Thinking of getting myself a 1440p monitor.

[Klunt Bumskrint]

I use a Syncmaster T260 atm, I really like it but I keep seeing posts on forums about 1440p being loads better than 1200p. Is it?

Also whats with these korean Yamakasi's. Anyone got one they can review for me. Any links for reputable sellers?

Any specific monitor suggestions?
Budget up to £300 maybe more ( you don't get rich by spending money! )

Also 27 inch is about all I can fit in my little alcove.

That is all

:biggrin:

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's really a lot better to me. Text is sharper, colors are a ton better on IPS vs TN. The only downside is for gaming if you feel that 120hz is a "must have". I prefer the better colors and sharpness of 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080 or 1920x1200.

I have a Yamakasi Catleap Q270 and it's great. I purchased it from ebay. I don't think it's ok to post links so I will just tell you to go on ebay and search for catleap 27" and you'll get tons of links. Most of them are free shipping but you don't have a guarantee of no dead pixels etc. I have 1 or 2 stuck pixels but unless you look at a solid color like a red or green and really look for it, you don't notice. That said, there is a risk with any monitor purchase. Most people I know with Catleaps or the equivalent are very happy with them.

Pros of Catleap:
IPS display
very bright
accurate color (due to IPS)
good price

Negatives:
Stand is a bit wobbly and some models require taking apart the bezel to get to the VESA mounts to setup a different base. If your desk is not very stable, it will wobble.
The wiring internally is cheap and often will break easily if you attempt to take it apart for the above mentioned mounting. Look into buying a model that has the mounts accessible from the outside if you need this.
Some may have a few dead or bright pixels and up to a certain number is considered good and non returnable. Each seller is different.
Models with HDMI and other ports have higher input lag than DVI only models.
60hz only

 

[Tweak155]

I personally don't see an *awesome* gain from going 1200 to 1440p. It is nice for desktop space and just space in general, but it is a killer on graphics cards and gaming.

If I could go back, I'd probably stick with 2x1200p monitors and just game on one.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I personally don't see an *awesome* gain from going 1200 to 1440p. It is nice for desktop space and just space in general, but it is a killer on graphics cards and gaming.

If I could go back, I'd probably stick with 2x1200p monitors and just game on one.

It depends on your GPU budget. With zero or very low AA a single 7970 could handle it at playable frame rates, as could a single GTX 670 but would be at the limit IMO of what the 670 is capable of. Won't break any speed records though and probably dip below 60fps a lot. If you can do a dual gpu setup then it's more enjoyable for sure. OP is on SLI 680s which is perfect for 2560x1440 IMO. I'm running overclocked 670s and think it's fantastic. Everything but Crysis 3 so far is getting very good frame rates and even in the case of crysis 3 it's super playable at maxed settings.

I just personally feel the increased color quality is worth it.

 

[Fx1]

after playing crysis 3 at 1200p i wish i had 1080p. Even with a overclocked 7970 im struggling to get 60 FPS on High with FXAA let alone Very High with MSAA of any kind.

You can go from 60fps constant to 25 FPS in a bad area. You need a powerful SLI setup at 1440p and then you have to ask yourself what are you really getting for the £600 monitor and £700 of GPU's just to run those pixels

 

[cmdrdredd]

after playing crysis 3 at 1200p i wish i had 1080p. Even with a overclocked 7970 im struggling to get 60 FPS on High with FXAA let alone Very High with MSAA of any kind.

You can go from 60fps constant to 25 FPS in a bad area. You need a powerful SLI setup at 1440p and then you have to ask yourself what are you really getting for the £600 monitor and £700 of GPU's just to run those pixels

The OP is running SLI GTX 680s according to the sig, that's a very playable setup for 2560x1440 even in Crysis 3. Yes Crysis 3 will dip but there is a well known bug on the first level of the game. Most of the time I am between 50 and 80fps on my setup. I can only expect the OP's system to outperform mine by a bit.

 

[Tweak155]

It depends on your GPU budget. With zero or very low AA a single 7970 could handle it at playable frame rates, as could a single GTX 670 but would be at the limit IMO of what the 670 is capable of. Won't break any speed records though and probably dip below 60fps a lot. If you can do a dual gpu setup then it's more enjoyable for sure. OP is on SLI 680s which is perfect for 2560x1440 IMO. I'm running overclocked 670s and think it's fantastic. Everything but Crysis 3 so far is getting very good frame rates and even in the case of crysis 3 it's super playable at maxed settings.

I just personally feel the increased color quality is worth it.

It doesn't really depend on your GPU budget. If it takes 2x670's or 2x680's then that is just an additional cost to support that monitor. I personally have a 670 and it definitely struggles depending on the game.

And as far as the OP, sure 2x680 is fine for now, but opting for 1440p will require upgrading sooner rather than later as games progress. It is still a big cost concern. And will the OP have to continue buying 2 more cards? If so for how long? No way to know for sure.

 

[Klunt Bumskrint]

Crysis 3 is just 1 game though.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It doesn't really depend on your GPU budget. If it takes 2x670's or 2x680's then that is just an additional cost to support that monitor. I personally have a 670 and it definitely struggles depending on the game.

And as far as the OP, sure 2x680 is fine for now, but opting for 1440p will require upgrading sooner rather than later as games progress. It is still a big cost concern. And will the OP have to continue buying 2 more cards? If so for how long? No way to know for sure.

Not really, every game even Crysis 3 is playable and do you see any games on the horizon that rival Crysis 3? I don't, not even the next Battlefield.

one Titan can handle 2560x1440 pretty well, I expect the next cards (GTX 700 and Radeon HD 8000 series respectively) to handle it just as well as a Titan does today. Perhaps even better

 

[Tweak155]

Not really, every game even Crysis 3 is playable and do you see any games on the horizon that rival Crysis 3? I don't, not even the next Battlefield.

one Titan can handle 2560x1440 pretty well, I expect the next cards (GTX 700 and Radeon HD 8000 series respectively) to handle it just as well as a Titan does today. Perhaps even better

So you're trying to argue a 1440p monitor won't cause earlier upgrades to video cards over a 1080p monitor?

 

[kami]

I love mine, but I won the panel lottery. Not everyone who buys a Korean one does. Some ebay sellers are better than others. I'll give you a hint...only one of the major Crossover dealers is an "ebay top rated seller" - the rest have had too many negatives or disputes to get that badge from ebay. If the sellers do help you out with issues later on, they usually prefer sending you the parts so you can replace them yourself. This happened with a lot of people who got monitors with a bad batch of backlight PCBs that would burn out after 6 months (they don't anymore). The general consensus I've read is that the "perfect pixel" ones are a waste of money, but if you're super paranoid about dead pixels I guess you can buy one.

Get something like a Dell if you can afford it because you can keep returning it until you get one that you like. But if you DO get a good Korean one, its every bit as good as the name brands in terms of picture quality. But only the more expensive ones come with multiple inputs and good stands. Mine had a crappy stand that I replaced with a third party one, and DVI input only.

 

[biostud]

Get one! It's worth it. I also bought one from e-bay. I'm not going back to a lower resolution.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So you're trying to argue a 1440p monitor won't cause earlier upgrades to video cards over a 1080p monitor?

When someone is already running SLI? yes, I will argue that

 

[Tweak155]

When someone is already running SLI? yes, I will argue that

If you like to argue math, be my guest. It just indicates the type of person I'm arguing with, and thus the effort I should put forth.

 

[cmdrdredd]

If you like to argue math, be my guest. It just indicates the type of person I'm arguing with, and thus the effort I should put forth.

Look, if someone is running SLI they aren't going to need to worry about their GPU being too slow for a good while. It's a fact. When you run a single GPU you will say "man this game kills my system, I need a new card or a second one".

Like I said, even crysis 3 is playable, very playable maxed out at 2560x1440. You can say whatever you want... SLI 680s will be fine for a long time still(thanks to all the games that are ported from console). Plus, someone running SLI obviously is willing to spend a bit more on their GPU setup to begin with. Odds are that they won't have a problem upgrading when it is necessary, which not surprisingly will be way after a single GPU user would need to.

IMO telling someone to stay on inferior TN panels at 1080p when they are running a setup that is way overpowered for that resolution(again my opinion here) is a bit strange to me when they seem interested in moving up to something higher resolution.

 

[Tweak155]

Look, if someone is running SLI they aren't going to need to worry about their GPU being too slow for a good while. It's a fact. When you run a single GPU you will say "man this game kills my system, I need a new card or a second one".

Like I said, even crysis 3 is playable, very playable maxed out at 2560x1440. You can say whatever you want... SLI 680s will be fine for a long time still. Plus, someone running SLI obviously is willing to spend a bit more on their GPU setup to begin with. Odds are that they won't have a problem upgrading when it is necessary, which not surprisingly will be way after a single GPU user would need to.

That is irrelevant to my point. Would someone need to upgrade 2x680's sooner on 1440p or 1080p? If you can't answer that, then I can't help you see my point.

It all depends on user preference, you can't place your preference onto someone else. Their need to upgrade might come before or after yours. So, all you can do is indicate it MAY be of concern. If the OP decides to disregard, fine. Yet, you consistently have the arrogance to answer for them, and also somehow happen to know the future, which I will not attempt to argue because I don't know when the next game will be that challenges a system.

It is a simple fact. If it takes 2x680's to get top of the line performance now, it is quite possible you'll need to keep buying 2 in the future to keep up with the game. It is just something to consider, not disregard immediately.

 

[Tweak155]

IMO telling someone to stay on inferior TN panels at 1080p when they are running a setup that is way overpowered for that resolution(again my opinion here) is a bit strange to me when they seem interested in moving up to something higher resolution.

Added after...

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm stating something to take into consideration, and stating MY preference, as requested by the OP looking for opinions. You're trying to force one way over the other.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The problem with what you're saying is you forget to mention that most games are console ports. They don't even really need 2x GTX 680s. Crysis 3 is the only game since Battlefield 3 that I can say actually needs that power and I see nothing on the horizon from any game engine that will cause a worry for someone with a similar setup.

My original point stands. It really does depend on your GPU budget. If you can afford or already have SLI then it's really no problem to run 2560x1440. If you don't think you'd be able to keep buying high end cards in the future, perhaps it's a harder sell since it is a more demanding resolution.

Judging on how the PS4 can handle UE4 I doubt that'll even be an issue when it finally makes its way into a title.

 

[Tweak155]

The problem with what you're saying is you forget to mention that most games are console ports. They don't even really need 2x GTX 680s. Crysis 3 is the only game since Battlefield 3 that I can say actually needs that power and I see nothing on the horizon from any game engine that will cause a worry for someone with a similar setup.

My original point stands. It really does depend on your GPU budget. If you can afford or already have SLI then it's really no problem to run 2560x1440. If you don't think you'd be able to keep buying high end cards in the future, perhaps it's a harder sell since it is a more demanding resolution.

It doesn't matter what the games are. If games never progressed then you wouldn't need 2x680's to begin with. The point at which you need to upgrade 2x680's running a 1440p monitor will come before a 1080p monitor to support highest graphical details at a high level. Just as it would to support 3 x 1080p monitors would need an upgrade before 1 x 2560x1440. It is very basic logic here, I don't know why you can't follow it (or simply choose not to).

It's obvious you keep dodging my straight forward question, so I will cease replying. I doubt this babble is helping the OP at this point. He can glean from it what he will. It ultimately comes down to his preference or concern.

 

[Fx1]

given the new consoles im betting its going to be much harder to keep 60fps at 1440p than 1080p going forward

 

[leonorath]

I was compelled to create an account to respond to your arrogance.

It's obvious you keep dodging my straight forward question, so I will cease replying. I doubt this babble is helping the OP at this point. He can glean from it what he will. It ultimately comes down to his preference or concern.

Its obvious YOU keep dodging the straight forward fact that 2x680 is NOT going to be outdated any time soon.

It doesn't matter what the games are. If games never progressed then you wouldn't need 2x680's to begin with.

The same principal can be applied to multiple ways.

If GPUs' never progressed than you wouldn't need 1440 to begin with.
Or
If monitors never progressed than you wouldn't need more demanding games to begin with.

The point at which you need to upgrade 2x680's running a 1440p monitor will come before a 1080p monitor to support highest graphical details at a high level. Just as it would to support 3 x 1080p monitors would need an upgrade before 1 x 2560x1440. It is very basic logic here, I don't know why you can't follow it (or simply choose not to).

NO!!

What's very basic logic is that the next generation of GPUs' will support 1440 much more easily. Sure (seeing how your dying to hear it) you would have to upgrade earlier with 1440 as opposed to 1080. But buy the time you upgrade 2x680s we would be in the 2ks' for monitors and the 800s' for GPUs.

Running 2x680s on 1080 is like giving v12 Astin Martin DB9 to a granny who makes 2 milk runs to the corner store per week. You are a fool to suggest otherwise.

Fin.

 

[Tweak155]

Ahhh, fresh blood. I'll respond at least once

I was compelled to create an account to respond to your arrogance.

I have no arrogance as I'm not making an assumption for the OP. I'm bringing up a possible concern.

Its obvious YOU keep dodging the straight forward fact that 2x680 is NOT going to be outdated any time soon.

Proof? That is your opinion. I've stated several times I don't know when they will be outdated, so your statement here is false that I didn't respond to this.

The same principal can be applied to multiple ways.

If GPUs' never progressed than you wouldn't need 1440 to begin with.
Or
If monitors never progressed than you wouldn't need more demanding games to begin with.

Not sure what your point is here. Explain?

What's very basic logic is that the next generation of GPUs' will support 1440 much more easily. Sure (seeing how your dying to hear it) you would have to upgrade earlier with 1440 as opposed to 1080. But buy the time you upgrade 2x680s we would be in the 2ks' for monitors and the 800s' for GPUs.

While it is likely next generation GPU's will handle 1440 easily, we don't know the point at which one GPU will handle the job of dual GPU's today. Not to mention that same GPU will be even stronger for a 1080p resolution. When do you think a single GPU solution will surpass 2x680's performance? Titan is in the ballpark but likely 780 will not meet that performance. It is likely when the next flagship is released, it will only be marginally faster. Meanwhile games ARE progressing whether you choose to ignore it or not. The rate we cannot know, which you claim to have set in stone by your statements.

Running 2x680s on 1080 is like giving v12 Astin Martin DB9 to a granny who makes 2 milk runs to the corner store per week. You are a fool to suggest otherwise.

Fin.

Point out where I suggested otherwise? Way to look ignorant on your first post.

EDIT:

In case ANYONE missed it at this point, I personally have a 1440p monitor. In fact I have one 1920x1080, one 1920x1200 and one 2560x1440 (not on the same machine). I simply gave my personal opinion about when I switched to 2560x1440 and if I could go back, I'd stick with 1920x1200 or 1920x1080. I never stated the OP or anyone else would be stupid to get a 2560x1440, you guys need to get off your high horses. Personal opinion is just that, an opinion. I don't think the gains of 2560x1440 is worth the loss in performance. Your argument that there is no loss of performance with 2x680's at higher resolutions is a bad (aka wrong) one. Show me a host of benchmarks where SLI 680's receive the same score at 2560x1440 and 1920x1080 and I'll eat my words. I can prefer to run at 90fps vs 60fps, that is MY preference, and it is obvious there is a loss in performance at a higher resolution. Suggesting otherwise is where either ignorance or arrogance comes into play. Take your pick.

As I've said multiple times before, it is up to the OP to decide if it is of concern or not. He can blow off my personal opinion if he'd like, I don't mind. It's just there as a consideration.

EDIT EDIT:

Welcome to the boards leonorath
Interesting knowing I caused a registration. I should get a cookie from the mods!

 

[leonorath]

I don't know when they will be outdated,

Exactly. But it would be safe to assume that its not going to be soon.

Not sure what your point is here. Explain?

Point was that your original argument was flawed.

You said " If games never progressed then you wouldn't need 2x680's to begin with". But the fact is we already have them, so we might as well utilise them.

I'm sure the OP didn't buy 2x680s so he could wait a couple years for a game to come out which would fully use them in 1080 mode.

likely 780 will not meet that performance.

So you agreed that 2x680 will likely surpass 1x780?

Weird I thought you were trying to argue the opposite way judging by the rest of your post.

Point out where I suggested otherwise? Way to look ignorant on your first post.

Your right that was an unnecessary remark. My apologies.

In case ANYONE missed it at this point, I personally have a 1440p monitor. In fact I have one 1920x1080, one 1920x1200 and one 2560x1440. I simply gave my personal opinion about when I switched to 2560x1440 and if I could go back, I'd stick with 1920x1200 or 1920x1080.

I personally have a 670 and it definitely struggles depending on the game.

The OP doesn't have a single 670.

I don't think the gains of 2560x1440 is worth the loss in performance. Your argument that there is no loss of performance with 2x680's at higher resolutions is a bad (aka wrong) one.

Point out where I suggested there would be no loss in performance? Way to look ignorant on your Five Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Seventh post.


There WILL be a loss of performance, it will be hardly noticeable unless you play crisis 3 on FULL but there will be a difference. I guess that is when you make a choice between more pixels, more AA or more FPS and with 2x680 your options are WIDE open to more pixels if you are willing to sacrifice a bit of performance or quality. Ill leave that to the OP to decide.

Welcome to the boards leonorath
Interesting knowing I caused a registration. I should get a cookie from the mods!

Thank you for your warm welcome sir.

 

[ICDP]

If you have a 1440 monitor you will have the benefit of running the vast majority of your games at that resolution, only a small number will need you to compromise on settings or resolution.

I have a 2560x1600 monitor and am running it with one HD 7950 @ 1150/1700. Most games run fine, even at full settings, and if they don't I can lower the settings or resolution.

 

[poohbear]

Not really, every game even Crysis 3 is playable and do you see any games on the horizon that rival Crysis 3? I don't, not even the next Battlefield.

one Titan can handle 2560x1440 pretty well, I expect the next cards (GTX 700 and Radeon HD 8000 series respectively) to handle it just as well as a Titan does today. Perhaps even better

the next battlefield is designed for next gen consoles, and people who've already seen the preview build said its "astonishing" even compared to BF3, so yes i'm pretty sure it'll bring most comps to their knees in Ultra mode. It comes out in 2014 along with all the other next gen games (some will come the end of 2013 along with the PS4 release), and with those next generation of games i think a single GTX 670 will be challenged quite a bit in 2014.