To 1440p or not to 1440p

[Glorious Leader]

I currently have a rig that I'm lead to believe will be able to run 1440p gaming at a decent frame rate for the most part.

i5 4690k haswell (stock no over clock)
shpphire r9 380 nitro 4gb ddr5
16 gb gksill ripjaw

The only thing I'm missing is a monitor capable of 1440p resolution. Note I said monitor not television so I'll be 2 or 3 feet away from this thing at all times. The question I have is the following: Is the jump in resolution worth the 200-400 I'll spend on decent 1440p monitor? Is it roughly analgous to the jump from 720 to 1080?

[Deleted]

is all about the games, some games ur gpu is more than enough to run them ultra 1440p and other games, specially AAA , u should be fine at medium-highish settings,
also is about which size of monitor you want to play, at 23"-24", 1080p is perfect and more resolution at that size is a waste you barely can notice, but at 27"-28" 1440p is a "must" imo since 1080p start to look pixeled,

[Deleted]

Is it roughly analgous to the jump from 720 to 1080?

Its big change but not as much. If you simply multiply the pixels and then divide to each resolution you will see that 1080p is 2.25 bigger than 720p. From 1080p to 1440p is only 1.77. In comparison its 20% less of a jump but still quite big provided your gpu can handle it. In your case a 380 won't cut it much.

[moremana]

Its big change but not as much. If you simply multiply the pixels and then divide to each resolution you will see that 1080p is 2.25 bigger than 720p. From 1080p to 1440p is only 1.77. In comparison its 20% less of a jump but still quite big provided your gpu can handle it. In your case a 380 won't cut it much.

This, the 380 is not a steady 1440P card, it could do wow on high and MOBAs with that cpu, however gpu intensive games, no you wont get good framerates with a 380. The RX 480 being released at the end of the month..yes if what we have heard is true or you can try and find a 1070 but they come out today and I doubt anyone will have one for a decent price.

[Artorius]

Remember that 1440p also mostly comes with 27" too so the DPI difference is negligible and what you get is more screen real state.

It's from 93.4 pixels per inch of the average 24" 1080p to 108 of 1440p at 27" so yeah, virtually the same thing really.

[DeltrusDisc]

IMO, if you're going to go 1440p, go 3440x1440 (21:9 aspect ratio) otherwise, go 4k.

2560x1440 just felt very "meh" to me.

[Artorius]

IMO, if you're going to go 1440p, go 3440x1440 (21:9 aspect ratio) otherwise, go 4k.

2560x1440 just felt very "meh" to me.

The 2560x1440 display on my phone is great

[DeltrusDisc]

The 2560x1440 display on my phone is great

lol well that's a whole different story! :P

[Biernot]

IMO, if you're going to go 1440p, go 3440x1440 (21:9 aspect ratio) otherwise, go 4k.

2560x1440 just felt very "meh" to me.

I would mostly agree with that. If you want a higher resolution and a bigger screen, 1440p ultrawide is the way to go. Not much more demanding than 16:9 1440p but at least in windows the extra width is the step you need to comfortably have two windows side-by-side. 2540x1440 is just a little bit too small for that (1280 pixel per window)

I myself upgraded from 24" 1920x1200 to 27" 2540x1440 some time ago, just as the 21:9 monitors started to show up, and at that time there was no decent model available (and they were pretty expensive). I wish i had waited a few months for the 21:9 curved monitors to be affordable.

In terms of performance, i run with a GTX 770 2GB, and modern games are mostly playable at 1440p with decent settings. (e.g. The Division runs at 40fps with medium-high settings). Your Radeon 380 is roughly on par with my graphics card, so you should see similar results (the 770 is a bit faster, but your 4GB will give you a little boost at 1440p and above)


My recommendation (with your current setup):

1080p, if you are streaming. Streaming will eat some of your performance, so you should make sure you are at a consistent 60fps to avoid hiccups. A second monitor is usually better than a bigger one, so you can put all the extra stuff (OBS, twitch chat, twitch alerts, etc) there.

1440p (preferable 3440x1440) if you can live with 30-60fps (depending on settings and games, obviously). For new games coming out, you should consider a GPU upgrade in the near future (Radeon Rx 480 maybe?)

2160p (aka 4k), if you want a lot of space in windows. There are a variety of monitor-sizes available (24"/27"/28"/32"), but i would probably recommend 27". They are not too pricey, and you can run games at half resolution (1080p) without looking like shit because of scaling. If you really want to game in 4k, a hefty GPU upgrade (maybe even SLI/CF) is neccessary.

[Zenfoldor]

Recently made the jump to 1440 from 1080. Huge upgrade, would never go back. Also recently made the jump to Gsync/freesync/innate v-sync and once again, will never go back to dealing with screen tearing.

I believe it is really the sweet spot right now for computer gaming in general. 4k is fine, but a much smaller jump visually than is 1080 to 1440(imho). There are some diminishing returns there as each jump gets smaller(though I do have 4k on my laptop and I love it.) Also, for solid 4k gaming, the graphics cards are just coming around. I'm running a evga980ti classy on an overclocked i7 4790k, and I would not call my rig sufficient for my preferences at 4k resolutions.

On 21:9 just make sure you know this before buying if you are an overwatch fan:

Many of you have inquired about the lack of certain aspect ratios being supported in Overwatch. The developers have provided the reasoning behind their decision on what to support in the game below.
‘By keeping the aspect ratio fairly limited we were able to allow the artists (primarily UI and animators of first person geometry, but also environment artists) to focus on creating the best experience for the vast majority of the player base. Beyond just framing preferences, currently there is also a lot of stuff that happens just off the edge of the screen which was not intended to be visible.
Taking all of these into account, we decided to limit our aspect ratio to provide a better overall experience that represents the quality bar we would like for the game. However, we are continuing to examine the implications of loosening this limit for a future patch.’

I'd rank it like this, please forgive me if you can't understand it, lol.

4k*>>>1440WIDE>1440p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1080p
144hz>120>>>>>>>60hz
Freesync>>>>ScreenTearing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>InGameVsync

*considering steeper system requirements and June2016 available tech when ranking

[mauserr]

A stock 1070 will be enough for 1440p60fps gaming. Same goes for stock 1080 FE for 4k60FPS @ high/ultra settings. We're finally entering the "4k60FPS eyecandy (max settings) on a single gpu without breaking a bank" era.

[JestersShadow]

1440p + 144/165hz is king atm imo but that is just my two cents

[DeltrusDisc]

1440p + 144/165hz is king atm imo but that is just my two cents

Differing tastes are differing?

[JestersShadow]

Differing tastes are differing?

Indeed, I just prefer the responsiveness of the higher refresh rates, they make games feel more alive than 4k does.

[Artorius]

Indeed, I just prefer the responsiveness of the higher refresh rates, they make games feel more alive than 4k does.

Input lag =\= refresh rate.

[JestersShadow]

Input lag =\= refresh rate.

Who's talking about input lag ?

[Life-Binder]

I think 2560x1440 is better then Ultrawide 1440p in a lot of cases


ultrawide 1440p is good for:

- work where you have more windows open/more stuff visible .. if you dont do such work then I dont see much of a benefit for regular browsing
- watching 21:9 films
- games that properly support 21:9 - immersion


ultrawide 1440p - not so good:

- needs more GPU power then 2560x1440
- TV shows and youtube vidoes are all 16:9 - you will have black bars there
- games that dont support 21:9 or dont support it properly (keep in mind consoles are 16:9 and will stay that way ..)
- 3440x1440 monitors are more generally expensive than ~equivalent 2560x1440 ones
- so far we only had 3440x1440 @ 60/100Hz monitors, compared to 2560x1440 @ 144/165Hz .. there will be 3440x1440 @ 144Hz coming out, but later and even more expensive
- personal thing - you need to physically move your head more to see something on the side of an UW screen - something I personally hate doing

[Hellfury]

Remember that 1440p also mostly comes with 27" too so the DPI difference is negligible and what you get is more screen real state.

It's from 93.4 pixels per inch of the average 24" 1080p to 108 of 1440p at 27" so yeah, virtually the same thing really.

its a almost 15% more pixel density, how can it be virtualy the same thing.

I went from 21' 1080 to 27' 1440 and I felt the difference night and day.

- - - Updated - - -

A stock 1070 will be enough for 1440p60fps gaming. Same goes for stock 1080 FE for 4k60FPS @ high/ultra settings. We're finally entering the "4k60FPS eyecandy (max settings) on a single gpu without breaking a bank" era.

No we aren't, a 1080 custom OCed cant do 4k at 60fps at high-ultra settings on recent AAA games(wticher ,division, TR16 to name a few), WOW and Overwatch doesn't count they aren't demanding(on the GPU)

[Chickat]

1080p 144hz?

[DeltrusDisc]

I think 2560x1440 is better then Ultrawide 1440p in a lot of cases


ultrawide 1440p is good for:

- work where you have more windows open/more stuff visible .. if you dont do such work then I dont see much of a benefit for regular browsing
- watching 21:9 films
- games that properly support 21:9 - immersion


ultrawide 1440p - not so good:

- needs more GPU power then 2560x1440
- TV shows and youtube vidoes are all 16:9 - you will have black bars there
- games that dont support 21:9 or dont support it properly (keep in mind consoles are 16:9 and will stay that way ..)
- 3440x1440 monitors are more generally expensive than ~equivalent 2560x1440 ones
- so far we only had 3440x1440 @ 60/100Hz monitors, compared to 2560x1440 @ 144/165Hz .. there will be 3440x1440 @ 144Hz coming out, but later and even more expensive
- personal thing - you need to physically move your head more to see something on the side of an UW screen - something I personally hate doing

Good for responses:

1. Obviously. Any bigger resolution will do this, however yes, ultrawide kinda handles it even better than 16:9, for obvious reasons.
2. Obviously, again.
3. Yeah... about that...

Not so good responses:

1. Duh. =/
2. Actually, there are YouTube videos that are proper 3440x1440 videos if you have the screen. I think you need to have a decent video rendering software to actually render the video in such resolution for it to show properly. I've seen it with mine own eyes! It was awesome. Dude never replied to me about how he did it, though.
3. If I could figure out how to make Skyrim run 21:9... this point is almost moot. Most games can be made to support it. You'd be surprised how many it can be done to and how easily.
4. Again, duh.
5. This is because of DisplayPort/HDMI cables.
6. You can also move your eyes a little bit. XD I rarely ever feel like it's an issue. Maybe you've just not actually owned one (likely) and are making a bunch of ignorant claims based on basically no actual experience with one of these monitors.

I've had my Samsung 3440x1440 curved VA panel for over a year and I absolutely hold no regrets.

Oh, and I paid $1,200 for it. Again, no regrets. Best damned experience EVER.