Is it worth upgrading to 1440p? FPS loss worth the higher resolution?

E

eddie500

Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
989
Just wanted advice in the gaming forum where people actually use their computers to game. Not in the monitor forum where people don't game seriously and could care less about frames per seconds and stuff like that.

I was wondering if you think its worth the upgrade considering the amount of GPU power will be needed to run it.

Basically it comes down to will the games look that much better in 1440p, to make up for the loss in FPS you will get over 1080p?
 
What games do you play?

My coworker uses a GTX 260 to play BL2. He claims it's smooth at 2560x1600. I use a 6950 to play 2560x1440, and it's pretty smooth. I'd upgrade your video card if you do.
 
I play games like World of Tanks, want to play skyrim. These games are FPS demanding and play much better to me when they are run at higher FPS.

I also have a 120hz monitor.
 
I'll never game below 1440p again. The image is much more immersive if you ask me. Just make sure you have the video card to drive it at good FPS.
 
I think 2560x1440 resolution is very much worth it. Just turn down the settings a little to get higher fps if it gets choppy.
However, I've never played at 120hz.

You can have the best of both worlds if you are willing to spend the money. 120hz.net is selling a 120hz lcd running 2560x1440 available for $720.
You'll have to put some beefy gpus behind it though if you want max settings.
 
Last edited:
J Macker said:
I think 2560x1440 resolution is very much worth it. Just turn down the settings a little to get higher fps if it gets choppy.
However, I've never played at 120hz.

You can have the best of both worlds if you willing to spend the money. There are 120hz Korean LCDs running 2560x1440 available around $500-$600.
You'll have to put some beefy gpus behind it though if you want max settings.
Click to expand...

my point exactly. IS it worth all the power needed to drive it. Even with all that power the FPS will probably be low.

I mean, aren't the textures drawn for 1080p? So will they really look that much better at 1440p.
 
It all depends on how much money you have. If I were a millionaire, I wouldn't hesitate buying it. But I'm not. So I settled for 2560x1440 at 60hz. Skyrim looks absolutely amazing and it's smooth on my meager 6950. I have a lot of settings turned up.

I don't think your fps in skyrim would be "low" at 2560x1440 if you were running a mediocre sli 670 setup.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_670_SLI/19.html

heck a single 670 will get you smooth performance in skyrim:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/10/nvidia_geforce_gtx_670_video_card_review/5
 
I bought a 27in catleap last year and was absolutely amazed by how good it looked. The IPS color and sheer size of the resolution were amazing for all but one type of game, FPS. I was in love with the monitor until I tried to play more battlefield 3 and noticed the input lag was more than I liked. I had been using a 120hz benq monitor before which has very little input lag, super smooth gameplay but awful colors. Anywho I decided to go back to my 1080p benq just because I have been playing a lot of fps lately. If I decide stop, I will most certainly hook my 27in back up as my main.

Summary, 2560x1440 monitors are amazing for everything except competitive fps games in which your 120hz monitor is better.
 
Yep, I've read that opinion many times. I don't play competitive FPS, so the tradeoff for 2560x1440 is very much worth it.
Borderlands 2 is very smooth and fun with my 6950. I have all settings on high. (sans physx)
 
I made the switch last year to a 27" 1440p monitor and a GTX 670 card and I love it ... it is fantastic for games and I actually get decent speed as long as I police my background processes properly ... it is also very useful if you do any productivity on your system since all that extra real estate is very nice when you are running multiple windows or dealing with large documents or presentations ... very highly recommended :D
 
I thought about getting one of those 27" Catleaps, but I had a 26.6" Asus and I felt that was physically too large for the distance I sit from the monitor. It was only 1920x1200, but I'm perfectly happy with the size of my 23" U2311H now. I'd consider a 23-24" at 1440p, though...

Basically what it comes down to is how happy you are with pixel density vs. performance. It has nothing to do with textures "being made for 1080p" or whatever (which, that statement doesn't really make sense anyway).
 
i just got a u2713hm and i can tell you 1440p is amazing.

especially at 27" I added only 3" in screen size and almost doubled the amount of pixels. like a 90% increase or whatever it is from 1080p


Not to mention games still run on max settings with my 670, I just disable anti aliasing

almost no noticeable loss in fps.
 
Last edited:
If you think 1440p is demanding on FPS, wait until 4k (4096x2160 or what ever they consider 4k now) becomes common place.
 
I have a 1440p monitor Apple. I don't play FPS so that never bothered me.
 
I think that 1440p will be skipped as a standard resolution. I know its pretty common for graphics designers and architects, but considering the flood of 4k displays at the last CES. Sadly they are still billed as premium displays. Nothing right now beats a nice 27" 1440p IPS display, but I think that your going to see cheaper 4k consumer displays before you see a reasonably priced 1440p. Not to mention 120hz is really where its at right now for gaming and right now those seem stuck at 1080p.

As for performance hit, as long as your card has the raw muscle and the memory bandwidth to handle it you should be fine. I mean in nvidia terms you're looking at a GTX480 (noisy but cheap) or a GTX570 (on a budget) and up.
 
dremic said:
were not even remotely close to having 4k monitors anyways
Click to expand...

We are about 2 years off. So we are kinda of close. Regardless people have Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround setups that push more data than 4k resolution so its already possible and with decent performance.

The problem is 4k monitors up close won't really be as big of a leap as say 1024x768 to 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 was. 4k montiors will have very tightly packed pixels to fit into a 30 inch screen. Things will of course look great but the asking price will be insane.
 
Godmachine said:
We are about 2 years off. So we are kinda of close. Regardless people have Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround setups that push more data than 4k resolution so its already possible and with decent performance.

The problem is 4k monitors up close won't really be as big of a leap as say 1024x768 to 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 was. 4k montiors will have very tightly packed pixels to fit into a 30 inch screen. Things will of course look great but the asking price will be insane.
Click to expand...

where do you get 2 years from dude.

very unlikely you will have a GOOD 4k monitor in the consumer market in two years.


1440p monitors are barely considered within a reasonable consumer price. most people wont spend 600+ on a monitor. maybe a 4k monitor exists in 2 years but it wont be apart of the consumer market. not even close
 
Pastyface said:
Summary, 2560x1440 monitors are amazing for everything except competitive fps games in which your 120hz monitor is better.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, and you can just have two monitors :). For most games, a nice, large, IPS is the way to go. The better image quality is so worth it and 60fps motion looks pretty smooth, especially since games are getting good motion blur more and more. Also 120fps can be a bit taxing to maintain and you end up turning down quality, which isn't that fun.

However, if speed is a must, then 120fps is nice, particularly because it reduces the lag till you see something. You, of course, want the monitor to be low latency for this to be a useful benefit.

I have an NEC 2690WUxi which is getting replaced tomorrow with an NEC PA301W and a BenQ XL2420T. The BenQ normally sits aside, not being used. I only hook it up to play games like Black Ops. It really doesn't look all that great, but it is super low latency (like 5ms from signal sent to image fully constructed).

I tried it in other games, making sure it was running at 120fps, and while there is a perceptible improvement in smoothness, it isn't as huge as you might think. There is, of course, no improvement if the game can't run at over 60fps due to the detail being turned up.

For most people, a nicer 60Hz IPS really is better for gaming since the images look so nice.
 
Sycraft said:
I agree with that, and you can just have two monitors :). For most games, a nice, large, IPS is the way to go. The better image quality is so worth it and 60fps motion looks pretty smooth, especially since games are getting good motion blur more and more. Also 120fps can be a bit taxing to maintain and you end up turning down quality, which isn't that fun.

However, if speed is a must, then 120fps is nice, particularly because it reduces the lag till you see something. You, of course, want the monitor to be low latency for this to be a useful benefit.

I have an NEC 2690WUxi which is getting replaced tomorrow with an NEC PA301W and a BenQ XL2420T. The BenQ normally sits aside, not being used. I only hook it up to play games like Black Ops. It really doesn't look all that great, but it is super low latency (like 5ms from signal sent to image fully constructed).

I tried it in other games, making sure it was running at 120fps, and while there is a perceptible improvement in smoothness, it isn't as huge as you might think. There is, of course, no improvement if the game can't run at over 60fps due to the detail being turned up.

For most people, a nicer 60Hz IPS really is better for gaming since the images look so nice.
Click to expand...


definitely.


i havent played on a 120hz monitor. i think if i did i would care more but since i havent it doesnt bother me even a little
 
I think if you are wanting to upgrade to go more with the best picture quality than resolution. I went from using my LCD to my CRT that I hadn't used in forever and I'm sticking with the CRT. Yes, its big and heavy, but viewing angles, colors, CONTRAST(!!!), and ever resolution (2048x1536) are far above what and LCD I've ever seen.

Now, I'm not saying go CRT, but I'd rather go with a nice MVA panel than IPS...IPS has a glow effect that's annoying as hell and contrast on every IPS I've used SUCKS! There is no such thing as "blacks"...just dark grays. In darker games like horror or any game IPS is horrible.

As far as the actual question goes I think it really depends on how far you are from your monitor...if it's a few feet or something you probably won't notice the difference.
 
Went from 1920x1200 24" IPS to 2560x1440 27"IPS.

IMO....I should have waited for 30"...but its still a nice upgrade.
 
JoeUser said:
Now, I'm not saying go CRT, but I'd rather go with a nice MVA panel than IPS...IPS has a glow effect that's annoying as hell and contrast on every IPS I've used SUCKS! There is no such thing as "blacks"...just dark grays. In darker games like horror or any game IPS is horrible.
Click to expand...

You must have been using some shitty IPS panels...my blacks look about as black as can be on a backlit surface.
 
MavericK96 said:
You must have been using some shitty IPS panels...my blacks look about as black as can be on a backlit surface.
Click to expand...

Same.... Dell 3007WFP-HC looks spectacular and has effectively zero input lag as it has no OSD or scalar. 2560x1600 @ 30" makes a TN look like a child's drawing in comparison... funny thing is, people always bashed me years ago for saying it, now it's the new "in" thing and everyone agrees. :rolleyes: Heck, back in 2008 I was being given infractions here for talking about IPS advantages: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032641345&postcount=5 as well as on other forums :rolleyes: .
 
GoldenTiger said:
Same.... Dell 3007WFP-HC looks spectacular and has effectively zero input lag as it has no OSD or scalar. 2560x1600 @ 30" makes a TN look like a child's drawing in comparison... funny thing is, people always bashed me years ago for saying it, now it's the new "in" thing and everyone agrees. :rolleyes: Heck, back in 2008 I was being given infractions here for talking about IPS advantages: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032641345&postcount=5 as well as on other forums :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...

we have that generation of ultrasharps at work. they are pretty solid. amazing for how old they are
 
MavericK96 said:
You must have been using some shitty IPS panels...my blacks look about as black as can be on a backlit surface.
Click to expand...

Well what happens with some people is they want an LCD to look just like CRT, and use it in the same fashion. Most IPS monitors won't go much under 120nits, maybe more, without losing contrast ratio, at least until they age, because that's all the more you can dim the backlight. Well people are used to CRTs, which in the case of high end ones don't go much over 80nits before they start to have bleed issues.

So with a CRT you get used to running it in the dark. When I had my LaCie Electron22BlueIV I had no lights on in the room. At most, Id' turn a small fluorescent made to just illuminate my keyboard. I was perpetually working in the dark, only turning on the lights if I needed to look at something in the room, then back off again. I couldn't turn it up much, before the image quality was negatively affected.

Well when I first got an LCD it seemed exceedingly bright since I couldn't turn it down to where I had used my previous monitor. Finally, I got wise and turned on the lights. I have lights behind my screen so that I don't get glare, but do have an illuminated room. Now the LCD brightness looks good, and I can actually see what I'm doing.

That's a big part of the issue for many people. The absolute black level with most LCDs can't get as low, and they are still trying to work in the dark.

Also the contrast of an IPS LCD is usually inferior to most CRTs. My LaCie had a measured CRT of like 900:1, since it had electronics to prevent burn in and preserve uniformity which reduced it. My NEC has a measured contrast of like 600:1. Not a huge difference, since a better way of putting it is 29.5dB vs 27.8dB but still. So when the screen is mostly dark, it is more noticeable that it isn't completely black (though no screen really is, not even the OLED on my Note II).

It also depends on what you focus on. CRTs drove me up the wall with their geometry issues. I'd spend hours with a grid, ruler, and so on trying to get the damn image as large as possible, but still square and undistorted. Then I got to go play with focus, convergence, etc. I was so happy when LCDs eliminated all of that. However some people seem not to care about any of that, and for them contrast ratio is the only thing that matters.

So he may have looked at good IPS monitors and still not liked them because of what he chooses to focus on, and how he chooses to use them.
 
dremic said:
i havent played on a 120hz monitor. i think if i did i would care more but since i havent it doesnt bother me even a little
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I mean it is noticeable, don't get me wrong, but not a huge deal for the most part. Id' take it if I could get it, but I'm ok without. I can switch back and forth whenever I like and I don't go 120Hz much. It is most noticeable with hard transition, like dragging a window around on the desktop. So you can really see it there. However when you are in the action of a game and there are less sharp transitions, and particularly when there is some blur and so on, it gets much harder to appreciate. You can still see it, don't get me wrong, but it is more minor.

When there are 120Hz IPS panels that are actually rated for it, I'll get one for sure, but it is not that big a deal.
 
Recently made the switch from 120hz 1080p to 60hz 1440
You will notice at first the lack of responsiveness and lower frame rate.
I found it quite quick to transition overall though.

I now have a lot less issues with viewing my monitor (love ips over tn).
Was considering keeping the 120hz for gaming but I decided I prefer the 1440p one.

It's definitely an upgrade and games run fine at 60fps with a few things turned down at 1440p

Sycraft said:
Also the contrast of an IPS LCD is usually inferior to most CRTs. My LaCie had a measured CRT of like 900:1, since it had electronics to prevent burn in and preserve uniformity which reduced it. My NEC has a measured contrast of like 600:1.
Click to expand...

A lot of BS quotes float around of contrast spec, but aren't most IPS panels 1000:1 these days :confused:

Sycraft said:
Not necessarily. I mean it is noticeable, don't get me wrong, but not a huge deal for the most part. Id' take it if I could get it, but I'm ok without. I can switch back and forth whenever I like and I don't go 120Hz much. It is most noticeable with hard transition, like dragging a window around on the desktop. So you can really see it there. However when you are in the action of a game and there are less sharp transitions, and particularly when there is some blur and so on, it gets much harder to appreciate. You can still see it, don't get me wrong, but it is more minor.

When there are 120Hz IPS panels that are actually rated for it, I'll get one for sure, but it is not that big a deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was surprised with the difference in desktop use when I switched to 120hz and when I switched back to a 60hz monitor with my latest one. I only had it in my head that it would effect gaming.

As said though. I do not regret the change.


EDEEEET!: GTX 260? Not worth it unless you are doing a gpu upgrade anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
RangerXML said:
I think that 1440p will be skipped as a standard resolution. I know its pretty common for graphics designers and architects, but considering the flood of 4k displays at the last CES. Sadly they are still billed as premium displays. Nothing right now beats a nice 27" 1440p IPS display, but I think that your going to see cheaper 4k consumer displays before you see a reasonably priced 1440p.
Click to expand...

Indications are that you are going to be proven very wrong and very shortly: Monoprice is stepping into the monitor market with a 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor for less than $400 that rivals the $1000 versions in quality.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/how-monoprice-is-eating-the-tech-world-from-the-in

This is very recent news and, if it pans out, should take the Displays forum by storm.
 
JayJapanB said:
A lot of BS quotes float around of contrast spec, but aren't most IPS panels 1000:1 these days :confused:
Click to expand...

Well three things:

1) My monitor is older. It is an NEC 2690WUXi. That's a 2007ish monitor release (mine was built March 2008). CR wasn't quite as high back then. 800:1 is the spec on this panel. I have a PA301W coming to replace it, but it doesn't get here until tomorrow.

2) The quoted CR spec of IPS panels never, ever, gets hit in reality. So when a panel says "1000:1" what they really mean is "probably a little over 900:1".

3) NECs have a bunch of advanced processing and colour management that, when enabled, lowers contrast a bit.

Point is CRTs generally have a higher CR than LCDs. Some had a very high CR because they'd let the display fall more or less all the way to black, though that happened at the expense of burn in. For that matter my LaCie was probably over 900:1 a bit given that I was using a Spyder 2 to measure and calibrate it, which is not near as sensitive to low light as the i1 Display Pro I use to calibrate my NEC.

Couple that with a lower brightness level, and you can get a very low black point.
 
evilsofa said:
Indications are that you are going to be proven very wrong and very shortly: Monoprice is stepping into the monitor market with a 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor for less than $400 that rivals the $1000 versions in quality.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/how-monoprice-is-eating-the-tech-world-from-the-in

This is very recent news and, if it pans out, should take the Displays forum by storm.
Click to expand...

We'll see how those go. I think it is great, since I want to see more IPS monitors out there so that maybe people stop loving the poor quality TNs so much. After all, panel makers make what sells. Everyone wants cheap TNs, so you see lots of it. If more people buy IPS, there'll be more IPS to choose from.

I am a little worried though as I think QC may be a bit of an issue. People may have to accept monitors with some dead pixels and other defects that they like to return them to Dell for. Monoprice can offer low prices because they keep costs low. They can't do that on monitors if people return them 10 times in search of the perfect picture which means they will just not take returns for that kind of thing.
 
evilsofa said:
Indications are that you are going to be proven very wrong and very shortly: Monoprice is stepping into the monitor market with a 27" 2560x1440 IPS monitor for less than $400 that rivals the $1000 versions in quality.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/how-monoprice-is-eating-the-tech-world-from-the-in

This is very recent news and, if it pans out, should take the Displays forum by storm.
Click to expand...

That's awesome...if it was 120 Hz I think I'd buy one immediately. Guessing it's going to be 60 Hz, though.
 
Monoprice is the exception to the rule and that is not just me excusing it away.
 
MavericK96 said:
That's awesome...if it was 120 Hz I think I'd buy one immediately. Guessing it's going to be 60 Hz, though.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is 60Hz. The problem with 120Hz is that the panels aren't made for that. I know people are getting monitors with no control electronics that can be OC'd to 120Hz but that doesn't mean the panel was made to take it and it could well lead to premature failures and so on. That's fine if you are some Korean firm importing cheap stuff you don't support, not as fine if you are Monoprice.

Hopefully sometime fairly soon we'll see real 120Hz IPS panels that are rated to handle it, but we haven't yet.
 
Sycraft said:
I'm sure it is 60Hz. The problem with 120Hz is that the panels aren't made for that. I know people are getting monitors with no control electronics that can be OC'd to 120Hz but that doesn't mean the panel was made to take it and it could well lead to premature failures and so on. That's fine if you are some Korean firm importing cheap stuff you don't support, not as fine if you are Monoprice.

Hopefully sometime fairly soon we'll see real 120Hz IPS panels that are rated to handle it, but we haven't yet.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, here... people are running a risk on using those panels at such an extremely out-of-spec setting, and we don't have any data for very long use of them at those either (only have had people running them for what, 6-10 months now?). They may fail, they may not fail, but it's a definite risk there and you have effectively no warranty if not literally no warranty so if it dies you're just out. I'd love to see some rated 120hz IPS panels from actual manufacturers with a warranty, though!

TwistedAegis said:
Yes it's worth it. Went 30" 1600p 4 years ago and no way in hell can I ever go back.
Click to expand...

Same, over four years ago here and I love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top