1080p vs 1440p

..Brian..

So I've recently come into a bit of money via tax back. I have had some upgrades planned for the new year but I now find myself in the position to spend more than I thought.

The planned upgrades were going to cost about €900 less any money I could recoup from selling existing gear (~€250 max). This would see my sig rig below upgraded with an R9 290 and putting the whole thing under water. (WC is a €500 luxury but it's something I have my heart set on and have been saving for the last couple months so it will stay!)

Now I find myself in the position of being able think bigger. I'm considering a Qnix 1440p monitor and a second R9 290. This will however effectively double what I was going to spend originally to about €1800 before I can sell the parts I'm replacing for, if I'm lucky, ~€450.

Now to my question, is 1440p really that much of an improvement that I can justify spending so much on it?! I'd love to hear what you guys think. It's a massive amount of money for me and I can certainly use it more sensibly but I'm torn between good sense and a killer gaming rig!

Luck100

Well, a lot of this is a matter of personal preferences. But you asked, so....

I really like 1440p. My brother in law had is rig at my place over Christmas so we had them set up side-by-side for a bit of Xmas lan party. That's when he decided 1440p was his next upgrade no questions asked.

I also think it's worth paying a bit extra for the name brands (Dell, Asus, etc) over Qnix and friends. Not a massive amount more, but you'll have better odds of a good panel, easier dealing, and better resale. I haven't seen them side-by-side so I'm only going on reviews to assess relative panel/image quality.

I'd probably put WC at the bottom of the list in terms of bang for the buck. Realistically you'll get maybe 10% more overclock headroom over a decent air cooling solution for that 500 euros. Or you could use that 500 euros for a second gpu and make up the cost of a Dell/Asus 1440 monitor over the Qnix.

..Brian..

Thanks for the feed back man. You're surely right about watercooling. It's just been an upgrade I've been planning an saving towards for a few months now, I'm not being subjective about it!

I will have to take a new look at it without a WC loop. The next stop on the sensibility train is staying at 1080p and a single R9 290 with non ref cooler which is surely the cheapest option of them all. Arragh ... damn you conscience!

Need more opinions people!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i will never go back to 1080p. 1440p is just beautiful although if you do go down that route you will probably end up needing two graphics cards if you want to run things at high settings a few years down the line.

..Brian..

Yea there's my dilemma. If I go 1440p I surely want to max the bejaysus out of everything I throw at it. No point upgrading to that resolution only to have to turn down the graphics to get playable FPS.

Anyone around the Waterford area (or within reasonable driving distance) with one of these monitors, I'd love to have a quick look at one in action if possible!

yawhat!

You get around 50 - 60 FPS on every game or more with AA turned off. Around 40 FPS with 2*AA with a R9 290 at 1440P

I get around 40 FPS with 150% resolution scale(Serious graphics hog)and 2AA and rest settings maxed out on battlefield 4 at 1440P.

I plan on adding another one in six months or so to get that AA up to 8x

Far cry 3 looks amazing at 1440P

TemujinKhan

Hi Guys,
Thought I would give my input. I went for the CROSSOVER 27" 1440p monitor. It cost just over 300€ with additional customs duty of 46€. Have to say its a great monitor for the price, no bad pixels, desk mount is very good. http://www.ebay.ie/itm/CROSSOVER-27Q-LED-P-27-DVI-Dual-S-IPS-QHD-2560X1440-16-9-Pivot-Tilt-Monitor-/110869169169?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item19d0514411

I have to say, if I was to choose again I would get a smaller screen. 23" maybe. 27" at 1440p is a lot for the graphics cards to handle, also ingame I nearly have to move my head to see the full field of vision. But the resolution is AMAZING. BF4 at Ultra, I sometimes find a quiet spot on the map and just admire the graphics... (lately I have reduced to High res and disabled AA for 100+ frames, and therefore very smooth game play)

So I would say, yes 1440p, but don't go crazy on the monitor size.

yawhat!

A 23 inch vs a 27 inch does not affect the graphics cards performance.

A 70 inch vs a 23 inch does not affect the graphics cards performance. Its all about resolution.

TemujinKhan

So.......
Both being 1440p, they both have the same amount of pixels to process? The pixels in the 27" are just larger or more spaced out than the 23"?

Tar.Aldarion

Same amount of pixels yes, 2560x1440

TerrorFirmer

I'm one of the people gaming on a 27" 2560x1080, is fantastic for FPS games in particular, and easier on video cards. BF4 on ultra running perfectly at 60fps+, I'm so used to the wide angle and being able to see more now, I wouldn't be able to go back to 1920x1080 or 2560x1440...

..Brian..

Yea so looks like bang for buck performance has beaten WC eyecandyness!

I've decided on a pair of MSI R9 290 Gaming 4G and a QNIX QX2710 perfect pixel 1440p monitor. Should be ~€1080 delivered incl customs. €180 over original budget but I should be able to recoup about €350 from selling my existing cards and monitor plus I have about €250 squirreled away so that net cost ~€480 to upgrade!

Can anyone find a better price on the GPUs that are possibly in stock?

Lu Tze

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I'm one of the people gaming on a 27" 2560x1080, is fantastic for FPS games in particular, and easier on video cards. BF4 on ultra running perfectly at 60fps+, I'm so used to the wide angle and being able to see more now, I wouldn't be able to go back to 1920x1080 or 2560x1440...

I had wondered about these, do you come across issues with the resolution not being supported?

TerrorFirmer

Lu Tze wrote: »

I had wondered about these, do you come across issues with the resolution not being supported?

Not really, the only game I had an issue with was Black Ops 2 and Ghosts, both 'support' 2560x1080 but only stretch the 1080 image, which looks horrific. I use the widescreen fixer app and it works perfect, but other than that, all other games work out of the box so to speak, across a fair range of FPS and RTS games. Fairly mainstream games in general though, not sure how it'd fare if you were more into your lower key or indie titles.

Dcully

Make sure you get a really good 1440 display.
I had a catleap 2560X1440 and sold it soon after i got it as it simply didnt look as good as my dell ultrasharp u2412m.
I thought it was just me so i had a number of people to watch me game on both monitors side by side at the same time and they all agreed the dell looked a lot better.
Yes the catleap @ 2560X1440 is higher res than the dell @ 1920X1200 but the colours, the super high contrast,vibrancy of the dell just blew the catleap away and i just had to keep it over the catleap.
I could say the same for the BenQ 120 hz monitor i borrowed from a friend to do as similar test,the fluidity of the 120 hz screen was just stunning and aded a lot more to gaming than the 2560x1440 screen did.
Here again it didnt look as good as the dell but even so im still tempted to go the 120hz route more so than the 1440 route, then again it doesnt sound much but the dell @ 1920X1200 is closer to 1440 than a 1080 screen.

You could go the 27" 2560x1080 route as mentioned above, personally i cant comment as ive never seen one in action but id imagine a nice spec screen with such res would look very nice indeed.
Its all about taste, if you are set to go with a 1440 id definitely go with a really good one.

Wossack

love the extra desktop real estate 1440p gives you - and prefer more vertical height then the typical 1080p monitors (16:10 vs 16:9 aspect ratios)

srsly78

1080 is obsolete. Even many years ago we had 1920x1200 monitors which now seem impossible to get.

You can also get 1600p monitors. Strangely the 1600p dell has lower input lag than the 1440p dell ultrasharp. Costs a fortune tho. Also the dell IPS monitors have much much better colour quality. Other monitors and tvs etc just look washed out in comparison.

The only question is whether you want 120hz gaming really, which some people swear by, and others consider overrated.

Serephucus

1440p is 16:9.

Tar.Aldarion

Dcully wrote: »

Make sure you get a really good 1440 display.
I had a catleap 2560X1440 and sold it soon after i got it as it simply didnt look as good as my dell ultrasharp u2412m.
I thought it was just me so i had a number of people to watch me game on both monitors side by side at the same time and they all agreed the dell looked a lot better.
Yes the catleap @ 2560X1440 is higher res than the dell @ 1920X1200 but the colours, the super high contrast,vibrancy of the dell just blew the catleap away and i just had to keep it over the catleap.
I could say the same for the BenQ 120 hz monitor i borrowed from a friend to do as similar test,the fluidity of the 120 hz screen was just stunning and aded a lot more to gaming than the 2560x1440 screen did.
Here again it didnt look as good as the dell but even so im still tempted to go the 120hz route more so than the 1440 route, then again it doesnt sound much but the dell @ 1920X1200 is closer to 1440 than a 1080 screen.

You could go the 27" 2560x1080 route as mentioned above, personally i cant comment as ive never seen one in action but id imagine a nice spec screen with such res would look very nice indeed.
Its all about taste, if you are set to go with a 1440 id definitely go with a really good one.

He's getting the qnix q2710, which is similar to the catleap as in that it is a korean job, however it is a PLS monitor and is overclockable. Mine is at 120hz and others have theirs at 144.
I've never used a catleap but have a dell u27 and qnix. Have to say I prefer the qnix and it gets nothing but compliments, along with being half the price and overclockable. The only better thing about the dell monitor is the default stand.

Wossack

Serephucus wrote: »

1440p is 16:9.

ah correct

Dcully

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

He's getting the qnix q2710, which is similar to the catleap as in that it is a korean job, however it is a PLS monitor and is overclockable. Mine is at 120hz and others have theirs at 144.
I've never used a catleap but have a dell u27 and qnix. Have to say I prefer the qnix and it gets nothing but compliments, along with being half the price and overclockable. The only better thing about the dell monitor is the default stand.

Well the catleaps in general must be pretty poor compared to the U27 and qnix so or i got a dodgy one because the U2412m was far better than the one i had.

stylie

No need for anything higher than AA*2 with high res monitors as they reduce the jaggies anyway. Dont waste the GPU on AA concentrate on getting the FPS around 80 for smoother gaming.

..Brian..

Pulled the trigger on this last night. Went for the same monitor above, done a bit of research on it and it gets a lot of good reviews.

I ended up going with a pair of Asus R9 290s DCII to power it. They are about €10 more expensive than the MSI Gaming Editions I was looking at but they ship in 1 - 2 weeks versus 3 - 4 weeks for the MSI and most other R9 290s on the site for that matter. I was going to get the Sapphire Tri X but they went from €397 to €432 overnight before I could buy them.

Dcully

Enjoy man, thats a great bargain for the monitor to be fair.
Add in those two kick ass cards and your sorted for a long time , enjoy!

dark_jedi_ire

Recently moved to 1440p, And never going back to 1080p. and spend the extra on the Dell UltraSharp U2713HM and afteer having a Qnix (which I had major issues with Back Light bleed) the extra 200 was well worth it,, The Monitor is awesome and 1440p you cant beat, and about to upgrade from crossfired Radeon hds 6870s to a single(for now) R9 290 OC WindForce, for Bf4 etc.