BenQ: Ps5 will support 1440p monitors

The_Mike said:
Back at that shit that the eyes only can see 30 fps shit again are we?
Click to expand...

zVG9WgU.png
 
Bo_Hazem said:
Why waste the experience and play on a shitty monitor anyway?
Click to expand...
The 4K experience? - Jesus Christ man, rather have 120hz and that my capture card works day one.

Also the pixel density on a 27" at 1440p is near perfect. I know the LG CX OLED's are awesome, but even the 48" doesn't have the same (near perfect) pixel density.
 
8BiTw0LF said:
Guys... This goes way beyond the monitor vs. tv discussion.

I, for example, doesn't have to do anything when I get the PS5 - plug'n'play! Even my capture card supports 1440p/120hz passthrough - so no need to change that either.

- and let's face it, for guys like me, who mainly plays FPS games - this:
Click to expand...

But you will get the same experience on a 4K120 TV. Better, since there will probably be reconstruction to 4K, plus a TV will have better picture quality. So I don't see how this is an argument for 1440p monitors. It's a good thing if that's the only thing you own though.
 
i have a 1440p 144hz monitor so i hope i can use that. depends whether or not it uses freesync over HDMI 2.0 or if it's HDMI Forum VRR for 2.1 only.

Bo_Hazem said:
Why waste the experience and play on a shitty monitor anyway?
Click to expand...
gaming monitors are better than TVs.

far better response times/latency. if you want a good gaming TV it's gonna cost way more than a good monitor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RoadHazard said:
But you will get the same experience on a 4K120 TV. Better, since there will probably be reconstruction to 4K, plus a TV will have better picture quality. So I don't see how this is an argument for 1440p monitors. It's a good thing if that's the only thing you own though.
Click to expand...
48"-55" 4K/120 OLED: Better black levels

24"-27" 1440p/144 VA/IPS: Near perfect pixel density, better response time, almost no delay from input lag, no burn-ins.

Trust me, for games that need quick response time, like fighters and FPS - it's all about the miliseconds. For casual play TV's are fine.

Edit: no way to use a capture card (yet) with 4K/120 passthrough - they will probably come next year - but it's nice to know I don't have to upgrade anything when using a 1440p monitor.
 
Last edited:
8BiTw0LF said:
The 4K experience? - Jesus Christ man, rather have 120hz and that my capture card works day one.

Also the pixel density on a 27" at 1440p is near perfect. I know the LG CX OLED's are awesome, but even the 48" doesn't have the same (near perfect) pixel density.
Click to expand...

Well, glad you enjoy your set. Probably it's a matter of preference.
 
Jitzu said:
I can't stand playing on a gigantic tv with very high response rate. Anything over 1ms is unplayable for me. But to each is own.
Click to expand...

You need to read more, mate. OLED's, at least, have 1ms response time TV's. It's about input lag, and monitors are way weaker and laggy compared to TV's at 4K, and comparable at 1440p.
 
What kind of 1440p support are we talking about tho? We know some games will have high framerate modes at 1440p instead of 4K, but won't it be upscaled to 4K anyway? So the end result will be QHD->4K->QHD, instead of native QHD? That's how PS4 Pro worked despite many games running in 1440p, so I guess the same rule will apply to PS5?
 
8BiTw0LF said:
It sure is, but that's not how you started the debate
Click to expand...

Honestly, last time I bought a flat monitor in 2002, a flat one which was fancy shit back then. Since 2007, I've been using tv's for my desktops. Nothing beats a couch to me, especially a recliner ;) But I don't play games on my PC, although my 2010 was a good gaming pc and 2019 is considered a high end PC back then before RTX 30 series made things look funny. :lollipop_tears_of_joy:

I still prefer TV's, the bigger the better.:messenger_smiling_hearts:
 
ZywyPL said:
What kind of 1440p support are we talking about tho? We know some games will have high framerate modes at 1440p instead of 4K, but won't it be upscaled to 4K anyway? So the end result will be QHD->4K->QHD, instead of native QHD? That's how PS4 Pro worked despite many games running in 1440p, so I guess the same rule will apply to PS5?
Click to expand...

It appears it will be native when available. Otherwise processing will take over. But the PS5 will have the option to choose 1440p. Doesn't need to be forced. So, a game like DeS at 1440p will be native so doesn't need processing. So it's not like the Pro. You'll probably see CoD come with that option and other FPSs.
 
Bo_Hazem said:
Honestly, last time I bought a flat monitor in 2002, a flat one which was fancy shit back then. Since 2007, I've been using tv's for my desktops. Nothing beats a couch to me, especially a recliner ;) But I don't play games on my PC, although my 2010 was a good gaming pc and 2019 is considered a high end PC back then before RTX 30 series made things look funny. :lollipop_tears_of_joy:

I still prefer TV's, the bigger the better.:messenger_smiling_hearts:
Click to expand...
I know what u mean :) My setups are spread out to the TV's and monitors around the house.

I have an old (latest) gen 42" 1080p Panasonic plasma TV for modded Dreamcast and modded PS3 in the bedroom - 75" 4K LG LED for movies and Xbox One X in the home cinema - 55" 4K Philips LED for modded SNES Classic in the living room - 2x 27" (one 4K/60hz for PS4 & one 1440p/165hz for PC) + 19" 900p ASUS (vertical) for stream chat in the gamer room.

My daughter can see movies while I play games - that's essentially the most important setup for me, lol
 
Last edited:
Darko said:
doesnt the monitor have to be hdmi 2.1 to support 120hz?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you want 4K/120hz - but at 27", 1440p has a pixel density of 109ppi - perfect ppi is 110ppi, so it doesn't get better than that, and HDMI 2.0 can output 1440p/144hz or 4K/60hz.
 
Last edited:
8BiTw0LF said:
I know what u mean :) My setups are spread out to the TV's and monitors around the house.

I have an old (latest) gen 42" 1080p Panasonic plasma TV for modded Dreamcast and modded PS3 in the bedroom - 75" 4K LG LED for movies and Xbox One X in the home cinema - 55" 4K Philips LED for modded SNES Classic in the living room - 2x 27" (one 4K/60hz for PS4 & one 1440p/165hz for PC) + 19" 900p ASUS (vertical) for stream chat in the gamer room.

My daughter can see movies while I play games - that's essentially the most important setup for me, lol
Click to expand...

I see you are a 10-bit wolf then ;) Those are some neat entertainment setups!
 
01011001 said:
if set to 120hz modern LG and Samsung TVs have 7ms of lag, that's very close to the 2ms of the average PC screen.

the difference is noticeable but it's very close
Click to expand...

I say bollocks that you can tell a difference of 5ms, get the fuck outta here with that nonsense. No offense but:

tenor.gif


edit - Wait, hang on, your name implies you could be a robot. That could explain it.

O8c9iha.png
 
Last edited:
LOL at people claiming they can tell latency above 1ms. That's basically equally as bullshit as someone saying eyes can't see more than 30fps.

Between 1ms and 40ms sure, but 1ms and 10ms? Nope.
 
Last edited:
Jitzu said:
I can't stand playing on a gigantic tv with very high response rate. Anything over 1ms is unplayable for me. But to each is own.
Click to expand...

My TV has an 100% response time of 36ms haha. You'd LOVE it. It makes 24hz content look AMAZING. Least stutter on any LCD ever made outside of maybe XE94.

Hard-edged pixel art games look smeary as hell though so its annoying in some cases.
 
R6Rider said:
LOL at people claiming they can tell latency above 1ms. That's basically equally as bullshit as someone saying eyes can't see more than 30fps.

Between 1ms and 40ms sure, but 1ms and 10ms? Nope.
Click to expand...

The best part is that some game engines can't buffer your input at just any point during the frame, so say its running at 30fps then the game won't recognise/process the input for maybe 16ms or more (half of the 33.3ms frametime that 30 fps has) even if the game receives the input sooner due to lower screen input lag. Thats why some games just feel like shit even at 60 fps and another game feels better even though its only 30 fps. Thats super rare so more likely between two titles running at 30fps.
 
Kuranghi said:
I say bollocks that you can tell a difference of 5ms, get the fuck outta here with that nonsense. No offense but:

tenor.gif


edit - Wait, hang on, your name implies you could be a robot. That could explain it.

O8c9iha.png
Click to expand...

you can easily tell the difference, especially in games you are good at and play a lot.

I mainly play Apex Legends on the PC Monitor on base PS4, but when I play it on the TV on Pro from time to time I immediately feel the latency.
but that is 11ms vs 1ms (at 60hz the TV has 11ms of lag and at 120hz it has 7ms). The Pro runs the game a bit smoother tho, so that evens it out a bit.

I had a TV before this one with 20ms lag and Apex was literally unplayable for me on that TV.
 
Last edited:
01011001 said:
you can easily tell the difference, especially in games you are good at and play a lot.

I mainly play Apex Legends on the PC Monitor, but when I play it on the TV from time to time I immediately feel the latency.
but that is 11ms vs 1ms (at 60hz the TB has 11ms of lag and at 120hz it has 7ms)

I had a TV before this one with 20ms lag and Apex was literally unplayable for me on that TV.
Click to expand...

Did you know about the input lag figure before you tried the TV or did you look it up after you felt it had more lag than the monitor? I think I know the answer.
 
R6Rider said:
LOL at people claiming they can tell latency above 1ms. That's basically equally as bullshit as someone saying eyes can't see more than 30fps.

Between 1ms and 40ms sure, but 1ms and 10ms? Nope.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's impossible but you better be pulling down some insane k/d ratios if you can. I think people get more comfortable with monitors because they're smaller and sit closer. It speeds up reaction time and that s what they're feeling vs the input of refresh lag. The same thing would happen in your living room setup if you left everything the same and replace your 50 inch TV with a 65 or a 77

01011001 said:
you can easily tell the difference, especially in games you are good at and play a lot.

I mainly play Apex Legends on the PC Monitor on base PS4, but when I play it on the TV on Pro from time to time I immediately feel the latency.
but that is 11ms vs 1ms (at 60hz the TV has 11ms of lag and at 120hz it has 7ms). The Pro runs the game a bit smoother tho, so that evens it out a bit.

I had a TV before this one with 20ms lag and Apex was literally unplayable for me on that TV.
Click to expand...
 
01011001 said:
I had a TV before this one with 20ms lag and Apex was literally unplayable for me on that TV.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but either something was wrong with your TV, or something else. No way 20ms made a game (especially Apex Legends) unplayable. I have over 1500 hours of Siege using a monitor at below 5ms and when I recently moved to a TV with about 20ms the difference is impossible to tell.

Here is an example of what even 26ms is like compared to 65 (which is a lot) and it's almost instant even when slowed down.

 
Kuranghi said:
Did you know about the input lag figure before you tried the TV or did you look it up after you felt it had more lag than the monitor? I think I know the answer.
Click to expand...

I actually thought the old TV only had around 15ms of lag, but after having so much trouble playing shooters on it I looked up some tests of it and it was 21ms or something. maybe even 24ms? not 100% sure, it was too much is the point

then for the new one I looked for tests to get the lowest possible latency, which at the time was an 11ms(60hz)/7ms(120hz) Samsung with HDMi2.0 support (up to 1440p120hz) and freesync ultimate

R6Rider said:
Sorry, but either something was wrong with your TV, or something else. No way 20ms made a game (especially Apex Legends) unplayable. I have over 1500 hours of Siege using a monitor at below 5ms and when I recently moved to a TV with about 20ms the difference is impossible to tell.

Here is an example of what even 26ms is like compared to 65 (which is a lot) and it's almost instant even when slowed down.

Click to expand...


how about stop thinking just because YOU can't tell the difference or because it's not an issue FOR YOU that other people are the same as YOU.

there are literally people out there that say they don't feel any lag playing PS4 remote play!
THAT HAS 100MS OF LAG! at least! that's the lowest ever measured latency! and that's with both devices connected to the same router via ethernet cable!

then there are people that played Rise of the Tomb Raider on base Xbox One and said that they didn't feel any input lag... in a game that has 210ms!!!! of engine latency!
but there were people that said it played just fine.
 
Last edited:
01011001 said:
how about stop thinking just because YOU can't tell the difference or because it's not an issue FOR YOU that other people are the same as YOU.

there are literally people out there that say they don't feel any lag playing PS4 remote play!
THAT HAS 100MS OF LAG! at least! that's the lowest ever measured latency! and that's with both devices connected to the same router via ethernet cable!
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing up remote play? I gave an example of how slow/fast 20ms is (1/50th of a second and just over 1 frame at 60hz). You had claimed 20ms made a game unplayable. Which is bullshit no matter which way you want to cut it.

In case of your 210ms and people saying it played fine, I would also say their claim is bullshit. A near quarter of a second for anyone is huge.
 
Last edited:
R6Rider said:
Why are you bringing up remote play? I gave an example of how slow/fast 20ms is (1/50th of a second and just over 1 frame at 60hz). You had claimed 20ms made a game unplayable. Which is bullshit no matter which way you want to cut it.
Click to expand...

these examples show you that there are people who even find 200+ms of latency fine and playable.
meanwhile I find Apex unplayable on a screen with 20+ms of lag.
I can manage 11ms but I definitely also feel the latency there, easily, the difference is there and my aim is slightly worse on that TV.

at the ~24ms of the old TV I literally couldn't aim, I had to turn down my sensitivity because I always overshot my targets while turning, and the lower sensitivity made it easier to actually stay on target with that latency.

there are people out there than can easily tell the difference between 1ms and 11ms, and then there are people that want to tell you that PS4 Remote play has "almost no input lag I swear", or that vehemently tell you that a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider on base Xbox One has good controls, even tho they have such high amounts of input latency that even google stadia has less than half the input lag!

Doom Eternal on Xbox One X for example has noticeable input lag (not sure about other consoles since I only played it on One X) while Doom 2016 doesn't.
I have never heard anyone bring that up, because apparently noone noticed... I noticed literally the second I gained control. it's not unplayable but it is not good at all and honestly a big blemish on the game's quality for me.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't take BENQ's word as gospel on this one guys, also refresh rate doesn't = input lag, for the record 5ms input lag is brilliant, god tier.

5ms response (grey to grey) will show some artifacts in some games especially on things like sports titles where you may notice some ghosting due to a solid green background behind the players.
 
8BiTw0LF said:
48"-55" 4K/120 OLED: Better black levels

24"-27" 1440p/144 VA/IPS: Near perfect pixel density, better response time, almost no delay from input lag, no burn-ins.

Trust me, for games that need quick response time, like fighters and FPS - it's all about the miliseconds. For casual play TV's are fine.

Edit: no way to use a capture card (yet) with 4K/120 passthrough - they will probably come next year - but it's nice to know I don't have to upgrade anything when using a 1440p monitor.
Click to expand...

With a console FPS 2ms vs 10ms definitely doesn't matter. MAYBE with a fighting game.
 
01011001 01011001

See with the Samsung TV did you use game mode? I don't think you are an idiot so I'd assume yes, just double checking. What I'm thinking is that some sort of dynamic tonemapping/colour, extended dynamic range or decontouring filter (reduces banding/improves gradients) was set to on on the TV which would increase the input lag above the default figure that review sites give for Game Mode. I know people like to turn those settings on to improve the image, but increase input lag.

Not trying to say its impossible to feel a difference I just don't think it would feel so bad that you feel like you couldn't play it, even with a mouse over controller. It seems like there is another factor involved here that made the TV feel so much worse.

Where is the 2ms figure coming from for the monitor? Which model is it?
 
Last edited:
My buddy just got his review PS5.

The only resolutions supported:
720p
1080i
1080p
2160p

Soo, Xbox has been more versatile for the past 15 years? Gotcha 👍
 
Last edited:
8BiTw0LF said:
My buddy just got his review PS5.

The only resolutions supported:
720p
1080i
1080p
2160p

Soo, Xbox has been more versatile for the past 15 years? Gotcha 👍
Click to expand...

not sure if you're trolling... but sad if true nit gonna lie.

seems fishy because of the mention of 1080i... did any recent system support interlaced modes?

Kuranghi said:
01011001 01011001

See with the Samsung TV did you use game mode? I don't think you are an idiot so I'd assume yes, just double checking. What I'm thinking is that some sort of dynamic tonemapping/colour, extended dynamic range or decontouring filter (reduces banding/improves gradients) was set to on on the TV which would increase the input lag above the default figure that review sites give for Game Mode. I know people like to turn those settings on to improve the image, but increase input lag.

Not trying to say its impossible to feel a difference I just don't think it would feel so bad that you feel like you couldn't play it, even with a mouse over controller. It seems like there is another factor involved here that made the TV feel so much worse.

Where is the 2ms figure coming from for the monitor? Which model is it?
Click to expand...


when I played Apex on that TV and simply couldn't hit my targets anymore due to playing ist mostly on a 1ms monitor, I tried everything.

I also thought, "well maybe some settings increase the latency" but I had basically everything that could be seen as an image quality enhancement option off.

I even played with my DualShock 4 directly connected to the PS4 via USB which reduces lag slightly.

and I tried running it in PC mode which funnily enough INCREASED THE LATENCY over Game Mode! like how the fuck does that make sense please? wtf Samsung?

I am glad that LG and Samsung are pushing latency down more and more, and even Sony is now finally trying! they had absolutely dogshit latency for the past 5 years but their newest TVs also finally push below 20ms... when some older models in the past 5 years literally could have 40ms in game mode... like fuck me... o_O


and the 2ms I used as a figure was just an average PC Monitor figure. 2ms is a decent monitor, tho most gaming monitor go fo 1ms at 144hz+
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Switch 2 vs 1440p - What is happening?
2 3
110
3K
Spukc replied
Will the PS5 Pro have good support?
49
1K
Romulus replied
Beat Saber is ending support for PS4/PS5 (PSVR/PSVR2) starting in June 2025
News 
12
508
PixelatedBeast replied
  • Locked
Beat Games is ending update support for Beat Saber PS4 and PS5 (other VR platforms unaffected)
1
103
Mr Moose replied
Legacy Of Kain series will be complete on PS5
9
269
NeverYouMind replied
Top Bottom