If rumour about the new Nvidia and AMD GPU is true, are we seeing the end of 1440p gaming?

[e22big]

Just feel like discussing this topic. Both Nvidia and AMD rumour I have heard so far seem to suggest that a 2080ti-like performance will be the norm for their next gen GPU and upto 40-50 percent extra on their higher end card. With that much graphical power lying around every where, is there any need for people to game on 1440p?

 

To begin with, people game on 1440p because it's easier to run than 4k but still give you the extra sharpness for a larger screen but with the performance where you can easily run 4k high refresh rate even on a midrange card, there doesn't seem to be much point on gaming on QHD other than 4k high refresh monitor's still too expensive.

[ImAlsoRan]

4 minutes ago, e22big said:

Just feel like discussing this topic. Both Nvidia and AMD rumour I have heard so far seem to suggest that a 2080ti-like performance will be the norm for their next gen GPU and upto 40-50 percent extra on their higher end card. With that much graphical power lying around every where, is there any need for people to game on 1440p?

 

To begin with, people game on 1440p because it's easier to run than 4k but still give you the extra sharpness for a larger screen but with the performance where you can easily run 4k high refresh rate even on a midrange card, there doesn't seem to be much point on gaming on QHD other than 4k high refresh monitor's still too expensive.

Might still be viable in laptops, since a 4K screen still takes more energy and performance to power and display to it.

[Ajukrezi]

not sure its that cut and dry. when there is generally more performance to take from developers seem to optimize less and throw stuff on the market. also this is the improvement to date. and we didnt jump that far from 600 series to now in terms of resolution. personally i went from 1080 to 1140 when upgraded from (gtx660, 960 now 1070)

 

EDIT: and i know of plenty people on similar hardware still gaming 1080p

[Oswin]

*still gaming at 1080p*

[ImAlsoRan]

8 minutes ago, Oswin said:

*still gaming at 1080p*

*cries in 768p*

[Oswin]

Just now, ImAlsoRan said:

*cries in 768p*

F

[e22big]

8 minutes ago, Ajukrezi said:

not sure its that cut and dry. when there is generally more performance to take from developers seem to optimize less and throw stuff on the market. also this is the improvement to date. and we didnt jump that far from 600 series to now in terms of resolution. personally i went from 1080 to 1140 when upgraded from (gtx660, 960 now 1070)

 

EDIT: and i know of plenty people on similar hardware still gaming 1080p

perhaps, but it seem like 1440p is going to be just the new 1080p, unlike you are running laptop like the other guy said, I got the feeling that 1440p monitor will probably also come down in price since more people will be able to game on it

 

and this before taking DLSS 3.0 into equation, if it turned out to be as good as Nvidia advertised, nearly everyone will be able to game on 4k or 1440p on any card

[ColdPressCoconutOil]

18 minutes ago, e22big said:

Just feel like discussing this topic. Both Nvidia and AMD rumour I have heard so far seem to suggest that a 2080ti-like performance will be the norm for their next gen GPU and upto 40-50 percent extra on their higher end card. With that much graphical power lying around every where, is there any need for people to game on 1440p?

not everybody has 4k monitors lying around. they have 1080p or 1440p monitors which they use daily. moreover, 4k monitors cost more than the other options.

 

most majority of people have 1080p monitor. moreover, when building a pc, they dont factor in the cost of a monitor, since they mostly have a 1080p one sitting around, or can just buy a 1080p 60hz monitor for 90-110 dollars. at a budget they dont want extra sharpness or high detail, they just want to play the games they wanna play, albeit at a lower resolution.

 

then theres esports, where frame rates play a role in determining a game (apparently, idk what difference it makes). im pretty sure that esport organizers will provide players with 3080ti systems, but with a 1080p monitor, coz "FRaMeS WiN gAmEs"

 

so in conclusion, i dont think 1080p or 1440p gaming will die anytime soon, that doesnt mean that 4k or even 8k gaming isnt steadily rising

[Haro]

21 minutes ago, e22big said:

other than 4k high refresh monitor's still too expensive.

There isn't any point in using a 4k monitor for gaming anyways. 

Pixel density even on 32" monitors is good enough in 1440 and honestly anything over 32" isn't a monitor imo. At that point i consider it a TV. 

[Samfisher]

The new GPUs if they hold true to their performance rumours, would be perfect for 1440p.  Now we can achieve high FPS with all the bells and whistles turned up graphically.

[e22big]

2 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

There isn't any point in using a 4k monitor for gaming anyways. 

Pixel density even on 32" monitors is good enough in 1440 and honestly anything over 32" isn't a monitor imo. At that point i consider it a TV. 

umn no, on 32 inch monitor, 4k is noticeably better when it comes to PPI - tried it once, everthing look like I am gaming on the lowest setting despite using ultra graphic

 

27inch may be more reasonable though

[Haro]

Just now, e22big said:

umn no, on 32 inch monitor, 4k is noticeably better when it comes to PPI - tried it once

I mean unless you are pixel peeping. From my experience. The difference isn't really noticable. 

But that's just me. 

[e22big]

Just now, Samfisher said:

The new GPUs if they hold true to their performance rumours, would be perfect for 1440p.  Now we can achieve high FPS with all the bells and whistles turned up graphically.

I think you can already arhieve high FPS with all things max out even on the current graphic though. I can even do that on some game with my 1070ti. Unless you are talking something like 300 fps+, for the most part I don't think people buy 2080ti if they want to game on 1440p.

 

Come to think of it, that may raise another point, how much fps would you consider to be a sweet spot though? Resolution-wise, 1440p is a sweet spot for the current setting and 4k would be the max that anybody could take advantage of on a monitor-size display but there doesn't seem to be the same consensus on the refresh rate. Some say anything beyond 60 is good, some want over 300

[Samfisher]

1 minute ago, e22big said:

I think you can already arhieve high FPS with all things max out even on the current graphic though. I can even do that on some game with my 1070ti. Unless you are talking something like 300 fps+, for the most part I don't think people buy 2080ti if they want to game on 1440p.

 

Come to think of it, that may raise another point, how much fps would you consider to be a sweet spot though? Resolution-wise, 1440p is a sweet spot for the current setting and 4k would be the max that anybody could take advantage of on a monitor-size display but there doesn't seem to be the same consensus on the refresh rate. Some say anything beyond 60 is good, some want over 300

You won't even break 70fps with a 1070Ti with a modded Witcher 3 with most settings on Medium.  My sweetspot would be 120+fps constantly with G-Sync to smooth out any dips.  I don't see 4k as valuable on regular monitor sizes.

[e22big]

5 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

I mean unless you are pixel peeping. From my experience. The difference isn't really noticable. 

But that's just me. 

it depends on the experience I guess, if you are used to extra sharpness in the monitor, 32inch 1440p low PPI becomes especially noticeable. It won't be something you will notice right away but you will definitely notice after gaming on it for a while. Just like how you can notice the shift from 1080p to 1440p on 27inch (and it's especially bad when you game on none-FPS title like total war series)

[mahyar]

well end of even 720p isnt that that close especially in countries like were i live even a 750ti is very expensive like 350$ and they charge 75$ for 8800gt

[Samfisher]

5 minutes ago, e22big said:

it depends on the experience I guess, if you are used to extra sharpness in the monitor, 32inch 1440p low PPI becomes especially noticeable. It won't be something you will notice right away but you will definitely notice after gaming on it for a while. Just like how you can notice the shift from 1080p to 1440p on 27inch (and it's especially bad when you game on none-FPS title like total war series)

On a 32" definitely, it's why I got the 27" G7 instead of the 32" one.  Coming from the XB271HU/PG279Q, it's sharp enough for regular sitting distances and not too big for esports titles where having everything in your immediate view is a problem.

 

Resolution has to accompany screen size, otherwise it's just a number you cannot appreciate.  Anything above 27" I would say require a higher resolution just to maintain PPI.  As long as a sufficiently high PPI and FPS is maintained, I wouldn't care too much what resolution it is

 

It's the end result of user experience that matters after all, not the technical specs.

[e22big]

3 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

On a 32" definitely, it's why I got the 27" G7 instead of the 32" one.  Coming from the XB271HU/PG279Q, it's sharp enough for regular sitting distances and not too big for esports titles where having everything in your immediate view is a problem.

 

Resolution has to accompany screen size, otherwise it's just a number you cannot appreciate.  Anything above 27" I would say require a higher resolution just to maintain PPI.  As long as a sufficiently high PPI and FPS is maintained, I wouldn't care too much what resolution it is

 

It's the end result of user experience that matters after all, not the technical specs.

I guess so, I prefer 4k monitor myself because it's more useful outside of gaming. Watching Youtube for example, you got noticeably better image quality because there's YT less compression. But I agree that for the most part, 1440p is good enough on a monitor this size (from more than a feet viewing distance) 

 

Although gaming-wise, 4k's actually pretty good for turn-based titile. Total War, Xcom, Phoneix Point or older title with crapy graphic like Wasteland 2 benefit so much from the increased in resolution. But in most modern first or third person title with good compression optimisation, you barely notice any different going from 1440p to 4k

[Samfisher]

3 minutes ago, e22big said:

I guess so, I prefer 4k monitor myself because it's more useful outside of gaming. Watching Youtube for example, you got noticeably better image quality because there's YT less compression. But I agree that for the most part, 1440p is good enough on a monitor this size (from more than a feet viewing distance) 

 

Although gaming-wise, 4k's actually pretty good for turn-based titile. Total War, Xcom, Phoneix Point or older title with crapy graphic like Wasteland 2 benefit so much from the increased in resolution. But in most modern first or third person title with good compression optimisation, you barely notice any different going from 1440p to 4k

I think being at 1440p gives the most flexibility as well.  You don't need to be on the bleeding edge on every upgrade cycle to maintain your performance in newer games.  And when you finally do upgrade, you can increase the render scale of a game in 1440p to a higher resolution and get the benefits of both worlds (DLSS, DSR, built in render resolution scale in some games etc).  Sharper visuals when you want it and have performance to spare while also being sharp enough for native res when FPS is low enough that you turn off downscaling.

[e22big]

6 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

I think being at 1440p gives the most flexibility as well.  You don't need to be on the bleeding edge on every upgrade cycle to maintain your performance in newer games.  And when you finally do upgrade, you can increase the render scale of a game in 1440p to a higher resolution and get the benefits of both worlds (DLSS, DSR, built in render resolution scale in some games etc).  Sharper visuals when you want it and have performance to spare while also being sharp enough for native res when FPS is low enough that you turn off downscaling.

my ideal monitor would be 4k 144hz, you can down scale to 1440p if needed for game but can also maintain higher resolution for work/media consumption. Media-wise, 4k is still more common than 1440p, on Netflix for example, you only have 1080p and 4k option

 

but with DLSS and 2080ti level performance every where there might not even be a need to run anything on 1440p, unless ultrawide or multiple monitor setup become the norm in the future 

[gloop]

According to the steam hardware survey, doesn’t 95% of people play at 1920x1080?

[-iSynthesis]

Can we slow down a bit please... At this rate I'll get a 1440p monitor when it's the end of 8k gaming

[xg32]

1440p 144hz will still be the go to, 2080 ti falls slightly short with settings turned up, some of the best monitors are still 1440p, dp1.4 is still capped at 4k 98 or 120hz without subsampling, we are 1 or 2 gens away after rtx 3000 for 4k/120 to become mainstream, as for 4k/60? sure, but enough gamers want 144hz that 60 is a turnoff.

 

The only games i can play on 4k/144hz atm are poe and warframe lol. The most common setting i use is still 1440p/98. we'll see if dlss 2.0+rtx 3000 changes that to 4k.

 

I just wish the x35/pg35 wasn't curved. or VA.

 

Perfect monitor 4k/120/144 with hdr dp1.5 with more than 1 port, dlss dxr compatibility on every AAA game, we are still a couple of years out imho, maybe next gen.

[rand_althor_cometh]

1440p 144hz is finally going to be possible on ultra. Idk how it finally being possible to run games from 3-5 years ago on intended settings is "the end". It's just the beginning as now you can push those settings with newer games.

 

Edit: But in two generations, sure, you may finally be able to do proper 4k high refresh rate gaming on ultra settings. then 1440p would become "budget". I don't even understand people running 1080p still; it looks horrible. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by rand_althor_cometh
Edit

[e22big]

2 hours ago, xg32 said:

1440p 144hz will still be the go to, 2080 ti falls slightly short with settings turned up, some of the best monitors are still 1440p, dp1.4 is still capped at 4k 98 or 120hz without subsampling, we are 1 or 2 gens away after rtx 3000 for 4k/120 to become mainstream, as for 4k/60? sure, but enough gamers want 144hz that 60 is a turnoff.

 

The only games i can play on 4k/144hz atm are poe and warframe lol. The most common setting i use is still 1440p/98. we'll see if dlss 2.0+rtx 3000 changes that to 4k.

 

I just wish the x35/pg35 wasn't curved. or VA.

 

Perfect monitor 4k/120/144 with hdr dp1.5 with more than 1 port, dlss dxr compatibility on every AAA game, we are still a couple of years out imho, maybe next gen.

oh yeah you're absolutely right, I forgot about that DisplayPort limitation

 

depends on the how RDNA2 and Ampere perform though, 40-50 over 2080ti at a high end card would be more than enough for 4k 144hz imo - or if not, there's always DLSS but you're right in that DP 1.4 will be the limit before mainstream 4k high refresh will become a reality (or at least become the reality with HDR support, not sure how useful is that though)