1440p or 4K - What's the best option right now?

Violator

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
731
I'm moving up to a 3080ti from a 1080ti in the next week or so. I'm currently using a Viewsonic 2703GS, which is still quite nice, but I want something better to compliment the 3080ti.

Looking at reviews and benchmarks, it seems that 4K (with all bells/whistles on) on a few games is still an issue (i.e. <60FPS) and that 1440p still remains the 'sweet-spot', particularly if you want to use RTX.

What I'd like is :

Size - 27-32inch
Res - 1440p
Refresh - 120Hz+
HDR - 600+
Gsync - built-in

Above all, the PQ must be excellent. I'm not interested in a TN panel, nor any 'cheap n cheerful' solutions. I want a proper gaming screen. Originally I was looking at the PG32UQX, but while I love the specs (the price not so much, but it's new tech), I don't want to blow that sort of money if some games are going to be stutter-fests in 4K.

Any advice would be great!
 

RJ_ds

n00b
Joined
Jul 7, 2021
Messages
22
You'd have to look at the very top of the food chain of monitors for *TRUE* HDR 600 along with those specs and those would be 4k from what i've seen while looking for a monitor myself very recently. I'm right there with you in spec preferences (but not looking for a 32" unless I can hardware calibrate it), but I couldn't find anything in 27" with HDR 600 under $1,600US and that was a 4k panel if I remember right. I think linus tech tips did a video on it within the last couple/few months.

Anyway, since that was out of my budget but still wanted to splurge a little, I ended up going with the Asus PG279QM. It has everything you want except HDR 600, instead, it has HDR 400 and for even this pricey of a monitor it still isnt that great. It doesn't bother me personally as I'll never really use the HDR part of the monitor unless i'm just messing around, but as of right now its just not good to use in game.
What I was looking for the mostly was the color reproduction, its wide gamut and has an tweakable sRBG clamp witch literally sold me on the spot. If something like this interests you, Hardware unboxed did a video on it.

 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,710
Maybe that can help
https://www.displayninja.com/hdr-monitor-list/

You can put 3440x1440 and 2560x1440 has resolution, 600 in peak brightness:

Acer XB323U GX32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600Acer XV322U X32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600AOC AG274QG27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600ASUS PG329Q32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Dell Alienware AW2721D27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Dell S2719DC27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600Dell S2719DM27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

HP Pavilion Gaming 3231.5"2560x1440VALimited HDR600LG 34GP950G34"3440x1440IPSLimited HDR600MSI PS321QR32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Pixio PX277h27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Samsung C27G75T27"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

Samsung C27G77T27"2560x1440VALimited HDR600Samsung C27HG7027"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

Samsung C32G75T32"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

Samsung C32G77T32"2560x1440VALimited HDR600Samsung C32HG7032"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

ViewSonic XG320Q32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600
 

Violator

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
731
You'd have to look at the very top of the food chain of monitors for *TRUE* HDR 600 along with those specs and those would be 4k from what i've seen while looking for a monitor myself very recently. I'm right there with you in spec preferences (but not looking for a 32" unless I can hardware calibrate it), but I couldn't find anything in 27" with HDR 600 under $1,600US and that was a 4k panel if I remember right. I think linus tech tips did a video on it within the last couple/few months.

Anyway, since that was out of my budget but still wanted to splurge a little, I ended up going with the Asus PG279QM. It has everything you want except HDR 600, instead, it has HDR 400 and for even this pricey of a monitor it still isnt that great. It doesn't bother me personally as I'll never really use the HDR part of the monitor unless i'm just messing around, but as of right now its just not good to use in game.
What I was looking for the mostly was the color reproduction, its wide gamut and has an tweakable sRBG clamp witch literally sold me on the spot. If something like this interests you, Hardware unboxed did a video on it.


Thanks, that's really close (shame about HDR400) and certainly should be better than my current monitor. More of a step-up than a leap :). Maybe I'll leave the PG32UQX until it's more reasonably priced (and GPUs can push 60+FPS with everything on in 4K).
 

Violator

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
731
Maybe that can help
https://www.displayninja.com/hdr-monitor-list/

You can put 3440x1440 and 2560x1440 has resolution, 600 in peak brightness:

Acer XB323U GX32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600Acer XV322U X32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600AOC AG274QG27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600ASUS PG329Q32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Dell Alienware AW2721D27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Dell S2719DC27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600Dell S2719DM27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

HP Pavilion Gaming 3231.5"2560x1440VALimited HDR600LG 34GP950G34"3440x1440IPSLimited HDR600MSI PS321QR32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Pixio PX277h27"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600

Samsung C27G75T27"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

Samsung C27G77T27"2560x1440VALimited HDR600Samsung C27HG7027"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

Samsung C32G75T32"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

Samsung C32G77T32"2560x1440VALimited HDR600Samsung C32HG7032"2560x1440VALimited HDR600

ViewSonic XG320Q32"2560x1440IPSLimited HDR600
Cheers, I did look at the site yesterday, was just hoping for some people's actual experiences :)
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
I'm running 4K on an RTX 3060. As long as you don't have a hard-on for "max settings" you can get nice looking 4K on most modern GPUs.

But I would still rather get 1440p high refresh than 4K60. Have you considered ultrawide? There are some nice 3440x1440 monitors out there.
 

Violator

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
731
I'm running 4K on an RTX 3060. As long as you don't have a hard-on for "max settings" you can get nice looking 4K on most modern GPUs.

But I would still rather get 1440p high refresh than 4K60. Have you considered ultrawide? There are some nice 3440x1440 monitors out there.
Funnily enough I was just looking at the ASUS ROG Swift PG35VQ, I'm not sure if I can get my head round the ultrawide though, I've always had either a 1080 or 1440 16:9. *edit* just noticed this monitor is 2 years old.

I think, at the moment, I'd rather have the 1440 res, and the ability to ramp game details etc up, than trying to compromise into 4K.

Anyone got any price info around the ViewSonic Elite XG271QG? That looks quite promising.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
Yeah, if you want to crank up the settings and still get high refresh, then 1440p is the way to go.

Don't worry about 240Hz. You can't really tell much of a difference above 144Hz, and most games won't get 240fps anyhow (unless you play CS:GO or similar titles).

This is the newer model of the monitor I use and I've been extremely happy with it.

https://www.amazon.com/LG-34GP83A-B-Inch-Ultragear-Compatibility/dp/B08DWD38VX/
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,251
I would say to not bother with side-grades like getting another 1440p monitor.
Viewsonic 2703GS looks like it is one of these first 1440p 144Hz-ish G-Sync monitors and those were and still are pretty darn good monitors.

HDR without proper implementation is a gimmick. Very bright colorful games look awesome but that would be pretty much it.

Of course there are things which could probably be improved like viewing angles (these AUO panels were pretty much the worst offender of IPS family when it comes to viewing angles and dreaded IPS glow), better colors, better eye comfort (LEDs AUO uses could also be better...), better response times, etc. That is however depending on model of monitor you get. If you would get another AUO invention I would not expect miracles :) Maybe instead of everything looking too washed out everything would look too rainbow-y.

Generally when it comes to raw numbers like resolution and refresh rates I would suggest either sticking with current monitor for some time or getting 4K monitor today and experiencing dilemmas like "should I use 1440p with sharpening at 130fps or get glorious 4K gaming at more reasonable 80ish fps" and such :)
 

Epos7

Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
844
While a 1440p native res would be ideal, 1440p upscaled to 4K looks pretty good in the games that can't run smoothly rendered at 4k.

You can also play with custom resolutions in between 1440p and 4K:
1512p
1584p
1656p
1728p
1800p
1872p
1944p
2016p
2088p
2160p (4K)
 

Bop

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
3,209
I'm in a similar boat with the difference of I have a dual monitor setup right now: a 1440p 144hz display and a 1080p 360hz display. After getting used to the 360hz display for gaming, the motion clarity and input smoothness is really hard to beat. You can tell the difference between 144hz and 360hz (faster pixel response time also probably helps) just by moving the mouse cursor across the two monitors. 1080p is pretty bad at any game where you need to discern far away objects, though. Which is why I'm looking at the faster 1440p monitors now.

I'm hoping the 1440p 240hz monitors will be the current sweet spot. Some of these panels actually have less motion blur than the 360hz 1080p panels. I actually ordered an ASUS XG27AQM 1440p 240hz monitor that should arrive by the weekend. I cannot compare it to a 4k desktop monitor, however (I have a 4k OLED which I do my couch PC gaming from).

In the end it really comes down to what types of games you play. I'm an old man when it comes to competitive FPS, but I still appreciate smoothness and motion clarity so that's my preference. I do play the occasional RPG, so it won't look as sharp when I do. If you play single player FPS games and RPGs, 4k 144hz may be enough for you.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,251
particularly if you want to use RTX.
One more thing: for RTX games usually you also have DLSS so the resolution is not an issue. You just use the same render resolution as for 1440p screen to get roughly the same performance.
It is more of an issue on my RTX2070 as you can imagine but something like native 720p DLSS upscaled to 1440p vs 2160p is just few frames per second less and at 4K there will be better image quality. DLSS works best when scaling factors 1/2 and up are used, not 1/3 but should you need going to 720p it is as much possible at 4K screen as it is on 1440p screen with better visuals at 4K screen. With 2070 I gotta to what I gotta do :)
For game like Control if I want RT enabled I have three options:
1. Run game at 2160p with DLSS rendering at 720p
2. Run game at 1080p integer scaled with DLSS rendering at 720p
3. Run game at 720p integer scaled without DLSS

With 380Ti you should be fine with 1080p and it is the same story, at 4K game will look better than 1440p. Even if you can manage to run game without DLSS at 1440p then with DLSS at 4K it will look better.

For non-DLSS titles we will have different techniques like AMD super resolution. Or alternatively running games at 1080p integer scaled is an option on 4K screen or running them at 1440p with or without sharpening. The blur effect of up-scaling is there but at PPI as high as these it is much less distracting. Heck, with slight sharpen it is not really that much distracting at all, especially since all this upscaling business is worst when game doesn't have AA and today games use tons of TAA and other processing filters anyway so upscaling 1440p game is like upscaling 1440p video, meaning not a such a big deal.

What I am trying to say is that you should not exclude 4K monitors based on higher GPU requirements. Especially for 3080Ti :)
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
22,949
And the 3080 Ti is more than enough for 4K anyhow.
Yeah, even 4k 144hz if you turn down a handful of settings that you can't notice the detail of except in 300% zoomed still pictures. I run a 3080 at 4k 60hz gsync and have an abundance of headroom for when I jump to 144hz finally.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,452
One more thing: for RTX games usually you also have DLSS so the resolution is not an issue. You just use the same render resolution as for 1440p screen to get roughly the same performance.
It is more of an issue on my RTX2070 as you can imagine but something like native 720p DLSS upscaled to 1440p vs 2160p is just few frames per second less and at 4K there will be better image quality. DLSS works best when scaling factors 1/2 and up are used, not 1/3 but should you need going to 720p it is as much possible at 4K screen as it is on 1440p screen with better visuals at 4K screen. With 2070 I gotta to what I gotta do :)
For game like Control if I want RT enabled I have three options:
1. Run game at 2160p with DLSS rendering at 720p
2. Run game at 1080p integer scaled with DLSS rendering at 720p
3. Run game at 720p integer scaled without DLSS

With 380Ti you should be fine with 1080p and it is the same story, at 4K game will look better than 1440p. Even if you can manage to run game without DLSS at 1440p then with DLSS at 4K it will look better.

For non-DLSS titles we will have different techniques like AMD super resolution. Or alternatively running games at 1080p integer scaled is an option on 4K screen or running them at 1440p with or without sharpening. The blur effect of up-scaling is there but at PPI as high as these it is much less distracting. Heck, with slight sharpen it is not really that much distracting at all, especially since all this upscaling business is worst when game doesn't have AA and today games use tons of TAA and other processing filters anyway so upscaling 1440p game is like upscaling 1440p video, meaning not a such a big deal.

What I am trying to say is that you should not exclude 4K monitors based on higher GPU requirements. Especially for 3080Ti :)
In my experience DLSS works better the more pixels it has to work with from the start. So scaling from 1440p to 4K works better than 1080p to 4K. With lower resolutions you run into issues where the render resolution is too low to produce good results. I would not run DLSS at 720p in any situation.

I do agree that DLSS is helpful for running more games at good framerates without a significant hit in image quality. I have a 2080 Ti and that is more than enough for most games to run at 4K 60 fps or above.

To me the biggest problem with 4K is the options on the market. 4K 120+ Hz monitors in larger than 27" size are just coming out and none of them are what I would consider great. The next step up from there is 43" VA panels and 48" OLEDs and those are not ideal for everyone either and I'm saying that as a 48" OLED user.

Much easier to get a pretty good say ultrawide 1440p screen for less or similar money. I don't think I would buy a 16:9 1440p screen anymore unless I am exclusively playing eSports titles.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,251
In my experience DLSS works better the more pixels it has to work with from the start. So scaling from 1440p to 4K works better than 1080p to 4K. With lower resolutions you run into issues where the render resolution is too low to produce good results. I would not run DLSS at 720p in any situation.
720p rendering is a compromise and an example.
It is a good example because DLSS works best up to half resolution (or quarter when counting pixels) and after that its quality drops which means it is extreme case. And still for 720p -> 2160p the result will be better than 720p -> 1440p.

Of course on something like 2080Ti or even more powerful 3080Ti considering 720p is silly. Which means that at 4K the DLSS will work in more optimal situation.

What someone might worry about might happen is that if game runs at 1440p just fine then getting 2160p monitor will make DLSS necessary. This is not an issue. DLSS is heck of a AA method and it is better than anything else, especially considering its performance 'hit'. Some games like Cyberpunk do look much better with DLSS than without it so that can also be a thing. In either way as long as game has good upscaling it is not an issue.

I do agree that DLSS is helpful for running more games at good framerates without a significant hit in image quality. I have a 2080 Ti and that is more than enough for most games to run at 4K 60 fps or above.
2080Ti... I even ordered one but cancelled order to get 2070 👾
2080Ti should run at 1080p with similar level of performance as 2070 at 720p

To me the biggest problem with 4K is the options on the market. 4K 120+ Hz monitors in larger than 27" size are just coming out and none of them are what I would consider great. The next step up from there is 43" VA panels and 48" OLEDs and those are not ideal for everyone either and I'm saying that as a 48" OLED user.

Much easier to get a pretty good say ultrawide 1440p screen for less or similar money. I don't think I would buy a 16:9 1440p screen anymore unless I am exclusively playing eSports titles.
High refresh rate 4K monitors are also considerably more expensive than entry level 1440p 144Hz (which usually have like 165Hz) monitors. This is especially an issue on a tight budget.

27" 1440p 144-ish Hz is the sweet spot of performance/price.
More 2160p monitors will certainly come in the future as 1440p will become new 1080p :)

The Aorus FI32U is great. It wasn't cheap, but it was worth it.
In tests the panel has very similar response performance and characteristics as my LG 27GP950. It really does the job in making 120Hz look twice as sharp as 60Hz. Maybe even more, it seems more sharp. Difference is staggering.

What I found interresting in RTINGS review of your Aorus monitor is VRR + strobing. Does it really work? That must make image looks even sharper and at CRT levels of clarity without fixed refresh rate displays bs 🤯
For now I am good with my gaming monitors but I expect my next monitor to be OLED with such VRR + strobing feature.
 

pippenainteasy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
1,038
Problems with 4K60 on most games above a 3080 these days is only if you run ray tracing in my experience, assuming we are talking about DX12/Vulkan era games. Obviously there are always unoptimized older titles that run like dog food. And there's always Microsoft Flight Simulator...

I've been playing on 4K since the GTX 780 Ti days. It's always been possible, just requires some settings tweaking. In general once you max out texture quality most other things are harder to notice between medium and ultra.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
What I found interresting in RTINGS review of your Aorus monitor is VRR + strobing. Does it really work? That must make image looks even sharper and at CRT levels of clarity without fixed refresh rate displays bs 🤯
For now I am good with my gaming monitors but I expect my next monitor to be OLED with such VRR + strobing feature.
Yes, it works. They call it Aim Stabilizer Sync, but it is basically BFI or strobing that works with VRR.

It looks similar to a CRT, yes. You lose a little brightness, and you also have to disable HDR and local dimming. But it's still worth it.

I was playing Cyberpunk and only getting around 60 fps BUT it felt better than my main machine at 100 fps.

Obviously it's not magic, so there was some choppiness when dropping down into the 40 fps range in a firefight. But if you can maintain good performance it is an amazing feature.
 

FlawleZ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
1,535
Maybe I'm just getting old but vastly prefer 4K60 over 1440 120/160/240/5 million. We are well into the age of 4K with TV market trying to push the 8K. 1440P looked great 10 years ago.

When you make 4K your standard, and then also still prefer high refresh rate, how can people say we don't still have a need for SLI/Crossfire/mGPU?
 

pippenainteasy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
1,038
Maybe I'm just getting old but vastly prefer 4K60 over 1440 120/160/240/5 million. We are well into the age of 4K with TV market trying to push the 8K. 1440P looked great 10 years ago.

When you make 4K your standard, and then also still prefer high refresh rate, how can people say we don't still have a need for SLI/Crossfire/mGPU?

I do think 4K85 looks vastly better than 4K60, and 85hz is a standard mode that's available on higher refresh rate displays. I think aiming for 85hz is also alot easier than going for 120/144, while looking about 90% of the way there but noticeably smoother than 60. In general you can achieve 85fps if you were already at 60 fps but just turning down shadow and lighting settings and focusing on keeping texture and model quality as high as possible in the settings.
 

Gattlin

n00b
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
5
1440 without a doubt pick one you can afford that you can push the frame rate up and a quick response time.
 

Violator

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
731
I would say to not bother with side-grades like getting another 1440p monitor.
Viewsonic 2703GS looks like it is one of these first 1440p 144Hz-ish G-Sync monitors and those were and still are pretty darn good monitors.

HDR without proper implementation is a gimmick. Very bright colorful games look awesome but that would be pretty much it.

Of course there are things which could probably be improved like viewing angles (these AUO panels were pretty much the worst offender of IPS family when it comes to viewing angles and dreaded IPS glow), better colors, better eye comfort (LEDs AUO uses could also be better...), better response times, etc. That is however depending on model of monitor you get. If you would get another AUO invention I would not expect miracles :) Maybe instead of everything looking too washed out everything would look too rainbow-y.

Generally when it comes to raw numbers like resolution and refresh rates I would suggest either sticking with current monitor for some time or getting 4K monitor today and experiencing dilemmas like "should I use 1440p with sharpening at 130fps or get glorious 4K gaming at more reasonable 80ish fps" and such :)
OK, so couple of questions here. 1) You sound as if you're suggesting that HDR isn't worth it in gaming, is that a 'at this time', or in general? 2) If I got a 4K screen, you're saying I could run 1440p with sharpening, is the newer 4K monitors image quality OK at non-native resolutions these days?
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
HDR is still okay on cheaper monitors. It's not the full effect, but it does do something. Mostly making the colors more realistic.

1440p upscaled to 4K is still not great. It is playable, but will look worse than 1440p on a 1440p native monitor. There is no avoiding this.
 

pippenainteasy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
1,038
HDR is still okay on cheaper monitors. It's not the full effect, but it does do something. Mostly making the colors more realistic.

1440p upscaled to 4K is still not great. It is playable, but will look worse than 1440p on a 1440p native monitor. There is no avoiding this.

Hmm I think upscaling will come down to taste in the end. I have done no 1440p tests but IMO 1080p upscaled to 4k with interger scaling looks sharper than native 1080p. While I may prefer a sharper image, some may prefer the more natural look of the original.
 
Top