1440p Worth over the reduction in FPS ?

[moonbogg]

What monitor did you go with? I'm currently looking to upgrade from my 27" 1080p 2ms. I just got a 290x - so I've been eying the Freesync monitors, but I think most of them are ugly.

Acer XB270HU Gsync monitor. There are freesync equivalents available.

 

[amenx]

Perfectly happy on 1440p with 970. Most of my games are maxed out except for AA.. but I am not a 60 FPS fanatic. Can comfortably tolerate dips to the 40s and even 30s in some games. Stupidest assumption to make is to think all games should behave and look equal at 60 FPS. You may need 60 fps in fast paced twitch shooters but that doesnt equally apply to RPGs (witcher 3, skyrim, etc) or similar slow moving games. In fact I'll bet the vast majority of people on W3 are having a blast with it at way less than 60 FPS. Anyone remember Crysis 1 when it came out? Anyone telling you they played the game and finished it (in 2007) at higher than 50 FPS average (@ 1680x1050 'the norm' back then) is probably BS'ing or settled for very low settings. LOL, they even wanted more eye candy with ridiculous mods that crimped FPS even further. Halo CE? I chose the 30 FPS locked option. A lot of games in consoles are capped out at 30 FPS. Can you tell the difference between 60 and 30 FPS in blind tests? Absolutely! But again, only in test scenarios that are designed to show the difference. I know it bothers some people if they cant maintain 60 FPS in all games, just glad that I'm not one of them. And the vast majority of gamers (those who dont even use tools to measure FPS) are probably like me.

Granted, not all people are the same, but for me eye candy is always over higher FPS. But I will not choose a lower resolution just to get higher settings. Many of the highest settings can be slightly tweaked with barely a difference in IQ. Was previously on 27" 1080p unit and no way go back to it for a higher FPS. That even applies to when I had a 770 with 1440p, let alone a 970. Pretty sure if I was a competitive gamer on CS-GO that 60 FPS would matter far more for me, but I am not.

 

[tential]

What monitor did you go with? I'm currently looking to upgrade from my 27" 1080p 2ms. I just got a 290x - so I've been eying the Freesync monitors, but I think most of them are ugly.

IMO, not going Freesync/Gsync is a massive mistake if you can afford it.

You can turn eye candy up as high as it can go and still handle frame rate drops.

Obviously there are freesync monitors with lame areas where it works, but get a decent one and be happy.

 

[Termie]

1440p is nice for games, but better for productivity. When you're in the middle of a game, the resolution isn't that critical, unless it's a game that has a lot of assets on screen (i.e. RTS, RPG).

If you're going to get a 1440p monitor using a GTX 970, definitely go GSync. There are only a few (ROG Swift, XB270HU), and they are not cheap. If you can't do that, get a 1080p 144Hz or G-Sync monitor.

There simply is no comparison between gaming at 144Hz vs 60Hz, at least for fast-twitch games. I have a 1440p/60 Hz, 1080p/144Hz, and 1440p/GSync. I really do not like gaming on the 1440p/60Hz monitor. The 144Hz and GSync monitors feel similar in games, but the GSync monitor is far better quality (1440p IPS) for everything else.

 

[kasakka]

The Acer g257hu is the exact monitor I'm interested in, I sit too close and have too little space for a 27" screen. Would much rather have the higher PPI and space on my desk.

To me 27" is exactly the right size for 1440p. 25" would require you to use DPI scaling in Windows to make text a good size for reading but then you would also lose desktop space. I sit quite close to my 27" and it fits in my view just perfectly.

But seriously, don't buy a cheap display. You will simply get a panel that usually has poor color reproduction, poor calibration, possibly high input lag and still only 60 Hz.

I would not bother with the overclockable Korean QNIX etc panels though as they use DVI which based on current trends is going to be phased out in a few years, eventually making it difficult to get higher than 60 Hz out of a DP -> DVI adapter. A real 120 or 144 Hz panel has much lower motion blur at any framerate than 60 Hz panels and looks very nice in motion. G-Sync makes it even better.

To me buying a very expensive computer and pairing it with a cheap display is a terrible thing to do. You stare at the display the most and if you get the right one it's something that will most likely last you at least the next 5 years or more. If you split the cost of a more expensive, higher quality display over that timeframe you'll notice it's not that expensive.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Acer XB270HU Gsync monitor. There are freesync equivalents available.

Yea that one is the one I am not liking too much. They made some weird design decisions with the freesync version, granted it is considerably cheaper than the g-sync version. However, when spending this kind of money, I am a bit pickier about asthetics.

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-XG270HU-omidpx-FREESYNC-Widescreen/dp/B00VRCLHYS

I'm almost tempted to get 3 - 27" cheap monitors and do eyeinfinity instead. I don't really have an issue with 60hz at this point.

 

[moonbogg]

Yea that one is the one I am not liking too much. They made some weird design decisions with the freesync version, granted it is considerably cheaper than the g-sync version. However, when spending this kind of money, I am a bit pickier about asthetics.

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-XG270HU-omidpx-FREESYNC-Widescreen/dp/B00VRCLHYS

I'm almost tempted to get 3 - 27" cheap monitors and do eyeinfinity instead. I don't really have an issue with 60hz at this point.

I understand. I drop my monitor nearly all the way down to the desk, so it hides the stand anyway lol.

 

[UsiGX]

If you're going to get a 1440p monitor using a GTX 970, definitely go GSync. There are only a few (ROG Swift, XB270HU), and they are not cheap. If you can't do that, get a 1080p 144Hz or G-Sync monitor.

The games I play are mostly rpg, racing and openworld. So won't an IPS be a better route compared to 144 hz TN? let alone 1440p or 1080p. I place high emphasis on color and picture quality. And I have a limited budget ($270 USD) so the GSync is out for me.

 

[UsiGX]

But seriously, don't buy a cheap display. You will simply get a panel that usually has poor color reproduction, poor calibration, possibly high input lag and still only 60 Hz.

I would not bother with the overclockable Korean QNIX etc panels

I prefer IPS > Refresh Rate since I'm not a competitive FPS hardcore gamer. And I agree with you on not getting the Qnix, it's not a quality display. What monitors do you have in mind regardless of the budget ? The Rog Swift seems to be a very good monitor but it's a TN display.

 

[Termie]

The games I play are mostly rpg, racing and openworld. So won't an IPS be a better route compared to 144 hz TN? let alone 1440p or 1080p. I place high emphasis on color and picture quality. And I have a limited budget ($270 USD) so the GSync is out for me.

For your games, a 1440p IPS screen will be better, except perhaps for open world. Either way, with your budget, you're pretty limited. There are no quality 1440p IPS models at that level. Do not get a 25" model just to save money. The dot pitch is too small and the gaming experience will be closer to a 1080p 24" screen due to the screen size. Asus has a very good 27" IPS for just over $400. I'd save up for that.

 

[Headfoot]

Ultrawide is a much more dramatically better experience from 1080 compared to 1440p. 1440 is definitely nice, but I'd go 2560x1080 before I'd go 1440. I'm doing triple 1080p and its awesome

 

[UsiGX]

For your games, a 1440p IPS screen will be better, except perhaps for open world. Either way, with your budget, you're pretty limited. There are no quality 1440p IPS models at that level. Do not get a 25" model just to save money. The dot pitch is too small and the gaming experience will be closer to a 1080p 24" screen due to the screen size. Asus has a very good 27" IPS for just over $400. I'd save up for that.

I live in Canada and I think I could go with Asus Pb278q used second hand condition from kijiji. The cheapest one A/V is for about $270 USD and its in great condition (about 1 year used) with warranty and everything.
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-monitors/cit...or/1088905325?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true

About the 25", although the very rich ppi, will it basically be an overkill since, in addition to limited screen size, limited human vision density ? I've heard people say it looks very nice since the ppi is very very rich but that may just be a placebo effect.

 

[thetuna]

I am using two 2560x1440 monitors right now.
They are:

• TN 144Hz freesync (BenQ XL2730Z)
• IPS 59Hz (Random Korean A- panel)

They both have their places.
At first I was quite disappointed in the BenQ, but it just really needed calibration.
The 144Hz is very nice.
Dragging a window from one screen to the other is a bit jarring, the fluidity of 144Hz must be seen to be understood.
That said, the IPS screen most definitely looks better.
The color reproduction and vividness blow the TN panel away.
Also, the BenQ has an anti-glare coating which hurts the image quality while the IPS has a glossy glass screen.

On to freesync:
I have only played one game since I got the BenQ: GTA 5.
I average 50-80 fps, and the game looks awesome at any of those rates.
There is an occasional dip (happens maybe once every couple of hours of gameplay) to below 40fps (the limit of the BenQ's freesync range), and the difference between 39 and 40 fps is huge.

I plan on buying a 2560x1440 IPS 144Hz monitor whenever they manage to bring the input lag down, and hopefully then I'll have the best of both worlds.

To answer the OP's question: yes, 100% I think 2560x1440 @ lower frame rate is superior to 1920x1080 @ higher frame rate... and that 2560x1440 @ high frame rate is even better

 

[Insomniator]

I think people saying the 25" is too small for 1440p are crazy. Out cell phones are 1440p.

I have a 1900x1200 25" right now and could definitely live with a higher PPI and smaller text. I'm not 90 years old using 800x600 to see text.

 

[DustinBrowder]

Contrary to popular belief resolution isn't everything! You need to look at the contrast, reaction time and other monitor characteristics.

You won't experience any improved graphical fidelity either, resolution is great to a point, you want least amount of jagged lines, you want least amount of aliasing, etc..., but the difference between 1080p to 1440p isn't going to be huge.

What is more important is the graphical settings, you can run a game on 4k monitor, but have to run it at medium graphic settings and its going to look way worse, compared to gaming at 1080p and all settings at maximum.

I mean heck you can play at 8k monitors at medium settings and it will look worse than 1080p and maximum settings.

So overall I would recommend bigger monitor if its overall better in all aspects and you have a graphic card like the 980TI and are able to game at max settings.

 

[tviceman]

30" 2560x1600 and 27" 1920x1080, about a meter away. No display scaling / document zooming / enlarged fonts with either.

Some claim 24" is the usable limit for 1080p, but this is untrue. I use a pair of 24" 1080p displays at work, but I prefer coming home to my single 27". The bigger display is more immersive so it looks better overall.

And again, the visual quality loss from the PPI reduction is marginal.

I will generally agree with this, but I can't go smaller on screen size. I would not downgrade both the resolution and screen size like you did.

 

[Headfoot]

Yea that one is the one I am not liking too much. They made some weird design decisions with the freesync version, granted it is considerably cheaper than the g-sync version. However, when spending this kind of money, I am a bit pickier about asthetics.

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-XG270HU-omidpx-FREESYNC-Widescreen/dp/B00VRCLHYS

I'm almost tempted to get 3 - 27" cheap monitors and do eyeinfinity instead. I don't really have an issue with 60hz at this point.

If you do eyefinity take care to pick a monitor with a slim bezel. I switched from 3 thick bezeled 22" screens to 3 extremely thin bezel 22" screens and it was massively less distracting. I dont notice the bezels at all now in regular gaming.

Watch out for misleading marketing on bezel depth. You need to know from image to outside rim, not from outside rim to the back border right before the image (which is what they advertise, essentially just the thickness of the very outermost layer of plastic/metal which is only half the story).

They even inaccurately crop marketing images right up to the bezel beyond what the display can actually display. It's likely literally false advertising in many jurisdictions but I dont think anyone has sued on it yet.

Class actions lawyers take note

 

[Termie]

I live in Canada and I think I could go with Asus Pb278q used second hand condition from kijiji. The cheapest one A/V is for about $270 USD and its in great condition (about 1 year used) with warranty and everything.
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-monitors/cit...or/1088905325?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true

About the 25", although the very rich ppi, will it basically be an overkill since, in addition to limited screen size, limited human vision density ? I've heard people say it looks very nice since the ppi is very very rich but that may just be a placebo effect.

Getting a monitor used is a good idea to make the most of your budget, but obviously you run the risk of finding a problem with the product.

As for 25" 1440p monitors, I haven't used one, but I think 27" 1440p is already a very fine PPI, and much below that would make text in the GUI hard to read unless the monitor is very close. Furthermore, the gaming experience just won't be that distinguishable from 14" 1080p, as part of the improvement is the actual larger field of vision, not just a virtual one.

 

[UsiGX]

Getting a monitor used is a good idea to make the most of your budget, but obviously you run the risk of finding a problem with the product.

As for 25" 1440p monitors, I haven't used one, but I think 27" 1440p is already a very fine PPI, and much below that would make text in the GUI hard to read unless the monitor is very close. Furthermore, the gaming experience just won't be that distinguishable from 14" 1080p, as part of the improvement is the actual larger field of vision, not just a virtual one.

Yes and by the way how is the Asus Pb278q as an ips monitor ? Is this the one worthy to be bought as a quality panel display ?

 

[Face2Face]

I prefer IPS > Refresh Rate since I'm not a competitive FPS hardcore gamer. And I agree with you on not getting the Qnix, it's not a quality display. What monitors do you have in mind regardless of the budget ? The Rog Swift seems to be a very good monitor but it's a TN display.

I have one, and while the quality of the stand and casing is pretty crap, the panel itself is very nice, especially at 96Hz. I've since replaced the crap stand with a solid adjustable one, and to me the difference over 1080p is well worth it, especially vs. a 27" 1080p monitor. I realize that I can't produce frame rates over 60 FPS on every game I own, but I don't play AAA titles all the time. For example: Assetto Corsa , the Sim racing game looks and plays pretty awesome @ 1440p (VH settings) at a consistent 96 FPS.

When I bought my monitor (2013) it was a $350 Pixel Perfect model on Amazon. No regrets here... at this point I'll wait for a decent IPS/PLS high refresh rate 4K panel before I bite on anything else.

 

[amenx]

Qnix QX2710 uses/used the same Samsung PLS panels found in their $800+ units (S27A850D matte and S27A970D glossy). Sadly over the last 8 months or so they switched to inferior parts and slightly lower grade panels. I wouldnt buy one now, but if anyone bought one over a year ago and if defect free, they are lucky. STILL thats another story and is not where Qnix got its bad rep.

Where Qnix got its bad rep, is that there have been a couple of reviews (TFT central and Toms I believe) where they review the wrong damn monitor but which unfortunately shares the same model no. as the good one. Qnix QX2710 Evo II single input is/was the good unit, Qnix QX2710 Evo II multiDP True10 is the lousy one and has a Au Optronics VA panel, not Samsung PLS. THAT is what confuses newbs to the Korean monitor scene and where they assume Qnix is a lousy monitor due to those reviews. Its even fooled the reviewers who selected the wrong one to review.

The original Qnix QX2710 single input (DVI) is a great monitor. With no scalar/OSD and feeding the signal directly from your GPU to the panel, its refresh rate can be overclocked to 120hz. Its nearly perfectly calibrated out of the box. I have a colorimeter and went through all the tests and it rivals much more expensive units. Also have a Yamakasi 27" IPS catleap (overclockable) as well as a Yamakasi DS270 (AH-IPS), yet Qnix is my main working/gaming display. I wouldnt buy one now, because they have been switching to inferior parts lately (mattes mostly come with PWM now) and glossies a different panel with reduced color space.

That said, Korean 1440p monitors are still the best bang for the buck, just not Qnix atm. Current trending monitor is Crossover 2795QHD (AH-IPS, overclockable).

 

[Face2Face]

The original Qnix QX2710 single input (DVI) is a great monitor. With no scalar/OSD and feeding the signal directly from your GPU to the panel, its refresh rate can be overclocked to 120hz.

Agreed. This is the same one I have.

 

[TeknoBug]

If you're playing FPS (and racing) games, you're better off going 1080p/120-144Hz instead of 1440p, unless you have a GPU powerful enough and a monitor good enough for 1440p/144Hz.

But for MMO and RTS games 1440p is fine.

 

[kasakka]

The main problem with the Korean overclickable displays are that the overclock is not guaranteed and that they use DVI, which is likely to be removed in future GPUs, making it problematic to use at full res since most DP -> DVI adapters only support single link DVI.

 

[amenx]

There are trade-offs and compromises of course with cheap koreans. None are guaranteed to OC to 120hz but very high chances you will at least get 96hz. Mine do 120hz and 110hz (Qnix and catleap). If you want guaranteed Hz on IPS, pony up $800 and get the Acer XB270HU or Swift (oops, thats TN ). Re DVI only, yes that is an issue if you dont have a GPU with that (currently only Fury/x?). But these monitors are so low priced many people dont give a damn if they're obsolete in a year or two.. enough time for many to have gotten their worth out of them. People buy more expensive GPUs on an almost yearly basis.. whats a $300-350 monitor to them?