Higher resolution 1440p / 1600p & gaming

[wand3r3r]

I'm thinking of getting a higher resolution screen, primarily for productivity so to speak but I will play games too.

Basically does anyone regret going for the higher resolution screens?

The primary downfalls being lag (input/g2g), and that no GPU can actually handle all the details. (Supposing one can, which it can't, is a continuous battle in any case)

I've had a 120 hz, but it was hard to actually push 120FPS (needs compromises).

I've seen the funny 2560x1080p but that aspect ration doesn't appeal.

My instincts point to a dell 27", as I don't see the extra 160p height providing a several hundred $ value.

What are the opinions and thoughts on the higher resolution screens and the value you find?

Btw, the fact the picture is better on IPS doesn't matter as much as the resolution to me. I've used some glossy screens and some have looked very nice imo, as well as matte. I don't use photoshop nor any picture/video editing software (other than to convert file formats or something occasionally) so that's not a selling point for me.

I'd love a 4k screen but have no interest in paying over a grand, I just don't see the value.

 

[Tweak155]

I went up to 1440p from 1200p and was just sort of meh about it. I don't think the increase in resolution was that amazing, but it was nice.

If I could do it again, I'd wait for an even higher res along with stronger video cards.

If you just want productivity, get a 2nd monitor if you have room to get the best of both worlds. Although, for productivity, I do think the higher res was nice. I can do everything on one monitor now.

 

[wand3r3r]

Yeah, that's another thought. 1080p to 1200p is pretty minimal (granted the width is the same). If that's all it seems to be when going 1200p to 1440p I should probably think about it. In the end it's 240p higher and ~600p wider.

I like 1200p for the extra height, but I don't think it's worth much money.

 

[CakeMonster]

Vertical resolution is worth a premium if you ask me. The productivity improvement from reading/browsing/images is great. So the 30" (1600) over the 27" (1440) provides the space in the area where it is most needed.

For gaming, the 30" is only a tiny amount wider (not really noticeable) but the height is quite noticeable and adds a lot to the experience. It feels a lot more vivid. I have the two side by side and so does a friend of mine and he reported the exact same experience as me.

The ppi is a bit lower on the 30" as well, which in Windows is actually a good thing, making text more easily readable at a distance.

This might not be relevant if you think 30" is too expensive, but I thought I'd just add my $0.02 considering what I think is worth it.

 

[CakeMonster]

Yeah, that's another thought. 1080p to 1200p is pretty minimal (granted the width is the same). If that's all it seems to be when going 1200p to 1440p I should probably think about it. In the end it's 240p higher and ~600p wider.

I like 1200p for the extra height, but I don't think it's worth much money.

IMO, vertical resolution is critical for everything except games and movies, and the lower the resolution, the more important. So 1200 over 1080 is even more critical for productivity than the next steps. 1080 is horribly gimped IMO.

 

[Hinda65]

I just went from an asus 1080p to the Dell 2713 and I couldn't be happier. I picked it up for $550 no shipping at the egg which was the sweet spot for me, especially considering I paid $500 for my 19" crt back in the day....I'm still running my 580gtx 1.5g and it's holidng it's own, for the most part...

Assassins creed 3 i'm still running all maxed getting low 40's
Borderlands 2 all maxed getting 50's - 60's
Sleeping dogs I had to turn AA to normal to make it playable....I know a lot of newer games will be crippled by the 580 so I'm gonna wait for the 700's to load those.

Anyways my perspective is soley from a gaming standpoint and I have no complaints....I don't notice any input lag and I don't think you would unless your gaming pro-style.

I look at my 24" and it seems tiny, I will go 1600p in time, but for now, i'm really enjoying 1440...

 

[Lavans]

An alternative you could consider is getting a quality 1080p monitor and create downscaled resolutions. That way if you need to lower the res from 1440p/1600p, you can do so without the infamous LCD blurring.

 

[wand3r3r]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

 

[Final8ty]

I went from 21" CRT to 30" 2560x1600 in 2006 and never looked back.

 

[Unoid]

Some of us push 100+ HZ 1440Ps, Not easy, requires some settings compromise.

 

[Lavans]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Most monitors can go well above their native resolution. If you have a Nvidia GPU, you can do it in NVCP. If you have an AMD GPU, you can do it in a third party tool.

Nvidia guide - http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=346325
AMD guide - http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=366244

Using these timings, I'm able to get 3840x2160 on all three of my Acer H233H monitors and my 40" Vizio HDTV.

(Note, the timings need to be set to manual, not automatic)

 

[Zardnok]

I have absolutely no regrets with my current Shimian 27" 1440p. I can run split screen with documents on both sides and see more of whatever game I am playing. I actually plan on buying two more so I can run three across and fill in my periphery.

As for value, I paid $350 for a "pixel perfect" Shimian monitor and a week later received an incredible improvement over my old Asus 1080 screen. You can find similar panels from Monoprice and MicroCenter that come with a warranty for $400ish. The downside is you may be limited to only having DVI-D input, but that also means there are less inputs for the monitor to process before sending the signal to the actual panel, so input lag is actually reduced. Check each model to see what inputs and "dead pixel" guarantees apply.

Do some research and decide if the savings on the "A-" panels is worth it to you.

 

[Klunt Bumskrint]

I have absolutely no regrets with my current Shimian 27" 1440p. I can run split screen with documents on both sides and see more of whatever game I am playing. I actually plan on buying two more so I can run three across and fill in my periphery.

As for value, I paid $350 for a "pixel perfect" Shimian monitor and a week later received an incredible improvement over my old Asus 1080 screen. You can find similar panels from Monoprice and MicroCenter that come with a warranty for $400ish. The downside is you may be limited to only having DVI-D input, but that also means there are less inputs for the monitor to process before sending the signal to the actual panel, so input lag is actually reduced. Check each model to see what inputs and "dead pixel" guarantees apply.

Do some research and decide if the savings on the "A-" panels is worth it to you.

I've got a Crossover 27Q and it's awesome. Went from 1200 TN to 1440 IPS and love every minute. No backlight bleeding and no dead/stuck pixels.

Totally worth the £265 and £50 import tax.

 

[biostud]

Went from 22" 1680x1050 TN to 27" 2560x1440 IPS, and that's simply amazing compared to my old monitor.

 

[wand3r3r]

^ Yeah that's a huge difference!

Downsampling looks somewhat interesting. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea (yet) though.

It looks like most people are satisfied, although it may not be as significant as you'd think from 1200p.

I can't stand 1080p for height either. Keep the opinions coming, and thanks for the replies thus far.

I'd guess I'd just go dell vs. the knock offs when it comes down to it. Actually I need to verify the dead pixel policies. I think even 1 dead pixel would bug me.

 

[monster88]

Most monitors can go well above their native resolution. If you have a Nvidia GPU, you can do it in NVCP. If you have an AMD GPU, you can do it in a third party tool.

Nvidia guide - http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=346325
AMD guide - http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=366244

Using these timings, I'm able to get 3840x2160 on all three of my Acer H233H monitors and my 40" Vizio HDTV.

(Note, the timings need to be set to manual, not automatic)

what program are you using? amd user here, and the only program i know of that allows for downsampling is the one that you've provided in the link. the problem is the max res that program allows is 2720x1700. i know resolution is dependent on the monitor, i have an old t260hd from samsung and would like to set my res higher than 2720x1700 for games.

 

[Lavans]

Downsampling looks somewhat interesting. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea (yet) though.

Downsampling is great in the fact that you're (artificially) increasing the PPI of your monitor. Most monitors are generally between 70-80 PPI, and HDTV's are even less than that.

what program are you using? amd user here, and the only program i know of that allows for downsampling is the one that you've provided in the link. the problem is the max res that program allows is 2720x1700. i know resolution is dependent on the monitor, i have an old t260hd from samsung and would like to set my res higher than 2720x1700 for games.

I'm using NVCP. The ability to downsample on AMD actually came out shortly after I switched my HD5970 for a GTX680, so I don't know much about it unfortunately. Does the downsampling tool lock you to 2720x1700? Or can you set it higher? If the latter, you might want to change the timings to something similar as what is pictured in the screen shot. Without adjusting the timings, it can be difficult to go above 1440p. But still, 2720x1700 is a pretty good resolution. Depending on how your display blends the pixels to downsample, it should look pretty sweet.

 

[monster88]

Downsampling is great in the fact that you're (artificially) increasing the PPI of your monitor. Most monitors are generally between 70-80 PPI, and HDTV's are even less than that.



I'm using NVCP. The ability to downsample on AMD actually came out shortly after I switched my HD5970 for a GTX680, so I don't know much about it unfortunately. Does the downsampling tool lock you to 2720x1700? Or can you set it higher? If the latter, you might want to change the timings to something similar as what is pictured in the screen shot. Without adjusting the timings, it can be difficult to go above 1440p. But still, 2720x1700 is a pretty good resolution. Depending on how your display blends the pixels to downsample, it should look pretty sweet.

i can set it to go higher, but i need to enter the values manually. 2720x1700, and below, inputs all the values automatically. if i enter a resolution higher than that, i can set it, but as soon as i go in-game with that res i get a black screen (sleep mode) and have to reset.

 

[Lavans]

When you enter the timings manually, does the pixel clock value automatically change? If so, then with a bit of tinkering, you should be able to go higher. The trick is to try and keep the pixel clock under 164hz (16400 in the downsampling tool). Anything higher than 164hz pixel clock will cause the image to display incorrectly, if at all. But since I have no way of testing the downsampling tool, I'd strongly suggest asking someone in the AMD thread if they can reference their timings for higher resolutions. Though I wanted to ask, what are you setting for your HTotal and VTotal values?

 

[Granseth]

I recently got a Dell U2713H, up from a 24" dell 1200p screen. And for one I went up to 10 bit color (from 8bit), and if that is important, it made a huge difference. (I make stuff that is sent to print, and need correct colours)

When it comes to resolution it's also something that you can detect, it's much easier to have two programs in splitscreen now than before. So when you ask about productivity, it is very dependent on what kind of work you do. If you need alot of screen estate it is an improvement! If you don't, then its not

 

[BFG10K]

Most monitors can go well above their native resolution.

FYI - a monitor can never go over its' native resolution. What you're actually doing is getting the GPU to internally render at a higher resolution, which is then scaled down.

 

[Lavans]

FYI - a monitor can never go over its' native resolution. What you're actually doing is getting the GPU to internally render at a higher resolution, which is then scaled down.

You sure? My HDTV reports 1440p when downscaling from 2560x1440, and disables all image processing effects when running at 1620p or higher.

 

[darckhart]

went from u2410 to catleap q270. totally worth it. i can view docs side-by-side on the same screen and still have them both be readable both in terms of font sharpness and scrolling.

 

[wand3r3r]

What's the consensus on 8bit vs. 10bit? (2713H vs. HM)

I suppose I can search for threads I'd imagine that's been discussed plenty.

 

[Granseth]

What's the consensus on 8bit vs. 10bit? (2713H vs. HM)

I suppose I can search for threads I'd imagine that's been discussed plenty.

I didn't think I would notice the difference, to me correct colors was the important thing. But since I have the 10 bit screen next to the 8 bit I can honestly say that it's easy to see the difference. I don't think it would be a problem with 8 bit, but since I have both I can say that 10bit is a difference that you can see.

But it also seems like it is a thing that mostly have to do with photos, as most files don't use 10bit color information.