Is the difference between 1080p and 1440p a big deal? Honestly

Is the difference between 1080p and 1440p a big deal? Honestly.

I've played in 1080p my whole life and wondering if I should invest in a 1440p monitor.

I'm not asking 4k because I feel like it's waay to expensive right now.

No, get a 144hz monitor.

>1080p my whole life
Underage ban incoming

Is that a big deal? I don't play competitive FPS' and I hear it only really matters to that kind of game.

1080p and below.

It's smoother. You want smooth in video games, not a higher resolution. Only mouthbreathers care about graphics.

Buy a 144hz 1440p monitor

But that costs an arm and a leg

stop being poor

that costs even more

Don't buy monitors right now. They're all shit

>First-gen HDR is a joke and OLED will never arrive
>quantum dots still being engineered
>120 Hz IPS not widespread yet. and the ones that do support it have shit color support to compensate
>cables fast enough for 4K 120 Hz not really supported anyway

All current displays are shit and everything's a compromise. loss/loss scenario

Nigga every game benefits from 100fps, even shut like GTAV.

The thicc is ridicc

So what he's supposed to imagine how the games supposed to look?

It looks a lot better, as does a higher frame rate. Is it life changing? No.

4K is a no go right now - for one thing Windows is microscopic on it.

He clearly already has a monitor and is looking for an upgrade from 1080p

>4K is a no go right now - for one thing Windows is microscopic on it.
Eh, 4K owner here and it's fine for stuff like text, work and high-res images. Real estate is through the roof. Just make sure you get 4K at a reasonable size like 30" instead of getting a meme 24" 4K monitor, unless you plan on literally sitting a foot away from your screen.

But even with a 4K monitor, you're going to have to play games on 1440p or 1080p, so if gaming is the only thing you care about I agree there's absolutely no point in buying one right now.

It's pretty tough to go back to lower resolutions after being used to the space available on 4k.

Nigger might as well get 1440p 144hz g-sync/freesync if you have a higher-end. It has you covered in anything from 45-100+fps in a resolution that still is the perfect compromise between image quality and performance.

my school has 4k mac monitors that i use regularly and high resolution is mostly overkill past 1080p and is far too cost inefficient since you need way stronger hardware for negligible improvement

>TN
>compromise between shit and shit
ftfy

No I'm talking about IPS 144hz g-sync/freesync. Acer and Asus has had models out for nearly 2 years now. I own the Acer Xb270hu from 2015 and it's sweet as fuck

>W-LED
>sRGB
>8-bit
>1k contrast
why can't any of these meme gaming monitor companies actually make good panels?

I have that things can have "HDR" written on them if they accept a signal that is HDR. They don't actually have to display the HDR though. It's a massive con.

Nothing is perfect, and what do you expect for 600-800 bucks exactly? Go buy a Sony OLED PVM for 5 grand if you're that picky. Even the response time and input lag on Xb270hu is more than good enough, and it's an IPS. For gaming it's amazing, probably not so much for photoediting and other types of production.

Yep. True HDR actually means a black point of below 0.001 cd/m2. Anything else is a sham.

Also, ultra-high white points are a meme; just used to pad the contrast ratio at the expense of our eyes.

200 cd/m2 is way more than enough, as long as your black point is ultra low.

user, invest your time in your criteria before chosing what to play, instead of thinking in which resolution to play. You will not regret and you will safe money.

over 60hz monitors are the meme bait of all times

good luck only playing old games still the end of times or burning all your money to keep on that 144hz rat wheel

>Nothing is perfect, and what do you expect for 600-800 bucks exactly?
I expect something more expensive, that's the problem. I paid 1500 for my current display and it's still shit (60 Hz only, shit contrast). I would pay 2000 for a good panel, but they simply don't exist

>Go buy a Sony OLED PVM for 5 grand if you're that picky.
More like 30 grand. There's a world of difference between 2,000 and 30,000, user. I can afford the former, not the latter.

Obligatory fuck AU Optronics and their lack of QC post. Still waiting for a high refresh rate IPS monitor that doesn't force me to play quality roulette.

Well the companies targeting the gaymer market probably knows there are limits to how expensive they can make their products. Even the 1200 bucks 21:9 gayming monitors are way too expensive for most. And OLED is just expensive to produce, so much that even decent TVs cost 3-5 grand. The price of the PVMs are fine for the Industry, but not consumers, and there's no middle ground at the price point your want. You just have to take what you get, we don't live in a world where everything we wish for comes true just because we have a little money to spend.

It might be a pain in the ass but at least you as a consumer has the right to DRM or claim a refund if you're not happy.

Yes
Even at half frequency vsync (72 fps/144hz) it looks much better
If you can run it at full vsync you will feel like a retard for ever playing at 60fps

Honestly my main issue with most of these panels is the completely horrible firmware programming on them; which is an issue that literally takes no extra production cost to fix - just programmers that are competent.

framerate-locked firmwares for example just have no right to exist at all. At least the adaptive sync stuff is helping get rid of that

Don't know if this is helpful but here's a quick example.

Pricing aside OLEDs are still poorly suited for PC monitors because they haven't managed to completely solve the burn-in problem yet. They can get away with it in TVs where screen content is changing all the time, but I'm not a massive fan of static game UI elements permanently damaging my 5 grand monitor.

>no FXAA on/off comparison for all of them
>no super resolution
eh, alright

>no FXAA on/off comparison for all of them
Huh? They're upscaled to nearest neighbour, that preserves hard edges.
>no super resolution
Do you want 5K and 8K comparisons as well or what? I'm a bit confused.

If you just game then going bigger than 1920x1080 might not be worth it. If you do work then it absolutely is because you can stick ~~2* more stuff ok the screen at 2560x1440

Depends. I have to zoom in on anything that's badly formated and if it was small on my 2560x1440 I have to squint and get real close to read it.

UI just isn't there yet for 3.8k. The windows scaling makes it about the second as 2560x1440 but it's broken with some of my programs so I can't use it and it makes the useable space smaller.

>he fell for the IPS meme

these comparisons never work
it is how it looks in motion that counts

This desu

bought an xb270hu two years back now. It's pretty sweet. No backliht bleed to talk about either.

How come? You can't really show refresh rate differences in a simple screenshot, and the difference in detail and sharpness is quite visible in the comparison.

It's definitely a noticeable improvement in clarity.

You have to make the choice between the responsiveness of a higher frame rate screen to that of a higher clarity one.

I personally prefer a nicer image as I don't find myself playing twitch or fps. I've got a 4k 28 inch IPS and it's lovely eye candy.

>NN upscaling
why would you interpolate on a resolution comparison?
super resolution is a rendering mode that renders frames at higher resolutions than the screen can handle and then downscales them.

1440p 144hz ips was like 400 € when i bought it an year ago

1440p is nice. So is 144 Hz. Especially if with FreeSync/G-sync.

If you're satisfied with 1080p for now, then don't upgrade yet. I'd recommend saving up for a monitor that has at least two of the things I mentioned above; it will be well worth it in the long run.

Because human eyes notices the sharpness in motion easier than from a still picture
Same reason why all anti-aliasing methods look pretty much the same in stills, but completely different in motion

Something I'd like to point out real quick is that higher resolutions aren't just about more fidelity (finer details), they're also about a bigger viewing area at the same fidelity.

In fact, this is sort of what originally motivated the ITU-R to work on higher resolutions (4K and 8K) to begin with: they wanted to expand the viewing area to cover a larger fraction of your visiual range, while keeping the quality (pixel size) the same

In reality, it's sort of a mix between both. I recommend getting a 4K panel that's *larger* than what you'd normally get; or just sitting closer to it, to compensate for the small pixels.

That way the net result is just that you have a bigger image (or more working space, as the case may be)

So the end results would not be smudged due to other upscaling methods, nn works quite well, and the results would be easier to compare between each other, as opposed to each shot being a different size.

Why would I downsample when OP is asking about the difference between higher and lower resolution monitors? The differences will be nowhere near as visible if each image were downscaled to say, 1080p.

>why would you interpolate on a resolution comparison?
Nearest Neighbour is the closest fit for what an LCD panel does. It subdivides the images into small squares, which is the definition of nearest neighbour sampling.

NN is the only objectively correct way to compare resolutions. Actually, I made a similar such image here, which is also dimensioned such that 1440p can be nearest-neighbour scaled without distortion.

To view it accurately, move away from the monitor such that the 1080p sample looks “normal” again. (I think you'd need to move about twice as far away)

Not nearly as big as the difference between 60 and 30 fps. Even 120 or 144 fps at 1080p is better than 60 fps at 1440p.

>I've played in 1080p my whole life
You're supposed to be 18 or older to post here.

What happened to those magical 4k 144Hz monitors? Are they out yet? Have anyone even seen them with their own eyes?

not yet

They're not magical for being 4k 144hz, but I'd call them magical for that backlight with many zones so the IPS panel can actually display black.

At 1200$ it better be magical though

Oh I understand what you mean now, however my comparison wasn't meant to show difference in aliasing or using downsampling as an aliasing method.
I was simply trying to showcase the difference in what an image would look like if viewed on a monitors with a native resolution of 1080p, 1440p and 2160p respectively.

This

I have a 1440p 144hz monitor, I feel way more of a difference from the 144hz aspect than the 1080p aspect.