Mister Wolf
Member
I just now started playing at 1440p. I game 5ft in front of my 55" bravia and the increase in resolution is very noticeable. I also like how I dont really need AA anymore.
Is 1440p gaming worth it?
- Thread starter Dance Inferno
- Start date
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
It's the biggest leap I've experienced in gaming apart from VR.
It gets rid of the feeling that you're playing a game, and gives you the feeling of playing a Pixar film.
In games with a lot of detail, like Wild Hunts or Fallout 4's vegetation, the difference is unbelievable.
Compsiox
Banned
You don't necessarily need IPS. There are a lot of potential issues associated with it too.
finalflame
Banned
4K is a game changer, but it's not quite fully baked. I'd say next year.
TN is turd on a screen compared to the color reproduction of IPS. I'd never get a non-IPS screen or recommend one to anyone I value as a colleague or friend.
YesManKablam
Member
I bit the bullet and recently got a Predator X34.
3440x1440, 100hrz, G-Sync.
It's indescribable. There's no going back from this.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
Only more and more content will be made in 4K, if you can afford it, yeah...
If you're gonna bust your balls to get on budget, hell no.
Most of those modern displays are actually using VA panels, which is labeled as IPS but doesn't have the display lag associated with IPS.
My Acer model only has ~2ms of total lag.
Compsiox
Banned
I thought so. Thanks for bringing that up.
I would value G-Sync, 75hz+ refresh rates, improved color quality and contrast (panel type is not enough to go on there), and even overall build quality of the monitor all more than the leap from 1080p to 1440p FOR GAMES
But 1920x1200 is the lowest I could stand for doing anything else in Windows and good luck finding a 75hz+ screen of that resolution, so I'm stuck with 1440p. Don't be afraid to run games at 1080p on it, games with good anti-aliasing won't suffer much, and the improved framerates will usually be worth it.
Avoid 4K for a general purpose computer because Windows support for scaling still sucks, and avoid it for games because the framerates will just be too low. That 5K iMac with retina display is incredible though for text and photos and apps.
VA Panels are not "labeled as IPS" anywhere I know. VA panels have better contrast ratios than IPS but much worse problems with pixel response times causing moving objects to blur. IPS is the best overall desktop + gaming solution, TN is still slightly better for tracking the fastest moving objects with no trails at all, and VA is better for movies and dimly-lit slow-paced games.
But 1920x1200 is the lowest I could stand for doing anything else in Windows and good luck finding a 75hz+ screen of that resolution, so I'm stuck with 1440p. Don't be afraid to run games at 1080p on it, games with good anti-aliasing won't suffer much, and the improved framerates will usually be worth it.
Avoid 4K for a general purpose computer because Windows support for scaling still sucks, and avoid it for games because the framerates will just be too low. That 5K iMac with retina display is incredible though for text and photos and apps.
VA Panels are not "labeled as IPS" anywhere I know. VA panels have better contrast ratios than IPS but much worse problems with pixel response times causing moving objects to blur. IPS is the best overall desktop + gaming solution, TN is still slightly better for tracking the fastest moving objects with no trails at all, and VA is better for movies and dimly-lit slow-paced games.
They're AHVA panels. They behave like IPS, as in they're still doing in-plane switching, but they don't share the properties of real VA (S-PVA, MVA, etc.).
AHVA = Advanced Hyper Viewing Angle
VA = Vertical Alignment
The meaning of "VA" in each acronym is different.
Backlogger
Member
Why don't they make 27" Gsync or Freesync monitors that are 1080p? Seems like 1080p you are stuck with 24" or less. Why is that?
IcyRhythms
Member
1080p doesn't look too hot beyond 24"
finalflame
Banned
Because 1080p looks like shit at 27". Nobody is really making anything high end in 1080p anymore.
ScepticMatt
Member
1440p/144Hz looks nice, but I'm not willing to pay the G-Sync price hike.
too expensive right now.
I doubt that as long as G-Sync costs ~200 extra.
NoSkillz187
Member
Hey which cord are you using to hook up your console to the monitor? I'm guessing just a long HDMI cable? That's actually the monitor I plan on getting. The reviews about QC was making me a little hesitant though.
Flame of Prometheus
Neo Member
I personally am trying to get into widescreen 3440:1440, but hot damn is it expensive. I genuinely got excited when I saw a monitor at that config for the low sum of $750. Probably will take me a bit to get there.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
yeah man, I jumped years ago with them cheap Korean ips and won't ever go back. only going up
Memorabilia
Member
This.
I love the concept of 1440p. But ultimately it really does feel like a stop-gap before we get to the big show of 4k/60-144fps being mainstream. If you're really concerned about saving money, just stick with 1080p and downsample. This is what I plan to do until we see freesync standardize in consumer HDTVs (it'll happen in a couple years).
In the meantime, either the 480 or the 1070 will be better than your current GPU for downsampling, will run more efficient, etc.... I'd guess your purchase decision for a GPU just depends on whether you want to downsample from 1440p or 4k to 1080p, your preferred price point, and maybe if there are any noticeable differences in frame-times.
Keep in mind, if price is no object then of course upgrade away. It's always better to have higher rez monitors and GPUs to push the eye candy. But I figure if you're asking this question in the first place you're somewhat budget conscious. I'm pretty much in the same boat in that I can afford to upgrade anything I want, but I prefer to live within a set budget and when I make the leap to higher rez I want to make it all at once to 4K with new TVs, monitors, etc... Rather than doing the half-step approach.
I game at 1080p 27" and it's fine. I, personally, feel no pull to go higher except for maybe 21:9 and would rather have a High refresh, GSYNC/adaptive sync 1080 27" screen than a 1440p one at the same size.
1080P still feels like a massive desktop to me after growing up on 800x600 or less.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Paying $800 for a screen that may have issues? Not a chance.
I'll probably stick with 1080p at 144hz and down sample every game, until prices come down on these monitors.
Long Division
Banned
Do you use it as a monitor as in sitting close? 1080p would definitely be noticeably blurry at that size.
Coolade
Member
The announcement of the Acer x34p later this year is going to stop me from jumping in. It's 100hz native and slightly more curve. I can't seem to get my hands on a 1080 right now anyways so the wait won't be too bad.
sobaka770
Banned
I think it's a good investment. I have a 1440 screen 144Hz Gsync, and 1080p just doesn't cut it anymore. You get a significant boost in pixels, but still can run games at high framerate.
It you are on budget, 1080 is still good, but even if you're loaded, 4k is way too much, is rather run games at 60-120 FPS. Great compromise between resolution and framerate, as long as you have something like GTX 1070+
It you are on budget, 1080 is still good, but even if you're loaded, 4k is way too much, is rather run games at 60-120 FPS. Great compromise between resolution and framerate, as long as you have something like GTX 1070+
dangerskew
Member
My 970 has served me just fine for 1440p. G-SYNC helps a lot though.
You will never have a modern consumer product without some percentage of production faults.
That's interesting. I thought TFT Central always labels them as VA too.
Hidden One
Member
Yeah the 970 still holds up pretty well at 1440p but if you like to max everything out with at least 60 frames+ then it won't be able to handle the more modern games. Can't wait to get my hands on a GTX 1080.
Dance Inferno
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah I'm in the same boat as you. I can certainly afford to upgrade to 1440p and pick up a GTX 1070, but I also like maximizing bang-for-my-buck and the math I'm doing in my head is that I could pick up both a 1080p 144hz Freesync monitor and an RX 480 for less than the cost of a 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitor. I'm currently gaming on a 1080p HDTV so it's not like I'm downgrading resolutions, and if anything being able to play games at >60 FPS will likely breathe new life into gaming for me.
blankempathy
Member
Well yea id hope so for over a grand on a monitor. Also of course people saying 4k looks better then 1440p. Right now 1440p is the middle ground and while 4k gaming on one card will become very possible very soon being able to game at 1440p 144hz+ may be preferable for some over 60 fps 4k.
I have one at that size. I def can't wait to get a 1440p G Sync when the price isn't absurd, but blurry my monitor is not. Edges aren't as sharp, but it's been s great monitor. 2ms response time is also great.
Pretty much. I think 1440p will be the sweetspot for high refresh rate gaming for the coming years, I won't give up that extra smoothness for more pixels (well, I maybe would for 21:9 - but I'm probably not buying a new monitor until 4K+ 120hz+ 21:9 HDR IPS/VA/OLED Gsync becomes a reality. Just another two or three years I guess since new Displayport standards should allow that kind of resolution/refresh/bit depth combo so it's up to the panel manufacturers now).
Also depends on the evolution of GPU power of course.
@OP: No matter what you do, I wouldn't skimp on variable refresh monitors at this point and buckle up the extra cash. It's a fantastic technology for PC gaming.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
G-sync is no way worth the premium over Freesync. Don't waste your money.
icecold1983
Member
So much exaggeration in this thread. I had a 24 inch 1920x1200 60hz lcd for about 10 years before upgrading to a 27 inch 1440p 144hz gsync lcd. The refresh rate and gsync improvements were indeed massive. The resolution bump was not. While its definitely nice to have a bit more sharpness, and i do mean a bit, its not some relevatory increase like people are claiming. The reduction in aliasing is also pretty damn mild. In no way, shape or form does 1440p at all minimize the need for good aa. Not even close
Just make sure you order from somewhere with a good return policy. It's a great monitor, but with its quality control issues, getting a good panel becomes a lottery.
I think it's worth it - you can drive it with todays hardware and get good results. I went from 1080p to 1440p and it was a noticeable difference (esp the first few days... like damn did it look good).
I plan to move on to 4K as soon as there is a GPU that can actually drive that resolution with near max settings and 60+ (ideally higher) fps but those haven't come out yet... and preferably for less than $1k.
I plan to move on to 4K as soon as there is a GPU that can actually drive that resolution with near max settings and 60+ (ideally higher) fps but those haven't come out yet... and preferably for less than $1k.
MetalGearZed
Member
With Pascal and Polaris, i'll say we are in the 1440p phase with 4k on the horizon. should be pretty accessible in 2 years.
the GTX1080 can do 1440p/60fps at max settings pretty reliably.
the GTX1080 can do 1440p/60fps at max settings pretty reliably.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Too rich for my blood. I want 1440p, but I'll live without the sync stuff.
QuantumSquid
Member
Almost double the cost to go from 1080p to 1440p is nuts, OP.
Wait for 4K to become standard. (I don't know if 1440p will ever become standard, it seems like a stepping stone resolution to me like 720p was).
It's not like with the RX 480 you won't be able to, for example, turn down the settings in Battlefield 1 from Ultra to a mix of High and Medium and use VSR to downscale from 1440p.
Wait for 4K to become standard. (I don't know if 1440p will ever become standard, it seems like a stepping stone resolution to me like 720p was).
It's not like with the RX 480 you won't be able to, for example, turn down the settings in Battlefield 1 from Ultra to a mix of High and Medium and use VSR to downscale from 1440p.
Canklestank
Neo Member
Reading this thread on a 1440 x 900 monitor at work is hilarious. Bravo Gaf, bravo.
I just bought two 24" 1200x1080 60Hz IPS monitors last year lol. Apparently I'm living in the stone age. I'm sure most of you would be aghast to find out I still play some games at 720p on my GTX 560!
I'm sure I'll upgrade to 4K about the time GAF is going crazy over 70" 8K monitors.
I just bought two 24" 1200x1080 60Hz IPS monitors last year lol. Apparently I'm living in the stone age. I'm sure most of you would be aghast to find out I still play some games at 720p on my GTX 560!
I'm sure I'll upgrade to 4K about the time GAF is going crazy over 70" 8K monitors.
curiouscharles
Member
qft.
expensive? yes.
worth it? YES.
now, if you were asking about 4K, i'd say definitely not.
1440p is the sweet-spot still, and will be for the foreseeable future imho.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
True. You get much more desktop real-estate with 1440p. Personally I don't think I could go back to 1080p for that reason as I do some light rendering as well as gaming.
This, I had been using a 1440p monitor for ages now (Had one of the Korean imports back when that was a thing). The upgrade to 21:9 has been great for both games and general productivity as well. Gsync is obviously the true upgrade here, but I love the extra horizontal resolution as well.
jryeje29
Member
It's good but after making the switch to a 144hz 1440p panel last year myself, I'd say just wait a bit longer and go with 4k. I wish I would've, yes I know 4k isn't as easy to push as 1440p graphics card wise but that's changing quickly and I feel like 4k is gonna be the peak for a while, I don't see an "8k" revolution happening anytime soon. I think you're better off investing in a 4k panel as soon as one with every option you want releases whether that be size type of panel or refresh rates.
Also consider 3440 x 1440 as I've heard real good things about that aspect ratio though I have never tried it, plus it's easier to run than 4k.
Also consider 3440 x 1440 as I've heard real good things about that aspect ratio though I have never tried it, plus it's easier to run than 4k.
cleveridea
Member
So...whats the chances that a nvidia 1080 Ti could run witcher 3 at 4K/60 fps?
Similar threads
- Poll