Gaming at 2560x1440 vs 1920x1080...how bigs the hit?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

This is my pc below. I'm considering going from 1920x1080 to a 2560x1440 monitor. What I'm wondering about is how hard of a hit say...BF4 will take? And at that res do I still need AA for it to look decent?

CPU ModelIntel i5-3570K
Graphics Card:Gigabyte 670
Motherboard:ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155
Ram:Corsair 8GB DDR3
Storage:Crucial M4 SSD
Soundcard: Soundblaster Z
Power SupplyCorsair GS800
CaseCOOLER MASTER HAF 922
Operating System: OSWindows 7

Thanks

#2 Edited by FelipeInside (26047 posts) -

The hit is HARD.... like a BF4 Jet crashing into a skyscraper.

Saying that... with that set up you should be able to get it running well.

Question is, do you REALLY need to go to that higher resolution?

#3 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

The hit is HARD.... like a BF4 Jet crashing into a skyscraper.

Saying that... with that set up you should be able to get it running well.

Question is, do you REALLY need to go to that higher resolution?

No, don't "need" to. But that doesn't keep me from wanting to. :)

#4 Edited by FelipeInside (26047 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@FelipeInside said:

The hit is HARD.... like a BF4 Jet crashing into a skyscraper.

Saying that... with that set up you should be able to get it running well.

Question is, do you REALLY need to go to that higher resolution?

No, don't "need" to. But that doesn't keep me from wanting to. :)

To be honest, unless you really spend money on something high quality, I don't see the big "WOW" going from one resolution to another.

I've played on both and I still prefer my 27'' Samsung monitor at 1920x1080. At the end of the day the game runs smoother, with less hardware and less power. But that's just me.

#5 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

Wonder what would be better uping res or going 120hz.

#6 Posted by FelipeInside (26047 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

Wonder what would be better uping res or going 120hz.

Definitely 120Hz, at least in my books.

I've gamed on 60hz on both 1920x and 2560x. I'm not going to lie, it's nice having the higher rez but as I said before it depends on what quality monitor/tv you are displaying it on.

But when I went from my 60hz monitor to my 120hz, WOW, what a difference... and not only in games, just in Windows and webpages etc.

You don't even have to maintain 120fps to notice the difference. I play lots of BF4 too and COD, and it's great to see how smooth everything moves.

#7 Posted by cyloninside (815 posts) -

@BSC14: huge hit for almost no upside and a much greater expense. 1440 does not look that much better than 1080 IMO. not even remotely worth the expense.

#8 Posted by MonsieurX (31380 posts) -

I have a pretty much similar build.

Gaming 2560x1440 as well,didn't play BF4, but haven't encountered many problems with the gpu and the resolution

#9 Edited by Ribstaylor1 (1291 posts) -

I'm running an i7 3770k, 16gb ram , Gtx 770 non stock, and I'm running all games off of a WD black 1tb. I am using a Asus pb278Q 1440 PLS panel. The thing is gorgeous so vibrant, colors are superior to my expensive sharp 60inch (TN) panel. On the 60inch I'm pulling any where from 60-85FPS in all modern games maxed out minus some anti aliasing and such. With my Asus pb278Q I'm running most games at max settings (Battlefield on high) no anti aliasing anywhere from 40-60fps. So the hit is massive 1440-p is 75% more pixels then a 1080p screen, so there is a decent performance dip.

Unless you get another card I don't know If I could recommend getting a 1440p screen right now. Why not just buy a 1080p IPS or PLS panel and get the super awesome colors of those kinds of panels but stay at the resolution you can play at?

Personally I will never buy a TN panel again. Colors are washed out blacks are grey, grey's are white and everything looks so bland. From now on I'm going with panels that Are IPS, PLS, or better then those in the color department nothing else will cut it for me at least.

#10 Edited by FelipeInside (26047 posts) -

@ribstaylor1 said:

Personally I will never buy a TN panel again. Colors are washed out blacks are grey, grey's are white and everything looks so bland. From now on I'm going with panels that Are IPS, PLS, or better then those in the color department nothing else will cut it for me at least.

Depends what brand and model you get.

I'm not going to argue that IPS have great colour reproduction, but some TN panels are better than some IPS panels in the gaming department (I've compared a few at work).

#11 Posted by Ribstaylor1 (1291 posts) -

Ya the extra Hz would be nice in gaming but for a single GPU like my gtx 770 it's hard to make use of those hz as I'm barely pushing 85fps on 1080p. I do wish I didn't have the dip under 60fps but I can get by at 40-60 not a big deal. It all depends on what your going for. Speed precision/smoothness or visual fidelity. Either one isn't a bad idea, your right though just because it's an IPS or PLS does not mean it's a good product. There are grenades in every walk of life including electronics.

#12 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

so what kind of frame rate would you need to take advantage of 120hz?

#13 Edited by FelipeInside (26047 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

so what kind of frame rate would you need to take advantage of 120hz?

Well it's best when it's at 120fps, but it also depends on the game.

I play COD and I think that's locked to 60 and its smoother as butter, same with fast games like BF4 and NFS.

Don't fall for the thinking that you need to constantly keep 120fps on a 120Hz monitor.

#14 Edited by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@BSC14 said:

so what kind of frame rate would you need to take advantage of 120hz?

Well it's best when it's at 120fps, but it also depends on the game.

I play COD and I think that's locked to 60 and its smoother as butter, same with fast games like BF4 and NFS.

Don't fall for the thinking that you need to constantly keep 120fps on a 120Hz monitor.

So even at say....50 fps you see the difference?

#15 Edited by FelipeInside (26047 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@FelipeInside said:

@BSC14 said:

so what kind of frame rate would you need to take advantage of 120hz?

Well it's best when it's at 120fps, but it also depends on the game.

I play COD and I think that's locked to 60 and its smoother as butter, same with fast games like BF4 and NFS.

Don't fall for the thinking that you need to constantly keep 120fps on a 120Hz monitor.

So even at say....50 fps you see the difference?

I don't know at what number but there is definitely a difference between using a 60hz monitor and a 120hz monitor (good quality ones of course).

But with your rig all games should be running butter smooth, so your framerate should be up there.

#16 Posted by Daious (1892 posts) -

You could always get an Qnix Evolution II 1440p monitor and overclock it to 96hz

#17 Posted by id_mew (483 posts) -

You should be fine. Had the exact same setup but with an I7 3770k and a 1440p monitor run everything on highest settings but with AA to X2 or completely disabled. And for me after going from 1080 to 1440p I did see a major difference. Everything is much more crisper and sharper.

#18 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

This is the only 27" I see around.

LINK HERE

#19 Edited by Ribstaylor1 (1291 posts) -

If you have a 120hz monitor It can do up to 120fps you don't need to all ways be getting 120fps what I meant was there was no point in me buying a 120hz because in most instances I wouldn't even be getting use out of the extra hz. The only time you'll notice if a 120hz is smoother is either in input lag or if your pulling more frames then a 60hz monitor can display. Since my card usually hovers around 60-80fps on 1080 I said screw it and just got a 1440p monitor at 60hz instead of a TN panel at 120hz. Now I pull anywhere from 40-60fps but I don't mind the dip around 40 something anything lower and it starts to look choppy to me.

1440p is a nice resolution though, games look so much more crisp and clear. The colors pop more on IPS and PLS panels as well so it's better in all ways but the performance hit to frames, and often more input lag. My asus pb278Q has 5ms input lag which is not to shabby but you can get lower down to 1ms with a TN panel that does 120hz.

#20 Edited by Klunt_Bumskrint (4313 posts) -

I gain between 40-60 fps by dropping to 1080. Not that I need to. :)

#21 Edited by Horgen (110449 posts) -

@acanofcoke said:

I gain between 40-60 fps by dropping to 1080. Not that I need to. :)

Not all of us can afford GTX 780 SLI :x

TC if you can get another 670, then you are good to go for 1440P!

#22 Edited by Grey_Eyed_Elf (4069 posts) -

Its hard.

You lose about 30-40% of your framerate.

At 1920x1200 a GTX 670 gets the same framerate as a Titan at 2560x1080... So basically going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 you are downgrading your card by two steps in terms of perfromance on the same setting.

Its why I don't believe in "overkill".

#23 Edited by PredatorRules (8591 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

This is my pc below. I'm considering going from 1920x1080 to a 2560x1440 monitor. What I'm wondering about is how hard of a hit say...BF4 will take? And at that res do I still need AA for it to look decent?

CPU ModelIntel i5-3570K

Graphics Card:Gigabyte 670

Motherboard:ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155

Ram:Corsair 8GB DDR3

Storage:Crucial M4 SSD

Soundcard: Soundblaster Z

Power SupplyCorsair GS800

CaseCOOLER MASTER HAF 922

Operating System: OSWindows 7

Thanks

1st get proper GPU to run game at this resolution or SLI another 670

#24 Edited by nicecall (490 posts) -

the performance hit is sometimes a problem with some games. I tried playing Tomb Raider 2013 at 2560x1440 on my 680gtx and it played pretty good but some parts of the game dipped down to 30-40 fps in big areas. Wasnt a big deal cause I wanted to play it on my plasma at 1080p with a controller... doing that the game played 60+ fps constantly.

I'm not sure how good Battlefield plays... but if you are currently 80+ fps, i think u could probably handle 2560x1440 and probably get 60 fps or so...

just for me i noticed about 15-25% performance hit in games going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440... but most games you can lock the fps at 60 fps since going beyond that usually just causes more screen tearing on a 60hz monitor.

my video card is a 680gtx which is virtually same as your 670gtx. and i could say for sure you will lose at least 20 fps in most games going up to this res depending on things.

my last thought is you probably shouldnt get a new monitor until you get a bit more powerful gpu, since it looks like your playing some new demanding games and you may be disappointed with the performance... also it may pay off waiting to see if nvidia's g-sync tech turns out to be good, cause if it does turn out, it would be a really nice benefit for games with fast moving motion... but you also would need a g-sync monitor and currently i dont know if they have 2560x1440 gsync monitors.

#25 Posted by maynardburger (187 posts) -

If you want to play modern games like BF4, then a single GTX670 will probably struggle at 1440p. You'll have to make significant sacrifices on the settings to get it to a solid 60fps. It might still look sharper in the end, but the overall image quality will be a nasty compromise if you ask me, without effects like ambient occlusion and lower texture or shadow detail and whatnot. The higher resolution will alleviate *some* need for anti-aliasing, but you'll likely still want some for most games. Games aren't going to get less demanding going forward, either. BF4 is actually a fairly well optimized game in terms of the performance needed to run it well(considering how good it looks). Other games may prove far more troubling.

I'd hold off for now. I've got a GTX670 myself and am planning on upgrading to 1440p, but not til next year. For one, I don't like buying high end graphics cards. I find the expense hard to stomach. So I'm waiting for 20nm GPU's where hopefully a midrange card will get me pretty substantial power by today's standards. Two, 4k monitors are starting to approach 'non rich people' prices and I'm hoping that will drive the price of 1440p monitors down over the course of the coming year. They are still averaging around $600 unless you buy one of the Korean monitors and that's another big chunk of change.

That said, 1440p is certainly a nice step up from 1080p. I've got a 27" 1080p monitor and it is at the *limit* of what I'd consider acceptable for this resolution. Its not hard for me to see individual pixels at this size. 1440p certainly looks a whole lot better.

#26 Edited by MK-Professor (3862 posts) -

Or you can wait until you get a new GPU.

Now you can expect around 60% less fps depending on the game. (and on some extreme cases 40-80% less fps)

#27 Edited by Motokid6 (6155 posts) -

Google Overlord Monitors. 1440p + 120hz.

Im upgrading to 1440p soon myself. I pretty much have the same setup as you TC, but with 16gb and the 4gbVram version of the 670.

What i want to know is.. would i be better off replacing the 670 with a 780ti or get s second 670 and go SLI?

#28 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (4313 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

This is my pc below. I'm considering going from 1920x1080 to a 2560x1440 monitor. What I'm wondering about is how hard of a hit say...BF4 will take? And at that res do I still need AA for it to look decent?

CPU ModelIntel i5-3570K

Graphics Card:Gigabyte 670

Motherboard:ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155

Ram:Corsair 8GB DDR3

Storage:Crucial M4 SSD

Soundcard: Soundblaster Z

Power SupplyCorsair GS800

CaseCOOLER MASTER HAF 922

Operating System: OSWindows 7

Thanks

Is it a 2Gb or 4Gb 670?

#29 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

@acanofcoke said:

@BSC14 said:

This is my pc below. I'm considering going from 1920x1080 to a 2560x1440 monitor. What I'm wondering about is how hard of a hit say...BF4 will take? And at that res do I still need AA for it to look decent?

CPU ModelIntel i5-3570K

Graphics Card:Gigabyte 670

Motherboard:ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155

Ram:Corsair 8GB DDR3

Storage:Crucial M4 SSD

Soundcard: Soundblaster Z

Power SupplyCorsair GS800

CaseCOOLER MASTER HAF 922

Operating System: OSWindows 7

Thanks

Is it a 2Gb or 4Gb 670?

2gb

Maybe I would be better off with 120hz...can't decide.

#30 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (4313 posts) -
@BSC14 said:

@acanofcoke said:

@BSC14 said:

This is my pc below. I'm considering going from 1920x1080 to a 2560x1440 monitor. What I'm wondering about is how hard of a hit say...BF4 will take? And at that res do I still need AA for it to look decent?

CPU ModelIntel i5-3570K

Graphics Card:Gigabyte 670

Motherboard:ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155

Ram:Corsair 8GB DDR3

Storage:Crucial M4 SSD

Soundcard: Soundblaster Z

Power SupplyCorsair GS800

CaseCOOLER MASTER HAF 922

Operating System: OSWindows 7

Thanks

Is it a 2Gb or 4Gb 670?

2gb

Maybe I would be better off with 120hz...can't decide.

Upgrading to 1440 with a 2Gb card now would be a mistake

#31 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

There eems to be only one option for 120hz at 27"...it' a BenQ.

#32 Posted by FelipeInside (26047 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

There eems to be only one option for 120hz at 27"...it' a BenQ.

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=558_1210&products_id=19281

Don't worry about the 3D thing...that monitor is good quality.

#34 Edited by silversix_ (15580 posts) -

i'd wait the 800 series of gpu's to even consider a 1440p monitor. Grab a 120/144hz monitor instead

#35 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

Well the hit was very minimal.

I'm happy to report that 2560 x 1440 did not kill my PC at all. I was pretty shocked but without AA BF4 ran between 50 and 60 FPS with a mix of high and ultra...mostly ultra.

And really the lack of aa is almost not even noticeable at this res....VERY happy with my choice!

#36 Posted by trastamad03 (4859 posts) -

Do remember that 1440p strains your GPU even more, so it's going to heat up quite a lot more than if it's just running 1080p.

The performance is quite alright, I had one of those korean IPS monitors that were capable of overclocking, so I was running it at 1440p @ 120Hz on 2X GTX 670. Games like BF4 were running fine. Only reason why I went back to a TN panel and sold this one was for money sake and since I'm not playing anything but BF4 and Dark Souls and not interested in ultra high graphics anymore, list goes on... but it's a personal thing, not hardware issue.

1440p is also useful if you do Photoshop/CAD/Video editing and so on. LOTS of extra screen space.

So in the end, if you wanna go for it, just go for it... but keep in mind that when games start looking better and requiring stronger hardware, you're going to have to switch GPU quicker than someone using a 1080p monitor.... that if you want the bells and whistles on and running at 60fps+...

#37 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

@trastamad03 said:

Do remember that 1440p strains your GPU even more, so it's going to heat up quite a lot more than if it's just running 1080p.

The performance is quite alright, I had one of those korean IPS monitors that were capable of overclocking, so I was running it at 1440p @ 120Hz on 2X GTX 670. Games like BF4 were running fine. Only reason why I went back to a TN panel and sold this one was for money sake and since I'm not playing anything but BF4 and Dark Souls and not interested in ultra high graphics anymore, list goes on... but it's a personal thing, not hardware issue.

1440p is also useful if you do Photoshop/CAD/Video editing and so on. LOTS of extra screen space.

So in the end, if you wanna go for it, just go for it... but keep in mind that when games start looking better and requiring stronger hardware, you're going to have to switch GPU quicker than someone using a 1080p monitor.... that if you want the bells and whistles on and running at 60fps+...

I'm a structural designer so I do use CAD a good bit because I work from the house at least once a week.

I usually upgrade my gpu at least once every couple of years. I plan on a new gpu this summer.

#38 Posted by trastamad03 (4859 posts) -
@BSC14 said:

@trastamad03 said:

Do remember that 1440p strains your GPU even more, so it's going to heat up quite a lot more than if it's just running 1080p.

The performance is quite alright, I had one of those korean IPS monitors that were capable of overclocking, so I was running it at 1440p @ 120Hz on 2X GTX 670. Games like BF4 were running fine. Only reason why I went back to a TN panel and sold this one was for money sake and since I'm not playing anything but BF4 and Dark Souls and not interested in ultra high graphics anymore, list goes on... but it's a personal thing, not hardware issue.

1440p is also useful if you do Photoshop/CAD/Video editing and so on. LOTS of extra screen space.

So in the end, if you wanna go for it, just go for it... but keep in mind that when games start looking better and requiring stronger hardware, you're going to have to switch GPU quicker than someone using a 1080p monitor.... that if you want the bells and whistles on and running at 60fps+...

I'm a structural designer so I do use CAD a good bit because I work from the house at least once a week.

I usually upgrade my gpu at least once every couple of years. I plan on a new gpu this summer.

As a fellow CAD user, I can tell you, the extra screen space is very welcoming! It'll take a bit to get used to the smaller font/icons...

I do miss having that resolution, but alas, I'll wait for my current Asus monitor to die to get a new one...

#39 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2606 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

Well the hit was very minimal.

I'm happy to report that 2560 x 1440 did not kill my PC at all. I was pretty shocked but without AA BF4 ran between 50 and 60 FPS with a mix of high and ultra...mostly ultra.

And really the lack of aa is almost not even noticeable at this res....VERY happy with my choice!

what are you system specs?

#40 Edited by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

Well the hit was very minimal.

I'm happy to report that 2560 x 1440 did not kill my PC at all. I was pretty shocked but without AA BF4 ran between 50 and 60 FPS with a mix of high and ultra...mostly ultra.

And really the lack of aa is almost not even noticeable at this res....VERY happy with my choice!

what are you system specs?

Videocard: Gigabyte gtx670 Windforce 2 gb Processor: Intel i5-3570K Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155 Memory: Corsair 8GB DDR3 Soundcard: Soundblaster Z PSU: Corsair GS800

#41 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2606 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

Well the hit was very minimal.

I'm happy to report that 2560 x 1440 did not kill my PC at all. I was pretty shocked but without AA BF4 ran between 50 and 60 FPS with a mix of high and ultra...mostly ultra.

And really the lack of aa is almost not even noticeable at this res....VERY happy with my choice!

what are you system specs?

Videocard: Gigabyte gtx670 Windforce 2 gb Processor: Intel i5-3570K Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155 Memory: Corsair 8GB DDR3 Soundcard: Soundblaster Z PSU: Corsair GS800

damn so you dont really need the newest best to push that res. ive been thinking about getting a 1440 panel

#42 Posted by BSC14 (4031 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

Well the hit was very minimal.

I'm happy to report that 2560 x 1440 did not kill my PC at all. I was pretty shocked but without AA BF4 ran between 50 and 60 FPS with a mix of high and ultra...mostly ultra.

And really the lack of aa is almost not even noticeable at this res....VERY happy with my choice!

what are you system specs?

Videocard: Gigabyte gtx670 Windforce 2 gb Processor: Intel i5-3570K Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155 Memory: Corsair 8GB DDR3 Soundcard: Soundblaster Z PSU: Corsair GS800

damn so you dont really need the newest best to push that res. ive been thinking about getting a 1440 panel

Nope, I was shocked because everyone made it sound like it would kill my pc but nope....not even close.

Last night I got 60fps with no aa and almost everything at ultra with mesh on med and post processing on low. Looked amazing and ran smooth as butter.

#43 Edited by _SKatEDiRt_ (2606 posts) -

@BSC14 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

Well the hit was very minimal.

I'm happy to report that 2560 x 1440 did not kill my PC at all. I was pretty shocked but without AA BF4 ran between 50 and 60 FPS with a mix of high and ultra...mostly ultra.

And really the lack of aa is almost not even noticeable at this res....VERY happy with my choice!

what are you system specs?

Videocard: Gigabyte gtx670 Windforce 2 gb Processor: Intel i5-3570K Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155 Memory: Corsair 8GB DDR3 Soundcard: Soundblaster Z PSU: Corsair GS800

damn so you dont really need the newest best to push that res. ive been thinking about getting a 1440 panel

Nope, I was shocked because everyone made it sound like it would kill my pc but nope....not even close.

Last night I got 60fps with no aa and almost everything at ultra with mesh on med and post processing on low. Looked amazing and ran smooth as butter.

so why does everyone say it will kill your fps then? do they just not have one themselves?

#44 Posted by MerckmanX (98 posts) -

Yeah, It's not as bad as most people make it out to be.I put together an Ivy Bridge build at the end of 2012 using a single GTX 680 2gb with an Asus 1440p monitor, it ran BF3 45-60fps depending on map with few settings turned down.Occasionally I would see memory usage on the card reach 1800+mb range depending on game, so it can be taxing on the card at times. If you ever want to see a solid 60fps in newer games you're definitely going to need two 3gb+ cards at the res.

#45 Posted by trastamad03 (4859 posts) -

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

@BSC14 said:

Well the hit was very minimal.

I'm happy to report that 2560 x 1440 did not kill my PC at all. I was pretty shocked but without AA BF4 ran between 50 and 60 FPS with a mix of high and ultra...mostly ultra.

And really the lack of aa is almost not even noticeable at this res....VERY happy with my choice!

what are you system specs?

Videocard: Gigabyte gtx670 Windforce 2 gb Processor: Intel i5-3570K Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V LE LGA 1155 Memory: Corsair 8GB DDR3 Soundcard: Soundblaster Z PSU: Corsair GS800

damn so you dont really need the newest best to push that res. ive been thinking about getting a 1440 panel

Nope, I was shocked because everyone made it sound like it would kill my pc but nope....not even close.

Last night I got 60fps with no aa and almost everything at ultra with mesh on med and post processing on low. Looked amazing and ran smooth as butter.

so why does everyone say it will kill your fps then? do they just not have one themselves?

Because most people talk out of their asses without even bothering trying something for themselves or they see someone they follow have an issue and immediately associate said component to be problematic without thinking.

#46 Posted by Ondoval (3103 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@ribstaylor1 said:

Personally I will never buy a TN panel again. Colors are washed out blacks are grey, grey's are white and everything looks so bland. From now on I'm going with panels that Are IPS, PLS, or better then those in the color department nothing else will cut it for me at least.

Depends what brand and model you get.

I'm not going to argue that IPS have great colour reproduction, but some TN panels are better than some IPS panels in the gaming department (I've compared a few at work).

TN panels use 6 bit per channel of color, whereas IPS panels use 8 or 10 bit per channel. That alone makes a huge difference in the color gamut and the final quality of the image. Of course, TN are faster, but they became popular mostly due the low cost of production, not because the performance -and by the way, as a U2711 user, the 1440p SIPS display perform very well in games-.

Anyway, a storm is comming: in the next 5 years the GPU power available will be as big to make possible to play in modest desktop rigs at 4k, and the only tech capable to provide such resolutions in afordable (in terms of desktop spoace, not money) will be OLED screens. OLED provide comparable IQ to SIPS with more pixel density -smaller dots- a task that is difficult to achieve for both SIPS and TN. The current massification of OLED devices (smartphones, tablets, Mac Book Air...) will help to reduce the production cost of the OLED yields and in a few years ultra thin OLED displays in the range of 32" size and 4k resolution will be affordable.

And for the topic: 1440p/1600p makes a dent, I play in my 2560 x 1440 using a GTX 690; it does the task well, but for some games a single GPU solution can be hard. But worths the money, and I'll jump to further resolutions as soon as the hardware will be available.

#47 Edited by mastershake575 (8359 posts) -

@trastamad03 said:

@_SKatEDiRt_ said:

so why does everyone say it will kill your fps then? do they just not have one themselves?

Because most people talk out of their asses without even bothering trying something for themselves or they see someone they follow have an issue and immediately associate said component to be problematic without thinking.

The reason why people say it kills your FPS is because its 60-70% more pixels and most people easily lose 20-30FPS (if not more) when making the jump (that means you need close to 100FPS on 1080p if you want to 60FPS 1440p with no dips, that's a hard feat to accomplish even on games running on engines that are 2-4 years old).

Nobody is saying 1440p isn't playable on hardware that's not highend. There trying to say that the performance hit is big and that 60FPS with all settings very high won't be norm much longer (especially with new game engines due in the second half of this year). Just because you can run games amazing on games using engines that are currently 2-4 years old doesn't mean it will last much longer

Having to turn down settings and run less than 60FPS (which is what will happen soon) really defeats the purpose of PC gaming in my eyes (especially when your spending a combined $600 or more on GPU/monitor).

1440P does offer a significant FPS dip and I don't see anyone saying otherwise (it won't take you from 70FPS to 10FPS but the hit is defiantly there).