Is the jump to 1440P really worth it?

[Frag_Maniac]

There are only 2 reasons as far as I'm concerned as to why someone would say it looks good to them, either they have low standards, or the combination of size of the display and distance means the difference is not reasonably discernible (Unless you're considering that as some displays "scale" better).

Love how you so conveniently use the excuse that my eyesight is poor. I may be 58, but still have 20/20 vision, and can easily pass eye tests.

1. Any display can show undesirable effects if you sit too close, that you wouldn't see if sitting far away. Thus viewing distance is a non issue, especially considering we're talking gaming here, and that I'm a desk vs couch gamer.

2. There's a 3rd reason actually, but obviously you don't know some displays scale better than others.

 

[swirl09]

1. You are literally contradicting yourself! You acknowledge an issue, then say it's a non issue? It doesn't matter if you are gaming, watching Netflix, watching porn, while sitting on a couch or a boat... Viewing distance matters!

2. I'm going to plead ignorance to this and ask for some examples, if you would please. I'm curious.

3. I often sound like a smug douche, I've made peace with it

 

[jormungand]

So noob question now..... Im gonna buy BF1 to play like a maniac..... Is 1440p better or do i stay at 1080p. Sniping assault is a class that i see myself into it.

 

[Recon-UK]

On point though i can sit at comfortable distances from a TV and enjoy even a 720P image on a 30 inch TV screen, above that size though.. asking for trouble.
Monitors never do well with lower than native resolution or even downsampling an image, it causes blur either way.

I think i will get a 1440P screen just not too soon.

 

[swirl09]

I think i will get a 1440P screen just not too soon.

It'll compliment your new GPU very well. Do go for a higher refresh rate, they don't cost much more and even if you don't think that in some games you won't be pushing it, it'll still play at 60 FPS for you, just a bonus when you can drive it higher.


I am geniunely interested in learning. Your response is disappointing. (*E: This was directed at a person I had quoted, which was since deleted. This wasn't intended for Recon-UK)

 

[erocker]

So, I've had to clean up and I don't like doing that. Keep the conversation civil or be gone from it.

 

[cdawall]

So I have a rog swift 27" TN 1ms 1440P 144hz you know the whole shebang. My work PC is a 5960X@4.5 and a pair of 980Ti's, that barely keeps the monitor at 120-140FPS for the heavy hitter games. That being said I have played games on it and some higher end 1080P screens and I personally like the higher resolution and if you are willing to spend the money to get GPU's to push it they are absolutely stunning.

 

[n-ster]

In my experience between triple 1080p, vs 1080p 144hz w/ LightBoost vs 1440p IPS, the 1440p IPS wins hands down. To me, a TN panel is a dealbreaker, I need IPS or a decent VA panel to enjoy the experience.

Point being is that your preferences might be different than others, so I suggest trying to see it for yourself before making any purchases

 

[cdawall]

In my experience between triple 1080p, vs 1080p 144hz w/ LightBoost vs 1440p IPS, the 1440p IPS wins hands down. To me, a TN panel is a dealbreaker, I need IPS or a decent VA panel to enjoy the experience.

Point being is that your preferences might be different than others, so I suggest trying to see it for yourself before making any purchases

I actually prefer the TN panel I use at work over the equal IPS panel. I know it sounds weird, but I have yet to see any 1440P/144hz LCD that didn't have heavy light bleed and that drives me absolutely nuts.

 

[alwayssts]

I've had a 30-inch Dell monitor for nearly a decade now. That's 2560x1600.

Since buying that monitor, I've spent thousands of dollars and countless hours trying to get the performance that could push that res with decent FPS.

All it takes is one game you like pushing your GPU hard, and you'll have a need to upgrade again...

I say no to 1440P!!! Bigger monitor good? YES!! Higher res good? NO!!!

I kind of agree with this. Being an HTPC guy, I jumped from a 47''/1080p to 4k as soon as it became feasible to buy a 65'' (now on the second version of the Vizio P series, started with the first in 2014).

While 4k really is nice, I concur that 1440p (at least for most people's use at typical tv distance) is where it's at, price/perf speaking. I'm sure the same is true of monitor sizes/distances, especially if you can afford the investment in gsync/freesync (which really is a wise buy IMHO). While higher resolution is always going to be nice, smoothness is key.

While I speak from the angle of using 4k60 where I can (which actually is usually closer to 30fps mins on a single GTX1080), and up to 1080p120 where I can't, keeping the former is such an expensive endeavor (that probably won't be completely feasible with sub-Titan hardware until 7nm) that I don't 'look down' at anybody that sticks to 1080p or 1440p in the slightest. Those people are smart; the price/perf ideal sides with them while the requirements are clearly defined (unlike 4k), just slightly different tiers. Buying an RX480 or 1070 makes much more sense than buying 2x1080's or a Titan.

I'm of the opinion (if somebody is a typical PC 'gamer') one should buy whatever card they can afford which can hold 60fps in Tomb Raider/Far Cry Primal, and the corresponding resolution display. I don't pick those games because they're especially important games to play (although I love the new TR games more than most people), but rather because they are fairly representative of the performance required for gaming at those resolutions.

If you are thinking of buying a 1070, I would most def consider a 1440p monitor. That said, also consider by the time Scorpio hits it's full stride, you may want/need to consider yet another GPU upgrade. Still though, by that time 7nm should be (if not very close to) a thing while a card slightly above 1070 shouldn't cost a fortune (unlike today). Again, the price/perf curve is starting to ride 1440p really well wrt the 'performance' tier, where-as before it was reserved for a higher echelon. 1080p OTOH, has been relegated to a lower 'mainstream' tier (very close to 'console' class, and probably will become so with Scorpio). Again, nothing wrong with 1080p (it's certainly a sweet spot)...but to an extent you get what you pay for these days, and each bump in resolution/framerate/smoothness is indeed worth it IMHO....at least up to 1440p60 (or 1440p/adaptive sync).

 

[INSTG8R]

Both Polaris and Pascal support HDR.

Polaris isn't going to get you far at 1440.

 

[Melvis]

I have a 1440P monitor and a GTX 970 and I dont use it, GTX 970 just hasnt got enough balls but if I go to SLI I would.

 

[Vayra86]

Personal experience; I prefer 1080p @ 120 fps/hz over 1440p @ 60 fps/hz

A PPI of around 100-109 is for gaming a nice middle ground, combined with high refresh for me its the perfect sweet spot. This translates to 24 inch @ 1080p, or 27 inch @ 1440p.

Basically at this point in time, there is still a choice to be made if you don't feel like spending the top dollar on GPU to drive it all. So I would strongly suggest you try gameplay on a 1080p/120fps setup and compare it to 1400p @ 60. See what works best for you.

If you prefer 1440p/60, it can be worth considering ultrawide 2560x1080 as well, or even 3440x1440. They can all be pushed quite well with a 1070.

I would stay far away from 4K for now, it has no real advantage for gaming. Gaming is different from passively watching the screen, what really matters the most in my opinion is 'motion resolution'. It will provide better overall image quality if you focus on that for gaming. Good motion resolution means you want a fast pixel response. Gaming is also noticeably better for me on panels with high static contrast, this made me choose for a VA panel (highest static contrast of all panel techs).

 

[broken pixel]

I went from 1080p to 1440p around 2012 when I got my hands on a 27" Overlord Computers LG panel that runs at 100Hz synced & noticed a difference, I have not needed to buy another panel yet.

 

[chuck216]

Personal experience; I prefer 1080p @ 120 fps/hz over 1440p @ 60 fps/hz

A PPI of around 100-109 is for gaming a nice middle ground, combined with high refresh for me its the perfect sweet spot. This translates to 24 inch @ 1080p, or 27 inch @ 1440p.

Basically at this point in time, there is still a choice to be made if you don't feel like spending the top dollar on GPU to drive it all. So I would strongly suggest you try gameplay on a 1080p/120fps setup and compare it to 1400p @ 60. See what works best for you.

If you prefer 1440p/60, it can be worth considering ultrawide 2560x1080 as well, or even 3440x1440. They can all be pushed quite well with a 1070.

I would stay far away from 4K for now, it has no real advantage for gaming. Gaming is different from passively watching the screen, what really matters the most in my opinion is 'motion resolution'. It will provide better overall image quality if you focus on that for gaming. Good motion resolution means you want a fast pixel response. Gaming is also noticeably better for me on panels with high static contrast, this made me choose for a VA panel (highest static contrast of all panel techs).

You don't have to sync your GPU to the refresh rate of the monitor. I don't use v-sync, or any adaptive syncs and I have never had a problem with screen tearing.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

CSGO player, currently competing at Supreme-Global, i'm Global right now but deranks are incredibly easy due to cheats etc etc etc...

Same, except i dont play at this high of level yet, but im on 1440p overclocked to 100hz. Qnix QX2710LED korean monitor. I love it.

 

[BirdyNV]

Polaris isn't going to get you far at 1440.

The RX 480 is a decent 1440p card. While yes you wont be pushing like 75fps+ in most titles, but right now, 1060 and 480 are perfect 1440p cards from the new generation of cards.

 

[Vayra86]

You don't have to sync your GPU to the refresh rate of the monitor. I don't use v-sync, or any adaptive syncs and I have never had a problem with screen tearing.

Me neither, but the gameplay is noticeably smoother FPS capped just under or above the actual refresh of the monitor. Vsync I stay far away from, above 100 fps the tear is virtually unnoticeable anyway.

 

[chuck216]

Me neither, but the gameplay is noticeably smoother FPS capped just under or above the actual refresh of the monitor. Vsync I stay far away from, above 100 fps the tear is virtually unnoticeable anyway.

Well fact is if you can afford a GPU that can get over 60 fps steady @1440p on the highest quality settings then you can afford any monitor you want with all the bells and whistles.

 

[Komshija]

It really depends whether your hardware is ready for 1440p monitor and whether you really need it. Right now about 90% of users, including hardcore gamers, use 1080p monitors. There's really not much of improvement nor any superior experience if a person goes from a 1080p to a 1440p. New and very expensive 4K monitors with ridiculously expensive matching system might be something, but hardly anyone will go that far - at least for the next 4-5 years.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

It really depends whether your hardware is ready for 1440p monitor and whether you really need it. Right now about 90% of users, including hardcore gamers, use 1080p monitors. There's really not much of improvement nor any superior experience if a person goes from a 1080p to a 1440p. New and very expensive 4K monitors with ridiculously expensive matching system might be something, but hardly anyone will go that far - at least for the next 4-5 years.

What? I noticed a tremendous difference going to 1440p from 1080p in game detail. Just takes some hardware to accel it. 4k is on a whole other level in that regard. Also helps that my 1440p does 100hz.

 

[deemon]

I am thinking about it but looking at this video i don't know anymore.

Unless you upgrade to GTX 1080 or Titan XP, it's not worth it. However if you do upgrade your GPU, sure.

 

[Komshija]

What? I noticed a tremendous difference going to 1440p from 1080p in game detail. Just takes some hardware to accel it. 4k is on a whole other level in that regard. Also helps that my 1440p does 100hz.

Again, it depends what monitor you had before. If you had 27" or 32" 1080p monitor and than moved to 27" or 32" 1440p, you could notice some small improvement, because monitors bigger than 24" might need 1440p resolution to maintain the same picture quality as 22, 23 or 24" 1080p monitors. In other words, on the same size monitor you might be able to notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p.
There's no real difference if you had 22", 23" or 24" 1080p and then moved to 27" or 32" 1440p, except for the larger screen. Some older TN panels offered slightly worse picture quality compared to the most recent TN panels, but that's also barely noticeable.

Contrary to the popular belief, human eye cannot distinguish the difference between 60 Hz monitors and 120 or 144 Hz monitors, but marketing definitely can.

 

[Recon-UK]

Again, it depends what monitor you had before. If you had 27" or 32" 1080p monitor and than moved to 27" or 32" 1440p, you could notice some small improvement, because monitors bigger than 24" might need 1440p resolution to maintain the same picture quality as 22, 23 or 24" 1080p monitors. In other words, on the same size monitor you might be able to notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p.
There's no real difference if you had 22", 23" or 24" 1080p and then moved to 27" or 32" 1440p, except for the larger screen. Some older TN panels offered slightly worse picture quality compared to the most recent TN panels, but that's also barely noticeable.

Contrary to the popular belief, human eye cannot distinguish the difference between 60 Hz monitors and 120 or 144 Hz monitors, but marketing definitely can.

Well there goes the huge jump in smoothness from just 15hz more.. i mean i overclock my monitor to 75hz for no reason.

And then it hit me, it's real i see it.

 

[Dethroy]

It all depends on the ratio of pixels/size of the panel (ppi). For the majority of people 1.920 x 1.080/1.200 might be sufficient for monitors up to 24" in size. Whereas the general consensus is, that for 27" and upwards 2.560 x 1.440/1.600 is the more fitting choice.
WQHD has a 78% higher pixel count/ppi, 78%, and I'd hardly call that

not much of improvement nor any superior experience if a person goes from a 1080p to a 1440p

But I guess - different people, different needs (and budgets ).


Note: No game will likely ever need 78% more GPU power to drive WQHD. I made a quick comparison of the two cards (picked good AIB representatives), which I think are the ones with the highest influence on the market right now.