High settings @ 1440p vs Ultra settings @ 1080p

[Rhett Quigley]

Which would you prefer? Also, 1440p no AA vs 1080p with AA.

[Commander_Z]

i like the extra resolution at 1440p versus 1080p

[PaulKolby]

1440p is better

[Rhett Quigley]

1440p at a notch below ultra (high) is better than ultra 1080p?

[Praesi]

I prefer 1440p Ultra with AA.

[GodSpoon]

1440p by far

[ThomasD]

On less than a 25" monitor I don't find the difference all that much.

 

But once you step up to a 27" then 1440 really shines.

[totjup5]

1440p high every time.

[Rhett Quigley]

On less than a 25" monitor I don't find the difference all that much.

 

But once you step up to a 27" then 1440 really shines.

 

How could a minuscule 2 inches go from nothing to shining?  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Which would you prefer? Also, 1440p no AA vs 1080p with AA.

actually, 1440p LOW looks better than 1080p ULTRA with AA.

[Rhett Quigley]

actually, 1440p LOW looks better than 1080p ULTRA with AA.

 

You mean that? Cool.

[i_build_nanosuits]

You mean that? Cool.

i would rather play on lower settings at 1440p...sure.

when i got my monitor i had a GTX 780 and i was playing everything on at least medium many games even on high on the most optimised like BF4 i was running ultra settings...what GPU do you have right not?

[Rhett Quigley]

i would rather play on lower settings at 1440p...sure.

when i got my monitor i had a GTX 780 and i was playing everything on at least medium many games even on high on the most optimised like BF4 i was running ultra settings...what GPU do you have right not?

 

R9 390 (soon), getting one for Christmas.

[i_build_nanosuits]

R9 390 (soon), getting one for Christmas.

1440p is the way to go, that card can game on high with FXAA...which look stunning...FXAA or basically minimal AA level is perfectly fine for 1440p...FXAA @ 1440p is sharper than 16xMSAA at 1080p...and it does not look blurry.

[ThomasD]

How could a minuscule 2 inches go from nothing to shining?  

Minuscule?  You're kidding, right?  That's a viewing area over 15% larger (about 40 square inches.)  So large that 1080 starts to look downright pixelated. 

[Rhett Quigley]

Minuscule?  You're kidding, right?  That's a viewing area over 15% larger (about 40 square inches.)  So large that 1080 starts to look downright pixelated. 

 

1440p is 1440p. Whether 25 inches or 27, 15% isn't  a lot lot lot, no way 15% makes something go from meh to wow.

[ThomasD]

1440p is 1440p. Whether 25 inches or 27, 15% isn't  a lot lot lot, no way 15% makes something go from meh to wow.

Whatever you say.

[Rhett Quigley]

Whatever you say.

 

Have you owned both 25 and 27?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Have you owned both 25 and 27?

25'' is indeed quite small for 1440p i highly recommend 27'' otherwise you'll be required to use windows scaler to make text bigger so that you can read easier...honestly 27'' is the sweet sport for 1440p and yes 25 vs 27 make a huge difference.

25'' will be a bit crisper but the test and icons will be smaller and if you do video or photo editing or 3d modeling or other stuff like that it will quickly get on your nerves...and windows scaler does not work well in such applications...if you do only web browsing and gaming then i think you could get away with 25'' the scaler works well in firefox or chrome for example and for games it's alright just not as impressive as 27'' due to size.

[ThomasD]

Have you owned both 25 and 27?

I own both 25" and 27".  I've tried 1440 with my R9 390, my older son's GTX 970 and my younger son's R9 390

 

Look, you asked for opinions.  You don't like them, make up your own, just don't try to argue them.  

 

Seems rather foolish.

[Rhett Quigley]

I own both 25" and 27".  I've tried 1440 with my R9 390, my older son's GTX 970 and my younger son's R9 390

 

Look, you asked for opinions.  You don't like them, make up your own, just don't try to argue them.  

 

Seems rather foolish.

 

Well since you own both and I don't, I see no reason to doubt you. Sorry for that.