Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-10-2013, 05:07 AM   #1
aaksheytalwar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default For all those who are scared of 1440p

Hi guys,

My 2 cents to clear doubts regarding 1440p and gaming.

1. 1440p no MSAA V/S 1080p 4x MSAA
Given the option between the two, I would any day choose 1440p no MSAA over 1080p 4x MSAA, all other things constant.
It is really annoying when people who don't own hardware personally or don't have adequate experience first hand, and then they simply come to the forums and start posting random pics from the internet to back their points. ANNOYING!
I have seen both settings in actions in a number of situations, and I would any day play at 1440p without MSAA than with 1080p with 4x MSAA. It is just better, at least to me.

2. 1080p 4x MSAA doesn't remove all jaggeries on a 27" monitor!
1440p no MSAA doesn't have zero jaggeries, but it definitely isn't anything that I mind much at all.
1080p 4x MSAA has slightly lesser jaggeries real time I guess, but clearly evident in many situations and far from zero. So it isn't like going from imperfect to perfect. It is just a small improvement.
1080p 8x MSAA If jaggeries are so much of a trouble, why not play at 8x MSAA or 4x SSAA? Why not? Got my point? Even 8x MSAA doesn't have zero jaggeries, but honestly anything below 8x MSAA at 1080p will have significant jaggeries.
So it doesn't matter whether you play at 1080p 4x MSAA or 1440p no MSAA, jaggeries will still be visible, far from invisible in either case, but neither case is enough to bug a normal sane person, especially when there could be something to gain.

3. Why not play at 4x SSAA or 8x MSAA to call it maxed out?
No review site, I repeat, no review site ever assumes that you will play with MSAA or with what amount of MSAA. They always include the resolution, settings, and if there is AA then they include what type and usually how much as well.
When they say Max or Ultra they assume there is no MSAA unless the game automatically enables that within the options. If they need to set it manually, then they specify MAX 4x MSAA and not just MAX. And this has happened since all eternity unless the game settings automatically assume AA at particular settings.
And if people are no OCD about maxing out MSAA, then how in the world can they decide that it is going to be 4x MSAA to max out a game? Why not 8x MSAA? Why not 2x MSAA? Why not SSAA? It makes no sense. Maxing out a game and/or running AA are mutually exclusive. You can't make your own standards when no review website or game developer or the situation at hand demands any of it. This is being OCD without rationalization.

4. 1440p Ultra no MSAA V/S 1080p High 8x MSAA
What would you prefer? I prefer maxing out everything, each and everything first. Then maxing out the resolution. And then finally using AA if there is any scope left. I would never trade lower settings just to max out AA. I would rather max out a game, then the resolution and if there is still hope then the AA.

5. 1080p Ultra no MSAA V/S 1440p Medium 4x MSAA
I would anyday prefer the game maxed out at 1080p, AA or no AA. And I have already pointed out earlier than my monitor handles 1080p or even 1200p perfectly and I can't see any problem in any game at all. Desktop usage is a bit blurred but games are 100% perfect, I can't even dream of better unless I increase the settings/AA/rez.

6. 1080p on a 1440p monitor
I have tried two 27" monitors (owned both)
27" 1080p monitor: A low end cheap and olde monitor. 1080 is okay, quality of detail is a bit low but fine and enjoyable. Games run fine at 1680x1050 as well. 1440x900 is tolerable but not the best. 720p is crap. So basically 1-2 notches below native is fine.
27" 1440p Dell U2711: 1440p Perfect. 1080p Perfect. 1200p Perfect. 1680x1050 playable but not the best. 1440x900 At best tolerable. Anything lower looks crap. Anything below 1680x1050 is a problem to some extent actually. Anyway, 1-2 notches below native is just fine.
I would rather run a game at 1080p on my Dell U2711 than on 1080p on my old 27" monitor which had 27" as native rez.

7. 27" 1080p
Tried my Dell U2711. Is okayish for desktop usage and perfect for games.
27" 1080p native rez old monitor: Just fine. Would anyday buy over a 24" 1200p monitor but I do agree that the display quality is a bit lower, but the screen size makes up for it.

MY GAMING EXPERIENCE AT 1440p with:
3770k at 4.3 and a single 7970 at CCC max (1125/1575)
All games have everything maxed out, and AA/rez as specified.

DISCLAIMER
I don't want comments showing me links to benchmarks. These are the games I have played for several hours and most of them I may even have finished. In my experience, most of the time the FPS most people get real world are much better than what benchmarks show, so noobs with no real experience aren't the best source of experience for opinions on this.


BF3 SP

1440p no MSAA
Avg FPS 80-100+ with rare drops below 65-80 fps. Can't want more smoothness.

1440p 2x MSAA
Avg FPS 60-80 and rarely below 50-55 FPS but not smooth even when I get 65+ FPS.

1080p 4x MSAA
Avg FPS 100+ with rarely below 80 fps. Would prefer playing at 1440p no MSAA though.


BF3 MP

1440p no MSAA 64ply
Avg FPS 60-90+ with rarely below 55 fps or so. Can't want more to play the game, no problem whatsoever.

1080p 4x MSAA 64ply
Slightly higher fps but would play at 1440p no MSAA as I see no advantage of playing at 1080p 4x MSAA.

1080p no MSAA
Slightly higher fps but not really very different as a smoothness experience.


Medal of Honor Warfighter

1440p no MSAA
Avg fps 60-80+ with rarely below 60-65 fps


BFBC2

1440p 4x MSAA
Perfect

1440p 8x MSAA
Occasional FPS drops below 60 FPS


Alan Wake and its sequel

1440p no MSAA
Avg fps 50-75 fps, very playable and enjoyable though slightly more performance would be welcomed.
Rarely below 50 fps, so no major issue.


Hitman Absolution

1440p no MSAA
Pretty much always above 60-80+

1080p 4x MSAA
Slightly higher fps but would prefer 1440p anyday

1440p 4x MSAA
Too many slowdowns to be playable

1080p 8x MSAA
Wouldn't play due to occasional slowdowns


Max Payne 3

1440p no MSAA
Pretty much always above 60 and mostly even higher

1440p 4x MSAA
Wouldn't play due to many slowdowns


Simcity

1440p with MSAA
Reducing settings doesn't help in anyway. And the performance is decent anyway.


Bioshock Infinite
Didn't play much though

1440p no MSAA
Avg fps 50-60+ but choppy

1080p no MSAA
Avg fps 80-110+ but choppy

1080p no MSAA normal PP
Avg FPS 180+ but choppy

Either way the game doesn't run smooth. I guess Haswell will probably make it run smooth so GPUs are really not the issue here.


NFS RUN

Played at 1440p don't remember about AA but had no reason to complain. Probably 50-60+ fps (or maybe a lot higher) with AA too I think.


Skyrim

1440p 8x MSAA no mods
As good as the game can run on any hardware with the fps cap


Call of Duty MW3

1440p 8x MSAA


Call of Duty BO2

1440p 4x MSAA


Games which won't run at 1440p no MSAA / 1080p 4x MSAA:

Crysis 1 without mods

1080p no AA
Nearly perfect

1440p no AA
Avg fps around 45-50, would need at least a Titan OC or 690 to play at 1440p no AA with avg fps as 60.
You still won't be able to max out the AA.


Crysis 2 no mods

1440p no MSAA
Barely playable but okayish, won't play though
A titan is needed at least but even a 690 may struggle with 4x/8x MSAA.

1080p no MSAA
Perfect,


Crysis 2 with official mods, dx11 and tess

1080p no MSAA
Enjoyable not perfect

1440p
Unplayable for even a titan i guess. Dunno about 690. Talking of old drivers of course, as that was when I played.


Metro 2033 no mods

1080p Ultra no AA
Unplayable even on 690 leave alone my card. No way you can maintain 50+ fps with anything less than a few/several Titans.


NFS MW

No matter what I do unless I drop to Medium settings the min fps stay low. Haswell needed, GPU won't help much.


Tomb Raider

1080p no MSAA
Avg fps 50-60, enjoyable but not perfect

1440p no MSAA
Unplayable for me

1080p 4x MSAA
Unplayable for me

To run at 1440p no MSAA you will need a Titan OC at 1100+ which would struggle or a 690. To play at 1440p 4x MSAA you will need Titan SLI at least.


Bioshock Infinite
Didn't play much though

1440p no MSAA
Avg fps 50-60+ but choppy

1080p no MSAA
Avg fps 80-110+ but choppy

1080p no MSAA normal PP
Avg FPS 180+ but choppy

Either way the game doesn't run smooth. I guess Haswell will probably make it run smooth so GPUs are really not the issue here.


Crysis 3

Forget it. Need I say more.


Bottomline

1. Most games will do fine at 1440p provided you don't enable MSAA. Those which don't chances are wouldn't run fine at 1080p 4x MSAA either. And either way, playing at 1080p no MSAA on a 1440p native rez monitor isn't an issue if you have a good monitor.

2. Some games would require a Titan SLI just to play at 1440p 4x MSAA at max settings with 60 FPS. If you have the budget then that is awesome, otherwise just drop AA and reduce the rez by one notch and your 7970/680 would rock it just fine as well. Just reducing one of the two is often not enough, but between AA and rez, I prefer to drop AA first.
__________________
3770k @ 4.3 with H100i, Asus Z77 Deluxe, Samsung 30nm 4x4gb ddr3 @ 1866 9-9-9-28 1T, MSI R9 290 Gaming 4G, Coolermaster Silent Pro Hybrid 1300 watts, Crucial M4 512gb, 3x Seagate 7200.14 3TB each
aaksheytalwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:25 AM   #2
DownTheSky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaksheytalwar View Post
Bottomline

1. Most games will do fine at 1440p provided you don't enable MSAA. Those which don't chances are wouldn't run fine at 1080p 4x MSAA either. And either way, playing at 1080p no MSAA on a 1440p native rez monitor isn't an issue if you have a good monitor.

2. Some games would require a Titan SLI just to play at 1440p 4x MSAA at max settings with 60 FPS. If you have the budget then that is awesome, otherwise just drop AA and reduce the rez by one notch and your 7970/680 would rock it just fine as well. Just reducing one of the two is often not enough, but between AA and rez, I prefer to drop AA first.
Pretty good sum-up.

Or yeah, just reduce some of the details and you won't require Titan SLI lol. Metro2033 instantly comes to mind here.
DownTheSky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:26 AM   #3
Jaydip
Diamond Member
 
Jaydip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,286
Default

I see your point, higher resolution means more ppi and therefore less jaggies.But in the end it depends on each individual as there is no one size fits all.
__________________
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit || i7 4770K @ 4.2 with CM V6-GT || MSI Z87 GD 65||MSI Gaming N780 TF 3GD5/OC GeForce GTX 780|| Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600 || WD Cavier Black 1TB FAEX X2|| HAF-X || Corsair TX750 V2 ||AL MX 5021E || DELL U2713HM||SideWinder X4||Razer DA
Jaydip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:42 AM   #4
skipsneeky2
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,587
Default

Give me 1440p using a 24'' screen size and have it run about $500 and i would consider switching from my 24'' 1200p u2412m in a second.

Heard good things about the dell u2712m but sadly i have found the 24'' size to be the most my eyes can handle,having used a 25'' hp monitor and recently a 26'' t.v,the 24'' u2412m doesn't give me the eye sore the other sizes do.

Doubt a 24'' 1440p monitor will ever be released most likely cause it could be to small for desktop usage and i doubt a new resolution can cater to those who prefer 24'' and smaller screens.
skipsneeky2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:54 AM   #5
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,807
Default

Pixel density is so high on 27" 1440p that AA matters less.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 + 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS
blastingcap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 06:55 AM   #6
Daedalus685
Golden Member
 
Daedalus685's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,335
Default

I recently replaced an older 24" 1920*1200 TN with a U2713HM and it is the most impressive upgrade I've treated myself to since I first used a SSD.

I'm still only using my 6970 which still gives me more than playable gameplay at this resolution in most of the games I currently play (albeit at a little bit less than max settings in some cases). I'd upgrade but it just doesn't seem worth it yet...

The pixel pitch on the 27" 1440 displays is unbelievable. However, diagonal lines, even with this pitch, in many games are aliased beyond what I can tolerate without moderate levels of AA. So I still end up lowering other settings to get some MSAA in cases where FXAA doesn't work well.

I just know I'm going to end up cracking and getting a 680/7970 a week before the refresh/next gen releases...
Daedalus685 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 07:03 AM   #7
Eureka
Diamond Member
 
Eureka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,826
Default

The only thing I'm scared of is my credit card bill when it comes to buying a 1440p. You'd think with all the recent demand price could come down a bit more..
__________________
San Francisco: ASRock Z87E-ITX | Intel i7-4770k | 16 GB DDR3 1600 | Gigabyte WF3 7950
Honolulu: Gigabyte MA790X-UD4P | AMD Phenom II X4 955 | 8GB DDR2 800 | Sapphire HD4890
London: ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA | Intel Dual Core E7400 @ 3.1ghz | 2GB DDR2 667 | ATi X850 XT @ 540/590
Eureka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 07:07 AM   #8
guskline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lebanon, PA
Posts: 2,808
Default

Have an Achieva Shimian 27" 2560 x 1440 on rig 1 below and LOVE it. Having 2 GTX670s in SLI really helps. Absolutely stunning color. BioShock Infinite is a blast.
__________________
3930k @ 4.6 - SaberTh X79 - 780 Classy EVGA Hydro Copper block
16G DDR3-1866 - Intel 530 SSD - 2560x1440 Achieva Shimian
Win 8.1 - PC P&C 950W - CM HAF 932 Adv - Custom WC MO RA3 420 + RX 360+XSPC Twin D5 Bay Res|CM Quick-Fire rapid brown

Last edited by guskline; 04-11-2013 at 09:12 AM.
guskline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 07:35 AM   #9
Unoid
Senior Member
 
Unoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New England
Posts: 348
Default

These Asian 27" 1440p IPS's are sure nice.

I had to buy a second GTX 680 to be able to max mostly all my games.

Only regret I have is not having 120hz or even 90hz... Some games like natural selection 2 almost require 90Hz+ to kill as a marine.

But 120hz on a 1440P even my 680 SLI couldn't pull that off.
__________________
2600K @ 4.8ghz - 1.31v - Corsair H75 | ASROCK Extreme 4 gen 3 with 16GB G.Skill memory |256GB Samsung 830/500GB 840 EVO |
Gigabyte R9 290 Crossfire Pushing an Overlord 1440P @96hz
Unoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 07:44 AM   #10
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydip View Post
I see your point, higher resolution means more ppi and therefore less jaggies.But in the end it depends on each individual as there is no one size fits all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastingcap View Post
Pixel density is so high on 27" 1440p that AA matters less.
The problem is, 1440p monitors are usually larger, thus their ppi is not really that much higher if at all.

Quote:
Maxing out a game and/or running AA are mutually exclusive.
I'm sorry, aaksheytalwar, but that is just nonsense. You're playing with words here and it makes no sense. If you can enable MSAA or SSAA and it provides a good visual benefit, why not do it? Also it's not just about jaggies or static screenshots, but about shimmering and aliasing in motion. I don't play screenshots, I play games and move around.
There are games that are unplayable in my book without AA. It depends heavily on the content and the contrast within the game. Some are terrible, some are tolerable. There is no "one size fits all". I would choose 1080p with AA over 1440p without AA any day since you have more horsepower to make your games look better. 1440p is larger, but at least for me, 1080p at 23-24" is perfectly fine.

Last edited by boxleitnerb; 04-10-2013 at 07:49 AM.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 07:49 AM   #11
lavaheadache
Diamond Member
 
lavaheadache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cape Cod MA
Posts: 6,408
Default

I don't like Mick Jaggeries.
__________________
Video Card Specialist

sell me your 5950 Ultra

Heat 137-0-0 heatware 1 percentile
lavaheadache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 07:52 AM   #12
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,542
Default

I've used 1440/1600p for some time now and I can't go back to 1080p. I also can't go back to TN panels with their terrible viewing angles, poor color accuracy, and inadequacy to surround due to bad viewing angles.

Sorry, after using WQHD 1080p just looks like utter garbage. Especially on a TN panel. Garbage (TN Panel) + Garbage (1080p) = you get the picture. Garbage in garbage out. It's time to stop using a 2007 resolution.
blackened23 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:00 AM   #13
Unoid
Senior Member
 
Unoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New England
Posts: 348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23 View Post
I've used 1440/1600p for some time now and I can't go back to 1080p. I also can't go back to TN panels with their terrible viewing angles, poor color accuracy, and inadequacy to surround due to bad viewing angles.

Sorry, after using WQHD 1080p just looks like utter garbage. Especially on a TN panel. Garbage (TN Panel) + Garbage (1080p) = you get the picture. Garbage in garbage out. It's time to stop using a 2007 resolution.
Don't you also wish you could do 120hz?
__________________
2600K @ 4.8ghz - 1.31v - Corsair H75 | ASROCK Extreme 4 gen 3 with 16GB G.Skill memory |256GB Samsung 830/500GB 840 EVO |
Gigabyte R9 290 Crossfire Pushing an Overlord 1440P @96hz
Unoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:05 AM   #14
lavaheadache
Diamond Member
 
lavaheadache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cape Cod MA
Posts: 6,408
Default

1080p doesn't automatically mean something looks like garbage. To argue that just sounds silly. The PPI on my 17ich 1080 G73 is great and looks gorgeous. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate my U3011 or 27in Apple Thunderbolt.
__________________
Video Card Specialist

sell me your 5950 Ultra

Heat 137-0-0 heatware 1 percentile
lavaheadache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:11 AM   #15
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,497
Default

True that. If the ppi is similar, the image will be exactly the same, just larger. Not all 1080p displays have bad panels.
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:17 AM   #16
Eureka
Diamond Member
 
Eureka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,826
Default

I don't understand why it's a choice between TN 120Hz or 60 Hz IPS. And why we still don't have a 1440 IPS 120Hz panel.

Haven't there been 120 Hz IPS TVs out for a while now?
__________________
San Francisco: ASRock Z87E-ITX | Intel i7-4770k | 16 GB DDR3 1600 | Gigabyte WF3 7950
Honolulu: Gigabyte MA790X-UD4P | AMD Phenom II X4 955 | 8GB DDR2 800 | Sapphire HD4890
London: ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA | Intel Dual Core E7400 @ 3.1ghz | 2GB DDR2 667 | ATi X850 XT @ 540/590
Eureka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:30 AM   #17
aaksheytalwar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
The problem is, 1440p monitors are usually larger, thus their ppi is not really that much higher if at all.

I'm sorry, aaksheytalwar, but that is just nonsense. You're playing with words here and it makes no sense. If you can enable MSAA or SSAA and it provides a good visual benefit, why not do it? Also it's not just about jaggies or static screenshots, but about shimmering and aliasing in motion. I don't play screenshots, I play games and move around.
There are games that are unplayable in my book without AA. It depends heavily on the content and the contrast within the game. Some are terrible, some are tolerable. There is no "one size fits all". I would choose 1080p with AA over 1440p without AA any day since you have more horsepower to make your games look better. 1440p is larger, but at least for me, 1080p at 23-24" is perfectly fine.
I think you didn't get the point.

I am talking of a specific case.

If you have power for AA, good for you.

But if you have to choose between these two:

1440p no AA
Or
1080p 4x msaa
Both ultra and both with 60+ fps throughout
And both on a 27" monitor not any other size

Then I would go for 1440p anyday.

I am assuming you are playing on a 27" screen because of reasons like screen size. And that you have just adequate power for either situation but not more than that for any other situation.
__________________
3770k @ 4.3 with H100i, Asus Z77 Deluxe, Samsung 30nm 4x4gb ddr3 @ 1866 9-9-9-28 1T, MSI R9 290 Gaming 4G, Coolermaster Silent Pro Hybrid 1300 watts, Crucial M4 512gb, 3x Seagate 7200.14 3TB each
aaksheytalwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:32 AM   #18
aaksheytalwar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackened23 View Post
I've used 1440/1600p for some time now and I can't go back to 1080p. I also can't go back to TN panels with their terrible viewing angles, poor color accuracy, and inadequacy to surround due to bad viewing angles.

Sorry, after using WQHD 1080p just looks like utter garbage. Especially on a TN panel. Garbage (TN Panel) + Garbage (1080p) = you get the picture. Garbage in garbage out. It's time to stop using a 2007 resolution.
I am talking of 1080p on a Dell U2711. Looks just fine to me. 1440p is better but there is nothing wrong with 1080p.

Obviously there is a tradeoff. If you are unable to max out a game at 1440p, just max it out at 1080p instead of playing at lower details at a higher Rez. Assuming budget is limited.
__________________
3770k @ 4.3 with H100i, Asus Z77 Deluxe, Samsung 30nm 4x4gb ddr3 @ 1866 9-9-9-28 1T, MSI R9 290 Gaming 4G, Coolermaster Silent Pro Hybrid 1300 watts, Crucial M4 512gb, 3x Seagate 7200.14 3TB each
aaksheytalwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:32 AM   #19
boxleitnerb
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,497
Default

Ah okay. I would still say it depends on the game, then. Many games today make the choice for you because they don't support proper AA anyway
boxleitnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:33 AM   #20
lavaheadache
Diamond Member
 
lavaheadache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cape Cod MA
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaksheytalwar View Post
I think you didn't get the point.

I am talking of a specific case.

If you have power for AA, good for you.

But if you have to choose between these two:

1440p no AA
Or
1080p 4x msaa
Both ultra and both with 60+ fps throughout
And both on a 27" monitor not any other size

Then I would go for 1440p anyday.

I am assuming you are playing on a 27" screen because of reasons like screen size. And that you have just adequate power for either situation but not more than that for any other situation.
ahhhh, I missed that you were talking about 27" 1080p. I can imagine 1080 on a 27 inch monitor that sits close to your face looks less than ideal.
__________________
Video Card Specialist

sell me your 5950 Ultra

Heat 137-0-0 heatware 1 percentile
lavaheadache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:38 AM   #21
SlowSpyder
Diamond Member
 
SlowSpyder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,478
Default

I wish I had a 1440P monitor. Then I could shift the limiting bottleneck in my system back to the GPU for a change.
__________________
Steve
FX 9370 / 7970 / ASRock 990FX Extreme 9
SlowSpyder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:39 AM   #22
Gunbuster
Diamond Member
 
Gunbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,202
Default

I think you have confused the issue.

Most users are holding off because of the price difference between a 1080p and 1440p screen.

Secondarily those who actually understand screen specs and aren't just a herpaderp asking the kid at bestbuy for info are hoping for a 120hz model from a US vendor with an established warranty and a bezel/stand that doesn't look like ass.
__________________
Committee for the Liberation and Integration of Terrifying Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society
Gunbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:44 AM   #23
aaksheytalwar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default

Most people tell me that if I can't play a game at 1440p Ultra with 4x MSAA then I haven't maxed it out. My point is, I can max it out at 1080p Ultra 4x MSAA but I prefer to play it maxed out at 1440p Ultra without the MSAA because although I can max out at 1440p, I can't maintain MSAA at 1440p.
__________________
3770k @ 4.3 with H100i, Asus Z77 Deluxe, Samsung 30nm 4x4gb ddr3 @ 1866 9-9-9-28 1T, MSI R9 290 Gaming 4G, Coolermaster Silent Pro Hybrid 1300 watts, Crucial M4 512gb, 3x Seagate 7200.14 3TB each
aaksheytalwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:47 AM   #24
jackstar7
Diamond Member
 
jackstar7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,183
Default

I have an IPS 1440p 120Hz monitor, but I'm really hoping that Overlord can figure out what needs to be adjusted to make it Displayport rather than DVI so that bandwidth constraints from the cable/port can be removed.

But the real grail-type monitor now is something with the quality of IPS with the ability to run a lightboost-style tech to remove blur at 90+Hz.
jackstar7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 08:53 AM   #25
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,217
Default

I think I agree for the most part, I always try #1 first to max details at max/native resolution, and then go for AA and such later. If I have to drop out of native resolution to achieve a playable result, I consider it a failure and use it as an excuse to upgrade I also don't mind notching a few details down that have a big performance impact but don't really visually affect my play. Personally shadows are usually the first to go down a bit, before I consider looking at textures or anything else, but that's just a preference. In some games, shadows are really cool, like modded skyrim, in other games like BF3, it's just too fast paced to ever sit there pondering a shadow, hence I turn it off and it doesn't affect my immersion or experience at all.

I was running a 6950 2GB at 1920x1200, and with BF3 and most 2012+ games I was really pushing it to have a good experience. Bumped up to 670FTW (before AMD went bananas with the price drops, I think this was back when 7950 was still $350+), and now I can max most games at 1200p without slamming into choppiness. AA usually can't be maxed, but I think 25" 1200P @ ~3' is similar to 1440p 27" @ 3'. I would definitely rather have the 1440p, but I do love my 16:10 AR. 1600p would be insanely nice, but that's out of my $ range right now.

That was a bit of a ramble, but yes, for me personally I also put resolution ahead of AA, almost irrespective of anything else. In very rare cases there is horrible aliasing that really needs severe AA to alleviate, and that will look better at lower res/max AA, but that's pretty rare and mostly older titles that you can max res/max detail/max AA easily with any decent card anyway.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.