• 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.

Is 1400p gaming worth it?

K

krumme

Diamond Member
I am simply torn between 1080 and 1400.

I am going ips way because the computer will be used for pictures, video, and good 1080 ips is very cheap now. Besides that the rest of the computer grows if you have to use fx. 7950 instead of 7850 to drive the gfx. I would like it small and less noisy...

Is the games build for the 1400 res? - i mean how does fx. bf3 look at high res compared to 1080, does it matter for your performance? what about experience/fun?

Besides, gaming on a big screen, do you have to shake your head all the time ? - lol,

Righ now i play bf3 on 17 laptop, but is wondering what is next step. Its not like i need it 🙂, and price doesnt really matter (making selecting more difficult). I just dont know what i want - ROFL. Help!!!
 
Games don't have to be made for high res unless they're 2D. They'll all work fine at 2560x1440. You'll just have more pixels.

If a game runs slow at full res, you can always play it in a window at 1920x1080 or even 1920x1200. The image will probably be about the same size as the 1080p smaller screen.
 
For higher resolution monitors and multiple monitors you'll want a graphics card with more than the standard 1gb vram. At least 2gb and with the way games are increasing their textures 4gb on a single video card is not unreasonable.

Some people prefer better graphics and others prefer faster and/or larger monitors. If you want to do serious photography better graphics are important. Otherwise I'd say go to the store and compare the difference for yourself because no two people have the same taste.
 
2560x1440 is a large resolution to power natively, you'll want a decent video card to max out your game settings, it used to be that you needed SLI or Crossfire but these days the fastest single GPU cards tend to do really well with most games.

Generally speaking as screen size goes up, the pixels per area (the actual definition of the screen) goes up as well, this seems almost counter intuative but it's generally true.

A 2560x1440 screen at 27" has a PPI of about 109
A 1920x1080 screen at 24" has a PPI of about 91

Gaming at these large sizes is really nice, I have a 30" 2560x1600 IPS and gamed on it for many years, I recently switched out to a more modest 24" 120hz panel to try 3D gaming and to get the faster refresh rate feel back, both are great ways to game in their own right, which you go for really just depends on preference, I am really loving 120hz gaming at the moment.
 
1080P? after CRT the minimum resolution monitor I have is a 1200p... and now I have a 1440p IPS monitor and don't ever want to go back...:sneaky:
 
I have been using my 28" Catleap for about 4 months now and love it.

Playing games at max settings at 2560x1440 is great. So far i have had no issues with my GTX 670 pushing it and my 21".
 
Nope.

I've gone from 2560x1440 on a 27" to 1366x768 on a 50" and still love gaming, still looks great.

I also have used 1080p monitors.

I'm convinced high res is not needed to enjoy gaming, and to still look good.
 
I'm not going past 1920x1200 16:10 until I have a 27" screen with more than 100 pixels per inch to enjoy it with. 1080p / 1200p gaming is just fine for now.

Now that Apple made the first display with more than 100ppi and people are going ape-crap for it, I expect we'll finally have large desktop monitors at greater than 100ppi in 3-5 years at an affordable price. The first few that come out will cost a fortune, though.

The main issue, as everyone else mentioned as well, is that the higher you go, the more video RAM you need to have.
 
30 inch displays are 100 PPI and i dont beleive apple made the first one same with the 27 1440p minotors
 
Llwellyn said:
I'm not going past 1920x1200 16:10 until I have a 27" screen with more than 100 pixels per inch to enjoy it with. 1080p / 1200p gaming is just fine for now.

Now that Apple made the first display with more than 100ppi and people are going ape-crap for it, I expect we'll finally have large desktop monitors at greater than 100ppi in 3-5 years at an affordable price. The first few that come out will cost a fortune, though.

The main issue, as everyone else mentioned as well, is that the higher you go, the more video RAM you need to have.
Click to expand...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/427306/tvs-and-tablets-to-get-the-retina-display/

They're coming on the market sometime next year or the year after and since all the manufacturers are retrofitting their assembly lines the prices should fall pretty fast. There is also an inexpensive nano quantum dot insert for LCDs that can produce the color gamut of OLEDs. Using the IZGO back plane I suppose it might even be possible to crank them up to 120hz, but I suspect not without at least some modest ghosting.
 
In this thread, people think tacking "p" on to the end of arbitrary numbers makes them resolutions.

p stands for progressive scan and has meaning in televisions (and CRTs a decade ago....), and has bled over for 1080p and 720p since these are standard television resolutions.

"1400p" (which I assume he really means 2560x1440) is WQHD.
 
Last edited:
The difference is pretty large imo. I really like 2560x1440. Mostly because the colors are better on ips displays and the pixels smaller so you have less jagged edges on objects.
 
cmdrdredd said:
The difference is pretty large imo. I really like 2560x1440. Mostly because the colors are better on ips displays and the pixels smaller so you have less jagged edges on objects.
Click to expand...

Subjective I guess, as Gaming, I don't think its worth all the premiums going from 1080p to 2560x1440 from my experience.

Once prices fall more and 2560x1440 becomes more attractive, why not.
 
Last edited:
It's also almost 80% higher pixel count which means you need 80% more GPU power to maintain the same framerate.
 
cmdrdredd said:
$300 Catleap is cheaper than an Asus vg236. That was cheap enough for me.
Click to expand...

You're not including your Dual 670's required to run it maxed out, and most people are not comfortable spending $350 on a Korean monitor with no warranty. (my opinion, I owned a Catleap 🙂 ... and a U2711 at different points. Nothing wrong with it, I'm just saying the premiums for what you get are not worth it in my books, to each there own)
 
Last edited:
I am going to chime in on the "No" side. My reasoning is that on most games you probably aren't going to notice the difference. And there aren't enough games out there to make it worth while at the moment. nor in the immediate future. Even the games that can utilize the enhanced graphics, probably aren't so advanced that it will make any appreciable difference.

Personally though it comes down to price. if you have to pay any extra for the 1440, I would say that is wasted money at the current time and for the immediate future. if you don't notice the difference and are anticipating a lift later on, then maybe. but by then there should be better stuff out and for cheaper anyway.
 
thespyder said:
I am going to chime in on the "No" side. My reasoning is that on most games you probably aren't going to notice the difference. And there aren't enough games out there to make it worth while at the moment. nor in the immediate future. Even the games that can utilize the enhanced graphics, probably aren't so advanced that it will make any appreciable difference.

Personally though it comes down to price. if you have to pay any extra for the 1440, I would say that is wasted money at the current time and for the immediate future. if you don't notice the difference and are anticipating a lift later on, then maybe. but by then there should be better stuff out and for cheaper anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know how 95% of the 3d engines out there work. Your first paragraph is wrong in every count.

Your second paragraph is correct on the cost factor. It is higher.
 
adam_the_giant said:
Subjective I guess, as Gaming, I don't think its worth all the premiums going from 1080p to 2560x1440 from my experience.

Once prices fall more and 2560x1440 becomes more attractive, why not.
Click to expand...

Catleap + 670gtx or similar not bad for a huge jump in dispaly experience.

I love the setup, i would have a hard time going back to anything less, IPS 4tw.
 
Ferzerp said:
I don't think you know how 95% of the 3d engines out there work. Your first paragraph is wrong in every count.

Your second paragraph is correct on the cost factor. It is higher.
Click to expand...

I am curious how many games you think are out there that show a quantifiable difference between 1080 and 1440.

Please list examples and metrics.
 
thespyder said:
I am curious how many games you think are out there that show a quantifiable difference between 1080 and 1440.

Please list examples and metrics.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you mean by quantifiable (and I don't think you even understand what resolution is because you keep asking for examples of games).

Any game can benefit from 1440, and it will be substantially better (at least to a trained eye) than 1080p in terms of screen size and PPI, and therefore evidence of aliasing.

PPI can be pretty close if you go with a 21-22" 1080p, but it's still not as dense as a 27" 1440p, and you lose big time on the screen size.

This is valid for ANYTHING on the screen actually, not just games.
 
The difference between WQHD and 1080p is extremely close to the difference between 1366x768 and 1080p. I guess we may well all game at that resolution since no one can tell the difference... 🙄

Quantifiably (I don't think that word means what you think it does. But since you used it, I'll take advantage of the obvious quantifiable difference in the two resolutions), there are 77% more points of information in WQHD than in 1080p displays.
 
Ferzerp said:
The difference between WQHD and 1080p is extremely close to the difference between 1366x768 and 1080p. I guess we may well all game at that resolution since no one can tell the difference... 🙄

Quantifiably (I don't think that word means what you think it does. But since you used it, I'll take advantage of the obvious quantifiable difference in the two resolutions), there are 77% more points of information in WQHD than in 1080p displays.
Click to expand...

the comment I made, that you categorically denounced, was that there were no games where the resolution difference (1080 vs. 1440) was appreciable to the average consumer. A stance that you now apparently agree with.

Now, I guess I could have assumed that people were going to be really anal about the whole thing and said 'Quantifiable from the average consumer perspective'. Instead I merely said 'Quantifiable'. What I meant by that was, show me games (since the OP was talking specifically about gaming - see he title), where the average consumer is going to say "yeah, that was worth the extra $400 I spent for 1440 plus the additional $500 that I spent to upgrade my video card.

Does that clarify my 'Quantifiable' comment?
 
Magically, every individual will see 77% more pixels with the higher resolution display!

You're trying to make the argument that resolution doesn't matter. It's such an absurd stance that there is little point taking you seriously.

You're free to go game on a 640x480 display since pixel count is not important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top