1080p Vs 2K

[Colin.B]

Am I crazy? I recently bought a QNIX 27 inch 2K monitor using I think an IPS (or PLS) panel. Colours are vibrant and I can live with a little bit of line bleed. However am I crazy for thinking there is no discernible difference between 2K and 1080p? I'm just starting to wonder if it's worth the hit in performance. I could have a 32 inch 1080p for the same price almost or gotten a 24 inch at 120Hz. (Of course, at 32 inches and sitting 2 feet away, I bet I'd see a lot more ugliness!) I guess if I want to improve performance I can lower AA from 8x to 2x as I've heard a lot of people say on a 2K monitor you don't need to use as much AA, if any. Maybe it's buyers remorse that's coming 5 months later. Who knows. 

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

i dont know anything about that particular monitor - perhaps it's just a lower quality screen?

 

also, about the AA - you probably dont need to use 8x. if that's hurting performance that much, that'd be the 1st thing i'd lower. that, or try another method like FXAA, or TXAA.

[MillionVoltss]

They do say having the High resolution you don't require as much anti analyzing. Are you getting ok Fps ?

[Andre S. Veteran]

1080p is 2k. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

 

I personally value 120hz way over 1440p, but I can still see the difference in image quality. 2xAA is still going to look a little rough, I'd suggest 4x.

[Colin.B]

i dont know anything about that particular monitor - perhaps it's just a lower quality screen?

 

also, about the AA - you probably dont need to use 8x. if that's hurting performance that much, that'd be the 1st thing i'd lower. that, or try another method like FXAA, or TXAA.

 

It isn't really hurting it that much. It's just when I get caught up reading benchmarks on new GPUs and I see the FPS at 2K Vs. 1080p I think "damn!"

They do say having the High resolution you don't require as much anti analyzing. Are you getting ok Fps ?

To be honest I haven't played much recently aside from Metro 2033 and Sleeping Dogs. In that I'm getting 32 FPS with AF 16X, and AAA. Changing it to MSAA doesn't really effect FPS and dropping to 4X AF doesn't either. In Sleeping Dogs I get 45 FPS at high AA, 60 FPS at normal and I notice no difference in PQ.

 

Honestly, I guess those are fine FPS to be getting and I should just stop nitpicking and expecting to hit 80 FPS even at 1080p with most modern games. I have a friend who has been talking non stop about gaming on a 120Hz monitor though and it just has me wondering if I'd be better off with one of those. Then again. only a handful of games would be fast enough to take advantage I think.

[Colin.B]

1080p is 2k. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

 

I personally value 120hz way over 1440p, but I can still see the difference in image quality. 2xAA is still going to look a little rough, I'd suggest 4x.

Yeah I guess I meant 2560X1440 Vs 1920x1080.

 

Edit: Meant to edit my above post, not double post.

[D. S. Veteran]

Am I crazy? I recently bought a QNIX 27 inch 2K monitor using I think an IPS (or PLS) panel. Colours are vibrant and I can live with a little bit of line bleed. However am I crazy for thinking there is no discernible difference between 2K and 1080p? I'm just starting to wonder if it's worth the hit in performance. I could have a 32 inch 1080p for the same price almost or gotten a 24 inch at 120Hz. (Of course, at 32 inches and sitting 2 feet away, I bet I'd see a lot more ugliness!) I guess if I want to improve performance I can lower AA from 8x to 2x as I've heard a lot of people say on a 2K monitor you don't need to use as much AA, if any. Maybe it's buyers remorse that's coming 5 months later. Who knows. 

 

In a monitor that size, you can't really tell the difference. It's something akin to the 1080p vs 4K blu-ray discussion. You can only tell the difference if you have a massive TV (>70 inches) and even then, it's difficult to tell if you don't know what to look for.

[Colin.B]

So my next question then is would there be a benefit to a 120hz monitor if I'm not hitting much more than 60-70 fps in games. (Aside from stuff like WoW and Torchlight.)

[MillionVoltss]

Kind of in my opinion. With 120hz and 120+ fps you view frames as smoothly as humanly possible and more so, enabling you to see the guy come around the corner as soon as possible, not waiting on the monitor to refresh lagging behind the graphics cards. I would also think if your hitting 60fps+ , a 120hz monitor will display ever single frame your graphics card can produce not skipping any even if this is only 60. The only thing is, do you want lovely detail or performance, If your aiming for 120hz Ultra quality graphics your going to need to keep spending money on top graphics cards ( Unless you buy a monster card like Titan ), but if your happy to play 120hz with low quality then its not so much a problem ( Competitive gamers used to play low detail to keep the frames high, so not to miss a shot as soon as possible ) .

[Andre S. Veteran]

So my next question then is would there be a benefit to a 120hz monitor if I'm not hitting much more than 60-70 fps in games. (Aside from stuff like WoW and Torchlight.)

Yes. On one hand you have less latency simply because they refresh twice as often. Whereas average/max vsync latency on a 60hz monitor is 8,33/16,67ms, it's only 4,17/8,33ms on a 120hz monitor.

 

You also have a smoother experience at any framerate between 30 and 60; 120hz eliminates half the judder due to doubled frames at 60hz.

 

Of course you also benefit from any extra frames your GPU can produce; you might actually get addicted to it and lower your settings just so you hit that perfect 120fps, but 80-100fps is already a significant improvement. I find this very important in competitive games like Starcraft 2 or Team Fortress 2.

 

Just moving your mouse or windows around at 120hz is so natural and smooth, it's painful going back to 60.

 

In addition, look into using Lightboost on supported monitors to eliminate motion blur, if you play first-person shooters in particular. http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/

[Andre S. Veteran]

Also now that they're starting to trickle out, check out G-Sync monitors too: they completely eliminate v-sync judder and latency. Of course that only works on recent NVIDIA cards.

[MillionVoltss]

Please explain Lightboost, Tried it but Audio cut out and colors on monitor reset. Says HDMI isnt support, may be why.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Please explain Lightboost, Tried it but Audio cut out and colors on monitor reset.

Does your monitor support LightBoost? Did you follow the instructions at the link I provided?

[MillionVoltss]

Sorry Im connected VIA Dvi and im running a BenQ XL2420T 24 inch so yes although i didn't select an alternative refresh or uninstall geforce experience. Will try again tmrw.

[webdev511]

My wife has an Asus 27" 4k monitor for doing Blender/Daz/Poser type stuff. For her it makes a difference, for me not so much.

[Colin.B]

My wife has an Asus 27" 4k monitor for doing Blender/Daz/Poser type stuff. For her it makes a difference, for me not so much.

Yeah the 2k resolution is awesome for photo editing. 

 

So I think I was looking at the resolution in the wrong way. Instead of focusing on distant objects and clarity, I was focusing strictly on what was the most noticeable - the character in front of me. I played around with Sleeping Dogs and went from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 to 2560x1440 and I noticed a difference in the detail in distant objects most noticeable going from 2560X1440 to 1920x1080. 1920x1200 didn't look much worse than 2K and the FPS were still at 60. Of course I also shouldn't complain about 60fps since my monitor is a 60Hz monitor so for all I know I could be hitting 75.

 

Knowing where to look for the enhanced detail though does leave me wondering if it matters. When I'm gaming I'm so focused on the gameplay that the smaller details (smaller to me anyways) often go unnoticed unless I really look for it.