For all those who are scared of 1440p

Discussion in 'Video Cards and Graphics' started by aaksheytalwar, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. aaksheytalwar

    aaksheytalwar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. DownTheSky

    DownTheSky Senior member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Jaydip

    Jaydip Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,615
    Likes Received:
    3
    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.
     
  4. skipsneeky2

    skipsneeky2 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. blastingcap

    blastingcap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    6,653
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pixel density is so high on 27" 1440p that AA matters less.
     
  6. Daedalus685

    Daedalus685 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    0
    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...
     
  7. Eureka

    Eureka Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    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..
     
  8. guskline

    guskline Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    22
    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.
     
    #8 guskline, Apr 10, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2013
  9. Unoid

    Unoid Senior member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. boxleitnerb

    boxleitnerb Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
    #10 boxleitnerb, Apr 10, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2013
  11. lavaheadache

    lavaheadache Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    6,882
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't like Mick Jaggeries.
     
  12. blackened23

    blackened23 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    8,556
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Unoid

    Unoid Senior member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't you also wish you could do 120hz?
     
  14. lavaheadache

    lavaheadache Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    6,882
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. boxleitnerb

    boxleitnerb Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    1
    True that. If the ppi is similar, the image will be exactly the same, just larger. Not all 1080p displays have bad panels.
     
  16. Eureka

    Eureka Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  17. aaksheytalwar

    aaksheytalwar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  18. aaksheytalwar

    aaksheytalwar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  19. boxleitnerb

    boxleitnerb Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    1
    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 :(
     
  20. lavaheadache

    lavaheadache Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    6,882
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  21. SlowSpyder

    SlowSpyder Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,134
    Likes Received:
    4
    I wish I had a 1440P monitor. Then I could shift the limiting bottleneck in my system back to the GPU for a change. :)
     
  22. Gunbuster

    Gunbuster Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,756
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  23. aaksheytalwar

    aaksheytalwar Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  24. jackstar7

    jackstar7 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    6,364
    Likes Received:
    19
    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.
     
  25. Arkaign

    Arkaign Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    19,305
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
Loading...