1080p or 1440p?

[Davesyn]

Hey there!

I recently got a new computer, but I didn't get a screen because I have a 19" TV, but it's native resolution is 1366x768.

I work as a programmer, and I use a 1440p 27" iMac at work, which is really good, so I'd like something similar for my PC.

 

On the other hand, my friend recently got a not-so-expensive 1080p ASUS monitor which looks incredible, and even more compared to my TV.

 

I like both 1080p and 1440p resolutions, but 1440p monitors are WAY more expensive than 1080p ones.

 

So, my question is: Should I get a nice 1080p monitor and stick with that until I "really" need a 1440p one? If I do this, I'd go dual monitor, even though they are different resolutions.

Or should I save up and get a 1440p right away?

 

I'd use the screen for gaming, coding and general internet browsing, as well as some audio stuff.

 

P.D: I've seen some 4K monitors that are on the same price range as 1440p ones. Is it worth it? Wouldn't upscaled content look blurry on it?

 

Sorry if I haven't explained myself correctly.

 

Thanks! 

[Damascus]

Can you give us some info on your PC specs?  

That will greatly effect recomendations

[Aytex]

3 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Can you give us some info on your PC specs?  

That will greatly effect recomendations

6600k, and going to get a 1060, hasn't received it yet.

[Davesyn]

Here you go:

Intel i5 6600K

MSI Krait Gaming z170

Corsair 16GB RAM

Seasonic S12II 650W

120GB SSD + 2TB HDD

 

I don't have a graphics card yet, mainly because I won't play much in the following months, but I'll probably get a 1060 soon.

Anyway, I'd like to have the monitor first, so I can do generic stuff more comfortably until I get the graphics card.

 

Thanks!. 

[Davesyn]

Just now, Aytex said:

6600k, and going to get a 1060, hasn't received it yet.

Wow, you were faster than me 

[Damascus]

NVM, I doubt you can drive a 1440p screen on integrated graphics. How high do you have your graphics quality in games?

[Damascus]

A 1060 can run medium settings @1440p and Ultra @1080

[Bananasplit_00]

i just upgraded from using a 1080p 27" screen as my main monitor to a 1440p 32" monitor as my main and i can say done get a 32", not because its bad or anything and if big panels are your thing then sure but honestly the PPI hasent really increased much for me but im enjoying the bigger screen space. PPI is better seeing as i cant just sit here and count my pixels anymore but its not a shocking improvement over 1080p. id get a nice 1080p panel that either does 75Hz from factory or if its a 60Hz, overclock it to about 75Hz because thats a way bigger improvement if you do any kind of gameing at all. 60 takes some getting used to again after haveing used a 70+Hz panel because its a verry noticable differance. anyway get a nice 1080p panel, 1440p isnt super worth it

[Glenwing]

22 minutes ago, Davesyn said:

Hey there!

I recently got a new computer, but I didn't get a screen because I have a 19" TV, but it's native resolution is 1366x768.

I work as a programmer, and I use a 1440p 27" iMac at work, which is really good, so I'd like something similar for my PC.

 

On the other hand, my friend recently got a not-so-expensive 1080p ASUS monitor which looks incredible, and even more compared to my TV.

 

I like both 1080p and 1440p resolutions, but 1440p monitors are WAY more expensive than 1080p ones.

 

So, my question is: Should I get a nice 1080p monitor and stick with that until I "really" need a 1440p one? If I do this, I'd go dual monitor, even though they are different resolutions.

Or should I save up and get a 1440p right away?

 

I'd use the screen for gaming, coding and general internet browsing, as well as some audio stuff.

 

P.D: I've seen some 4K monitors that are on the same price range as 1440p ones. Is it worth it? Wouldn't upscaled content look blurry on it?

 

Sorry if I haven't explained myself correctly.

 

Thanks! 

1440p is great for programming, you can usually find 25" 1440p monitors for a pretty good price compared to 27", so they're not all that expensive. The Dell U2515H would be a good choice, or there are some Acer options if you're on a tighter budget.

 

I don't think 4K will be very useful, you need to enable scaling to be able to read anything; really 1440p at standard scaling is the most desktop/text space you'll be able to get, you can get higher resolution monitors but you'll just end up scaling elements up to the same size anyway, so you don't really gain any more space.

 

Games and stuff will look better at 4K, though the framerate won't be great.

[Davesyn]

Thanks for your fast replies guys!

 

I've been taking a look at the store I usually buy stuff from and I found a couple 1080p monitors that look really good and are not expensive. These are:

 

Asus VX279H. This one is 27", up to 75Hz, LED IPS and has a couple HDMI and one VGA ports. It's 215€

Dell UltraSharp U2414H. This one is smaller (24"), 60Hz, has way more ports (including USB ports and DisplayPort) and has thinner bezel, which looks more elegant. This one is 245€.

 

I went to a LAN party some days ago and some guy had 2 Asus VX279H which looked great put together.

 

I'll keep looking at some more 1440p monitors. Which one of the 1080p I listed above is better in your opinion? The Dell looks better, but it's smaller and a bit more expensive.

[mach]

If you are a programmer, having a secondary screen in portrait may be a good idea. You save a lot of effort scrolling up and down!

 

I like the Dell more. I would not buy a monitor without ergonomic adjustments like height, pivot etc.

Also it's an ultrasharp that means it is already colour calibrated. 

[IceCold008]

If you need a new monitor for work its a no brainer get 1440p for the extra room on the desktop simple. Everything else is a bonus after that like gaming, movies, browsing etc etc. 

[Darkseth]

23 hours ago, Damascus said:

A 1060 can run medium settings @1440p and Ultra @1080

More like, High settings @ 1440p.

Witcher 3 runs smooth on 50 fps (thanks to G_Sync) with Ultra settings (no hairworks, object distance on 2nd highest, rest maxed out). Rise of the Tomb Raider runs mostly on High smooth at 60 fps~.

But games, that ran on Ultra at 60 fps before, needed to go down 1 step only in settings. ^^

 

 

My opinion on the Topic: Take the 1440p Monitor. I recommend Acer XB241YU, or the same specs Dell S2417DG.

24", 1440p, 165 Hz, G_Sync, pretty damn good TN panel (one of the best you can find).

 

One of the best Gaming Monitors for Nvidia users.

I even recommend it for GTX 1060 users. Yes, you will get some compromises in AAA titles. But smaller games run smooth at high fps, on desktop you have a nice sharp resolution with a lot more space to work with, and you're more futre proof for any GPU that might come next in 2-3 Years.

You might keep the monitor for 5+ Years. Do you want to look at 1080p for that time? We have 2017

 

Don't forget, your Monitor won't display Games only for 100% of it's usage time, will it? You will watch youtube with it, movies, browse the web etc. Every Second, you spend outside of a Game, you benefit 100% of the higher resolution. Even if your GPU won't hit 150 fps on Ultra settings with Downsampling to 8k.

Thanks to G-Sync, which comes very cheap with a Dell S2417dg (at least in US, less than 400 bucks for G_Sync with these specs. that's a steal), your games will run smooth even at 45 fps. Or 70. or 140. Whatever you might hit.

 

 

GTX 1070 users can use 1440p even better. And GTX 1080 users... honestly, should NOT buy 1080p monitors anymore. If you ahve 500-600 bucks for a GPU that might be replaced in 2-3 years, you should spend more than 200 bucks for a cheap 1080p Monitor.

 

 

Lilke i said, i'm  a GTX 1060 user, and i run 1440p @ 165 Hz with G-Sync (Had the Dell for 5 weeks, now the Acer). I ahve no problems, and every signle Game can be made playable smooth with at least 40-50 fps, on decent settings (mostly higher than Medium). And i would never buy another Monitor with less Resolution anymore.

My 2nd Screen is 1080p still, and i use it for streams, chat windows, monitor apps etc. And i wish it had 1440p, since 1080p gives it soooo less space...

[Damascus]

32 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

My opinion on the Topic: Take the 1440p Monitor. I recommend Acer XB241YU, or the same specs Dell S2417DG.

24", 1440p, 165 Hz, G_Sync, pretty damn good TN panel (one of the best you can find).

Holy crap, that's a really nice monitor for only 670 CAD

[Davesyn]

Thanks guys! You really are helping me make my decision.

 

I'm afraid a monitor with G-Sync is a bit out of my league. I've been playing on consoles my whole life, so anything 1080p 60fps will do it for me.

 

I've been taking a look at other threads, and many people recommend getting a 1080p 144Hz monitor over a 1440p one.

 

I've also searched for some more monitors on the same price range, and came across a couple more:

 

BenQ BL2420PT, which is 1440p and almost the same price as the Dell, and Acer Predator GN246HL, which is 1080p 144Hz.

 

Are these ones okay? Both are 250€, and it's what I plan to spend tops.

 

Little question. Wouldn't 60 fps videos/games look bad on a 144Hz monitor?

 

Thanks!

[Darkseth]

No, because higher Refresh rate reduces Tearing, and also has lower Input Lag. ^^

 

However, if you can hit more than 60 fps, you WILL notice it. ^^

 

And don't forget, you can always set your Monitor to 60 Hz, or 100 hz, and Cap the fps there with V-Sync, so you have consistent performance.

 

BUT: do NOT get a GTX 1060.

If you stay in that lower price range, you get teh RX 480 8gb, for example: MSI Gaming X, Powercolor Red Devil, Asus Strix, Gigabyte G1.

Those are the 4 best RX 480 on the market (best = quiet).

Why? AMD GPUs support Freesync, which is the free variant of G-Sync. You can have a nice 1080p / 144 Hz Gaming Monitor with freesync.

For example: Acer XF240Hbmjdpr

Should be this on spanish amazon: https://www.amazon.es/Acer-UM-FX0EE-001-Monitor-1080p-color/dp/B01684HUJU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490145814&sr=8-1&keywords=Acer+XF240Hbmjdpr

 

Freesync is worth it absolutely. It syncs the Refresh rate to the GPUs fps.

If your GPU only can put out 60 fps, your Monitor will automaticly run at 60 Hz.

If your GPU can go up to 94 fps, your Monitor will run at 94 Hz.

That will be stutter-free, and tearing-free. Perfectly smooth. That would be my recommendation, because you don't have to care about keeping your fps up. Just stay between 40 and 144, and you're fine.

[Davesyn]

On 22/3/2017 at 2:25 AM, Darkseth said:

No, because higher Refresh rate reduces Tearing, and also has lower Input Lag. ^^

 

However, if you can hit more than 60 fps, you WILL notice it. ^^

 

And don't forget, you can always set your Monitor to 60 Hz, or 100 hz, and Cap the fps there with V-Sync, so you have consistent performance.

 

BUT: do NOT get a GTX 1060.

If you stay in that lower price range, you get teh RX 480 8gb, for example: MSI Gaming X, Powercolor Red Devil, Asus Strix, Gigabyte G1.

Those are the 4 best RX 480 on the market (best = quiet).

Why? AMD GPUs support Freesync, which is the free variant of G-Sync. You can have a nice 1080p / 144 Hz Gaming Monitor with freesync.

For example: Acer XF240Hbmjdpr

Should be this on spanish amazon: https://www.amazon.es/Acer-UM-FX0EE-001-Monitor-1080p-color/dp/B01684HUJU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490145814&sr=8-1&keywords=Acer+XF240Hbmjdpr

 

Freesync is worth it absolutely. It syncs the Refresh rate to the GPUs fps.

If your GPU only can put out 60 fps, your Monitor will automaticly run at 60 Hz.

If your GPU can go up to 94 fps, your Monitor will run at 94 Hz.

That will be stutter-free, and tearing-free. Perfectly smooth. That would be my recommendation, because you don't have to care about keeping your fps up. Just stay between 40 and 144, and you're fine.

Thanks a lot! 

My friend and i have been talking about GPUs recently. I was going to get a 1060, but we considered the rx 480 was also a pretty solid choice, considering they're almost on the same price range. 

My friend got the rx 480. I'll see how it performs, and if i'm satisfied with it (which i will) i'll seriously consider a freesync monitor plus the amd card. 

Although I don't really like the fact that I have to stick to AMD as long as I want to take full advantage of the monitor. 

We still don't know how the future gpus will be, and if I get a Nvidia card in the future, my freesync monitor would be "useless". Not really useless, but you get the point. 

Also, would a PS4 be okay on that freesync monitor? 

[mach]

2 hours ago, Davesyn said:

Thanks a lot! 

My friend and i have been talking about GPUs recently. I was going to get a 1060, but we considered the rx 480 was also a pretty solid choice, considering they're almost on the same price range. 

My friend got the rx 480. I'll see how it performs, and if i'm satisfied with it (which i will) i'll seriously consider a freesync monitor plus the amd card. 

Although I don't really like the fact that I have to stick to AMD as long as I want to take full advantage of the monitor. 

We still don't know how the future gpus will be, and if I get a Nvidia card in the future, my freesync monitor would be "useless". Not really useless, but you get the point. 

Also, would a PS4 be okay on that freesync monitor? 

I use my 1060 with a Freesync 144Hz monitor lol  

Personally I don't care too much about adaptive sync, I rarely notice tearing anyway. It's just a bonus feature to me, hardly a deal-breaker.

[Darkseth]

But the same otherwise If you get a (more expensive) G-Sync monitor, you have to stick to Nvidia, as AMD doesn't support G-Sync. ^^

 

So.. you're either stuck to Nvidia with G-Sync, or to AMD with Freesync.

 

it's just, the cheapest 144 Hz Moniutor with Freesync and 1080p starts at 220€, while G-Sync starts at 399€^^ And that is not worth buying, because for 50-70€ more you can get a 1440p G-Sync monitor with 165 Hz, so that's where you should start.

That's +200€ for G-Sync, if all you care about is 144 Hz. ^^

 

AND: Monitors with Freesync cost nearly the same, as Monitors without Freesync/G-Sync. So it's better to have it, even with nvidia

 

@ Mach: Yea, but if someone is buying a new Monitor AND a new GPU, it makes no sense to get a freesync 144 Hz monitor and a GTX 1060, when you can just get a similar performance RX 480, and use Freesync

[JabroniBaloney]

7 hours ago, Davesyn said:

Thanks a lot! 

My friend and i have been talking about GPUs recently. I was going to get a 1060, but we considered the rx 480 was also a pretty solid choice, considering they're almost on the same price range. 

My friend got the rx 480. I'll see how it performs, and if i'm satisfied with it (which i will) i'll seriously consider a freesync monitor plus the amd card. 

Although I don't really like the fact that I have to stick to AMD as long as I want to take full advantage of the monitor. 

We still don't know how the future gpus will be, and if I get a Nvidia card in the future, my freesync monitor would be "useless". Not really useless, but you get the point. 

Also, would a PS4 be okay on that freesync monitor? 

Why exactly do you think you'd be stuck with AMD? Why won't you like it? Brand loyalty is dumb.

[Glenwing]

7 hours ago, Davesyn said:

Although I don't really like the fact that I have to stick to AMD as long as I want to take full advantage of the monitor. 

We still don't know how the future gpus will be, and if I get a Nvidia card in the future, my freesync monitor would be "useless". Not really useless, but you get the point.

You wouldn't be any better off if you got a monitor without FreeSync. It gives you a nice little bonus if you have an AMD card, and if you don't then you're not any worse off than with a normal monitor. I could see it being annoying if you paid an extra premium to have FreeSync and ended up not using it, but the whole point of FreeSync is that it doesn't add any cost to implement compared to a monitor without it, that's why it's called FreeSync.

[Davesyn]

24 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

You wouldn't be any better off if you got a monitor without FreeSync. It gives you a nice little bonus if you have an AMD card, and if you don't then you're not any worse off than with a normal monitor. I could see it being annoying if you paid an extra premium to have FreeSync and ended up not using it, but the whole point of FreeSync is that it doesn't add any cost to implement compared to a monitor without it, that's why it's called FreeSync.

True.

I'm getting a freesync then.

The problem is, I cannot find many of them in spanish stores.

I found this one, which is really good for the price. 1ms and has freesync. Only con is it's not 144Hz but 75Hz. It has very positive reviews, and again, it's very very cheap in comparison. (The link is for the UK Amazon, but it's also available in Spain).

 

What do you think? Almost the same version but with 144Hz is 120€ more expensive...