Jump to content



Photo

Monitors - is 1440p worth the extra over 1080p?


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 blizeH

blizeH

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 03-August 05
  • Location: UK

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:11

Hi,

 

I'm currently using a 22" monitor with a 1650 x 1050 resolution, but ideally would like a little more screen real estate.

 

I'm looking at 27" monitors, and for a decent IPS 1080p monitor you're looking at £200 or so, a 1440p monitor would be more than double that.

 

So I've come full circle and am wondering if a 23" monitor with a resolution of 1080p would be a noticable upgrade from my current monitor? I don't need heaps more space, just a bit more.

 

I'm also worried that I'd need a new graphics card if I went for 1440p... I don't game an awful lot, but I do have a lot of games on Steam I'd like to get through, and my current card (6750 I think) would no doubt really struggle with 1440p.

 

Thanks!




#2 tsupersonic

tsupersonic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Win. 8.1 Pro. x64/Mac OS X
  • Phone: iPhone 5S/Nexus 5

Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:38

I recently switched from a 19" 1680x1050 to a 24" 1920x1080 (Asus VG248QE - 144 Hz). Not a huge real estate difference, but putting two documents/browsers side by side is great. Have you thought about dual monitors? Also depends on what kind of details you want to play at, if you can turn down details, a 6750 should be sufficient. I'm thinking about replacing my GTX 560 Ti since I can also feel the difference after making the resolution switch. 1080p seems to be an ideal resolution for many things (games, videos, etc.). Ideally I wanted to keep the 16:10 aspect ratio, but I couldn't find any decent 1920x1200 monitors. 



#3 Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 15-October 10

Posted 10 September 2013 - 12:30

I used to have a samsung 22 inch, 1680x1050 monitor, picture on it was great, until I bought a 23 inch packard bell (used) 1920x1080 the PB amazed me, the resolution difference was incredible. So I'll vote get whatever 1080 res monitor you can get for your budget. If you can get an IPS one, even better. And for graphics cards a gt550ti is a good card for it's price I'm currently using a lesser card at the moment, a gt 430 (didn't bother upgrading because I was going to build a new system, but at the moment, I have too much on my plate to do so) it will play StarCraft HotS comfortably on mid settings, so I wasn't too concerned.

#4 Fahim S.

Fahim S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 15-April 02
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Update 1 / Chrome OS 37
  • Phone: Google Nexus 4

Posted 10 September 2013 - 13:09

For real work, it makes a massive difference.



#5 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 14
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 10 September 2013 - 15:02

1440p looks great but you need the GPU power to run it. If you'll end up playing at 1080p to get a decent framerate, then 1080p looks better on a 1080p screen than on a 1440p, i.e. there's no interpolation. An HD 6750 is not a very powerful GPU and will struggle even at 1080p in some recent titles.



#6 +goretsky

goretsky

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-March 04
  • Location: Southern California

Posted 10 September 2013 - 16:46

Hello,

 

If you write or program, the extra vertical pixels are definitely worth it.  I am much more productive when I can display a larger amount of data on the screen.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky



#7 tsupersonic

tsupersonic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Win. 8.1 Pro. x64/Mac OS X
  • Phone: iPhone 5S/Nexus 5

Posted 10 September 2013 - 17:01

Hello,

 

If you write or program, the extra vertical pixels are definitely worth it.  I am much more productive when I can display a larger amount of data on the screen.

 

Regards,

 

Aryeh Goretsky

If you can, flip your monitor to Portrait. I like doing that when I'm coding - 1920 pixels vertical, 1080 pixels wide = perfect. 



#8 primexx

primexx

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 24-April 05

Posted 10 September 2013 - 18:52

1080p is the crippled standard that everyone adopted because it's easier to make panels that have the same resolution as TVs. It's a downgrade from monitors that were produced before 1080p was widely adopted. It's already puhsing it to have 1080p on a 24", 1080p on a 27" is just ludicrous and is the hallmark of a crappy monitor. You definitely want to get a higher resolution or stay with a smaller screen size. Two smaller 1080p monitors for example give you about as much screen real estate as a 30" monitor but it's spread between a wider space than a tall space, which turns out to be absolutely great for actual work productivity because you can tile so many things side by side.



#9 Thief000

Thief000

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 10 September 2013 - 18:55

I still prefer 1920x1200 over 1080p (24"), but I agree with primexx. Having more higher resolution smaller screens is great for workspace.



#10 Anarki

Anarki

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 30-April 06

Posted 10 September 2013 - 19:04

At work I use 3 1680 x 1050 monitors, at home I have a single Dell 3008wfp at 2560x1600.

 

I prefer the single Dell at 2560x1600, I don't move my head as much and can fit everything I need onto a single monitor.

 

Trying to game at 1600P takes its toll on the graphics card though :)



#11 moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 10 September 2013 - 20:45

1440p looks great but you need the GPU power to run it. If you'll end up playing at 1080p to get a decent framerate, then 1080p looks better on a 1080p screen than on a 1440p, i.e. there's no interpolation. An HD 6750 is not a very powerful GPU and will struggle even at 1080p in some recent titles.

 

I have an HD 5770, and I can play Grid 2 at max everything, including 4xMSAA, and my framerate never dips below 60fps@1080p. (also have an AMD Athlon II X4 620 @ 2.6ghz, and 4GB DDR3).  No one ever believes me.

I don't know how much less of a card the 50 is than the 70, but surely the fact that it's a 6-7 would mean that a 6-7-50 would be better than a 5-7-70 (that's how their naming scheme works)

 

In fact, there are very very few games that I can't play at max settings (excluding MSAA, because that usually adds a pretty big hit to fps).  I can play BF3 at max everything at 1080 at 30fps.  The only series of games that I've played that has ever struggled to run on my PC was the Splinter Cell series.  They got a lot of light play goin on in those games.



#12 max22

max22

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 19-September 10

Posted 10 September 2013 - 21:09

I have an HD 5770, and I can play Grid 2 at max everything, including 4xMSAA, and my framerate never dips below 60fps@1080p. (also have an AMD Athlon II X4 620 @ 2.6ghz, and 4GB DDR3).  No one ever believes me.

I don't know how much less of a card the 50 is than the 70, but surely the fact that it's a 6-7 would mean that a 6-7-50 would be better than a 5-7-70 (that's how their naming scheme works)

 

In fact, there are very very few games that I can't play at max settings (excluding MSAA, because that usually adds a pretty big hit to fps).  I can play BF3 at max everything at 1080 at 30fps.  The only series of games that I've played that has ever struggled to run on my PC was the Splinter Cell series.  They got a lot of light play goin on in those games.

 

I believe you.

 

Have a HD 5750 and play BF3 all at high settings fine sense the game came out. (also have a Intel Quad Core 3.6 Ghz and 8 GB of ram)



#13 moeburn

moeburn

    tracer bullet

  • Joined: 10-March 04
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 10 September 2013 - 22:23

I believe you.

 

Have a HD 5750 and play BF3 all at high settings fine sense the game came out. (also have a Intel Quad Core 3.6 Ghz and 8 GB of ram)

 

Yay!

Yeah its true, with today's games, it's not the GPU that counts, and it's not the CPU that counts, its the combination of the two.  I have a hardware monitoring app (open-hardware-monitor) that graphs, among other things, CPU usage over time, AND GPU usage over time.  When I play older DX9 games, like Hitman: Silent Assassin, most of the work is being done by the GPU, and the CPU only occasionally chimes in with some processing.  But if I play Splinter Cell: Blacklist (with the settings turned down far enough that I can get 30fps out of it), my GPU only hovers around 80-90% usage, but each one of my four CPU cores are pretty much locked at 99% usage.

You really have to have both, nowadays.  So just skimp on the RAM and the HD.  I've had 4GB DDR3 for several years now, and I've never needed more.  The only situations where more would have helped, was when I'm doing video studio editing.  It makes other programs slightly slower, because they don't have as much memory to work with.  But games?  Even if your video game of choice needed more than 4GB of RAM, it wouldn't affect the average framerate latency, it would just add the occasional spike in latency when the game is forced to use the HD instead of the RAM.

An SSD won't help you much in gaming performance, either.  It'll blow your mind at how fast everything else loads, including the game's loading time, but it won't do a damn thing for the game's framerate.

As for your monitor, well I've been using a BenQ v2200 22" 1080p monitor, and while its an EXCELLENT monitor for the price ($180, 5 years ago), it's just too damn small.  The monitor is only 4 feet away from me, and I wish it was closer.  Maybe it would be fine if you're an office-chair-and-desk kind of gamer, but I have a loveseat and an ottoman, with the monitor on a little (but sturdy) end-table.  So I can't really get much closer than 4 feet away unless I get rid of the ottoman.  And that's just not gonna happen :p

I'd say, if you can, go for the 23" or 24".  Fark resolution, you don't need any more than 1080.  Hell, even the Xbox 360 only plays games at 720, and most people aren't complaining about that.  Unless you're using it for office work and you need the extra desktop space.  But for gaming?  I'll tell you this, I've played computer games on my 22 inch monitor at 1080, I've played them on a big screen 2560x1440 40inch TV, and I've played them on a big screen 1080p 48 inch TV.  All using my computer, so there was no difference in the source video.  And going back to my 22 inch, I miss the extra screen size a hell of a lot, but I don't miss the extra resolution at all.



#14 OP blizeH

blizeH

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 03-August 05
  • Location: UK

Posted 11 September 2013 - 11:26

Thanks all! Reading through this thread has made me realise that I actually have a 5750, not a 6750, oops! But reading the above it sounds like I might be okay with a 1440p monitor anyway :)

 

I definitely take your points on board about 1080p not being ideal for a monitor, but one huge benefit of 1080p is that they're  cheap and you get a lot for your money.

 

But I'm still going to avoid them, I think... just need to decide between 23" 1200p or 27" 1440p now :)



#15 DETERMINOLOGY

DETERMINOLOGY

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 15-April 11

Posted 12 September 2013 - 19:16

2560x1440 40" the ppi on that is 73.43 thats horrible and op you should go 27" 1440p IPS/PLS...The size/panel color quality/resolution is worth it over 1080p everything looks sharper/crisp