1080p or 1440p for gaming?

[kaitlin4599]

so ill list my current specs below 

 

3900x stock settings using PBO

asuscrosshair 7 hero non wifi using ethernet

32 gigs ddr4 3733Mhz ram 4 sticks of 8gigs

1000 watt seasonic psu gold rayed

1tb sabrent rocket 4 nvme ssd 4tb platter drive for steam game installs

sapphire pulse rx 6700XT using resiable bar

 

as for my monitor its an acer 1080P display thats locked at 60hz as thats its native refresh rate, so i have only ever used a 1080P display im wondering if i should upgrade to a 1440P display with a decent refresh rate or stick with 1080p and just buy a 1080P display with a higher refresh rate? my main concern is money im on disability so its not easy for me to drop $200+ on a 1440P display thoughts please

 

heres a short list of some of the games i play to giv e you an idea doom 2016 doom eternal eldenrin gta 5 RDR2 shadow of the tomb raider and the last of us and stray

[IgniVellex]

if you can't drop 200+ on a display than you should look at low-mid end 1080p displays. always, always, always look at 3rd party reviews (eg. toms hardware) for displays as the specs listed are most of the time inaccurate.

[Dukesilver27-]

Depends on what you play, if you play competitive games, go with 1080p high refresh monitor.

If you play AAA single player games, go with 1440p 144hz.

6700XT is still decent for 1440p, but it won't give you super high refresh, especially on latest AAA games.

 

But if your main concern is money, then go with whatever is cheaper, in this case, 1080p medium high refresh rate, like 165hz-240hz. A decent IPS 1440p 27inch 144hz monitor is at least $260+.

[kaitlin4599]

@Dukesilver27- heres a short list of some of the games i play to giv e you an idea doom 2016 doom eternal eldenrin gta 5 RDR2 shadow of the tomb raider and the last of us and stray

[Eigenvektor]

All of those are single player titles. Unless you're a (professional) competitive multiplayer, there's not that much benefit to those higher refresh rates. If you do anything aside from gaming, you'll want the additional screen real estate.

 

If possible, I would recommend you try out various monitors at a local store. For me personally, anything above 60 Hz is fluid and there's basically zero benefit to higher refresh rates. But 27" 1440p is definitely noticeable compared to say 24" 1080p, especially if you also do things other than gaming on the system.

[191x7]

1 hour ago, kaitlin4599 said:

@Dukesilver27- heres a short list of some of the games i play to giv e you an idea doom 2016 doom eternal eldenrin gta 5 RDR2 shadow of the tomb raider and the last of us and stray

I would recommend a 32" 1440p 75-100Hz monitor for this. 

 

32" 1440p has about the same pixel size as 24" 1080p.

27" 1440p has way smaller pixels meaning everything on it is smaller and thus you'd have to watch it from a closer distance to get the same size as 24" 1080p.

[Dukesilver27-]

They are all single player, so personally, I'd go with 27" 1440p if you are a desk gamer. I personally play both from desk and bed, so I need a bigger screen, I went with 32" 1440p 165hz display.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=256001440&D=60000,500000&F=660400000,711200000&sort=price&R=5

You could use this to find your monitor, make sure to check each model's review, cheaper ones usually have some trade offs.

[Mihle]

37 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

I would recommend a 32" 1440p 75-100Hz monitor for this. 

 

32" 1440p has about the same pixel size as 24" 1080p.

27" 1440p has way smaller pixels meaning everything on it is smaller and thus you'd have to watch it from a closer distance to get the same size as 24" 1080p.

I would recommend sticking with 27" for 1440p because pixel density. I wouldn't go 32" without it being 4k. The increased pixel density is very noticeable.

 

If things are too small you can just increase scaling in windows.

[191x7]

14 minutes ago, Mihle said:

I would recommend sticking with 27" for 1440p because pixel density. I wouldn't go 32" without it being 4k. The increased pixel density is very noticeable.

 

If things are too small you can just increase scaling in windows.

 

32" 3840x2160 needs a scaling of 200% and you'd have to view it from double the distance of a 24" 1080p meaning you'd basically view a 16" screen.

The same as looking at a 15.6" 1080p laptop. Terrible.

On 100% it's unusable unless using a magnifying glass. On 150% scaling the image gets terrible, similar to 1080p stretched to 1440p.

 

32" 1440p does not have an increase or decrease in pixel density compared to 24" 1080p. You just get more desk space.

 

If a 24" 1080p screen looks good to you, there's no chance in hell that the 32" 1440p would look bad BECAUSE THEY ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME.

 

27" 1440p has even smaller pixels than 21" 1080p. And 21" 1080p is usable if you have good eyesight, really good eyesight.

Talking about 100% scaling and native resolution. 

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

32" 3840x2160 needs a scaling of 200% and you'd have to view it from double the distance of a 24" 1080p meaning you'd basically view a 16" screen.

That's not how that works, like at all. Why the hell would you have to increase the distance?!

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

The same as looking at a 15.6" 1080p laptop. Terrible.

On 100% it's unusable unless using a magnifying glass. On 150% scaling the image gets terrible, similar to 1080p stretched to 1440p.

That's not how scaling works, scaling doesn't stretch the resolution or anything, it just says that things should be X size bigger. If you have 150% scaling on a 4k display, the overall resolution doesn't change, things are just told to be bigger.

There can be little issue with some old programs but 99%+ of cases its not an issue.

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

 

32" 1440p does not have an increase or decrease in pixel density compared to 24" 1080p. You just get more desk space.

 

If a 24" 1080p screen looks good to you, there's no chance in hell that the 32" 1440p would look bad BECAUSE THEY ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME.

After having used higher ppi displays like 1440p 27" or 32" 4k, no way I am going back to 1080p 24", because the pixel density. That's an subjective opinion tho.

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

27" 1440p has even smaller pixels than 21" 1080p. And 21" 1080p is usable if you have good eyesight, really good eyesight.

Talking about 100% scaling and native resolution. 

I will also say that as long as you have normal eyesight, something having twice the pixel density does not necessarily mean you have to have 200% scaling. When you have higher ppi it's easier to read smaller text, compared to 1080p 24" because the text is less blurry.

 

I am running 125% scaling on 4k 32" and don't find it any harder to read than 1080p 24"

 

That is if you have normal eyesight and not poor eyesight tho, if you have that, you can probably do with 150%.

[Andrewtst]

1 hour ago, 191x7 said:

 

32" 3840x2160 needs a scaling of 200% and you'd have to view it from double the distance of a 24" 1080p meaning you'd basically view a 16" screen.

The same as looking at a 15.6" 1080p laptop. Terrible.

On 100% it's unusable unless using a magnifying glass. On 150% scaling the image gets terrible, similar to 1080p stretched to 1440p.

 

32" 1440p does not have an increase or decrease in pixel density compared to 24" 1080p. You just get more desk space.

 

If a 24" 1080p screen looks good to you, there's no chance in hell that the 32" 1440p would look bad BECAUSE THEY ARE ROUGHLY THE SAME.

 

27" 1440p has even smaller pixels than 21" 1080p. And 21" 1080p is usable if you have good eyesight, really good eyesight.

Talking about 100% scaling and native resolution. 

32" 4k only needs to scales 125% and it looks perfectly fine. 

 

Why need to double the distance, my seat distance of 24", 27" 32" and 42" is always same. 

 

Even same ppi in smaller screen 1080p still can't look as good as 4k in screen size same ppi.

 

And 32" 1440p never look fine and everything look too big. 

[191x7]

2 hours ago, Mihle said:

That's not how that works, like at all. Why the hell would you have to increase the distance?!

That's not how scaling works, scaling doesn't stretch the resolution or anything, it just says that things should be X size bigger. If you have 150% scaling on a 4k display, the overall resolution doesn't change, things are just told to be bigger.

There can be little issue with some old programs but 99%+ of cases its not an issue.

After having used higher ppi displays like 1440p 27" or 32" 4k, no way I am going back to 1080p 24", because the pixel density. That's an subjective opinion tho.

I will also say that as long as you have normal eyesight, something having twice the pixel density does not necessarily mean you have to have 200% scaling. When you have higher ppi it's easier to read smaller text, compared to 1080p 24" because the text is less blurry.

 

I am running 125% scaling on 4k 32" and don't find it any harder to read than 1080p 24"

 

That is if you have normal eyesight and not poor eyesight tho, if you have that, you can probably do with 150%.

 

To have something larger appear smaller you have to view it from a larger distance. That's how optics work.

 

Scaling in Windows is not an integer number unless if it's 200% and then it's similar to half a resolution with antialiasing.

Scaling to 125% and 150% always introduces image degradation.

 

32" 4K and 1440p 27" are nowhere near, 32" 4K pixels are way smaller.

 

With the increase in the size of pixels, the text does not get more blurry, on the other hand - it gets more jagged (or pixelated).

 

Scaling 200% compared to just using a half-resolution (like 1080p on 4K) uses some smart antialiasing to make the texts a bit less jagged.

But still, 1080p on 4K 32" looks worse than 1080p on 27", and even that is too large. 

 

2 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

32" 4k only needs to scales 125% and it looks perfectly fine. 

 

Why need to double the distance, my seat distance of 24", 27" 32" and 42" is always same. 

 

Even same ppi in smaller screen 1080p still can't look as good as 4k in screen size same ppi.

 

And 32" 1440p never look fine and everything look too big. 

 

Your distance is the same; but how do the objects and texts look to you? Don't tell me ppi is the same and doesn't matter.

[Mihle]

18 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

 

To have something larger appear smaller you have to view it from a larger distance. That's how optics work.

But why would you do that? I don't get what your point is, if things on screen is too small for you, increase scaling. Problem solved.

18 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Scaling in Windows is not an integer number unless if it's 200% and then it's similar to half a resolution with antialiasing.

Scaling to 125% and 150% always introduces image degradation.

You confuse sending lower resolution signal to higher resolution screen with scaling in windows.

They don't work the same way at all.

 

If you set scaling to 125% in windows, it just tells everything to be 25% bigger but at the same output resolution.

For example, if you have 200% on a 4k monitor and put an image to fullscreen, it will still render properly ar 4k, NOT 1080p and you will see it as 4k.

 

And for example text, is vector graphics, they are still rendered at 4k when it comes to pixels, they are just larger.

Other GUI elements too, they aren't images with pixels, they are still rendered at 4k, just bigger.

 

Same thing with icons or whatever, they are still rendered at the 4k resolution. They aren't vector so conversion happens, but it's not from a lower resolution image that gets stretched, it's from a higher resolution image that gets converted to something lower.

 

Or when it comes to games, games see your screen as a 4k screen just fine, no matter if it's fullscreen or borderless mode.

 

Exception is if a program is old or shitty made but that is less than 1% of programs.

18 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

32" 4K and 1440p 27" are nowhere near, 32" 4K pixels are way smaller.

I know, that wasn't the point. My point is that I think 1440p is too low resolution for 32", and the next step up that manufacturers produce and is common is 4k. If 3k displays had existed and been common, maybe I would have said that should be the minimum at 32" but it isn't, so 4k it is.

18 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

With the increase in the size of pixels, the text does not get more blurry, on the other hand - it gets more jagged (or pixelated).

I know, I used "blurry" as in "less sharp", and when it does when it gets less more pixelated.

18 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Scaling 200% compared to just using a half-resolution (like 1080p on 4K) uses some smart antialiasing to make the texts a bit less jagged.

But still, 1080p on 4K 32" looks worse than 1080p on 27", and even that is too large. 

See what I wrote above, that is not how scaling in windows works. Setting scaling to 200% does not mean text is rendered at 1080p. Text is basically vector graphics and is simply told to be bigger, it's still native 4k output.

 

If you will you can think of it as increasing font in word, it doesn't start getting  blurry/pixelated because it's vector graphics and output resolution is still the same.

18 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Your distance is the same; but how do the objects and texts look to you? Don't tell me ppi is the same and doesn't matter.

Text on my 4k 32" is way shaper than 1440p or 1080p 32", no matter what I set the scaling to. Doesn't matter if it's 125% or 250% or whatever.

 

If you still don't understand what I mean, you should really go and look up from other sources for an explanation you understand, because what you are saying is just false.

[Andrewtst]

On 9/18/2023 at 9:12 PM, 191x7 said:

Your distance is the same; but how do the objects and texts look to you? Don't tell me ppi is the same and doesn't matter.

PPI is matter if you seat at same distance, you moving further because screen size bigger or resolution lower to compensate the clarity is wrong and no point to get higher resolution as you just need to move further and further to make it look "Fake" sharp clarity.