher bandwidth RAM. I guess it is possible PCI-E slot speed might limit the 1070 a bit, depends what gen it is (at this point I wouldn't worry though).

I think a 1440p monitor would be a good choice. It will probably make your 1070 run harder and perhaps a little hotter but it is not a power hungry card and doesn't run hot. The higher resolution should also reduce any CPU bottleneck there might be. Ashes scales very well with resolution. You could turn on 1440p resolution support in the nvidia control panel and run the game at 1440p now, on your 1080p, and see what FPS you will get but I don't think it will drop much.

The game may well run at less than 60FPS in which case having a 60hz monitor or 120hz won't make much of a difference. I would still get the 120/144Hz monitor though for when it is above 60Hz and for other games.

Basically getting a 1440 144hz should be really nice for Ashes and other games and would fit your system fine. Nothing to worry about

I run Ashes on a 680 GTX at 2560x1440, it's a negligible change over 1080p.

I agree with you.

But I'll be the first person to tell you that the human eye can't really process much faster than 30fps.

30fps usually looks like fluid movement to us, unless something is moving really fast over a longer distance.

It is hard to get the illusion of movement to look even more "fluid" (144hz) than "fluid" (60hz).

So in that sense, a car that has the CAPACITY to drive 300mph is a total waste of money, if you paid for the extra speed.

Because, for the most part, you can't drive faster than 75mph.

So what would be the point?

Even worse than owning a car that drives 300mph is owning one with 300mph tires, even though the car is simply incapable of accelerating to that speed. 

Now that -- THAT -- is wasteful folly. 

I would take very close to zero pleasure in admitting that I bought a monitor whose capabilities I couldn't use.

And then there would be the car that forces you to drive in second gear when using the high-capacity tires.

This is the car that I would find most disconcerting of all.

I don't ever want to own this car. Ever.

It is, arguably, counter productive. 

TO put it in more concrete terms, I am most worried about  the scenario where my machine can't actually handle 1440p very well (never mind 144hz). I've read in places that it looks worse if you switch to 1080 on a 1440. I just don't want to make a silly purchase, simply so I can say I have the CAPACITY to do the better performance, and then be forced to downgrade the game appearance, so that it is worse than I would experience if I just went with 1080 native.

And it simply doesn't make sense to me to spend extra on the 144, if I can't use it.

Ultimately, I suppose this exercise really boils down to curiosity for me. 

Grass is maybe greener in the next yard over?

I've bought the computer components thoughtfully over time, and my computer now seems to have a lot of horsepower.

So I'd like to see what it can do.

I'm curious whether the new monitor would introduce a noticeable improvement.

I guess you could call it my potentially costly experiment.

Appreciate the feedback.

Am curious on one hand, and don't want to waste $$ on other.

Ugh, moronic science entry...

This is right up there with "dogs can't feel anything for, and aren't smart enough to understand, their owners".  It's one of those scientific conclusions that was made by someone who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, and became a commonly held belief somehow.  It's also instantly disproved the first time you meet a dog that isn't really fucking stupid.  My dad had one that you couldn't even spell bath around, or he'd disappear.

I can tell the difference between 60 and 72.  60 is barely tolerable, 30, or the 24 commonly used in theaters, drives me batshit.  Movies give me headaches.  I can see the 120Hz flicker in fluorescent lighting, and most monitors give me a massive headache because the PWM dimmed backlights, which typically run at a few hundred hertz, are still slow enough that they drive me nuts.  My primary is a high end Samsung, but several years old, and it has a nice and fast 400Hz flicker at full brightness, it's still obvious at 67%.

It's entirely possible you've got brain dead vision genes and would starve for sure as a hunter, but if you don't, don't buy the bullshit and tell yourself the eye strain is supposed to be there.  It's a product of bad technology backed up by utterly bogus science, and it actually makes some people seriously ill.

Not likely, I'm unlikely to reproduce.

Whatever is IPS, 144Hz, 2560x1440/1600 27" and has G-sync (if you have/plan to stick to Nvidia) at the same time.  And does not cost arm and leg.

Light bleeding is a matter of bad housing.  These super thin bezel monitors are terrible about it, whether it's IPS or not is irrelevant.  There is IPS glow(light bleeds through the screen), but neither technology produces a good black.  VA is better, but they're not particularly great either in other ways.  CRT displays had better contrast levels than any of them.

TN panels are the worst of the bunch, the actual display is thick, and whatever color is furthest out is the one you're stuck seeing at any significant angle.  They're fast and cheap, but their color is poor, and for a larger display even sitting dead center leads to substantial color shift.  If you can afford a 144Hz IPS, it's a vastly superior display to anything you can get in TN.

The only issue actually true to IPS, and not just bad cabinet design or manufacturing defects, is that they are a substantially more complicated device.  This results in higher cost, power utilization, and latency.  PLS panels are of a similar quality, with similar issues.  The only thing you can get that is definably superior to a high end IPS/PLS monitor, is OLED, and those are an arm and a leg.

Hrmm... this one?

ASUS PG278QR 27" 1ms 165Hz G-SYNC Eye Care Gaming Screen LCD Monitor

https://www.amazon.com/PG278QR-G-SYNC-Gaming-Screen-Monitor/dp/B01N4ENDXR/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1484927770&sr=1-1&keywords=ASUS+ROG+Swift+PG279Q+IPS+27%22+LCD+Monitor

Looks like a deal, but not IPS?

Does that necessarily mean TN?

EDIT: Yeah, did some research. It is TN.

I am running a 1080p HP2509 monitor from 2010 that I like an awful lot. But it has started to flicker. So... it's just time to replace.

But I like the quality of that screen very much. It's nice and bright, and very crisp. Glossy screen, I think. 

It is 5ms, and that seems perfectly fine to me, since my apm is nowhere near pro.

I have no doubt that anything I get will likely be better than what I have.

I've used newegg and amazon to do my search -- and you're right that newegg is better equipped for the searching.

If I want 1440, g-sync, 144, IPS, and 26"-27", with at least two ports...

There really aren't a whole lot of different options.

I think I've pretty much narrowed to:

ASUS ROG PG279Q (IPS)

ACER XB271HU (predator, 2016)

... both are pretty expensive, which isn't thrilling.

... and both are apparently made with the same AUO panels...

... and both apparently have LOTS of QC problems...

... so it sounds like getting a winning screen might be a crapshoot ...

... but if you get a good one, it sounds like they're both terrific ...

So... I dunno...

We'll see.

Not afraid to pay if I get my money's worth, but an $800 screen with deadspots and light bleed doesn't sound like a terrific idea.

If I forego the G-sync, then there is the Zowie, I guess.

Hard to tell what is a legit issue, because people seem to make a lot of noise complaining about both models.

Just doesn't seem like a monitor has been released that is REALLY loved and stable.

* Shrug *

They are relatively new models....so as with any new tech there may be production quality issues.  In other words, you may get a dud, but a dud can be exchanged.

Mine isn't a dud. It performs exactly as expected...

In AUD it was $1200, but in my case it was replacing [adding to] a monitor which was about 10 years old and 10 years more primitive...