Can you play at 1440p on a 4K monitor?

[Carlos1010]

Hi all,

Just curious if you could play at 1440p on a 4K monitor because you can get better FPS on 1440p than 4K. Do you have to adjust the game settings or do you just change the resolution of the  monitor? Thanks in advanced!

[Dresta]

LOL,you simply go into the game set the resolution to 1440p and that's it

[Carlos1010]

Just now, Dresta said:

LOL,you simply go into the game set the resolution to 1440p and that's it

Thanks lol sometimes my brain just gets acts dumb 

[Dresta]

Just now, Carlos1010 said:

Thanks lol sometimes my brain just gets acts dumb 

No problem

[PlayerofWar]

But it will look a lot worse than playing at 1440p on a 1440p display.

It might be better to put it in 4K and dial down the textures a bit (play on medium instead of high). For most games this gives a better experience.

[Carlos1010]

57 minutes ago, PlayerofWar said:

But it will look a lot worse than playing at 1440p on a 1440p display.

It might be better to put it in 4K and dial down the textures a bit (play on medium instead of high). For most games this gives a better experience.

Will it? So is playing 1440p on a 1440p monitor at high settings better then playing 4K on a 4K moitor at medium settings? Also thanks for your response! 

[PlayerofWar]

24 minutes ago, Carlos1010 said:

Will it? So is playing 1440p on a 1440p monitor at high settings better then playing 4K on a 4K moitor at medium settings? Also thanks for your response! 

I didn't say that...

1440p on a 4K monitor is worse than 1440p on a 1440p monitor. You should run your games at the resolution of your monitor for the best experience. It highly depends what settings you are running for the difference between 1440p on high/ultra and 4K at low/medium. Depends on your GPU what framerates you can get.

I would prefer 1440p on a 1440p at high settings over 4K on 4K monitor at much lower settings (given the fps are the same).

[Helly]

33 minutes ago, PlayerofWar said:

I didn't say that...

1440p on a 4K monitor is worse than 1440p on a 1440p monitor. You should run your games at the resolution of your monitor for the best experience. It highly depends what settings you are running for the difference between 1440p on high/ultra and 4K at low/medium. Depends on your GPU what framerates you can get.

I would prefer 1440p on a 1440p at high settings over 4K on 4K monitor at much lower settings (given the fps are the same).

You make it sound far worse then it is. It's not that bad, i play rocket league on 1080p on my 4k monitor (cuz i want to record at 120fps) and it's not all that bad. I haven't played any games on 1440p yet but i don't expect it to be all that bad. You get used to it and when you get a better pc/GPU you can just up the resolution and have ur monitor grow with the pc and enjoy the better image quality.

So look on the bright side. It makes the upgrade appear more awesome then it is. If you have the money now then go with the 4k...

[Glenwing]

3 hours ago, PlayerofWar said:

I didn't say that...

1440p on a 4K monitor is worse than 1440p on a 1440p monitor. You should run your games at the resolution of your monitor for the best experience. It highly depends what settings you are running for the difference between 1440p on high/ultra and 4K at low/medium. Depends on your GPU what framerates you can get.

I would prefer 1440p on a 1440p at high settings over 4K on 4K monitor at much lower settings (given the fps are the same).

It is worse on paper yes, but it doesn't really look much worse in actual usage.

[PlayerofWar]

3 hours ago, Helly said:

You make it sound far worse then it is. It's not that bad, i play rocket league on 1080p on my 4k monitor (cuz i want to record at 120fps) and it's not all that bad. I haven't played any games on 1440p yet but i don't expect it to be all that bad. You get used to it and when you get a better pc/GPU you can just up the resolution and have ur monitor grow with the pc and enjoy the better image quality.

So look on the bright side. It makes the upgrade appear more awesome then it is. If you have the money now then go with the 4k...

For the same price you can get a 1440p 144Hz monitor with Gsync. Then the 4K experience is much worse.

I have a 1440p ultrawide with a 4K monitor next to it. 1440p on 4K looks significantly worse than 1440p on 1440p monitor. If you see them next to each other, it's night and day. 4K on 4K looks much better though than either of them.

[MicrosoftCertTechnician]

Best resulution = Native resulution, learnt that in 9 th Grade,

[PianoPlayer88Key]

I'm using a 1080p monitor, and typically playing at 800x600 or 1280x720.  Intel HD can kind-of do 1080p, but not well, and falls flat on new titles.

 

However, I run windowed, not full screen.  This is so I can see other things on the screen simultaneously, as I only have 1 monitor.

 

Also didn't the old CRT monitors do pretty good resolution scaling?  I remember frequently running a 2048x1536 monitor (Viewsonic P775 or 17PS) at 1280x960 without any issues. Just had to make sure I used the same aspect ratio.

 

I would have ran it at full res, but my parents' eyes weren't as good, and still aren't.  Also it, like others, had noticeable flicker at 60 or even 75 Hz, it wasn't until you got to 85 Hz that it was pretty smooth.  You could only use higher refresh at lower resolutions.

[Helly]

16 hours ago, PlayerofWar said:

For the same price you can get a 1440p 144Hz monitor with Gsync. Then the 4K experience is much worse.

I have a 1440p ultrawide with a 4K monitor next to it. 1440p on 4K looks significantly worse than 1440p on 1440p monitor. If you see them next to each other, it's night and day. 4K on 4K looks much better though than either of them.

Yeah i agree of course that native resolutions are always better quality. But if you don't have another monitor next to it you won't notice it all that much and you get used to it.

 

5 hours ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

Also didn't the old CRT monitors do pretty good resolution scaling?  I remember frequently running a 2048x1536 monitor (Viewsonic P775 or 17PS) at 1280x960 without any issues. Just had to make sure I used the same aspect ratio.

I would have ran it at full res, but my parents' eyes weren't as good, and still aren't.  Also it, like others, had noticeable flicker at 60 or even 75 Hz, it wasn't until you got to 85 Hz that it was pretty smooth.  You could only use higher refresh at lower resolutions.

CRT's scaled perfectly but that was because of the completely different technology that was in the monitor. That's also why you noticed the flickering until you went to 85hz or more. CRT's also had perfect response times. which will always be the advantage of CRT's as LCD's will never get close to the response times of CRT's. But CRT technology is hopelessly outdated and aren't even made anymore i think, so forget about them

[PianoPlayer88Key]

8 hours ago, Helly said:

Yeah i agree of course that native resolutions are always better quality. But if you don't have another monitor next to it you won't notice it all that much and you get used to it.

 

CRT's scaled perfectly but that was because of the completely different technology that was in the monitor. That's also why you noticed the flickering until you went to 85hz or more. CRT's also had perfect response times. which will always be the advantage of CRT's as LCD's will never get close to the response times of CRT's. But CRT technology is hopelessly outdated and aren't even made anymore i think, so forget about them

 

I thought the flickering on CRTs was related to the very good response times / much better display lag in CRTs?  Also I was seeing this video again a few days ago, which I think mentions some related info.  Especially, start at 2:49.

 

Another thing I've possibly noticed ... I wonder if human optical response time is different with different light levels?  I kind-of think so.  For example, I just did an experiment with a small helicopter toy my mom has for my niece and nephews to play with (among other toys) when they come over.  First, I took it outside (a few minutes before noon, on a sunny day) and spun the blades at about 120-150 rpm.  I noticed there was some blur, but I could still almost make out the individual blades while spinning.  Then, I went into a dark pantry with no windows.  I set my phone (LG G4)'s brightness at its minimum and put a dark gray image on the screen, then shut my eyes for a few minutes to let them adjust.  Next I did the same spinning blades experiment, and this time it was a complete blur.  Therefore, at least based on my own results, I think the human eye has longer response times in dark environments.

 

I'd like to see someone do a similar experiment with a computer monitor, in a gaming situation.  (I don't have good enough equipment to do it though.)  Test the perceived smoothness, etc, in a well-lit environment, and in a dim environment.  (For you photography buffs, I'd define a dim environment as one requiring a shutter speed over 30 seconds, lens aperture of F/2.8 or faster, and ISO of 6400 or higher, or similar, to take a photo bright enough to be able to recognize the scene.  A photo taken in a bright environment might be 1/400", F/8, ISO 100.)  I'm almost wondering if even 24-30fps might look smooth in a very dim environment, even to someone who with good lighting would perceive a difference between 60 and 144 Hz.

 

 

Also on native resolution vs scaling on LCDs ... is it possible the fuzziness could be mitigated when pixel density gets high enough?  I don't just mean when you no longer notice the jaggeds in curves, etc.  My LG G4 is pretty good there, I have to really struggle to see any pixelation on the screen in text, and even then I'm not sure I'm seeing any.  (I think I do have slightly better than 20/20 vision though, but I don't remember what I last tested at.)

 

No, I'm thinking, when a single pixel is lit at full brightness and you can't see it at all - THAT'S when I'd say pixel density is getting pretty high.   I tested with my G4 a few months ago, making an all-black image matching the dimensions of the screen (2560x1440), with a few spots of 1, 1x2, 2x2, 2x3, 3x3, etc. white pixels (in I think a 3 x 5 grid).  I was able to see even the 1 pixel quite clearly.

 

So let's say you print the smallest dot you can see on printer paper, assuming you have 20/20 or better vision (like 20/15 or 20/10 or something).  Then you have a screen such that when that physical area of pixels are lit, it's almost as bright as looking straight at the sun.  (Not quite THAT bright though, I don't want to be blinding people with a phone screen.)  Good enough pixel density, to me, would be such that you could have at least 4 pixels (2x2) lit at that brightness, and you wouldn't see them at all in a dark room.