1440p Ultra or 4K High/Medium?

I'm currently a 1080p gamer considering my upgrade options, and I'd like to figure out if there's a huge difference between playing 1440p maxed out or 4K on non-maxed-out settings - and if so, which one looks better. For purposes of this question, let's assume FPS is not a major concern (I'm content with 60fps). If you've played at both resolutions, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

 

15.6 1080p
17.3 1440p
above 17.3 4k

otherwise they are wasted pixels.

I guess people just don't understand pixels and distance from eyes

If you were 1000 miles from a building would it not appear tiny.
If you were 1 foot from a building it would appear huge

the farther away a screen the smaller the pixels so much so that at 1080p and 2 feet away you cannot make out the individual pixels even if you had 10/10 vision that is with a 13.3-15.6in display

just look at vr you need basically 8k because your eyes are so close to the screen and for the screen door effect to be completely gone you would need an even more dense pixel arrangement

 

It's very much up to personal taste. I know I've always chosen max settings and then lower the resolution until I get the FPS I want. Personally I find a lower res but highly detailed way better then super crisp high res and less details. I've tested playing games at 4k many times over the years with reduced settings & framerate yet to this day occasionally I still play at 720p in order to get all the details on when I have to with limited hardware (on a 2 in 1 HP Spectre)

That is for games I play that I care what they look like, a competitive FPS I may choose low settings and high res but that's because it gives me an advantage, not because I like the way it looks or plays better.

I'm still totally satisfied with 1080p ultra when I can get above 100 fps, hoping to start using 1440p more and more if I can ever manage to get a 3080.

 

very strong point...sometimes 900p and ultra looks better than higher resolution medium

 

1440p high refresh rate, by far.

 

exactly and with the lower rez comes higher fps

 

1440, 17.3, and available high end laptop video graphics solutions play well together. You'll have good frame rate on most stuff even with highish settings and those that getting a wee bit slow can usually be brought into a decent frame rate with just a minimal massage of the settings. As an added bonus you can run the screen native in windows without everything being too small. If you're on batt much you'll get more screen on time although for people getting into these kinds of laptops I think that aspect isn't so important?

 

I went from a 1440p/144 Hz external monitor to one that does 4K/120, and I absolutely love it. There's very little visual difference between high and ultra in most games, and I would rather have the extra resolution than refresh rate.

 

usually its 60hz though 120 4k is obviously better than 1440/144.....you have the best of both worlds

 

I think it's hard to beat Nvidia G-Sync and triple-digit fps. The first time I tried a setup like that spoiled things for me. The perfect smoothness and fluidity changes the gameplay experience. So my vote is 1440p.

Charles

 

I'd say after having a 144Hz screen, that man, you definitely have to play at least at 90 fps. At 60 fps you get an undesired motion blur effect, that is completely removed when playing at higher frame rates. Also I wouldn't advice using a non native resolution, because the picture quality gets blurry even if you keep the pixel ratio relationship. So my advice is to get the screen with the highest resolution that your hardware can move at 90+fps, and sometimes you don't even need to play everything at ultra. I swear to god sometimes I can't see the difference between high and very high/ultra and that option only consume fps. But the smooth in 90+fps fps you can enjoy no matter the game

 

Most monitors offer overdrive adjustment to help compensate for this. Generally speaking, higher-end gaming monitors do the best job at addressing this issue. Hardware Unboxed on YouTube does the best job explaining and testing this.

NVIDIA Turing and higher GPUs offer integer scaling that can make running at 1080p on a 4K display look native.

 

I had no idea about the monitors that help with the ghosting at 60Hz, that's good to know. About the scaling thing, are you talking about DLSS? if so you're right, except there are just a couple of games that support that technology and there is no guarantee that DLSS is going to be widely implemented across newer titles. Actually it has to be implemented by game developers which over time had been proved to be a bad idea (PhysX, SLI, CrosFireX, all great techs that are dead now because game developers didn't implemented often)

 

Two different things. Integer scaling makes 1080p look like native 1080p on a native 4K monitor. DLSS uses reconstruction to make 1080p/1440p look like native 4K.

 

And how good is integer scaling? sounds interesting.

In such case the OP should just go for the bigger res, to be more future proof. Though if screen size is too small, lets say less than 20 inchs, 4K is a bit to dense and text looks too small, and I really dislike windows font scaling.

 

To the OP I say neither 1440p maxed or 4k med/high

1440p mixed settings for higher framerates and ultra like image quality....You may not see a difference with 4k except the illusion of it being sharper much like a 4k video on youtube on a 1080p screen but what you will massively notice is 144-300hz fps over 60hz fps

 

For me I’d just chase the FPS. That’s not normal for me as I will opt for 4K at any opportunity but will take 1440p as a compromise. but I’d rather 1440p @ 90fps than 4K 60fps both on ultra - but in all honesty it really depends on the game. Some games still feel sluggish at 4K 60fps. Even on fifa which I used to play felt cumbersome above 100 FPS on 4K ultra.
Id have to go back to 1080p in that game and it looked like sh!t compared to 4K but the lag input was real.
So to answer your question. It really depends on the game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A better question might be, what are the panels response times. High refresh is kind of wasted when the panel doesnt have the appropriate response time.

 

Get the best you feel comfortable paying the price for. But I think the comments about the various sizes and fps are pretty spot on as well. I think even if you want a higher resolution than your monitor later on, a lot of gpu's can do that separately to an external screen so the fastest gpu might be a good consideration too. Screen type seems to be a pretty big factor in the cost besides cpu/gpu so you could skimp on screen res/refresh on the laptop and have the best of both worlds with a better external screen later.

 

this is always an interesting topic// since I first logged onto NBR people were always like I can run ultra on my xx80 gpu and get 60fps...now the trend is i run all low and max my 144hz display...i never really got ultra on pc since they are all ports but when people were defending buying a xx80 gpu too run all maxed...i butted heads with members...they took pictures and showed the difference.....it was so minute i had too look 4 or 5 times to spot them....and thats all low vs ultra nvm high....i find running medium/high settings looks great and runs well...and i have no reason to run all ultra in any game if im getting 60fps im a happy camper..

in a moment ill post a picture of crysis on all low vs all maxed....its the newest game i own and the most demanding.



all low


for some reason all low looks better not sure why its the better lighting on all low that has me

 

Bit of a zombie thread but it still holds up. I had a1080 GTX that was doing about 90 fps on the native QHD panel with newish games at the time of it's release. That declined to 30 fps in Cyberpunk at the end which was the first game I found myself having to drop down to HD to smooth frame rates. It still want as smooth as I would have liked. So that was the lappy I had when this post was current.

The new lappy is also sporting a QHD panel and it's just more goodness: 165 versus the 120 refresh on the old one and the 3080 can run most games at decent frame rates with older stuff on the refresh. While the numbers go down a little bit with others in the 30 series lineup the power is still very well matched to a QHD resolution. You can still run the desktop native. You still do not have enough power to get high frame rates at 4k.

In the real world people seem to be ambivalent or even leary about QHD because it's neither here nor there; not sure if this applies here. I haven't looked myself but I'm thinking at this point you should be able too see a QHD laptop at Costco, Best Buy, etc. If it is possible I'd recommend scoping one out in person before buying. I think most will be impressed with QHD on a small screen.

 

qhd on a 17in is nice....however alot of people are now buying low response time 4k tvs as monitors....myself included and the experience cannot be beat this side of high res vr

 

Yep, nothing stopping you from outputting 4k to an external monitor or TV; I do it myself at times.

 

sorry

but its just I did not think it would be this clear and smooth on a 50 in tv

 

How far away from it are you sitting?

 

lol please don't laugh...... 2 feet....no i cant see all of it

 

Not following you JRE; if you get a QHD panel on your laptop the panel is limited to QHD but you can still output 4k just the same as any laptop with a 4k panel. You choose what suits you, there really isn't a right answer.

I have a gaming desktop I use primarily for flight sims in VR, used to be going out to a very expensive monitor but there was no turning back from VR for me once I tried it. I've gone from, I don't remember what back in the day, to 1080 for quite some time to eventually reaching 2k with the last two laptops. I've been outputting outputting to external for a while now, those externals and what was outputted have changed with the times.

I'm in no way saying QHD it's the right answer: Twitch gamers will want HD, some have a specific need for 4k or just plain demand it; those people aren't asking this question. All I'm saying is QHD matches well with the power we have now and the desktop is just about right for most on a 17" monitor. I'll personally move to 4k across the board once I feel the power is there; QHD is just another step on the way to wherever we're going.

 

no no i agree i was just mentioning what my setup was as per topic 4k vs qhd....your completely right a qhd laptop is the way to go as you can also hook it up to a 4k tv or monitor...but as for resolution i guess it all depends on size if your gaming on a 40-60 in tv 4k is the way to go and if 17in or smaller than qhd is the way to go i think i mentioned that earlier..


as for refresh rates i think 120 4k is tops but 165hz qhd is also nice although i doubt you would be able to notice the diference from 165 to 120hz some are sensitive to refresh rates i am not 60 hz feels like butter...others wont go lower than 144hz....also your gpu also plays a big role your not going to be able to max settings at 4k120 even with a 3080 desktop....sorry but now i feel like captian obvious trying to keep this thread alive....i think all has been covered and its obvious which is tops

 

What is seen can not be unseen. I'd stick with 1080p and look towards a high refresh rate, especially if this upgrade is to last the whole console gen's worth of multiplats.

1080p

High settings consistently

...till the PS6 or bust.

 

or if your a real gamer buy a xsx also...and use on a 4k tv from the couch

 

I'm a huge proponent of HiDPI displays, but I've forced myself to get used to this 1080p monitor. For gaming it's fine, I have no problem there at all except for complex UIs and even then I can deal with it not being super sharp, it's just a game. For productivity I still dislike it greatly but at least it's a 2nd display. Better off having it and it being 1080p than not having it at all. Trying to work with 1 panel is just a non-starter.

 

woah...nicely put

 

so I never experienced 120hz before then I got a S21 ultra and after playing real racing a bit at 120hz the difference is quite noticeable...kinda suprised as I used to think 60hz was smooth and 30fps was bareable....now I might need a high refresh rate tv and or laptop too check out some older games out in all their glory.....as for 4k its nice and between 4k60 and 1440p/165 its a hard call...smooth and insanely sharp or sharp and insanely fast.....tough call.....but im leaning towards 1440p

 

Laptop gaming is fairly legit at 2k, at 4k you're going to struggle to make the 60 with some new titles and the odd older title as well. It's never specified in the OP if we're talking laptop screens or external and that makes a difference. I use 2k for my gaming laptop and 4k for my ultra-portable which seems backwards but the ultra does very light office duty and media whereas the gaming laptop also does more serious work along with the gaming. I don't really like 4k on a 17" for office use, bit too small, hence the 2k which also plays well with available power for gaming. I've also got external monitors both at home and on site which is another consideration getting thrown in the mix. Where I'm headed is that even for me alone, there isn't one right answer; lots of different use cases and preferences at play here. I think you're going about it the right way: Thinking long and hard about what serves you best before dropping ching.

 

now that 4k is common place//

what do you guys think of 8k...

I read somewhere once we hit 16k thats that and no further resolution bumps will be required to enjoy a pixelless experience

 

...I could've sworn that's what I read about 8k.

 

i guess im the goose but i pick 4k now after trying out 4k on my tv computer setup

 

Instead of 1440p/4K 16:9 I would go 1440p 21:9.
Made a switch myself recently and in my opinion it's the best, both gaming and productivity wise.

 

Yes i just made the step and bought that Gigabyte 34 Inch 21:9 Monitor . Lets see how will be going from the laptop display to that one.

 

I would like to revive this thread as their is alot to talk about for example:

when you watch a 1080p action movie or anything 1080p on a 1080p monitor or tv you don't say nice graphics but it looks like real life and technically it is...when you play a video game at 4k on a 17in screen you think nice graphics but it looks super fake..quick question why has the progression of videogames slowed down graphically I mean their isnt a huge difference playing half life 2 from 2005 and new games....they have better lighting better textures ray tracing ecetera..however they both look great in their own right but the progression from say half life 1 to two is huge...now imagine 10 generations of massive improvements technically we should have real life graphics but we dont....please dont turn this thread political as a we all know whos behind this realism censorship...I think alot of it has to do with kids blurring the lines between reality and fiction and being de sensitized..its not my opinion but the last article i read it mentioned that especially with GTA IV

 

I don't think it's slowed down, it's infinitely more difficult to get 100% of the way there than it is to get 80% of the way there. To get things to look exactly like the real world.. the technology isn't fast enough yet, doesn't have much to do with resolution. Real time RT was one iterative step towards being able to achieve it, but we still have a long way to go before graphics, lighting, animation, art etc.. is good enough to be mistaken for physical locations. Farms of servers pre-rendering CGI (also using RT), sure.. they take hours to render one frame.

I'm sitting here playing games on a $100 1080p monitor and find myself in awe of the art direction in games like AC: Origins and Odyssey.. Obviously I'm not about to mistake it for footage of Egypt or Greece, but things have come an extremely long way since the 3Dfx Voodoo Graphics was released back in 1996 (I pre-ordered it, got one of the first ones) when I was losing my mind about playing Tomb Raider at 640x480 in 16bit color at crazy frame rates. Things have come an extremely long way. But, it's going to be a slog to keep creeping toward that 100% "I can't tell the difference". Many years away from that still I think. Progress hasn't slowed, it's just the iterations are harder to see at this point since we're getting closer. Real time RT is a HUGE step. A true leap ahead.

 

oic....thats a great explanation...thanks for that

but didnt you hear crysis 2 and 3 remastered are getting 3d picture textures....why does like only one dev use this for some and not all for all

 

I have an X170KM with the FHD panel. Is it possible to replace the panel with a QHD panel?

 

Probably. Just needs to be the same connector (usually 30 or 40 pin eDP) and same physical size.

Get your panel model number and look it up in Google, it'll give you all the specs, usually getting a panel with the same diagonal size and same eDP config will work.

 

lol, It got good when you could get the second and play at.... da da-da dum... 800x600. Although I recall being impressed when I lit off quake in 320x200. Cant remember what the res was on some of the early games, Descent, Mech Warrior, etc. I remember having a video card with 1 meg of memory, S3 I think it was; all blends together now. Those were heady times for PC gaming; lots of competition from multiple vendors, upgrades were massive improvements. You're spot on with the diminishing returns thing, isn't nearly as exciting now.

 

lol in the end..

1440p 144hz nope
4k60 nope
1080p 165hz yeppers


high refresh rates where its at and the higher the better as long as its not on a 1080p 65in tv

 

You pick your poison JRE; I wouldn't touch an HD monitor at any refresh, I've left HD for dead and I'm not looking back. I'll take my QHD@165 any day of the week.

 

Add a 1440p high/medium option
Ultra settings not worth except very select games.
4k not worth it yet on monitors for gaming.

 

qhd165 is nice but can any gpu cpu push that....kinda like buying a lambo for grocery shopping

 

Yep, you can absolutely run it and at high frames in most games. You just have to buy one of those cards a certain contingent on here thinks you shouldn't buy because they're SO crappy.