For all those who are scared of 1440p

[Granseth]

Also, if I understand it correctly :

6 bit panels = 256k colors
8 bit panels = 16 million colors
10 bit panels = 1 billion colors (pro usage only for the most part)

I did a big upgrade recently, but still keeping the old monitor as a second screen.
I went from U2412M, OK 1200p IPS panel too U2713H (1440p with 10 bit color) and the difference is astounding. Side by side with the same picture there are so many more colors at the 10bit panel, not that I had noticed anything wrong with the 24" panel before, but now I can't go back. And the 27" 1440p is great too, but I notice it's starting to tax my GPU (7970@1175/1500) in games.

 

[KingFatty]

To be specific, TN panels make multi monitor useless due to viewing angles. The only workable solution is to run triple monitor in portrait mode, preferably without bezels, so that the monitors are so close that you can't perceive the off viewing angles as much - but if you want dual monitors side by side, angled, good luck with that using TN panels. Using dual monitors with an accessory display being TN is just not very good. If it is angled at even 30 degrees compared to the primary you cannot see anything due to the color shifting.

I'd like to disagree about the viewing angles thing. I believe that's just not true except in very odd situation where you would be putting all displays perfectly flat like this:
--- --- ---

However, I know for myself, I aim each monitor at my head, so each monitor is perfectly aligned for my view like this:
/ --- \

When you arrange the monitors in this common-sense way, the viewing angles are ideal for each monitor. I think it's very uncommon for someone to put all three displays perfectly flat, because it's just good sense to aim the monitor at where your head/eyes are? Also, it provides more "immersion" because you are surrounded more by the monitors, and not just looking at a flat image (as you would when looking out a big window).

Look here are some picture examples:

 

[Midwayman]

I don't think the question is if 1440p is better. It is if it is worth it. You have a top of the line OC'd gpu. A lesser card isn't going to push 1440p well. At that point you're not talking about just AA, but dropping quality settings as well.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

But most enthusiasts on AT upgrade their GPU yearly and buy 7950/7970 class GPUs. Those are the people I am talking about here.

 

[Midwayman]

But most enthusiasts on AT upgrade their GPU yearly and buy 7950/7970 class GPUs. Those are the people I am talking about here.

Well even the 7950 is marginal at 1440p in some games. In any case, if you're buying those cards and selling each year, you are well into the money is no object category. Might as well throw Sli/crossfire setups in there, etc. It'd be interesting to see if that's really 'most' people on anandtech like you say. I see an awful lot of posts about lower end GPUs too.

 

[fixbsod]

Ok, I give -- I want a 24" IPS 1440p display -- 10 bit would be nice, willing to pay up to $850 ish -- now suggest some models.

This way I'll have a reason to upgrade the 580 too Tail wagging the dog.

 

[Peter Nixeus]

You don't need a powerful graphics card to output 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 resolutions. A lowly Nvidia GT 210 and ATI 5450 can support that resolution through Dual Link DVI connections.

But if you plan on gaming, then that is when you need a much more powerful graphics card.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I played through Bioshock Infinite at 1080p on my Catleap. Was perfectly fine vs 1440. Only downside was a few edges were sharper with 1440, but not terrible in motion.

I absolutely had no real choice for playability since Bioshock Infinite eats more vram than even crysis 3.

 

[AdamK47]

Just load up on Titans. Performance problems solved.

 

[5150Joker]

Good post OP, agree with your findings.

 

[guskline]

Just load up on Titans. Performance problems solved.

That is FUNNY (and quite expensive!):biggrin:

 

[aaksheytalwar]

That is FUNNY (and quite expensive!):biggrin:

And Adam47 only!

 

[Gikaseixas]

I'm interested in the 1440 panels that can be overclocked to 120Hz, but until we get better gpus I'm not moving off 1080p. Even my 7950 feels rather lackluster at this resolution, certainly not stomping every title into the dirt, even without MSAA on deferred engines.

Balla you need a much more powerful cpu than your i3 to really stretch your GPU. You can't make statements like this one with the bottleneck you have right now.

 

[Eureka]

Balla you need a much more powerful cpu than your i3 to really stretch your GPU. You can't make statements like this one with the bottleneck you have right now.

Eh, I have an overclocked i5 and an overclocked 7950 and it still stumbles occasionally at 1200p. I can imagine 1440p to only be worse.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

To truly witness quality the time for i7 second gen has come for several games like bf3

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Some titles I'm cpu limited in, no question there. However others it's the gpu, I can't help this though until Haswell comes out.

I took a cash out on my 5.5GHz i5-2500k for the move to Haswell, I just had no idea it was going to take this long I was hoping March :\

BF3 MP for instance is cpu limited, however I can check the gpu performance pretty well in SP... No problem with performance in BF3 with the 7950 as it were.

 

[Wall Street]

For all those who are scared of 1440p

Nice straw man. Nobody is scared of 1440p.

Most gamers, myself included, don't use 1440p because of the cost. Right now, 1440p setups are past the point where there is a linear price/performance tradeoff, so it is hard to justify. They cost at least double but many people would say this doesn't make the gaming experience twice as good.

From reputable sites you can get:
23" 1080p TN monitor - $125 to $150
GTX 660 or GTX 670 - $200 to $360
Total - $325 to $410

of you can get:
1440p IPS monitor - $240 to 700 (depending on ebay vs. retailer and monitor brand)
GTX 680 or Titan - $420 to $1000
Total - $660 to $1700

A 1440p setup is easily twice the cost of a setup that gets similar FPS at 1080p. This is at least multiple hundreds of dollars. While you enjoy your 1440p, many people don't see the benefit of splashing this kind of money around on hardware.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Nice straw man. Nobody is scared of 1440p.

Most gamers, myself included, don't use 1440p because of the cost. Right now, 1440p setups are past the point where there is a linear price/performance tradeoff, so it is hard to justify. They cost at least double but many people would say this doesn't make the gaming experience twice as good.

From reputable sites you can get:
23" 1080p TN monitor - $125 to $150
GTX 660 or GTX 670 - $200 to $360
Total - $325 to $410

of you can get:
1440p IPS monitor - $240 to 700 (depending on ebay vs. retailer and monitor brand)
GTX 680 or Titan - $420 to $1000
Total - $660 to $1700

A 1440p setup is easily twice the cost of a setup that gets similar FPS at 1080p. This is at least multiple hundreds of dollars. While you enjoy your 1440p, many people don't see the benefit of splashing this kind of money around on hardware.

I would argue that a 660 isn't even enough for proper 1080p. I don't mean high settings, I mean maxed out even minus AA.

 

[Wall Street]

I would argue that a 660 isn't even enough for proper 1080p. I don't mean high settings, I mean maxed out even minus AA.

A 1440p screen has 78% more pixels than a 1080p screen.

A 680 has 33% more ROPs and memory bandwidth than a 660.
A 680 has 14% more texture units and shaders than a 660.
A 680 has 9% more clock speed than a 660.

If a 660 isn't enough for "proper" 1080p than a 680 is not even close to enough for "proper" 1440p.

 

[bystander36]

It all depends on what you consider playable, or ideal FPS. I personally require more than most people.

 

[blackened23]

Nice straw man. Nobody is scared of 1440p.

Most gamers, myself included, don't use 1440p because of the cost. Right now, 1440p setups are past the point where there is a linear price/performance tradeoff, so it is hard to justify. They cost at least double but many people would say this doesn't make the gaming experience twice as good.

From reputable sites you can get:
23" 1080p TN monitor - $125 to $150
GTX 660 or GTX 670 - $200 to $360
Total - $325 to $410

of you can get:
1440p IPS monitor - $240 to 700 (depending on ebay vs. retailer and monitor brand)
GTX 680 or Titan - $420 to $1000
Total - $660 to $1700

A 1440p setup is easily twice the cost of a setup that gets similar FPS at 1080p. This is at least multiple hundreds of dollars. While you enjoy your 1440p, many people don't see the benefit of splashing this kind of money around on hardware.

So basically what you're saying: those willing to pay more and/or have a higher budget can get a better experience? That doesn't sound like a groundbreaking argument. That's actually the beauty of the PC, it is highly scale-able... I fail to see where anyone suggested 1440p or 1600p is a pre-requisite. I'm not sure why you're so offended. Obviously some users would rather not invest as much into their PC, for whatever reason, which is completely fine.

 

[cmdrdredd]

A 1440p screen has 78% more pixels than a 1080p screen.

A 680 has 33% more ROPs and memory bandwidth than a 660.
A 680 has 14% more texture units and shaders than a 660.
A 680 has 9% more clock speed than a 660.

If a 660 isn't enough for "proper" 1080p than a 680 is not even close to enough for "proper" 1440p.

You think? Why am I running SLI again? Oh that's right, cause one card ain't enough.

 

[Wall Street]

I fail to see where anyone suggested 1440p or 1600p is a pre-requisite.

The title of the thread is "For all those who are scared of 1440p" which would seem to imply that 1080p gamers are scared of 1440p. I'm just pointing out that most 1080p gamers are making an economic decision and aren't scared of gaming at 1440p at all. Being scared of a screen resolution is silly.

 

[blackened23]

The title of the thread is "For all those who are scared of 1440p" which would seem to imply that 1080p gamers are scared of 1440p. I'm just pointing out that most 1080p gamers are making an economic decision and aren't scared of gaming at 1440p at all. Being scared of a screen resolution is silly.

What you basically did was condense the OP's argument into one phrase and misinterpreted it in the process. There are definitely folks who may be willing to try 1440p and would like higher resolution, but are leery and hesitant due to potential framerate issues. That's my take on what the OP was trying to convey. It's a real concern for quite a few people.

I didn't see it as a means of demeaning those with lower end setups (your interpretation).

 

[lilrayray69]

Yeah I'm wondering who is afraid of switching to 1440p due to aesthetic reasons...I'd love to have a 1440p monitor if I could afford it.