Satansblade
Banned
My laptop has a 1080p 165hz screen with a 3080ti w/ 32gb ram and I absolutely love it. Nothing to be ashamed of. Sometimes I use it with my curved 1440p widescreen, but im usually fine with 1080p on it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
1440p is overrated by people who can't go up to 4k
- Thread starter .Pennywise
- Start date
Guwop
Neo Member
I don't need to post a link. You can simply go to Amazon or Newegg choose one of the many that are available. Then you post one and tell me ( I really don't care why you wouldn't consider it ) why you wouldn't consider it?
grfunkulus
Banned
Yo
You're going an awful long way to justify some really stupid purchasing decisions (yours or others'). How many people outside of this thread of contrarians would advise buying a 4080/4090 if all you plan to do is 1440p gaming? Like two. Whether I can see the pixel grid if I squint from my viewing distance is irrelevant if switching from 1440p to 1800p to 4k reveals an increase in visual fidelity with each step. You're doing an appeal to authority to make a BS argument that any reasonable person with two eyes can disprove in 5 seconds
Last edited:
Jigsaah
Gold Member
Most if not all 4k monitors for around 300 dollars are 60hz
I'd be looking for something more like this one here
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Yeah you have to go North of $500 to get a 4k 144hz monitor unless there are some generic name brands I don't know aboutMost if not all 4k monitors for around 300 dollars are 60hz
JakeWolf
Member
I can't imagine what 165fps looks like but man 144fps is smooth, I'm having trouble going back to 60fps now.
I don’t think most current gpus have the horsepower to actually utilize 4K. Not everyone has a top end card.
Guwop
Neo Member
Personally l would never get a 4k monitor smaller than 32 inches. But yea the refresh rate on that one is nice.Most if not all 4k monitors for around 300 dollars are 60hz
I'd be looking for something more like this one here
Last edited:
Oddvintagechap
Member
yup these are people that don’t own nice tvs.
BadBurger
Is 'That Pure Potato'
Pffft I will only play PC games at panoramic 16K in VR 3.0 with full sensation body suit.
On a serious note, my 4K monitor broke and is being serviced, so I had to hook up my old 1440p 75Hz monitor in the meantime and yea, the downgrade in games is very noticeable in recent AAA releases. It's not a game breaker, I wouldn't decide not to play a game just because I could only run it at 1440p, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I'd choose 4K every single time if I had the choice.
On a serious note, my 4K monitor broke and is being serviced, so I had to hook up my old 1440p 75Hz monitor in the meantime and yea, the downgrade in games is very noticeable in recent AAA releases. It's not a game breaker, I wouldn't decide not to play a game just because I could only run it at 1440p, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I'd choose 4K every single time if I had the choice.
daveonezero
Banned
Right most of these 4K console games are only reaching that resolution from some trickery. That is why it is so expensive to run UHD on a PC.
LostDonkey
Member
My games look fantastic on my 27 " 1440p monitor, sometimes better than my 55"4k TV (depending on the game tbh). Probably because of the higher PPI.
It's not always that clear cut with higher resolution screens.
It's not always that clear cut with higher resolution screens.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Pretty much.
Everyone is ignoring the DPI.
People dont get 1440p monitors at much larger than 32".
And even then 32" is prertty much where you start thinking about 4K.
A 27" 4K panel is waste in my eyes.
Especially considering youll likely end up using Windows Scaling to get it up to the equivalent of 1440p anyway.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
Measuring visual acuity isn't some BS argument. It's based on science. On top of that you can easily check for yourself the distance at which your eyes will no longer see the pixel structure. Of course, this argument quickly shows that the whole 4K craze is just clever marketing, so I'm not surprised that you dont like this argument
.Going from 1440p to higher resolutions will improve the picture quality (fine details, aliasing / shimmering), so I dont disagree with you on that. I'm just saying this improvement has nothing to do with pixel density, but the poor quality of upscaling and content you are displaying. Upscaling ruins the picture quality, and TAA ruins it also. That's why 4K resolution makes a big differene even if you will still use some old 1080p display.
Linus even made a very interesting video about this whole 4K resolution discussion. People in his video had troubles to tell the difference even from up close when 1440p wasnt ruined by upscaling, and if he would run downscaled 6K on on 2560x1440 monitor I'm sure some people would even tell that this picture looks better to them than 2160p with crappy TAA on 4K monitor.
Last edited:
Hero_Select
Member
*laughs in a 1440p ultrawide OLED monitor*
4k gaming is a waste.
4k gaming is a waste.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Yea and remember 720p and 1080p used to be just like this. It wasn't till 2010 that 1080p became acceptable for lower budget gamers with the GTX 460.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
The thing with 720p/768p and 1080p.
Is the panels were effectively the same size.
So due to DPI it was easy to see the difference between the two resolutions.
Hell i actually never used a 720p panel cuz I went straight to 1440x900 on a 19" panel, so even 1080p didnt look that great cuz I was using a 32" panel. (Actually much worse DPI)
With 1440p and 2160p.
People get 2160p panels at or above 43 inches where yes, you will notice the lower DPI of a 1440p panel that size.
But if you are using a 27" 1440p panel vs a 42" 2160p panel, the DPI is actually really close, you would be hard pressed to say which panel looks better.
Its really down to how big your panel is.
If you are using a sub 34" Panel 1440p will be well sufficient.
If you are going above 43" then straight up jump on 4K or higher.
Good luck pushing those pixels but do you.
pauljeremiah
Gold Member
No, it's not. 1080p is 2K, 2160p is 4K, so 4K is just double 1080p. 720p is 1K and 4K is a 400% increase over that, but not 1080p.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
1440p is perfectly fine for small crappy monitors and tiny pee pees.
Which is a 300% increase. (2x of something is a 100% increase)
you guys suck at math and looking at things.
4k (3840x2160) is 4x the pixels of 1080p.
Which is a 300% increase. (2x of something is a 100% increase)
you guys suck at math and looking at things.
Guilhermegrg
Member
Ok.
Boneless
Member
4K is 3840*2160 = 8294400 pixels
1440p is 3440*1440 = 4953600 pixels
This means that 4K has about 67% more pixels than 1440p
On most monitor screens, 4K will probably not be worth the cost in performance, as high FPS is more important for better gameplay feel than high resolution.
Last edited:
JetBlackPanda
Member
I mean technically you are right but let me know when I can 120FPS at 4k without spending my daughter's college fund.
Last edited:
Leonidas
Member
I'd rather game on a monitor at well above 120 Hz than on a TV that only goes to 120.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
3440X1440 is ultrawide 1440p (21:9), brah.
regular ass 16:9 widescreen 1440p is 2560x1440.
so 16:9 4k is 125% more pixels than 16:9 1440p.
Imp the Dimp
Member
1080p to 4K is a 300% increase. Nice #facts.
grfunkulus
Banned
Measuring visual acuity isn't some BS argument. It's based on science. On top of that you can easily check for yourself the distance at which your eyes will no longer see the pixel structure. Of course, this argument quickly shows that the whole 4K craze is just clever marketing, so I'm not surprised that you dont like this argument
Going from 1440p to higher resolutions will improve the picture quality (fine details, aliasing / shimmering), so I dont disagree with you on that. I'm just saying this improvement has nothing to do with pixel density, but the poor quality of upscaling and content you are displaying. Upscaling ruins the picture quality, and TAA ruins it also. That's why 4K resolution makes a big differene even if you will still use some old 1080p display.
Linus even made a very interesting video about this whole 4K resolution discussion. People in his video had troubles to tell the difference even from up close when 1440p wasnt ruined by upscaling, and if he would run downscaled 6K on on 2560x1440 monitor I'm sure some people would even tell that this picture looks better to them than 2160p with crappy TAA on 4K monitor.
Tell me you're a casual without telling me you're a casual
ClosBSAS
Member
Yes..that we can agree fully. 1440p 60fps is the sweet spot for consoles. 1440p 165fps and above for PC.
KuraiShidosha
Member
I went from 24" 1920x1200 to 27" 2560x1440 and love what it did for my desktop space. I can keep my desktop at 100% scaling and I have a TON more room compared to 1080/1200 vertical lines. That said, I'd probably love a 32" 3840x2160 monitor too if it's usable at 100% display scaling. If font is just too small to read at that size, well then 1440p IS the sweet spot for desktop usage. I refuse to use any of those awful system wide scaling tools like Windows DPI awareness, it just bugs out games and makes some applications look weird. 100% or bust. I'm holding out for a 4k 144hz+ MiniLED G-Sync Ultimate display with at least 5,000 dimming zones or more (preferrable 10k as that's where bloom size starts to be a non-issue for general content.) If that day comes and I find out I can't use all that screen real estate for my desktop, I'm going to be so disappointed.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
I absolutely hate people like you. Facts means nothing to you, and once people destroy your arguments all you can do is behave like a kid. Keep believing 4K marketing and TV manufacturers, because they sure know what's the best for you.
It's ridiculous when you have to explain something so simple to people, because it's all common sense.
Last edited:
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
*looks at 7900xtx that barely fits my case*
Yea, I some how doubt I will struggle to run at 4k. Still going to stay with 1440p.
Yea, I some how doubt I will struggle to run at 4k. Still going to stay with 1440p.
Last edited:
Corporal.Hicks
Member
I cant twist your post and say keep believing TV manufacturers marketing, because if they say so it must be right.
Linus video video is very good, but not simply because he is a well-known figure in the PC tech world. He explained what's the limits of human vision like a real expert should, and made a blind test for people that really shows these limits very well. His video would be even better if he'd included another 1440p display to test., just with downsampled 6K instead of running just 1440p native. I'm sure people would think such 2560x1440p monitor displaying 6K has better picture than 4K monitor displaying native 4K with soft TAA.
An extremely high pixel density that exceeds the limits of human vision makes no sense, BUT running games at higher resolutions is well worth it, because even standard 1920x1080 display will show A LOT more detailed picture if run the game at 4K instead of 1080p native with blurry TAA (there will be less shimmering, edge outlines look more sharp, and fine details on the textures pop way more).
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
Well i know what i see with my eyes going from years of 1440p to recently 4k.
Some people can't notice the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps it's all i'm going to say, it doesn't work the same for everyone, i have eagle eyes after doing the lasik surgery many years ago, my eyesight is 14\10 (24\20 for americans i guess) so i clearly see the difference between 4k and 1440p.
GymWolf
Member
What? your gpu is clearly a 4k gpu, maybe not a 4k120 but sure as hell 4k60.
Doctor Hades
Member
Fun Fact: Most games I play at 1440p on my 165 Hz monitor are at max settings using the native resolution. Most games I play on my PS5 and Xbox Series X on my 55" 4K TV are rendered at a much lower resolution than 4K, in some cases lower than 1440p!
I am fine with both, honestly.
I do feel though that 4K is a bit overrated for both movies and games and it is the use of HDR that impresses me most rather than the higher pixel count. On my PC, 1440p is the sweet spot between framerate and graphical settings, allowing me to play games, even with RT and DLSS maxed out at 60-120 fps. If I had a 4K monitor then I would have to compromise either the settings or the framerate in order to enjoy visuals at the same settings. Well, unless I upgrade my PC again that is. I am sat just a foot away from my 27" monitor and, honestly, the image looks far sharper and clearer than any games do on my 4K OLED TV where I am sat much further away from the screen.
So for me 4K is way overrated.
I am fine with both, honestly.
I do feel though that 4K is a bit overrated for both movies and games and it is the use of HDR that impresses me most rather than the higher pixel count. On my PC, 1440p is the sweet spot between framerate and graphical settings, allowing me to play games, even with RT and DLSS maxed out at 60-120 fps. If I had a 4K monitor then I would have to compromise either the settings or the framerate in order to enjoy visuals at the same settings. Well, unless I upgrade my PC again that is. I am sat just a foot away from my 27" monitor and, honestly, the image looks far sharper and clearer than any games do on my 4K OLED TV where I am sat much further away from the screen.
So for me 4K is way overrated.
Last edited:
Corporal.Hicks
Member
I'm not sayin' your eyes are deceivin' you
. Your impressions are correct, because 4K and higher resolution will look better compared to something like 1440p, but not because of higer pixel density. Game running at higher resolution will always have less shimmering and a lot more fine details, and it's especially noticeable if game will use crappy TAA that blurs everything. Do yourself a favour and have a look at how far away you can see the structure of the pixels on your 4K monitor, and then compare it to the distance from which you are normaly using your 4K display. Keep in mind, if you no longer see the pixel structure, it simply means your eyes blur the details.4K display makes sense if you are using either very big display, or sit very close to it. Something like a 4K 42'inch TV on your desk instead of a small PC monitor will show the benefits of higher pixel density.
Last edited:
Pegasus Actual
Member
Lots of nonsense math in this thread.... here's the real maths ya weridos. I made a graph:
There ya go, all ya gotta do is follow the line to your resolution and it'll tell ya what kinda frames you should be looking for.
The start of the line is 240p at 60fps. That's not the perfect start point but I'll call it good enough. We all know 60fps is the minimum viable standard. For the people who don't actually play video games and think 30fps is somehow okay, it doesn't change the chart that much. And the minimum viable resolution is really like 320x200 as all my DOS (and similar) bros know. But they'd also throw in some 320x240... and it was all meant for your 4:3 display, which we're ignoring here and just rolling with the hypothetical 16:9 equivalent...
You might also be thinking "it's not about the Ps bro, it's about muh pixel count". Nope, not true. If anything it's the square root of your pixel count... which is a bit different than just going linear with all the Ps. But the Ps are close enough, and it's how dumdums talk about resolution anyway. If you want the perfect math for this line, I'm going to leave it as an exercise to the reader. That's for your own good, your brain needs some exercise after looking at the drivel that is the rest of this thread.
So the high end of the chart is set to the absurd side of the spectrum. Your 480hz monitors. And your 8k displays. Notice how 480hz and 8k don't exist in the same real world consumer screen. That means they're not sensible solutions, you're selling out one to get the other. When a monitor has both of those features at the same time, that's when the monitor becomes a sensible solution assuming your hardware can drive it at those levels.
So you don't want to squint to figure out what FPS you want at your current resolution? Well I'm your huckleberry! I'm such a good guy, here's the ballpark targets per common-ish resolution:
720p - 120fps
1080p - 151fps
1440p - 190fps
2160p(4k) - 268fps
What's that you ask? What's my Venmo? Do I have a GoFundMe? Nah fam... this shit is from the kindness of my heart. Just pay it forward. And put the OP on Ignore for your sanity.
There ya go, all ya gotta do is follow the line to your resolution and it'll tell ya what kinda frames you should be looking for.
The start of the line is 240p at 60fps. That's not the perfect start point but I'll call it good enough. We all know 60fps is the minimum viable standard. For the people who don't actually play video games and think 30fps is somehow okay, it doesn't change the chart that much. And the minimum viable resolution is really like 320x200 as all my DOS (and similar) bros know. But they'd also throw in some 320x240... and it was all meant for your 4:3 display, which we're ignoring here and just rolling with the hypothetical 16:9 equivalent...
You might also be thinking "it's not about the Ps bro, it's about muh pixel count". Nope, not true. If anything it's the square root of your pixel count... which is a bit different than just going linear with all the Ps. But the Ps are close enough, and it's how dumdums talk about resolution anyway. If you want the perfect math for this line, I'm going to leave it as an exercise to the reader. That's for your own good, your brain needs some exercise after looking at the drivel that is the rest of this thread.
So the high end of the chart is set to the absurd side of the spectrum. Your 480hz monitors. And your 8k displays. Notice how 480hz and 8k don't exist in the same real world consumer screen. That means they're not sensible solutions, you're selling out one to get the other. When a monitor has both of those features at the same time, that's when the monitor becomes a sensible solution assuming your hardware can drive it at those levels.
So you don't want to squint to figure out what FPS you want at your current resolution? Well I'm your huckleberry! I'm such a good guy, here's the ballpark targets per common-ish resolution:
720p - 120fps
1080p - 151fps
1440p - 190fps
2160p(4k) - 268fps
What's that you ask? What's my Venmo? Do I have a GoFundMe? Nah fam... this shit is from the kindness of my heart. Just pay it forward. And put the OP on Ignore for your sanity.
zeroluck
Member
4K is useful for text, for games I swear 5k downsampled to 1440p on my 1440p monitor looks better than my 4k monitor. High render resolution is not overrated, high display resolution is overrated. The reason 1440p render resolution looks like shit is because games tie textures/objects LOD to resolution to minimize aliasing.
Last edited:
The human eye can only see 30fps anyway /s.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I have my PC hooked up to a 32 inch 1440p monitor and a 55 inch LG CX
4k is definitely better for graphic showcase games. If I’m playing Stardew or Civ or something Id rather use the monitor.
4k is definitely better for graphic showcase games. If I’m playing Stardew or Civ or something Id rather use the monitor.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I think 1440p is cute for gamers playing on a peasant size monitor. For us big boy gamers playing on 65” and up tv’s, 4k is the way to go.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
I do bothI'm not sayin' your eyes are deceivin' you
4K display makes sense if you are using either very big display, or sit very close to it. Something like a 4K 42'inch TV on your desk instead of a small PC monitor will show the benefits of higher pixel density.
grfunkulus
Banned
Bro, you're virtually blind. I can't help your reliance on bogus charts and casual 'testing'. It's not marketing to say a 42-48 inch gaming monitor NEEDS to be 4k. But continue living like a plebe
