- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 5,650 (1.16/day)
System Name | Space Station |
---|---|
Processor | Intel 13700K |
Motherboard | ASRock Z790 PG Riptide |
Cooling | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420 |
Memory | Corsair Vengeance 6400 2x16GB @ CL34 |
Video Card(s) | PNY RTX 4080 |
Storage | SSDs - Nextorage 4TB, Samsung EVO 970 500GB, Plextor M5Pro 128GB, HDDs - WD Black 6TB, 2x 1TB |
Display(s) | LG C3 OLED 42" |
Case | Corsair 7000D Airflow |
Audio Device(s) | Yamaha RX-V371 |
Power Supply | SeaSonic Vertex 1200w Gold |
Mouse | Razer Basilisk V3 |
Keyboard | Bloody B840-LK |
Software | Windows 11 Pro 23H2 |
No plans for 1440p, my monitor is 1600p.
In a way, he's got a point. Not many people are gaming on 2560x1600 anymore, but lots are using 1440p. Even when they were more common, 2560x1600 displays were always elite, small niche items.
However, there's not enough difference between 2560x1600 and 2560x1440 to really worry about it much. Satisfactory 1600p benches if anything make 1440p users reassured they'll get good results on most games. A lot like overhead in a PSU.
Same with older reviews including 1920x1200 vs 1080p, it's close enough, and it only reassures me 1080p will def be doable. I agree that taking time to test for 5760x1080 isn't necessarily worth it for the small number of games (and players) using it.
In fact, now that there are an increasing number of 21:9 displays available, I would think people will start using them and get rid of the complexity and bezel problems of multi screen setups. I've already seen many say they want to.
Last edited by a moderator: