Which is more demanding: 1440p or 144hz?

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

I have a 480 (overclocked to 1412 so basically an overclocked 580) and im wondering which will be easier to achieve. 

[tp95112]

Well if you have over 144fps in the games you play then you can take advantage of that high refresh rate. You can try setting a custom resolution to 1440p and play on it and see if the frame rate is good or not.

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, tp95112 said:

Well if you have over 144fps in the games you play then you can take advantage of that high refresh rate. You can try setting a custom resolution to 1440p and play on it and see if the frame rate is good or not.

 

i mean like which will be more taxing and require me to lower the settings more:1440p60fps or 1080p144fps

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, huilun02 said:

You need to question what is the point of 1440p60 or 1080p144 and which would be more beneficial for what you do with your PC.

As to which solution is more forgiving, a 144Hz screen will refresh at 144Hz even if the framerate doesn't match up.

Chances are, you would decide between a 1440p60 IPS screen and a 1080p144 TN. So color requirements are also a factor to consider.

 

Yeah but i mean which will force me to compromise more in order to fully utilize. 

[tp95112]

2 minutes ago, Nickathom said:

Yeah but i mean which will force me to compromise more in order to fully utilize. 

Both will be pretty much the same. 144, you want to get as muchframes  as possible. 1440p you want to squeeze every frame you can get to obtain a smooth(60 fps)experience

[Silver47]

10 minutes ago, Nickathom said:

I have a 480 (overclocked to 1412 so basically a 580) and im wondering which will be easier to achieve. 

All I can say is that my rig (4770k@ 4.4 Ghz, GTX 1060 6GB@ 2.05 Ghz) hardly reaches 140fps in any modern triple-a titles, and since your GPU is slightly slower your rig won't either. Theres absolutely no point in having a 144HZ monitor then.

[Emberstone]

In theory, wouldn't 1080p@144 be slightly more taxing than 1440p@60?

 

If simple calculator math would suffice, 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels. Referesh those 144 times per second means 298,598,400 pixels redrawn per second.

 

2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels. Refresh those 60 times per second means 221,184,000 pixels redrawn per second.

 

In theory, this would seem that 1080p@144 requires more GPU horsepower, but I don't think it's that simple and could depend on the game. Someone more knowledgeable should disprove/confirm what I've said before you believe it. 

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

4 minutes ago, black0utm1rage said:

All I can say is that my rig (4770k@ 4.4 Ghz, GTX 1060 6GB@ 2.05 Ghz) hardly reaches 140fps in any modern triple-a titles, and since your GPU is slightly slower your rig won't either. Theres absolutely no point in having a 144HZ monitor then.

 

 

 

Uh.... What? 580s are faster than 1060s. 
Also keep in mind that he was using 17.4.4 and with the release of the new 17.5.1 drivers, 480s/580s can expect a +4% boost in performance all around.
Also 140 is high, what games are you playing?

 

[manikyath]

5 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

 

In theory, this would seem that 1080p@144 requires more GPU horsepower, but I don't think it's that simple and could depend on the game. Someone more knowledgeable should disprove/confirm what I've said before you believe it. 

the theory is about that, indeed.

the downside of that is that some games behave differently with resolution scaling, and other issues may pop up as well that blur the field even further. for example if you have a slower processor, 144Hz may be an issue on that side, and if someone insists that anti aliasing should be on with high resolutions (please.. why..) that'd be quite the show stopper at high resolutions.

 

but honestly, different gaming experiences cater to different preferences on this end. the question shouldnt be which one you *can* run, it should be which one you *want* to run. slow paced games like anno, civilization, conan exiles to a degree, the vareous simulator games, etc often benefit more from having more pixels than having a faster refresh rate. it's the so called "eyecandy titles" where you have time to go look for the details.

on the flip side you have the fast paced stuff like counter strike and other shooters, racing games like trackmania, etc which are so fast it pretty much doesnt even matter if a plant actually has nice textures on it, is in super high res, and has some ladybug crawling over it, because honestly it's only in frame for a split second as you're running past to explain to your russian comrades the bomb is at B.

[Silver47]

3 minutes ago, Nickathom said:

Uh.... What? 580s are faster than 1060s. 

Yeah thats not exactly true and you know it. I've seen that HUB video an all it shows is that the average 580 is faster in some scenarios than the average 1060, but most of the time they are tied.

But as for our case: You don't even have a 580 and my particular GTX 1060 is oc'ed to over 2 Ghz (which is easily possible on most aftermarket 1060s anyways), so it should be pretty obvious which one is faster.

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, black0utm1rage said:

Yeah thats not exactly true and you know it. I've seen that HUB video an all it shows is that the average 580 is faster in some scenarios than the average 1060, but most of the time they are tied.

But as for our case: You don't even have a 580 and my particular GTX 1060 is oc'ed to over 2 Ghz (which is easily possible on most aftermarket 1060s anyways), so it should be pretty obvious which one is faster.

 

My 480 is significantly faster than the reference 580, too....

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, black0utm1rage said:

 

But as for our case: You don't even have a 580 and my particular GTX 1060 is oc'ed to over 2 Ghz (which is easily possible on most aftermarket 1060s anyways), so it should be pretty obvious which one is faster.

comparing an OC'd card to a non-OC'd card is a pretty useless metric...

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

comparing an OC'd card to a non-OC'd card is a pretty useless metric...

Not to mention my 480 is still faster than most 580s.

[Silver47]

Just now, Nickathom said:

My 480 is significantly faster than the reference 580, too....

True, lets just not argue anymore.  Shouldn't make a difference anyways, since both our GPUs are too slow for 144fps in triple-a games...

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, black0utm1rage said:

True, lets just not argue anymore.  Shouldn't make a difference anyways, since both our GPUs are too slow for 144fps in triple-a games...

yeah. sorry

[Silver47]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

comparing an OC'd card to a non-OC'd card is a pretty useless metric...

Go ahead and explain pls. What you are saying is, that higher clockspeeds on the core and memory does not result in higher performance? Or is it a useless metric because you can't determine how much faster the oc'd card actually is?

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

Just now, black0utm1rage said:

Go ahead and explain pls. What you are saying is, that higher clockspeeds on the core and memory does not result in higher performance? Or is it a useless metric because you can't determine how much faster the oc'd card actually is?

 

prolly because its not really fair. its like comparing an adults strength to a childs. 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, black0utm1rage said:

Go ahead and explain pls. What you are saying is, that higher clockspeeds on the core and memory does not result in higher performance? Or is it a useless metric because you can't determine how much faster the oc'd card actually is?

because the owner of said non-OC'd card can just OC it and the tables are turned again.

 

also, what your card may OC to may not be possible on someone else's card. if you'd recommend someone a specific card because *your OC'd card can do something* would make the person feel less than pleased when his isnt capable of the same results.

[manikyath]

Just now, Nickathom said:

prolly because its not really fair. its like comparing an adults strength to a childs. 

good analogy there

 

you'll always win a running contest against a kid, but if you'd wait for the kid to grow up (in theory ) the results could be very different.

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

because the owner of said non-OC'd card can just OC it and the tables are turned again.

 

also, what your card may OC to may not be possible on someone else's card. if you'd recommend someone a specific card because *your OC'd card can do something* would make the person feel less than pleased when his isnt capable of the same results.

 

Eh, 2ghz isnt that hard to hit on a 1060. Youd have to completely fail the silicon lottery. but yeah youre right

[Silver47]

5 minutes ago, Nickathom said:

yeah. sorry

I mean the industry screws us all into being competetive about such stupid things... There is just no point in arguing. Also in terms of DX12 you are most likely right about the AMD cards being significantly faster. Nvidia should really pull their thumbs out and fix their drivers...

[manikyath]

Just now, Nickathom said:

Eh, 2ghz isnt that hard to hit on a 1060. Youd have to completely fail the silicon lottery. but yeah youre right

you know that one day, someone's gonna lose the lotery, and that guy's gonna feel boned AF

[NicholasNicholasNicholas]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

you know that one day, someone's gonna lose the lotery, and that guy's gonna feel boned AF

maybe  though often bad chips are downgraded into lower teir cards like the 1050ti. idk if they do this with pascal, though i think they do, but it did happen with maxwell for sure

[Glenwing]

5 hours ago, Emberstone said:

In theory, wouldn't 1080p@144 be slightly more taxing than 1440p@60?

 

If simple calculator math would suffice, 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels. Referesh those 144 times per second means 298,598,400 pixels redrawn per second.

 

2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels. Refresh those 60 times per second means 221,184,000 pixels redrawn per second.

 

In theory, this would seem that 1080p@144 requires more GPU horsepower, but I don't think it's that simple and could depend on the game. Someone more knowledgeable should disprove/confirm what I've said before you believe it. 

It is that simple, for the most part

 

However, reaching 144 Hz will require more CPU power than reaching 60 Hz, so holding aside GPU requirements, you'll need a stronger CPU to be capable of hitting 1080p 144 fps than you would for hitting 1440p 60 fps.

 

GPU demand scales with pixels per second, CPU demand scales with frames per second.