1440p (144+Hz) vs 4K (160Hz)

[CR3VVV]

To start off I use an i5 14600KF paired with a 4070 Super and currently use 1080p. I'm conflicted between upgrading to a 1440p or 4K monitor. I'm currently looking at the M27U from gigabyte that's running 4K with 160Hz and I haven't actually looked for any 1440p monitors. My thing is I've seen what 4K looks like and I really like it but I'm not particularly sure if my computer will be actually able to push the M27U to its 160Hz. I mainly play shooters like 'The Finals' or CoD and also like to play other games like 'Monster Hunter World' and 'Forza Horizon 5'. I like being able to currently run all these games at max settings and hit 150-180fps (with DLSS) on a 1080p monitor however I wouldn't mind slightly turning down the settings and since most of the games I play utilize DLSS I'm thinking it wouldn't be much of a drop in fps and graphics quality that my computer can handle. However, before actually going through with anything I'm wondering if it's better off to lower the resolution and run 1440p to be able to hit higher refresh rates (hence the + in 144+Hz). Essentially, I'd like to at least hit a steady 150fps with or without DLSS and have a crispy picture.

 

[Eigenvektor]

4K is four times as many pixels to render compared to 1080p, so as a rough estimate, expect a quarter of the performance.

 

So yeah, 4K running at 160 Hz will require some serious graphics power.

 

1440p will be less demanding, so your GPU should be able to keep up for much longer with future games.

[Electronics Wizardy]

I'd argue 4k with a 4070 will be fine. I had a 3090 then a rx 6800 and a 4k 120 monitor and it works well. The upscaling stuff is pretty good for games that need it too.

[podkall]

2 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

4K is four times as many pixels to render compared to 1080p, so as a rough estimate, expect a quarter of the performance.

 

So yeah, 4K running at 160 Hz will require some serious graphics power.

 

1440p will be less demanding, so your GPU should be able to keep up for much longer with future games.

1 hour ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

I'd argue 4k with a 4070 will be fine. I had a 3090 then a rx 6800 and a 4k 120 monitor and it works well. The upscaling stuff is pretty good for games that need it too.

 

Isn't decent to note that there are people that seen 1440p and 4K and don't see much difference between the two, meaning 1440p can be "fine" enough for gaming in terms of detail?

 

1 hour ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

I had a 3090 then a rx 6800 and a 4k 120 monitor and it works well.

let's not forget the essence of 4K, 3090 has 24GB of VRAM 4070 has 12GB of VRAM, meaning that half the time DLSS for fps, half the time DLSS for VRAM limitations because rendering at lower res drops required VRAM need

[AI_Must_Di3]

Both make great points here and i can tell you that im using a 3090 FTW3 V.2 now with a 10900X, EVGA x299 Dark with a AW3821DW 4k 144hz G-Sync Ulttimate monitor with no problem. Only the newest of games or shitty console ports give me any hiccups to worry about. I originally had a 3070 and it could do the job but it struggled in some things so i did the EVGA step up while i had the chance, which was def worth it. A 4070 and a 3090 are pretty much the same fps wise, so you should be fine if you want to go 4k 144hz.... beyond that i wouldnt cause the idea is to run the monitor at its native settings. Also, imo, id stay away from Gigabyte after all their shenanigans with crappy build quality and rma's horseshit they pulled. There are PPPPPP-LENTY of monitor manufacturers out there.

[SkilledRebuilds]

I would choose 1440p 144Hz as itll be easier to drive it as games get more demanding over time on the same GPU.

Nvidia has DLDSR modes enabling 4K 144Hz if you want it for easier to run titles, and can use DLSS in game as well.

 

I went from Native 1080p75Hz (with DlDSR 1440p/1620p and normal DSR 4K)

To  Native1440p 1765Hz when I doubled my GPU power.

 

DLDSR/DSR modes keep your refresh rate which is nice.

[Eigenvektor]

1 hour ago, podkall said:

Isn't decent to note that there are people that seen 1440p and 4K and don't see much difference between the two, meaning 1440p can be "fine" enough for gaming in terms of detail?

That will depend on monitor size and how far away from the monitor you are. And of course also how good your eyesight is.

 

Probably worth to try out before buying. 1440p will definitely require less performance and means you can likely keep your GPU for longer as games get more demanding.

 

VRAM demand of games will likely go up when future consoles get more as well. Screen resolution only matters to a small extend. Primary use of VRAM is texture resolution/detail and how many textures there are.

 

So as games get more textures and/or more detailed textures, demand will inevitably go up, regardless of 1440p or 4K screen resolution.

[podkall]

3 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

That will depend on monitor size and how far away from the monitor you are. And of course also how good your eyesight is.

 

Probably worth to try out before buying. 1440p will definitely require less performance and means you can likely keep your GPU for longer as games get more demanding.

 

VRAM demand of games will likely go up when future consoles get more as well. Screen resolution only matters to a small extend. Primary use of VRAM is texture resolution/detail and how many textures there are.

 

So as games get more textures and/or more detailed textures, demand will inevitably go up, regardless of 1440p or 4K screen resolution.

the demand can be high enough already, it depends on the graphics quality, since some consoles essentially run brand new games almost at low settings at default, maybe not all low but some probably,

 

but it depends, you can have probably nice experience with 4K monitor gaming even if you have to lower the settings slightly, because the crisp image could be worth it,

 

I may be on 1080p monitor, but I can see small difference when running things like anti-aliasing on/off, which is technically exaggerated difference between different resolution monitors

[Eigenvektor]

1 minute ago, podkall said:

the demand can be high enough already, it depends on the graphics quality, since some consoles essentially run brand new games almost at low settings at default, maybe not all low but some probably,

Yeah, I know there are some games that want 12 GB for high texture details already. My current card only has 8 GB, but I'm strongly considering 16 GB for my next one.

 

I think 1440p is a nice upgrade from 1080p, though it's not super noticeable. As resolutions get higher, there is diminishing returns for even more pixels. Of course my eyesight isn't getting any better as I get older, so that could be part of the reason

 

I would rather have higher details and refresh rates than even higher monitor resolution.

[podkall]

7 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Yeah, I know there are some games that want 12 GB for high texture details already. My current card only has 8 GB, but I'm strongly considering 16 GB for my next one.

 

I think 1440p is a nice upgrade from 1080p, though it's not super noticeable. As resolutions get higher, there is diminishing returns for even more pixels. Of course my eyesight isn't getting any better as I get older, so that could be part of the reason

 

I would rather have higher details and refresh rates than even higher monitor resolution.

I can honestly feel the difference in finer display resolution, I have 1080p, but we do have 1440p monitors at school, the difference can be seen, sometimes more sometimes less, because my 1080p display is smaller than the school's 1440p display,

[CR3VVV]

16 hours ago, AI_Must_Di3 said:

Also, imo, id stay away from Gigabyte after all their shenanigans with crappy build quality and rma's horseshit they pulled. There are PPPPPP-LENTY of monitor manufacturers out there.

Any suggestions on what might be a better option? I only really want 4k 144Hz (or similar like 160) and a low enough response time. l don't really care about HDR but I'd obviously want decent colors and my budget is around 550-600. 

[AI_Must_Di3]

10 hours ago, CR3VVV said:

Any suggestions on what might be a better option? I only really want 4k 144Hz (or similar like 160) and a low enough response time. l don't really care about HDR but I'd obviously want decent colors and my budget is around 550-600. 

Sure, Dell's units are very good and so are Alienwares. They both seem to use alot of LG panels and Dell is very good with warranty service, extended warrantys and no questions asked/one bad pixel type warranty exchanges too. Samsung i wont do anymore, cant trust them and their power circuitry is junk. LG is very good and a oem panel manufacturer which helps a bunch. AOC, never had a problem with and theyve been around a long time. Acer is good too, never tried a MSI or Asus though so cant comment on their monitors. Theres so many, im sure youll find something you like.