4K vs 1440p vs 1080p - What Monitor Resolution Should You Buy?
- Thread starter badsykes
- Start date
Hapatingjaky
New member
What about 720p and 480p?
The monitor I want:
4K
HDMI 2.1
120Hz Native or higher.
.000000000000000000000001MS response
1000 Nits Peak Brightness
HDR 10+ / Dolby Vision / 12Bit
The monitor I want:
4K
HDMI 2.1
120Hz Native or higher.
.000000000000000000000001MS response
1000 Nits Peak Brightness
HDR 10+ / Dolby Vision / 12Bit
Bingo.
acroig
Just another Troll
This so that meant 1440p high refresh for me.
Meteor_of_War
New member
One could argue that's actually exactly when you would need higher res - when closer to the screen. Being close you can really see the pixels which affects clarity. Further away its not so evident.
I love that no one is talking about the video content, including the OP. 
I didn't watch it. Did anyone else?
1440p for me for same argument as Sasquatch. Might change to 1080p as my vision gets worse. But might change to 4k when I start playing games with reading glasses.
I didn't watch it. Did anyone else?1440p for me for same argument as Sasquatch. Might change to 1080p as my vision gets worse. But might change to 4k when I start playing games with reading glasses.
Greasy
New member
I love that no one is talking about the video content, including the OP.
1440p for me for same argument as Sasquatch. Might change to 1080p as my vision gets worse. But might change to 4k when I start playing games with reading glasses.
Didn't watch. They bore me for some reason.
I like ultrawide monitors. After using one, I can never go back.
I love that no one is talking about the video content, including the OP.
1440p for me for same argument as Sasquatch. Might change to 1080p as my vision gets worse. But might change to 4k when I start playing games with reading glasses.
I watched it. It sums up that 1440p is more of less the current sweet spot. Where if you need faster monitors you go 1080p and if you need more fidelity you have weight the pros/cons of going 4k as the monitors are considerably more expensive, harder to run and have fewer options.
Followed by Ultrawide being the more immersive option. But you pay a premium for it and there are not as many options as their 16:9 cousins.
It was a really good breakdown
I love that no one is talking about the video content, including the OP.
1440p for me for same argument as Sasquatch. Might change to 1080p as my vision gets worse. But might change to 4k when I start playing games with reading glasses.
There were plenty of discussions in the past on this subject.
On top of all that was said in the video i do feel RT will keep the 1080p alive for a while.Even the high end cards (especially AMD ones) struggle with it.RT is still in infancy imo.
Last edited:
metroidfox
Active member
My biggest gripe with ultrawides is that they are poor in terms of pixel density. a 34" WQHD ultrawide has almost the same pixel density as a 27" inch 1440p monitor.
Give me UWQHD, or better, at 29".
It is not possible to get legible text at the resolutions/screen sizes people use.
Give me UWQHD, or better, at 29".
It is not possible to get legible text at the resolutions/screen sizes people use.
CurrentlyPissed
New member
I went 4k once a few years back with the LGn850 whatever it was, its just not worth the FPS tax. I went to a 32" 1440p, then went to a 27" 1440P, I do think I prefer the 32" 1440p above all.
Honestly, that Samsung 32" Curved VA was the best looking monitor I have ever even came close to having, but the flicker was so bad I went through 6 panels. I really, really, really wish that monitor would have worked.
Honestly, that Samsung 32" Curved VA was the best looking monitor I have ever even came close to having, but the flicker was so bad I went through 6 panels. I really, really, really wish that monitor would have worked.
It's really not that "poor". 27" 1440p display is 108ppi. Which is higher than normal. Normal imho being 1920x1080 @ 23/24", which is about 90ish PPI.
"Poor" imho is when you start going 1080p @ 27"+. Which I personally like, as it makes it easier for me to pick out little moving pixels I can then kill in Apex
LordHawkwind
New member
It's really not that "poor". 27" 1440p display is 108ppi. Which is higher than normal. Normal imho being 1920x1080 @ 23/24", which is about 90ish PPI.
"Poor" imho is when you start going 1080p @ 27"+. Which I personally like, as it makes it easier for me to pick out little moving pixels I can then kill in Apex
I have a 34" UWQHD monitor and a 3090 and it's great. I previously had a 27" 1440p monitor and it didn't push the 3090 enough, in some games around 70% utilisation. Surely it's not just your monitor it's more about the graphics card that's driving it or am I barking up the wrong tree?
demo
space cadet
Utilisation is a balance between GPU load (graphics, resolution) and CPU speed. IE- if your CPU is too slow it will be the limiting factor and as a result drop GPU Utilisation.
That's true. Even my 38" 3840x1600 display has the same pixel density as 27" 1440p.
That's true. Even my 38" 3840x1600 display has the same pixel density as 27" 1440p.
I'm using a 28" 4K monitor (Acer V280K) with a 3080ti FE. The refresh on the Acer maxes at 60hz, and I know my 3080ti can go beyond that easily. However, since I'm not a competitive gamer, 60fps is perfectly fine for me. The Acer also has HDR10, which along with auto-HDR, can be stunning in most games.