Support NeoGAF

[Dance Inferno]

I built my PC two years ago and I'm planning on upgrading my graphics card this year. I have an R9 280X which I've been incredibly happy with because it allows me to play most games at High/Ultra on my 50" 1080p TV, but I want to dip my toes into higher-than-60 FPS gaming. At this point I have two options: I could get a 1080p 144hz monitor with an RX 480, or I could get a 1440p 144hz monitor with a GTX 1070. I would normally just go for the higher end option, but I'm realizing it is significantly more expensive:

1080p Option: $410
1080p 144hz monitor - $210
RX 480 - $200

1440p Option: $870
1440p 144hz monitor - $500
GTX 1070 - $370

I know benchmarks are not out yet, but it sounds like the RX 480 won't be as good as the GTX 1070 for 1440p gaming, and once you go from Freesync to G-Sync your monitor prices really spikes.

Several questions I would love to get answers to:
1. For people who have switched from 1080p to 1440p, is 1440p gaming worth an additional $460?
2. Is there a cheaper way to do 1440p 144hz gaming (monitor + GPU) that I'm missing?
3. I really like that my R9 280X still lets me play most games at High/Ultra in 1080p. Will I be able to continue to play 1440p games at High/Ultra for the next 2-3 years with the same card? Or will I have to upgrade more often to keep up with 1440p resolution?

 

[Renekton]

Not worth it unless you can financially maintain your GPU to be in GTX1080 class every generation.

 

[metareferential]

Higher res is always better. The real jump though is framerate.

There's no going back after 144hz and G-sync. This way you don't really need the highest end every year (that's just absurd).

 

[mochi~]

1. yes
2. that phillips monitor u linked looks atrocious
3.

 

[MagicWithEarvin]

Higher res is always better. The real jump though is framerate.

There's no going back after 144hz and G-sync.

I'm still looking for a good price on a 27" 1440p IPS 144Hz G-sync monitor.

 

[potatohead]

Personally I'm gonna wait for 4K to be viable first.

I like 1440p but I can run quite a few not-as-modern games at 1440p already on my 1080p monitor with downscaling and it looks super nice already anyway.

I'll make the splash with 4x resolution in a couple of years probably. Probably have 16 GB cards by then and HBM2. It will make 1440p feel too brief and like a stop gap if I upgrade now imo.

 

[Kyne]

TIL phillips makes monitors.

 

[Dance Inferno]

1. yes
2. that phillips monitor u linked looks atrocious
3.

The Phillips monitor was the cheapest G-Sync monitor with good reviews that I could find on Amazon. I could go with a $700 monitor but that price is obscene.

 

[Kawngi]

About to experience 1440p 144Hz for the first time today when my new monitor arrives. My GTX 1080 won't be here until next Thursday, so I'm worried for the performance hit in games until then.

This is what I went with: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0173PEX20/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[cyen]

I have a 1080p 144hz and a 1440p 60hz, for me personaly i cannot go back and play games at 1080p ever again

 

[CHC]

I use 1440p for most games even though I only have a 1080p monitor. Makes a huge difference when it comes to aliasing. So yes, it's worth it if you hate jaggies.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Not worth it unless you can financially maintain your GPU to be in GTX1080 class every generation.

Come again?

 

[Aomber]

No.

I did quite a substantial amount of research on this, and it's not that 1440p isn't worth a bit more, it's that G-Sync is not. The technologies are so close except that G-Sync costs $200 more due to the module, there's no way I could justify that. I actually have that exact monitor in the first option as well as a r9 390 and personally it's been a dream to game on, it's not 1440p but I can run a lot of games very smoothly.

Now, if you can find a 1440p freesync monitor, that's different.

 

[Corpekata]

It's a good rez to settle out for now if you have a high end card because 4k 60 is pretty rare.

That being said at this point I'd probably just do it if you're going Gsync and not just a general rez bump.

 

[Irobot82]

I got a 1440p@96hz monitor for under $300.

 

[Galava]

When 1440p costs what 1080p costs now ($150) yes. Until then it's just enthusiast grade and not really worth it.

 

[Long Division]

Not worth it unless you can financially maintain your GPU to be in GTX1080 class every generation.

1070 seems to be the 1440p card of choice

1080 is more 1440@120 or 4k at 30/60 depending on game.

 

[Stoze]

Unless I'm missing something, that Phillips you linked is 1080p and not 1440. Here's a 1440p g-sync 144hz for about the same price. The G-sync and 144hz contribute to the price difference more than the resolution btw.

 

[Dance Inferno]

It's a good rez to settle out for now if you have a high end card because 4k 60 is pretty rare.

That being said at this point I'd probably just do it if you're going Gsync and not just a general rez bump.

Well I could go Freesync with a 1080p monitor, and in that scenario the monitor + GPU would cost the same as a 1440p G-Sync monitor.

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

personally i don't think it's worth it. if i'm gonna be spending a lot of money on new hardware then i'll go to 4K. right now i'm pretty happy with 1080p still and when i build my next PC it will be for 4K gaming. gonna skip right past 1440p.

 

[Steel]

Eh, it's novel, so it'll be a nice change of pace for the first few months at least. Certainly not bad for the long term either. Still, 1080 is fine.

 

[floater6]

I have one of these.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UPVXDA8/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Paid $1000 AUD for it about 8 months back and I feel it was worth every cent. Used it with a GTX 970, had to play medium/high to keep above 100fps and it was great, since swapped the 970 for a 980ti and get 140 locked on pretty much everything maxed and I think it was worth the investment.

 

[Dance Inferno]

Unless I'm missing something, that Phillips you linked is 1080p and not 1440. Here's a 1440p g-sync 144hz for about the same price. The G-sync and 144hz contribute to the price difference more than the resolution btw.

Oh weird, my bad. Don't know why I thought it was 1440. Doing a quick search it doesn't look like I can actually get a 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitor for less than $700...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MSOND8C/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Stoze]

Oh weird, my bad. Don't know why I thought it was 1440. Doing a quick search it doesn't look like I can actually get a 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitor for less than $700...

...You can, look at the link in my post you just quoted.

 

[Seiru]

Not worth it unless you can financially maintain your GPU to be in GTX1080 class every generation.

Ehh? I'm still running games at 1440p at all Ultra settings with my GTX 980.

 

[Grief.exe]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

 

[Burgess_101]

144hz, 1440p, Freesync, IPS is the way forward. I love my ASUS 279Q, at £370 I got it at a really good price. Certainly the best monitor I have ever owned.

I got my first 1440p monitor around 4/5 years ago and ever since I couldn't go back. Even just for regular computer usage 1440p is fantastic, so much screen estate. I wouldn't use it for media though, that is why I have a TV also hooked up to my PC.

 

[potatohead]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

Without proper AA yes.

But with good AA it looks great.

 

[Ash735]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

I wouldn't say terrible, that's just hyperbole, I'd much rather have 1080p with a load of MSAA and a higher framerate than 1440p or 4k with no AA and lower framerates.

 

[blankempathy]

Ehh? I'm still running games at 1440p at all Ultra settings with my GTX 980.

even my 970 handles 1440p fine. Does witcher 3 on a mix of high settings. Much better now that I have my g-sync monitor as well.

 

[impact]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

lol what a load of shit

1080p/ultra with AA still looks great

 

[Karak]

Yes.

 

[Crzy1]

1440p is worth it if you have the extra money to spend. Totally depends on your budget. Don't spend what you don't actually have,1080p is just fine.

 

[MagicWithEarvin]

lol what a load of shit

1080p/ultra with AA still looks great

Yep.

However, I am planning to go the 1440p/144Hz/G-sync route this year and won't be looking back. Those non-reference 1070s need to hit the market soon.

 

[ClayKavalier]

I looked at a bunch of monitors recently and to me the jump from 1440p to 4K was a lot more noticeable than 1080p to 1440p.

 

[pestul]

I'm doing pretty well at 1440p with my 970, but I'm sure the memory limitations are going to start biting me soon. I use a 27" 1440p IPS iMac as my primary PC gaming display and I love it.

 

[Renekton]

1070 seems to be the 1440p card of choice

1080 is more 1440@120 or 4k at 30/60 depending on game.

I don't think 1070 is enough for near future.

The baseline will shift once PS4K and X1.5 get off the ground.

Ehh? I'm still running games at 1440p at all Ultra settings with my GTX 980.

I guess you're on GSYNC? Since games will not hit 60fps on that card.

 

[opticalmace]

I looked at a bunch of monitors recently and to me the jump from 1440p to 4K was a lot more noticeable than 1080p to 1440p.

You're right:

1440p is 1.78 times as many pixels as 1080p.
4k is 2.25 times as many pixels as 1440p.

But the hardware needed to drive 4k makes it pretty cost prohibitive.

 

[Moz]

Went 1440/165hz/gsync from a 1440p dell and I can't ever go back. The jump from 1080 to 1440 itself is very worthwhile. 1080 isn't that great on a largeish screen when you're a couple of feet away. 4k seems like total overkill to me right now, but maybe not in a few years.

 

[xplicitone]

1440p is HYPE.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I'd say no, unless you can downsample to 1440p from a higher res.
Downsampling from 1440p to 1080p gives me a much nicer image than just having 1440p on a screen that does it natively.

Generally the native resolution still needs some help with AA, while the downsampled one doesn't.

 

[Barzul]

Try 1440p with Gsync and you could probably never go back to 1080p. I sold off all my 1090p monitors.

 

[Stoze]

Here's a 1440p 60hz IPS for $250. No idea about the input lag or if it's good for gaming, just caught it with a quick Google.

Here's a 1440p 144hz without G-sync for $400.

For future reference, use PCPartpicker to find monitors. Like I said, refresh rate and G-sync separately can jump the price just as much as if not more than resolution, same goes with IPS as opposed to TN. I'd take 1440p over all those things, so for me personally it's worth it.

 

[Rizific]

would love to jump to 1440, but ive seen what 120/144hz looks like. until i can get a single gpu at a reasonable price that will get me 90+ fps at 1440p, im sticking with 1080p.

 

[120v]

lol what a load of shit

1080p/ultra with AA still looks great

I dunno if I'd say terrible but after 1440 there was no going back for me, even at 15-20 fps cost. Surprised anybody can sat it's a negligible difference but to each's own

 

[Long Division]

I don't think 1070 is enough for near future.

The baseline will shift once PS4K and X1.5 get off the ground.


I guess you're on GSYNC? Since games will not hit 60fps on that card.

480 is still quite a way off the 1070, I think it will last years.

 

[blankempathy]

I dunno if I'd say terrible but after 1440 there was no going back for me, even at 15-20 fps cost. Surprised anybody can sat it's a negligible difference but to each's own

To be fair that second post you quoted was responding to a guy who said that 1080p looks like shit. Although I agree that 1080p-1440p is more then just novel

 

[Niks]

If you can afford it, yes.

1440p + 27" + IPS + 144hz + gsync = expensive

 

[Big_Al]

1440p is good but I'm personally still very happy with 1080p. But then I tend to switch between my tv/monitor and I can't upgrade as often as I'd like. So I'd rather have 1080p at higher framerates tbh.

 

[TatteredHat]

I'd personally much rather go for 144Hz + G-Sync at 1080p, seems like that would make much more of a difference.