Graphics Clarity Difference For Gaming From 1080p to 1440p

[aithos]

On 3/5/2017 at 6:39 PM, IceCold008 said:

At the moment guys i game at 1080p 120hz. Which to be honest i like. Im upgrading my GPU from 2 670 in SLI to 1 Single GTX 1080TI when its released. 

My CPU is a i7 4770k which is still a good CPU. 

 

Ive seen a 1440p monitor in action however ive never seen it compared to a 1080p side by side. What i want to no is, is the difference in graphic clarity for GAMING "most important for me"  from 1080p to 1440p worth the hefty £600 pounds price tag "cost of the monitor i want". Is it worth it since i will be getting a nice 120hz FPS at 1080p in most games.  Will a gtx 1080ti last a few years at very good FPS in lastest AAA titles at 1440p over 1080p. Ive seen a few older games play at 1440p with nice fps over 100 but future games. Really stuck its been 50/50 for me. One day im going to upgrade then the next nope i will stick at 1080p. 

 

Really NEED someone which games at both 1080p and 1440p at high fps. To compare and give me a honest account. Yes we know the clarity at 1440p is better than 1080p but its it worth the price tag and the FPS hit? 

 

 

I've gamed at both in everything from single player RPGs to MMOs and competitive FPS/MOBA games.  I switched over to 1440p when I built my last computer (2x780ti in SLI) and was overclocking my monitor to 110hz.  Now I game on the Asus PG279q at 120hz w/ULMB on and it's amazing.  I can't run max settings on the newest games but I can on most of the popular eSports games (CSGO, League of Legends, etc).  With a 1080ti you should have no problem at all maintaining 120fps, in a couple years you might have to adjust a setting or two to "very high" instead of "ultra" but frankly you'll never even notice.  My "recommended" settings still set to the highest on virtually everything on 1440p and my build is 3.5 years old right now.

 

On 3/5/2017 at 6:42 PM, Sakkura said:

Just wait a little longer and go 4K. 1440p never became a mainstream resolution, but 4K will.

This is nonsense.  First of all, most games are still using native 1080p textures, and we are years away from even getting 1440p textures let alone 4k.  Secondly, we are just now getting to the point where running 1440p at 120+ fps is reasonable on high settings with a single graphics card and we are still many years away from 4k being able to do the same.  The graphical difference in lessening (or with ULMB eliminating) motion blur makes a substantially larger difference than going up in resolution and being stuck at 60hz.

[Sakkura]

48 minutes ago, aithos said:

This is nonsense.  First of all, most games are still using native 1080p textures, and we are years away from even getting 1440p textures let alone 4k.  Secondly, we are just now getting to the point where running 1440p at 120+ fps is reasonable on high settings with a single graphics card and we are still many years away from 4k being able to do the same.  The graphical difference in lessening (or with ULMB eliminating) motion blur makes a substantially larger difference than going up in resolution and being stuck at 60hz.

You're the one spouting nonsense. There's no direct connection between screen resolution and texture resolution.

 

4K is leapfrogging 1440p. How many 1440p TVs do you see? How many ads for 1440p? Yeah, exactly. 4K is going mainstream, 1440p never will. 120 FPS? Most people run 60 Hz monitors, and that isn't likely to change soon. It's all about where panel manufacturers can get the most volume, and high-end PC gaming is only a small fraction of the volume.

[Mick Naughty]

That's because most gamers don't know any better and most games don't need more frames. 

 

Stuff is only mainstream when it comes to new shinny crap. Which is why people are quick to hop on the new amd chip and 1080ti. Just like 4K years ago but is considered affordable now. 

[Darkseth]

There are a lot Games now, that use native 4k textures.

 

What do you think, ULTRA Textures are in some Games? Some use up 6+ gb Vram just with Ultra textures. Go down to "High", and you only use 3gb textures.

 

but. 4k is NOT going mainstream for another 8 years or so.

 

We have 1080p since over 10 years, and what is Mainstream now? Exactly, 1080p. With still over 90% usage.

 

Btw, i don't like using the word "Mainstream", as it's unclear how you define it.

 

Right NOW, 1440p is MORE Mainstream than 4k. because MORE people use 1440p. Period.

 

You have no disadvantage with a "not so mainstream" resolution, copmared to a "Mainstream" one.

1440p has NO disadvantages compared to 1080p, aside from more Performance needed.

Games scale perfectly with any resolution you throw at it.

[aithos]

21 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

You're the one spouting nonsense. There's no direct connection between screen resolution and texture resolution.

 

4K is leapfrogging 1440p. How many 1440p TVs do you see? How many ads for 1440p? Yeah, exactly. 4K is going mainstream, 1440p never will. 120 FPS? Most people run 60 Hz monitors, and that isn't likely to change soon. It's all about where panel manufacturers can get the most volume, and high-end PC gaming is only a small fraction of the volume.

TV resolution and monitor resolution are two completely different things.  How many 1024x768 TVs do you see?  How many 1920x1200?  Oh right... that would be ZERO.  4k today is no different than 3D TV was back in 2009, especially in the monitor sizes and distances that most people are using.

 

Also, it's clear that you have no idea what impact texture resolution has or why it matters.  Did you know that PS3 1080p games were actually using 720p textures that were then upscaled to 1080p?  It wasn't until PS4 that console games started to largely use native 1080p textures, likewise PC games are still overwhelmingly using 1080p textures and upscaling.

 

Want to know what difference that makes?  Load up Skyrim without any kind of high-res texture pack (you can use lighting and post-processing mods but nothing that replaces textures) and look at it in 1440p, then install the same stuff except adding one of the high-res texture packs... they two look VASTLY different.  That's the difference between textures that have been upscaled and ones that were natively rendered in the game resolution.

 

You can talk all you want about how 4k is the future, but we are a good 8-10 years out from game engines and hardware being able to process native 4k textures and until then you're just watching a DVD on a Bluray player.  It might look better than on a standard Bluray, but it's not that big of a difference and in this case you're losing other substantial visual improvements related to motion...

[IceCold008]

Thought this topic was dead guess it still has its uses lol

[Mick Naughty]

Arguing about resolution. And they say peolple who buy titans have the epeen problem. 

[ARikozuM]

9 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Arguing about resolution. And they say peolple who buy titans have the epeen problem. 

Welcome to the PC community. Please enjoy your stay.

[Sakkura]

13 hours ago, aithos said:

TV resolution and monitor resolution are two completely different things. 

No. Why do you think 1920x1200 died? Hmm? Because 1080p became standard outside the PC world.

 

As for texture resolution, you're just proving you don't understand how that works at all.

[RyGuy99]

3 hours ago, Sakkura said:

No. Why do you think 1920x1200 died? Hmm? Because 1080p became standard outside the PC world.

 

As for texture resolution, you're just proving you don't understand how that works at all.

Give it up. It's clear you're wrong by the multiple people that have proven you wrong. 1440p is becoming mainstream while 4K is still aways out bc of costs. 

[Sakkura]

19 minutes ago, RyGuy99 said:

Give it up. It's clear you're wrong by the multiple people that have proven you wrong. 1440p is becoming mainstream while 4K is still aways out bc of costs. 

Nobody's proven me wrong. 1440p is obviously not becoming mainstream, and I've proven that 4K is already more common.

[aithos]

5 hours ago, Sakkura said:

No. Why do you think 1920x1200 died? Hmm? Because 1080p became standard outside the PC world.

 

As for texture resolution, you're just proving you don't understand how that works at all.

I think you're confused, 1920x1200 monitors are still widely available today and in fact I have two of them at work that I use every day.  The only impact that 1080p as a "standard" has had on monitors is that the cheap production and quantity of the panels has made poor quality monitors a larger portion of the available models.  To put it bluntly, I don't care if there are more 1080p models available than 1920x1200 because I only care about *GOOD* products.

 

As for texture resolution, I've given you several points you have made no attempt to address or refute and based on your response what I've proven is that you don't understand what I'm talking about.  You're welcome to think what you want, but it's pretty clear you're just trying to justify your own purchase decision in your mind instead of looking at facts and logic... IE: it's not worth any more of my time to discuss this with you because everything you've said are subjective opinions and you haven't made even a single concrete point.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, aithos said:

I think you're confused, 1920x1200 monitors are still widely available today and in fact I have two of them at work that I use every day.  The only impact that 1080p as a "standard" has had on monitors is that the cheap production and quantity of the panels has made poor quality monitors a larger portion of the available models.  To put it bluntly, I don't care if there are more 1080p models available than 1920x1200 because I only care about *GOOD* products.

 

As for texture resolution, I've given you several points you have made no attempt to address or refute and based on your response what I've proven is that you don't understand what I'm talking about.  You're welcome to think what you want, but it's pretty clear you're just trying to justify your own purchase decision in your mind instead of looking at facts and logic... IE: it's not worth any more of my time to discuss this with you because everything you've said are subjective opinions and you haven't made even a single concrete point.

1920x1200 are rare compared to 1920x1080 monitors. I don't care that you don't care about the facts.

 

You've made incorrect points about texture resolutions, proving you wrong. I'm not the one bringing up my purchasing decisions, you're the one defending what you (or your office) have bought.

[RyGuy99]

7 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Nobody's proven me wrong. 1440p is obviously not becoming mainstream, and I've proven that 4K is already more common.

Yes they have. You are wrong period. 4K is still rare. 1440p is mainstream. 

[Sakkura]

Just now, RyGuy99 said:

Yes they have. You are wrong period. 4K is still rare. 1440p is mainstream. 

The evidence I presented has already disproven that claim. Empty assertions to the contrary are useless.

[RyGuy99]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The evidence I presented has already disproven that claim. Empty assertions to the contrary are useless.

The evidence you presented is weak and not accurate. Facts and clear evidence has been given to prove you very wrong. To say otherwise is false. 

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, RyGuy99 said:

The evidence you presented is weak and not accurate. Facts and clear evidence has been given to prove you very wrong. To say otherwise is false. 

You haven't presented any facts or evidence, just your empty assertions about what a random store allegedly has on its shelves. I've provided evidence from a reliable source, the largest online retailer in the world.

[RyGuy99]

16 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

You haven't presented any facts or evidence, just your empty assertions about what a random store allegedly has on its shelves. I've provided evidence from a reliable source, the largest online retailer in the world.

I have and the others have as well. Your pointless assumptions have no place in a fact based discuss. All you have is pointless numbers from a site that nobody actually buys computers from. It may be the largest but that makes no difference when they hardly sell what you say they do lol

 

I showed facts from best buy, Newegg, tigerdirect and microcenter. All retailers who actual have people buy computers from them. 

[Sakkura]

37 minutes ago, RyGuy99 said:

I have and the others have as well. Your pointless assumptions have no place in a fact based discuss. All you have is pointless numbers from a site that nobody actually buys computers from. It may be the largest but that makes no difference when they hardly sell what you say they do lol

 

I showed facts from best buy, Newegg, tigerdirect and microcenter. All retailers who actual have people buy computers from them. 

Yes, you have made empty assertions about what a random store allegedly has on its shelves. Others have made similarly useless claims. I have not made assumptions, I have explained the facts and provided evidence for them.

 

You did not show any facts.

[ARikozuM]

@Godlygamer23 Can we have this thread closed?

[RyGuy99]

13 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

@Godlygamer23 Can we have this thread closed?

Agreed @Sakkura is just going to keep spouting bs to support his skewed view of the world. He doesn't know fact from fiction... 

[IceCold008]

Guys take a look at this 

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey. 

 

This shows what people are using for gaming on steam. As you can see that 1080p is the most popular at 43.23%

 

1440p is at 1.81% and 4K is at 0.69%. 

 

Now this is for only people which use steam for games etc. This dont mean that everyone is included in these stats. But going off these stats ONLY.

 

1080p is the most popular atm, 1440p comes second and 4k comes third.  

Hope that helps lol

[Mick Naughty]

Gonna be a long time for them to even come close too. No benefit when it comes to gaming. Unless there are a lot of old gamers who cant see well so they get 1440 or 4k. Like all of my clan mates.

[ARikozuM]

1 hour ago, RyGuy99 said:

 

Both of you are being idiots on a topic. If you two want to bicker like children make a PM or another thread. Amazon is as credible as the in-store models. Mainstream is subjective and there is no reason to continue digging into the subject as neither are mainstream and no data is showing either becoming more accessible than 1920x1080. Looking at the most common GPU shows that 1440 and 2160 aren't going to be fruitful anytime soon. 

[aithos]

On 3/11/2017 at 10:53 AM, Mick Naughty said:

Gonna be a long time for them to even come close too. No benefit when it comes to gaming. Unless there are a lot of old gamers who cant see well so they get 1440 or 4k. Like all of my clan mates.

You've got that backwards there champ, the higher the resolution the harder it is to see because it's smaller.  Old people with poor vision tend to use LOWER resolutions.  It also gives you a much larger FOV which for fast paced gaming means a lot more information to process and leads to poorer focus and reaction time, which is why so many professional FPS players use old resolutions like 1024x768 (also 4:3).  It gives them a huge advantage in pixel size for hitting crucial shots and their coordination and teamwork lessens the downside of having less total environment information and a slow sensitivity on their mouse.

 

It will be a long time before either of them are close... which was the point I was making.  We aren't even using high resolution textures in games and the other guy (who I stopped responding to because it was pointless) doesn't understand the difference between an upscaled and a native (uncompressed) texture.  It doesn't matter what the artist rendered it in if they compressed it to 1080p for size/performance reasons, when you upscale it you won't get the same level of detail.  I have 1440p, but I went to it for productivity reasons and to get a fast IPS panel... not because I wanted the higher resolution for gaming.