• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1080p @ 120Hz VS 1440p @ 60Hz

1080p @ 120Hz or 1440p @ 60Hz?

  • 1080p @ 120Hz

  • 1440p @ 60Hz

Results are only viewable after voting.
dpodblood

dpodblood

Diamond Member
There are a lot of proponents of 1440p out there, and a lot of proponents of 120Hz monitors, but there are very few affordable options out there which wrap up both in the same package. Even if we suddenly had affordable 120Hz 1440p monitors available to us running games at the native resolution and 120 FPS would be very difficult or expensive in most cases. So if you had to pick one of the two which would you go for? The ultra sharp 1440p monitor, or the ultra smooth 120 Hz monitor?
 
How about both?

Get a QNIX QX2710 and overclock it. Almost all can hit 96Hz. Most can hit 110Hz, and it's a crap shoot for 120Hz.
 
Shamrock said:
How about both?

Get a QNIX QX2710 and overclock it. Almost all can hit 96Hz. Most can hit 110Hz, and it's a crap shoot for 120Hz.
Click to expand...

I have to second this. Mine will game at 96Hz, but I can'te leave it there for desktop use as I get slight image retention. Still a hell of a deal for $300.
 
depends a lot on what games you might be playing most

any fast action type games (ie shooters/racers) I'd say go 120Hz hands down

for RPG/RTS type games, maybe simulators, a quality 1440p will likely find preference amongst most

That being said, a 1440p monitor will also have superior utility outside of games, but anyone truly serious about gaming should be on 100+Hz
 
Honestly, the real question for me is not 1080p 120hz vs 1440p 60hz. The real question is TN vs IPS, and I prefer IPS. (Thus I voted for 1440p 60hz)

Let me know when there's an IPS monitor that runs at 120hz for a reasonable price without some weird issues like image retention and I'll go to 120hz. Until then, I'm stuck with 60hz.
 
Once I went 120hz I can't go back. More pixels are nice but the smoothness of 120hz makes 60 feel wrong too me now, even in Windows. I think 120hz is much more important .
 
If you're gaming a lot, 120Hz no question, even on the desktop the smoothness is noticeable (drag a window around, it's like sliding a piece of paper around on your physical desk, you'd have to see it to know what I mean).

1440p if you're interested in how the desktop looks and such, but GPU muscle is in demand once you get past 1080p.
Astrallite said:
How about 4K @ 60Hz 😀
Click to expand...

is 4K @ 60Hz even possible? I thought they're 30Hz right now.
 
Shamrock said:
How about both?

Get a QNIX QX2710 and overclock it. Almost all can hit 96Hz. Most can hit 110Hz, and it's a crap shoot for 120Hz.
Click to expand...

While an excellent compromise and my first preference for an all round display, they're still not as clear as TN 120/144hz panels in motion, which may matter to some if they're into competitive gaming.

So with that in mind, I would personally prefer a 1080p 120/144hz panel for online FPS specifically, but an overclocked 1440p display for everything else.
 
Continuity28 said:
Honestly, the real question for me is not 1080p 120hz vs 1440p 60hz. The real question is TN vs IPS, and I prefer IPS. (Thus I voted for 1440p 60hz)

Let me know when there's an IPS monitor that runs at 120hz for a reasonable price without some weird issues like image retention and I'll go to 120hz. Until then, I'm stuck with 60hz.
Click to expand...

No love for VA?
Cos if that Eizo Foris were only 1440p...
 
I'm more confused as to why people all feel the need to write "p" after a bit of their monitor resolution. As if any monitor is not "p", and as if the "p" is an important factor in the panel.

Anyway, I think Xsync"p" monitors would make a big enough difference for me atm instead of 144Hz"p" monitors at a lower res'(p).
 
Last edited:
richaron said:
I'm more confused as to why people all feel the need to write "p" after a bit of their monitor resolution. As if any monitor is not "p", and as if the "p" is an important factor in the panel.

Anyway, I think Xsync"p" monitors would make a big enough difference for me atm instead of 144Hz"p" monitors at a lower res'(p).
Click to expand...

ok so we should refer to 1080i?

Go look to why "p" is being used.
 
P = Progressive instead of Interlaced. But computer monitors are always progressive, interlaced is dead for the future. Still it has its purpose.

I would also say why not get both including gsync, a few months now until it comes out.
 
richaron said:
I call it x1080.



You should read more and post less. The "i" vs "p" is much more applicable to the signal supplied, and more important within the confines of a given signal protocol.
Click to expand...

Is it any easier to write, x1080, over 1080p. 1080p is a recognized resolution. So why bother doing something different than everyone else? When I write 1080p, everyone knows I'm talking about a resolution. When someone says x1080, they have to think about it.
 
bystander36 said:
Is it any easier to write, x1080, over 1080p. 1080p is a recognized resolution. So why bother doing something different than everyone else? When I write 1080p, everyone knows I'm talking about a resolution. When someone says x1080, they have to think about it.
Click to expand...

Hehehe, no. It is equally redundant to write as 1080p, but in our usage I'd argue more correct because x1080 is just a resolution (when people say 1080p they think they are saying a resolution; like in a panel's spec').

I think it should just be 1080 unless people really mean to be talking about the signal in detail.
 
I actually find that if the motion is TOO fluid, I'll get motion sickness in many 3D games. I'd rather have it the tiiiiiiniest bit choppy... I find 30FPS to be just fine. 60FPS is gorgeous, but runs a risk. 120FPS would be too much for me to handle.

Gimme' the 1440P!
 
richaron said:
Hehehe, no. It is equally redundant to write as 1080p, but in our usage I'd argue more correct because x1080 is just a resolution (when people say 1080p they think they are saying a resolution; like in a panel's spec').

I think it should just be 1080 unless people really mean to be talking about the signal in detail.
Click to expand...
The world disagrees with you.

Btw, I do not know what x1080 is. It could be 1280x1080, it could be 2560x1080, or it could be 1920x1080. 1080p is recognized as 1920x1080, due to that being a TV format we are all familiar with. The use of the "p", probably started because of the predominant use of 1280x1024 monitors when it was first used.
 
Last edited:
bystander36 said:
The world disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

I feel strangely flattered...

No. As I obtusely explained above, "1080p" is a relic of PAL/NTSC protocols which have fixed frame rates.

When talking modern computers it's like adding "with wheels" every time you mention a car or truck: "I drove my car with wheels to work today", "Car with wheels for sale" etc. Best just to say "car", and on the odd occasion it doesn't have wheels then you add "without wheels".
 
richaron said:
I feel strangely flattered...

No. As I obtusely explained above, "1080p" is a relic of PAL/NTSC protocols which have fixed frame rates.

When talking modern computers it's like adding "with wheels" every time you mention a car or truck: "I drove my car with wheels to work today", "Car with wheels for sale" etc. Best just to say "car", and on the odd occasion it doesn't have wheels then you add "without wheels".
Click to expand...

Look, it is as simple as this. At least this is why I adopted 1080p:
- 1920x1080 is harder to write.
- 1080 is not enough information to explain the horizontal dimensions. There is more than one 1080 resolution.
- 1080p is how all 1920x1080 monitors are advertised and it is the easiest to write that fully explains the resolution.

Your analogy doesn't work, as you are adding to the description to say with wheels. 1080p shortens the description and fully explains the resolution.
 
bystander36 said:
Your analogy doesn't work, as you are adding to the description to say with wheels. 1080p shortens the description and fully explains the resolution.
Click to expand...

My analogy is perfect. And I doubt the objectivity of this particular point.

But I think we've derailed this enough & I'm happy to leave it at "the world disagrees with [me]". gg
 
Last edited:
Your analogy was certainly not perfect, it was completely bizarre - I've never read a discussion about cars that don't have wheels but particularly recently with a few new monitors going wider than 16:9 and in the same class as the 27in 1440p and 120Hz monitors, there's been a few discussions with 1080 high monitors that are not 1080p. I could understand the point if you were complaining that people were typing out the full resolution unnecessarily each time having a single letter to denote it's the common resolution is quite tidy.

I prefer the higher resolution at 60Hz, I did try 1080p at 120Hz after reading various posts raving about the higher speed but I didn't find it that great for the loss of resolution although my 1440p panel is better than the 120Hz ones I have.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top