32" 1080p vs 27" 1440p vs ??

Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
856
I know most people love high DPI displays, but for FPS games i prefer lower DPI than most. It's the reason I played CS @ 800x600 and 1024x768 on a 21" CRT back in the day and why I opted for a 32" 1080p LCDTV over a 30" 2560x1600 LCD monitor 5 years ago. A higher DPI will always be helpful to me in Windows and when browsing the web, but in an FPS game it means objects (enemies... and their heads) appear smaller. Smaller objects are harder to shoot =)

Well now it's 5 years later and my 32" TV-monitor has seen better days and I want something to last another 5 years. I recently bought a GTX 970 that should be able to handle 1440p at mostly high settings in most games, but I'm afraid of getting a display thats both smaller physically and also has a higher rez. The dilemma:

  1. I've ran a 32" display for over 5 years. anything smaller, even 27", will hurt
  2. significantly smaller size display + significantly higher rez = significantly*2 higher DPI
  3. I hear great things about G-Sync and think i want that in my life

DPI of my 32" = 69. A 27" 1440 is 109. That's an increase of 50%, which could also be seen as a decrease of 50% in the size objects appear to my eyes. on my 32" in most FPS games an enemy's head at what one could call medium range is the size of a quarter held up to my screen. a 27" 1440p would show that head possibly smaller than a dime. That's a massive change and would require significant adjustment, and I will probably not be as good =(

i do play less FPS games of late, mostly Insurgency with some BF3/4 thrown in, with most of my time going to GTA (with a 100+ hour Witcher 3 hiatus), but i'm still afraid of the change.

has anyone gone from 32"+ 1080 to 27" 1440p? Is a newer, better display (and with G-sync) worth the higher DPI and less-accurate FPS play?

Are there any 30"+ G-sync displays on the horizon? I'm more than willing to get a 32" 1440p g-sync, cost permitting.
 
Last edited:
You got it wrong. A 32" 1080P vs a 1440P 32", the objects are the same size. The higher DPI is just sharper that's all. The only reason to pick lower resolution on the same size panel is lack of GPU power.

I noticed you compare different size panels. Size + resolution = graphics nirvana.
 
You got it wrong. A 32" 1080P vs a 1440P 32", the objects are the same size. The higher DPI is just sharper that's all. The only reason to pick lower resolution on the same size panel is lack of GPU power.

I noticed you compare different size panels. Size + resolution = graphics nirvana.

Yup, he has resolution confused with aspect ratio. Op, I'm not aware of any 32" 1440 gsync monitors. Pretty much have to choose between gsync at 27" or a larger screen.
 
No, I think he is just like me, a throw back to a previous age. I was like him but I had a different view. Back when I was playing Delta Force I bought a new NEC monitor and stayed with 17" because 19" meant movement at the edge of the screen would be tougher to detect. He wanted bigger heads, I wanted the action in the forefront of my vision. Back then there was only one aspect ratio, 4:3. He isn't confused and he wasn't wrong, not in those days.

You guys are just too young to know it, and we are so old we forget how some things have changed.
 
Somnambulator, I too am looking for a new monitor, my problem is unless I spend some real money on a new laptop or rebuilding an old desktop, I am stuck with a 1080P display. I want to see what my best option at 1080P is and if it just isn't going to do it for me anymore then I guess I'll look at upgrading or replacing my Razer Blade.
 
No, I think he is just like me, a throw back to a previous age. I was like him but I had a different view. Back when I was playing Delta Force I bought a new NEC monitor and stayed with 17" because 19" meant movement at the edge of the screen would be tougher to detect. He wanted bigger heads, I wanted the action in the forefront of my vision. Back then there was only one aspect ratio, 4:3. He isn't confused and he wasn't wrong, not in those days.

You guys are just too young to know it, and we are so old we forget how some things have changed.
Not too young, just not living in the early 2000's anymore :D
 
I've been through 24-27-32-37" 1080p, 34" 3440x1440, and now 27"1440p and loving both forms it.

as for size of objects in FPS, you can adjust the FOV to help get rid of the smaller objects in some games but with the added bonus of clarity with the higher res.

I do miss my NEC 2141SB crt, that was a beast for high res FPS.
 
I've been through 24-27-32-37" 1080p, 34" 3440x1440, and now 27"1440p and loving both forms it.

as for size of objects in FPS, you can adjust the FOV to help get rid of the smaller objects in some games but with the added bonus of clarity with the higher res.

I do miss my NEC 2141SB crt, that was a beast for high res FPS.

I'd never thought of lowering FoV to partially compensate for higher rez or smaller display. It wouldnt be a perfect solution by any means but going down from 105 to 85 might be significant.
 
You got it wrong. A 32" 1080P vs a 1440P 32", the objects are the same size. The higher DPI is just sharper that's all. The only reason to pick lower resolution on the same size panel is lack of GPU power.

I noticed you compare different size panels. Size + resolution = graphics nirvana.

I dont think that's correct... A higher resolution will display more of the game on the screen while making objects on the screen appear smaller. Think of zooming out when taking a picture. The more you zoom out the more of the scene you can see, but the smaller the objects in the lens will appear. Higher DPI is sharper and looks better, but objects are smaller. Thats not a problem for photographers who will be cropping the pictures to make the subject larger and the center of the photo, but for an FPS player it means higher rez can actually hurt accuracy.

For some validation, here's a stupid vid i found in a 2 minute search of professional CS players giving their setups: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0jx_PsTy2s
All but the last kid use what's considered a very small gaming resolution on a medium or large LCD. Some use a 4:3 rez and stretch it widescreen to make heads and players wider and easier to hit. At this level of competition every little edge matters. In many pro matches a round or even game can be determined by 1 missed or made headshot from across the map with an AK or M4. Every small advantage matters. I'm not looking to run something ridiculously small like 1024x768 on a 4k 40" display and suffer all that blurriness, but the concept is sound. A low rez on a large screen gives a very low DPI. Low DPI makes objects on-screen appear large. Large objects are easier to hit.
 
I went from a 32" hdtv to a Dell 3014. For fps gaming, I'd stick with the tv, for RTS, or rpg gaming I'd go with the Dell's higher res.
OP, is right, on the concept he is concerned about in my experience.
 
I dont think that's correct... A higher resolution will display more of the game on the screen while making objects on the screen appear smaller. Think of zooming out when taking a picture. The more you zoom out the more of the scene you can see, but the smaller the objects in the lens will appear. Higher DPI is sharper and looks better, but objects are smaller. Thats not a problem for photographers who will be cropping the pictures to make the subject larger and the center of the photo, but for an FPS player it means higher rez can actually hurt accuracy.

For some validation, here's a stupid vid i found in a 2 minute search of professional CS players giving their setups: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0jx_PsTy2s
All but the last kid use what's considered a very small gaming resolution on a medium or large LCD. Some use a 4:3 rez and stretch it widescreen to make heads and players wider and easier to hit. At this level of competition every little edge matters. In many pro matches a round or even game can be determined by 1 missed or made headshot from across the map with an AK or M4. Every small advantage matters. I'm not looking to run something ridiculously small like 1024x768 on a 4k 40" display and suffer all that blurriness, but the concept is sound. A low rez on a large screen gives a very low DPI. Low DPI makes objects on-screen appear large. Large objects are easier to hit.

Using 4:3 and stretching it is a different concept. 4:3 does give you a close in FOV than 16:9. Higher resolution and lower resolution is the same size if both are 4:3 or both 16:9. Check out this discussion forum: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2917297

Here are the differences: http://pantheones.com.au/news/editorial/why-you-need-to-play-csgo-on-a-169-monitor/. Note how 4:3 is closer, but all 16:9 res are the same.
 
Back
Top