1080p 144hz vs 4k 60hz

[SAVE-12-HK]

at 27 inch Both ips, freesync  , known brands

same price ~$320

 

models are below

LG 27lu500 ...........4k

Asus tuf vg27vq....1080p

 

I would like to find some 1440p 144hz, are there any nice options?

(currently on 1080p 75hz va with bad ghosting)

 

 

[Tan3l6]

It heavily depends of your CPU and GPU capabilities.

I'd go for 144Hz FullHD anyway... so I'm not impartial.

[RejZoR]

Once you go 144Hz there is really hard to go with anything low. Not even 4K. 4K at 144Hz however all seems to be in 800€ range and beyond which is pretty insane.

 

Problem with 1080p at 27" will be pixels size. I have 24" 1080p and they are noticeable. On 27" they'll be even bigger.

[SAVE-12-HK]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

Problem with 1080p at 27" will be pixels size. I have 24" 1080p and they are noticeable. On 27" they'll be even bigger.

lg has one 1440p 144hz but no free sync, only had hdmi

[Tan3l6]

1 minute ago, SAVE-12-HK said:

lg has one 1440p 144hz but no free sync, only had hdmi

So it's either fluidity or pixel density. It's that simple...

[jollander]

About a year and a half ago I bought a 27" 1440p 144hz ips freesync screen from acer and it's fantastic. Only thing is that 1440p is more demanding than I thought and games like CoD warzone can't run with 140+ fps on an i5 9600k and rtx2070. 

 

If you have a beast of a computer that can run all games at crazy fps, then for sure go above 1080p because it looks fantastic. But personally I regret it, because I end up downressing to 1080p in some games anyway and it looks really bad on this screen.

 

I'd go for a 24" 1080p 144hz if i had a second run at this purchase.

 

 

Edit: This is the screen if you're curious: Acer 27" Nitro XV272UP

Edited November 23, 2020 by jollander

[jones177]

I play at 60hz 4k and 120hz 1440p depending on the title. 

 

The difference between 1080p and 4k I sum up in this image. 

 

[jollander]

3 minutes ago, jones177 said:

I play at 60hz 4k and 120hz 1440p depending on the title. 

 

The difference between 1080p and 4k I sum up in this image. 

 

To be honest, that low res & highly compressed image is quite a shitty example.

 

Edit: my apologies, i opened the wrong version hahahahahaha

Edited November 23, 2020 by jollander

[SAVE-12-HK]

7 minutes ago, jollander said:

Edit: This is the screen if you're curious: Acer 27" Nitro XV272UP

sadly this is over $400 , and branding is less well known  than asus /lg

[Egg-Roll]

1 hour ago, SAVE-12-HK said:

I would like to find some 1440p 144hz, are there any nice options?

Both LG and Samsung make decent monitors, and both should have 144 hz options in 1080/1440 within your budget. If you go 1080 stick with 24".

 

1 hour ago, SAVE-12-HK said:

sadly this is over $400 , and branding is less well known  than asus /lg

Acer is ok, the question is who makes the panels. I've personally have stayed with LG

[SAVE-12-HK]

3 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

Acer is ok, the question is who makes the panels. I've personally have stayed with LG

any models you could suggest? around $300

Samsung don't have IPS,  afaik 

 

[RejZoR]

FreeSync or G-Sync is nice addition, but in all honesty, Fast Sync is the way to go without those that don't. I've had tear free super fluid gaming experience on my ASUS that has neither of adaptive refreshing methods.

 

@jones177

Frankly, such scaled images are not true indication. Also if you apply sharpening on it, it'll look far better. I've played Rise of Tomb Raider with ReShade using CAS (Content Adaptive Sharpening) and it just makes things alive and detailed without any edge artefacting.

 

Also people need to be aware that 4K is incredibly demanding on graphic card and that 60fps is a very low bar set for such resolution. I have 144Hz display and I tried running games at 4K on GTX 1080Ti (using DSR as I don't have 4K monitor). While it was playable, I could sense things were running at much slower framerate and that really kills experience for me compared to insanely fluid and smooth with zero input lag at 144Hz. And what is taxing for 4K today, will be even more taxing in upcoming years.

 

Only reason I'd go with 4K 144Hz monitor would be if I could render games at 1080p and scale them to 4K with applied advanced sharpening. Hardware Unboxed and also Digital Foundry did some testing and results are so similar to native 4K it's almost irrelevant. While performance was slightly worse than 1080p and much better than 1440p. That I'd totally dig because native 4K is just too slow even on RTX 3090 or RX 6900XT for my taste. Other problem is the price of monitors. 4K 144Hz monitors go for 800€ and beyond and I'm just not willing to invest that much yet. My current 1080p 144Hz from ASUS was around 450-500€ at the time. Now, granted monitors depreciate slower and are not something you replace often as well and they are used for everything you do, but still.

 

It's rumored AMD is working on such upscaling feature and so was rumored for DLSS 3.0 to offer game agnostic upscaling. But we have nothing solid yet on that. Once we have that, going with 4K monitor will be a much more straightforward thing. But till then, not really. Especially because these features don't work to well when native output is 1080p coz then it's rendering at 500 something P and the output is pretty bad then. Unless they can do upscaling wizardry where game is rendered at 1080p, internally upscaled to 4K with DLSS/Super Resolution and then downscaled to monitor output with sharpening processing applied before outputting to monitor at 1080p again. This way you don't sacrifice fidelity because of too small rendering in the beginning while essentially still having 1080p performance with some loss due to image scaling/resampling. It would ultimately be like super fast supersampling. Or if they can create a stupid fast supersampler on GPU level, that would be awesome too. Imagine 4x SSAA that costs nothing coz GPU can do it so fast. It's literally 1080p multiplied by 4x the resolution and scaled back to 1080p.

[Egg-Roll]

1 hour ago, SAVE-12-HK said:

any models you could suggest? around $300

Samsung don't have IPS,  afaik 

 

Do you really need IPS tho or would the cheaper TN/VA work? Assuming you are in the USA You could pick a IPS MSI unit that is 24" 144Hz at Micro Center for $180, however I've not been able to find out who makes the panels, nor have I ever seen one in use. The issue is so far what I've seen is more pixels and/or bigger screen the price jumps heavily for IPS which makes getting a IPS 1440 possibly out of budget esp in the current situation the world is in. My TN panel I bought (in 5 days) a year ago is currently being sold $20 more "on sale" locally just to give you an idea.

 

According to Samsungs website they do carry IPS panels, however since their site sucks I can't seem to find anything higher than 75Hz, they exist but I'm assuming no 144Hz option.

 

If you are ok with VA Amazon.com has the LG 32GK650F 32" 1440 for just under $300. However if you live in Canada a IPS 1440 is not doable at this time for your price range, less maybe AOC who I've never used or really seen till recent.

 

I'd also like to point out a good TN/VA can out-preform a cheap IPS

[jones177]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

 

 

@jones177

Frankly, such scaled images are not true indication. Also if you apply sharpening on it, it'll look far better. I've played Rise of Tomb Raider with ReShade using CAS (Content Adaptive Sharpening) and it just makes things alive and detailed without any edge artefacting.

 

Also people need to be aware that 4K is incredibly demanding on graphic card and that 60fps is a very low bar set for such resolution.

All I did was hit print screen. My OLED TV did the scaling. So it is what I see.

 

I played SOTTR at 3440 X 1440 since I liked it better in ultrawide and it averaged 97fps on the highest preset. At 4k I run the bench averaging 87fps with the same preset and 130fps at 1440p.

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

 

I have 144Hz display and I tried running games at 4K on GTX 1080Ti (using DSR as I don't have 4K monitor). While it was playable, I could sense things were running at much slower framerate and that really kills experience for me compared to insanely fluid and smooth with zero input lag at 144Hz. And what is taxing for 4K today, will be even more taxing in upcoming years.

Rendering at 4k to display at 1080p with DSR doesn't work well.  I even used DSR at 8k to display at 4k and TAA did a better job.  DSR does feel slow. Most modern games do a better job at scaling.

 

When I used GTX 1080 tis I only played Bethesda games like Skyrim and Fallout 4 at 4k since they are 60hz games.  With the RTX 2080 tis about half the games I play are at 4k. 

 

When I upgrade to 3090s I expect to play most games at 4k.

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Only reason I'd go with 4K 144Hz monitor would be if I could render games at 1080p and scale them to 4K with applied advanced sharpening.

That is sort of pointless to me since if I lower some settings I can easily do 144fps at 1440p.  I just don't feel the benefit over 130fps.  

 

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Hardware Unboxed and also Digital Foundry did some testing and results are so similar to native 4K it's almost irrelevant. While performance was slightly worse than 1080p and much better than 1440p.

Games are not designed for 4k so there is no more detail in the textures to be had past 1440p. In a modded game using 8k textures you can't even see all the detail in the textures at 1440p. I use 8k in Skyrim.

 

The only detail to be had in some games is in objects at mid distances before LODs are applied.  I played Horizon Zero Dawn at 4k not for the textures but for the robot models seen at a distance.

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

That I'd totally dig because native 4K is just too slow even on RTX 3090 or RX 6900XT for my taste. Other problem is the price of monitors. 4K 144Hz monitors go for 800€ and beyond and I'm just not willing to invest that much yet. My current 1080p 144Hz from ASUS was around 450-500€ at the time. Now, granted monitors depreciate slower and are not something you replace often as well and they are used for everything you do, but still.

What is too Slow? 80fps is about my average at 4k with my setup in modern AAA games.  When I get a 3090 my average will be about 100fps. If I need more frames I drop the resolution to 1440p.  

 

I think with Nvidia and AMD competing we will get 4k at 120hz native next gen. 

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

 

It's rumored AMD is working on such upscaling feature and so was rumored for DLSS 3.0 to offer game agnostic upscaling. But we have nothing solid yet on that. Once we have that, going with 4K monitor will be a much more straightforward thing. But till then, not really. Especially because these features don't work to well when native output is 1080p coz then it's rendering at 500 something P and the output is pretty bad then. Unless they can do upscaling wizardry where game is rendered at 1080p, internally upscaled to 4K with DLSS/Super Resolution and then downscaled to monitor output with sharpening processing applied before outputting to monitor at 1080p again. This way you don't sacrifice fidelity because of too small rendering in the beginning while essentially still having 1080p performance with some loss due to image scaling/resampling. It would ultimately be like super fast supersampling. Or if they can create a stupid fast supersampler on GPU level, that would be awesome too. Imagine 4x SSAA that costs nothing coz GPU can do it so fast. It's literally 1080p multiplied by 4x the resolution and scaled back to 1080p.

I have only tested two DLSS 2 games.

With Control I played it at 1440p with no DLSS with ray tracing on medium.  I averaged 70fps. It was before DLSS 2.

When testing at 1440p DLSS 2 rendered at 960p. The frames were all over 100 but I did not like the quality.   

4k DLSS 2 rendered at 1440p ran with the same frames as native 1440p but with slightly better visuals. 

 

With Death Stranding I used DLSS 2 and I got high frames at every resolution.