Monitor to laptop: HDMI vs Thunderbolt USB-C 3.1?

I would like to grow a 144Hz monitor for various PC games. On my laptop I have an HDMI and a USB-C 3.0 (no USB-C 3.1 connection). Since I do not know anything about this area, I ask:

Is it advisable to buy an extra monitor, only with HDMI / USB 3.0 connection owns? I was persuaded by a friend that HDMI port monitors have too much latency (He has a laptop with USB-C 3.1).

If, then I would buy a 144Hz monitor. Has anyone had any experience with it (now no laptop but generally HDMI)?

Unfortunately I did not really find anything on the internet about HDMI vs Thunderblot USB-C 3.1. Can someone enlighten me?

HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) is specially designed for the connection of monitors.
USB (Universal Serial Bus) is a multifunction bus that is suitable for the DisplayPort standard with 3,840 × 2,160 pixels and 60 Hz in the 3.1 stand, but it is not specially made for it.
Also stuck at the USB hub (in the PC internally) even more peripherals such as mouse and keyboard turn and thus possibly provides for latencies.

I would recommend you use the intended (HDMI or Displayport) connection point.

Thank you first for your answer, but I have a question:

Would it make sense to buy a 144Hz monitor, only with HDMI? I once heard that in contrast to the display port only 60Hz would get through.

Depends on. There are also different generations with HDMI.

https://de.wikipedia.org/...d_HDMI_2.0

If the HDMI is 2.1, you can do 120Hz at 4k resolution.
Clear. Displayport has a little more air up.

Since you want to clamp the whole but to a laptop…
Most laptops have "only" HDMI, because the Graka anyway does not create 144Hz at 4k.
A little more expensive laptops with a decent Graka then have Displayport and the question is not at all.