Support NeoGAF

[potatohead]

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.

That's why I think now is a bad time to upgrade.

If you upgrade now you will miss out on HBM2 within the next 2 years unless you want to spend the money twice which will be even more expensive than simply going all in on 4K when 4K is actually viable in a couple of years.

And when you only upgrade once instead of twice, it also means you can spend more on that "real" upgrade for 4K.

To me it doesn't make sense to upgrade now for GPUs. 4K is the real upgrade over 1080p, but GPUs are not ready for it yet.

Just as a strategy it just seems so much more ideal to wait atm. It's not just 4K, but the ability to hit 4K with HBM2 on the horizon as well.

I mean this is how I approach my PC building, that's all. Not saying 1440p is bad, but for me it's not worth the upgrade from 1080p.

 

[MagicWithEarvin]

If you can afford it, yes.

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

Yep, waiting until prices start to go down a bit near $300 - $350 and then I'll bite. Hopefully some nice deals this November around Black Friday / Cyber Monday.

 

[BrikHog]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

Agree, I can't go back to 1080p, looks like a blurry mess to me.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

1440p looks great, even when downsampling. Gsync should make the fluctuations in framerate meaningless, right? I think a 1070 will last a while.

As far as the "true" upgrades, the reason I built my PC to begin with was to get a smooth framerate. I'd probably take 144hz over 4k even though I haven't tried either yet (I have downsampled from 4k though, looks nice).

 

[finalflame]

Anyone claiming there is little difference between 1080p and 1440p is visually impaired. I practically can no longer use a 27" monitor at 1080p -- it looks like a blurry mess.

Gaming at 1440p on a 27" monitor at ~2.5' from the screen is a HUGE jump in IQ over 1080p. Definitely noticeable, and definitely an upgrade. I'm not sure how anyone can call a resolution increase a "novelty".

There's a reason no high-end 1080p monitors are made (IPS, G-Sync, high refresh). 1080p is old news in the PC world, the standard has now long been 1440p, and in the next couple of years will shift to 4K.

 

[Peltz]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

Hyper hyperbole, Batman!

How does anyone enjoy anything anymore with this attitude?

If 1080p looks blurry or unimpressive to you, then I just don't know what to say anymore.

 

[finalflame]

Hyper hyperbole, Batman!

Nope, it does. 1080p on a 27" monitor in a desk environment looks like an unsharp mess once you've been on 1440p for any amount of time. I use 2560x1600 30" monitor at work and a 2560x1440 27" at home, and any time I need to use a 27" 1080p monitor it's jarring how comparatively terrible it looks.

 

[lifa-cobex]

I got this on a sale....
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/acer-xg270hu-27-inch-freesync-monitor,review-33226.html

I wont ever go back.
I love this monitor and it works absolutely fine with my 970 GPU

 

[HungOverOnATues]

Absolutely. Aside from how great games look at a higher res, desktop usage is so much better when you have all of that additional screen real estate. I made the switch about 5 years ago and never once regretted it.

 

[Renekton]

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

RX480 is estimated at about 5.5 TFLOPS yet the next iteration consoles using the same Polaris CU count are expected to maintain 1080p with higher settings.

I don't think 1070 will last very long for 1440p Ultra 60fps if the baseline shifts.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

1440p IPS 165Hz G-sync

It's the only way to fly.

Truly, the third greatest computer upgrade I've had in 27 years. The first two being dial-up -> broadband, and HDD -> SSD.

 

[Grief.exe]

Without proper AA yes.

But with good AA it looks great.

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.

lol what a load of shit

1080p/ultra with AA still looks great

Hyper hyperbole, Batman!

How does anyone enjoy anything anymore with this attitude?

If 1080p looks blurry or unimpressive to you, then I just don't know what to say anymore.

1440p is so sharp you grandpas would probably break a hip anyways.

 

[Niks]

Nope, it does. 1080p on a 27" monitor in a desk environment looks like an unsharp mess once you've been on 1440p for any amount of time. I use 2560x1600 30" monitor at work and a 2560x1440 27" at home, and any time I need to use a 27" 1080p monitor it's jarring how comparatively terrible it looks.

That's because 1080p is not meant for +24" monitors. At 24" 1080p gaming is fine.

 

[impact]

1440p IPS 165Hz G-sync

It's the only way to fly.

Which one do you have? The ASUS ROG is $800 and has middling reviews everywhere and a lot of BLB reports.

It's cool technology but for the price.... that is a shit deal.

 

[ducksauce8188]

Save some $$ and go for the Acer x34. I splurged on this bad boy and I am completely fine with 100fps + gsync @ 3440x1400. Cost an arm and a leg, but it is my most favorite purchase by far. I did feel sick for a couple weeks while it was fresh in my brain how much I spent, but I will ride this thing for the next 10 years.

 

[marlowesghost]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

I agree with this. 1440p is very nice. G sync makess the whole thing nicer. But it's a premium for sure. Won't go back to 1080 tho.

 

[potatohead]

You guys must be playing on oversized monitors. Anything past 22 or 24 inch for 1080p monitors up close is too much.

And anyway, downsampling from 4K or 1440p onto a 1080p is fine too. Don't even need to buy a new monitor to "use" 1440p.

Stop gap, all it is.

 

[inner-G]

Absolutely. Soooo much cleaner looking than 1080p (Get an IPS, too)

You don't need an uber-graphics card, either. I have a 970

 

[MadSexual]

I don't chase framerates higher than 60, so my barrier of entry is much lower, but I'm constantly blown away by the increase in resolution. I love it. I get pretty good performance so far with a 970. Only a few games really make me dial down a few settings (to high rather than ultra -- oh noooo).

 

[Klyka]

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).

This right here.
I just got a 1080p 144hz G-Sync monitor cause it was 50% off.
This is my first >60hz monitor experience.

I would never, ever go back, it is THAT different.

 

[batman2million]

I'd like to think it is. I'm playing witcher 3 in 1440 and good lord does it look great.

I have the xb271hu and though it was expensive. I don't regret it at all. Even console games look amazing on it.

Im currently running a 780 and am gonna jump on the 1080 cause it seems perfect for 1440.

 

[finalflame]

That's because 1080p is not meant for +24" monitors. At 24" 1080p gaming is fine.

Still vastly inferior to 1440p at 27". 91ppi vs. 108ppi. Not to mention a 24" monitor is tiny.

24" 1080p was the "standard" nearly 10 years ago. Time to realize we have easily eclipsed that in 2016.

 

[ogbg]

It depends how much you care about aliasing. If you care a lot about it then it's worth it for sure.

 

[marlowesghost]

That's why I think now is a bad time to upgrade.

If you upgrade now you will miss out on HBM2 within the next 2 years unless you want to spend the money twice which will be even more expensive than simply going all in on 4K when 4K is actually viable in a couple of years.

And when you only upgrade once instead of twice, it also means you can spend more on that "real" upgrade for 4K.

To me it doesn't make sense to upgrade now for GPUs. 4K is the real upgrade over 1080p, but GPUs are not ready for it yet.

Just as a strategy it just seems so much more ideal to wait atm. It's not just 4K, but the ability to hit 4K with HBM2 on the horizon as well.

I mean this is how I approach my PC building, that's all. Not saying 1440p is bad, but for me it's not worth the upgrade from 1080p.

I get what you're saying but this reads like a spiral of just wait dont upgrade. What you call the 'real' upgrade has already happened, it's the nvidia 10 series, and nearly every outlet bears that out in their reviews and recomendations. You talk about the horizon but there's no firm date or direction, and the horizon is always shifting. I'd you're claiming 4k is the only real upgrade to 1080p I don't know what to say. Driving 1440p with g sync, to me, is a real upgrade.

 

[Finaika]

1440p is so sharp you grandpas would probably break a hip anyways.

1440p is just a poor man's 4K.

 

[The Omega Man]

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

This, I have a 1080p 144Hz G-sync and I love it, can run everything on ultra and downsaple if I need to/want to plus higher fps to boot.
Size is perfect too for how close I sit to my monitor.

 

[Stoze]

Still vastly inferior to 1440p at 27". 91ppi vs. 108ppi. Not to mention a 24" monitor is tiny.

24" 1080p was the "standard" nearly 10 years ago. Time to realize we have easily eclipsed that in 2016.

Yeah, 1080p at bigger than say 22" is pushing it for me (for monitors). I almost went with a 24" 1080p G-sync and I'm glad I didn't.

The most visually jarring thing that I witnessed this year is when I switched over from playing Overwatch at 1440p 120fps to Uncharted 4 on the same 144hz monitor. It took maybe a good 2 hours before I was comfortable with what I was seeing/playing.

 

[Coolade]

3440x1440 21:9 Aspect ratio should become the new standard. I wish every game supported it. Seeing more of your game is a much better experience than 16:9 1080p or 4k for me personally.

 

[finalflame]

3440x1440 21:9 Aspect ratio should become the new standard. I wish every game supported it. Seeing more of your game is a much better experience than 16:9 1080p or 4k for me personally.

 

[Trickster]

It's one of those things where, once you try it, you can't really go back. 24 inch screens with 1080p resolution feels absolutely tiny to me these days.

 

[Niks]

I think the real question should be, for 27" 1440p gaming, is IPS worth it, or is TN fine?

 

[BigTnaples]

1440p with some AA is nice. I sacrifice when I can't hit 4K at good frames.


4K and a nice Framerate is what it is to be a god. It's absolutely amazing.


1440p is serviceable, but nowhere near the jump that 4K is.

 

[Psykoboy2]

It's one of those things where, once you try it, you can't really go back. 24 inch screens with 1080p resolution feels absolutely tiny to me these days.

Reminds me after just a few months of an iPhone 6+ having to use someone's iPhone 5 and wondering how the hell I ever used the damn thing it was so tiny.

 

[Qassim]

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

You don't have to put all games on max settings..

 

[family_guy]

Anyone tried running a game at 1440p but having it upscaled to 4k by the TV? How does it look?

 

[ghibli99]

I like having the option of 1440p. It's probably blasphemy, but I'll run 1080p on my 1440p monitor if I'm not happy with a game's performance instead of turning details down. I want the best framerate at ultra I can get. I don't mind dips here and there, but if I'm not getting a consistent framerate at 1440p Ultra, I'll crank the resolution down. The scaling doesn't bother me.

I think the real question should be, for 27" 1440p gaming, is IPS worth it, or is TN fine?

It's gonna be personal preference, but it's tough to go back to TN if you're used to IPS.

 

[Leafhopper]

Wait is 1440p really not feasible with a 4GB or so card? I still have 2GB card and was thinking of maybe getting a R9480 and maybe a 1440p monitor but, perhaps I need a 6 or 8 GB card. If I can save, ill get a GTX1070 though.

 

[BigTnaples]

Anyone tried running a game at 1440p but having it upscaled to 4k by the TV? How does it look?

It looks good.


But it's a HUGE step down from native 4K, while its only a nice leap from 1080p.



Especially in games with tons of detail like vegitation in Wild Hunt.

 

[Tarin02543]

I got a 1440p IPS Acer last year and games really look good, it's given BF4 an extra life for me.

 

[Skel1ingt0n]

Which one do you have? The ASUS ROG is $800 and has middling reviews everywhere and a lot of BLB reports.

It's cool technology but for the price.... that is a shit deal.

That's the one I have.

The only issue I have is the BLB - which, admittedly, does suck - and poor blacks.

The latter I expected with IPS. The former, though, does suck. That said, I can't say I've ever used a monitor under $1,000 that has good, uniform back-lighting. I'm super sensative to it no matter what, so the fact I know I'm never gonna use a $5,000+ studio monitor, I can give it a pass.

For actually playing games, it's incredible. And you don't even notice the BLB on anything except dark menus and night scenes. Something like Overwatch? No chance you're noticing it.

 

[JamesAR15]

I went with the Acer XB270HU paired with a 980Ti. I can't see myself ever going back after witnessing glorious Gsync 1440p 144hz gaming.

 

[clockworkinyou]

Yes. 1080p looks terrible in 2016.

Lol, is this serious?

 

[Grief.exe]

I went with the Acer XB270HU paired with a 980Ti. I can't see myself ever going back after witnessing glorious Gsync 1440p 144hz gaming.

What kind of relative performance are you getting? I just got a 980ti today.

Lol, is this serious?

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=206334659

 

[Dance Inferno]

It depends how much you care about aliasing. If you care a lot about it then it's worth it for sure.

I don't particularly care about aliasing actually. Screen tearing is my biggest issue and that's remedied by Freesync/G-Sync.

I'm waiting to see what the RX 490 looks like, because if that turns out to be a decent 1440p card in the $300 range then it would change my calculus. Right now I'm leaning towards 1080p 144hz just because for the price of a single 1440 Freesync/G-Sync monitor I could buy both a 1080 Freesync/G-Sync monitor and an RX 480, and still have money to spare. I could always upgrade in a few years when the prices of 1440 monitors and GPUs go down.

 

[finalflame]

Lol, is this serious?

It should be. 1080p has been the standard for over 10 years. I have no idea why people would still think it looks good in 2016. Anyone who has tried 1440p+ on a desktop can tell you that it does not. For sitting in front of a TV ~10ft away it's fine, though.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

3440x1440 21:9 Aspect ratio should become the new standard. I wish every game supported it. Seeing more of your game is a much better experience than 16:9 1080p or 4k for me personally.

goddamn right.

 

[The Lamonster]

1440p IPS 165Hz G-sync

It's the only way to fly.

Truly, the third greatest computer upgrade I've had in 27 years. The first two being dial-up -> broadband, and HDD -> SSD.

Agree with this.

Another big PC gaming upgrade for me was the Elite controller and a high-end desk chair.

 

[Spring Drive]

Is 4K worth it?

 

[opticalmace]

Is 4K worth it?

The answer is obviously maybe.

 

[Lanark]

Wait is 1440p really not feasible with a 4GB or so card? I still have 2GB card and was thinking of maybe getting a R9480 and maybe a 1440p monitor but, perhaps I need a 6 or 8 GB card. If I can save, ill get a GTX1070 though.

It's doable. I've been playing for a about a year on a gtx980 (probably slightly faster than a 480 will be) on a 1440p 144fps monitor. You can usually reach 60 fps with little compromise (turning down shadows from the ultra to very high and stuff like that), but with newer and more demanding games like Tomb Raider, the Division, Hitman etc. I'm not getting the performance I want. If you can, I'd definitely go for 1070 performance or higher, it's not absolutely necessary, but very welcome.