Anyone go back to 1440P from 4K?

B

Bladestorm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
1,232
Has anyone here gone from 4K back down to 1440P (or lower)? If so, I'd like to hear your story why.
 
I wouldn't say I go back but rather I go back and fourth between 4k and lower resolution. Main reason is because until DP 1.3 arrives, 4k will be limited to 60Hz. Along with that there's no backlight strobed 4k monitors for motion clarity and the only 4k monitor with variable refresh is the Acer 28 inch 4k TN. By the time DP 1.3 GPUs arrive and DP 1.3 monitors with 4k 120hz + G Sync or ULMB packed into an IPS/VA panel then that will be the day I stop going back and fourth between 4k and lower and probably start going back and fourth between 4k 120hz and 5k 60hz
 
60hz 4K LCD monitors without motion interpolation or back-light strobing are a gimmick since the sharpness benefits are negated by 60hz LCD with sample-and-hold blur and matte coatings.
 
i went "back" from a 39" seiki Tv to a dell 2515h. The 25" 1440p has higher pixel density and a better stand. if i like it for an extended period it will become a triple portrait multi monitor setup with 1/3 more desktop resolution and less ergonomic strain.
 
The reason I ask is because I've had the Acer XB280HK for about 6 months now, and I've never truly been happy with it. I got it partially due to people telling me that 30fps with G-Sync feels like 60fps, but to me it's still obviously 30fps. I'm also not satisfied with the 4K performance with my Titan X, and again G-Sync isn't helping with that.

I'm going back and forth with the idea of taking a hit by selling it, and getting the XB270HU. I just don't know if my eyes are now spoiled by 4K, and can't go back to 1440P. :confused:
 
Bladestorm said:
The reason I ask is because I've had the Acer XB280HK for about 6 months now, and I've never truly been happy with it. I got it partially due to people telling me that 30fps with G-Sync feels like 60fps, but to me it's still obviously 30fps.
Click to expand...

Yea gsync doesn't magically make lower frame rate smoother
 
Yeah it's kinda funny to see some of the idiot youtube reviewers say that G Sync makes 30 fps feel like 60fps. 30 fps is still 30 fps and when your frame rate is that low you will totally notice it. Have you considered throwing in a 2nd Titan X? Sure it's the more expensive route but it seems less of a hassle than to sell your current monitor for a new one, plus you'll get to keep the 4k resolution.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Yeah it's kinda funny to see some of the idiot youtube reviewers say that G Sync makes 30 fps feel like 60fps. 30 fps is still 30 fps and when your frame rate is that low you will totally notice it. Have you considered throwing in a 2nd Titan X? Sure it's the more expensive route but it seems less of a hassle than to sell your current monitor for a new one, plus you'll get to keep the 4k resolution.
Click to expand...

Sure I've considered it, but I really don't want to spend another grand. If I sell my current monitor hopefully the new one will only cost me $200 or thereabouts. The other thing that makes me mad at myself is that if I do go back to 1440P I might has well have just got a 980 instead of the X. Oh well.

I'm still extremely temped to get the XB270HU.
 
The XB270HU is really a monitor worth buying imo. How about for now you just buy the XB270, keep your XB280 and if you wind up not liking the 1440p monitor you can return it. Or if you do like then at that point you can sell the 4k. I personally run both setups since there are games out there that are locked to 60fps like Assassins Creed IV, Dark Souls II, and Metal Gear Solid 5 to give some examples so if I'm going to be locked to 60fps it might as well be at 60fps at 4k. Now I'm just looking for a better 4k display.
 
I went ahead and placed the (back)order. Hopefully my monitor will still have some resale value by the time the new one shows up. :(
 
I tried the Seiki 39 and generic 42 4k but have since gone back to 1440. Might go further back to the Seiki for the 1080 120hz tho.. that was fairly nice.

I've got a 27" 1440, 34" LG UW 1440 and the Seiki 39 at 1080/120 and not sure which to keep. All sorts of first world butthurt..
 
I just don't understand why anyone would do 4k in the first place given all the drawbacks. Just for a boost in sharpness?
 
t1337Dude said:
I just don't understand why anyone would do 4k in the first place given all the drawbacks. Just for a boost in sharpness?
Click to expand...

Those of us Windows and Mac very quickly become addicted to how beautiful things look using scaling on the Mac side. I'm actually really looking forward to 5K coming down in price so I can use 1440 resolution scaled to act like a 5k iMac. (Beautiful)
 
I'm going back to a 1440p glossy screen because I can't stand the matte of the 4k ones.

It doesn't look that great to me. If the matte wasn't there it would probably look amazing.
 
I might not be the best person to give advice, but I recently upgraded to 2x 1440p over 1x or 2x 4k screens. For me, the pixel density was just too high on 4k (without scaling, which I also wanted to avoid) unless you start talking 40" or larger screens, which was just too big. Also, I avoided 4k due to all the inherent issues it has currently with connections, refresh rates, color accuracy, etc. It seems like 1440p has matured much more significantly than 4k to date, so if any of those other factors matter to you, you'd be better off with a smaller resolution display, however unfortunate that may be.

It just seems like 4k isn't "there" yet. But it's coming. Just not yet.
 
Exactly what I have been telling everyone. Wait until HDMI 2.0 and eventually DisplayPort 1.3 are standard on everything, and by then GPUs capable of driving the games will also be more around the $300-500 mark.

It will only take a couple years. Be patient :D
 
Well, I tried a few 4K TVs and monitors... eventually settled on a 34UM95 for desktop use and a 1080p OLED for gaming. The improved contrast of OLED does a lot more for PQ than resolution alone, and I sit around 6ft away so it's not pixelated at all. Looks quite stunning really. Hopefully in around 3 years I'll be able to buy a 65" 4K OLED for $3K or less, and by then any 4K standards shouldn't be in question. Until then I'm quite content :)
 
x3sphere said:
Well, I tried a few 4K TVs and monitors... eventually settled on a 34UM95 for desktop use and a 1080p OLED for gaming. The improved contrast of OLED does a lot more for PQ than resolution alone, and I sit around 6ft away so it's not pixelated at all. Looks quite stunning really. Hopefully in around 3 years I'll be able to buy a 65" 4K OLED for $3K or less, and by then any 4K standards shouldn't be in question. Until then I'm quite content :)
Click to expand...

If you don't mind my asking, what size OLED did you get?
 
i took the risk and order from overclockers uk today, a liitle worried about the distance and if there are any issues, but it the same this will not be avail until the 15-16 april..so now im debating just waiting for amazon to get it .. roll the dice
 
i can tell you this i have 2 titan blacks and i have the lg 34um95 and an overloard tempest both 1440 with both titans i can push way beyond the monitors even with the overlord overclocked to 120hz i just removed one card and on the 1440 i still get 75-95 so one x would work great on a 1440
 
I went from the Seiki 39" 4k 30hz, to the 28" 4k Samsung, to the 21:9 LG 3440x1440 to the LG Cinema wide 4k and now am rocking a Dell 5k. But for competitive FPS its not ideal, which is why you need a fast 144hz panel.....which is where the Rog Swift or Acer come into play.

Ideally you need both or more specifically you need three of each ;)
 
I always though 4k was a waste of money for gaming. It's extremely taxing for the gpu, and the benefits of higher ppi and fov aren't that huge if you going to play games on low-mid anyway. You can also just sit a bit further away from your lower ppi monitor or downsample from higher res to mimic the effect of 4k.

I would rather have a better panel with an actual factory calibration, and the ability to play games on ultra without upgrading to a high end sli setup each two years.
 
single powerful cards can get 75 - 79 fps average at 2560x1440 on some games(on high settings, ultra with a titan x) but you really need dual cards to average 100fps on most games even on very high settings to ultra depending on the game (or ultra on dual titan x) at 2560x1440.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/03/17/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_x_video_card_preview/2

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/68992-nvidia-titan-x-performance-review-9.html

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9059/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-review/5

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/81892-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x-sli/?page=6

I haven't gone from 4k to 1440. I never considered current 4k tech for gaming at all. The reason is 4k won't have 120hz input at 4k without dp 1.3a - 1.4 inputs and 120hz+ circuitry in the monitor as well as having dp 1.3a - 1.4 gpus outputting to it. 4k makes for nice still shots (and is good for desktop/app real-estate) but at 60hz-fps and less you are losing out on all of the other modern gaming monitor advancements.
elvn said:
And some of the new 4m (5.5ms) ips g-sync panel's response times increase at lower hz-fps, like the acer goes up to 8.7 ms GtG at 60hz and higher at lower hz.
Besides, at low fps-hz values you are basically running a low hz monitor with way more screen blur regardless. The ips might just get even worse blur at lower fps values due to the response time but low hz voids motion clarity.
That means in addition to motion clarity being dependent on very low response times, the lower the hz, the more the screen blurs.




So you are losing out on the motion definition, motion path articulation, animation definition (motion definition) and motion blur reduction (image clarity) at the 40 - 60fps (or even 30fps) promoted by many people and web sites regarding g-sync (and now free-sync I guess). So you are getting bad smear style screen blur instead of a tighter soften blur (motion clarity) and getting low motion definition (watching "freeze-frames" of action) when not at higher average frame rates. The smoothness people talk about is the lack of judder, tearing, and frame rate "sinkhole" stops.
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview/
Click to expand...

elvn said:
Yes I just wanted to be clear that in those scenarios people are essentially running a low hz monitor.
- Retarding motion definition/articulation.
- Losing any increase in motion clarity
(possibly making the blur even worse than a 60hz monitor at lower fpz-hz linked in g-sync, and in the acer's case with increased response times at lower hz ranges).

The main draw of this kind of monitor tech is 1440p at high hz with the lowest response time possible, with g-sync (and ulmb option) as a great additional feature.

I can understand the flexibility comment for some games like old code games and emulators that may be locked at low frame rates, but in cases where gamers can trade-off to a scenario of a crippled hz monitor at low frame rate for higher static graphics quality I wanted to be clear of what you would be losing - which ends up being most of the superior features of these modern gaming monitors. Also consider the cost of these monitors and the fact that you could get a much easier to render 1080p g-sync monitor for higher frame rates. Of course it's everyone's own money/monitors and they can do whatever they want with them :p
Click to expand...


More details in one of my posts about low hz
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041504380&postcount=122

.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
I never considered current 4k tech for gaming at all. The reason is 4k won't have 120hz input at 4k without dp 1.3a - 1.4 inputs and 120hz+ circuitry in the monitor as well as having dp 1.3a - 1.4 gpus outputting to it. 4k makes for nice still shots (and is good for desktop/app real-estate) but at 60hz-fps and less you are losing out on all of the other modern gaming monitor advancements.
.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on most of these subjects, except one: one can have the best of both worlds. The Skyworth 42E790U is a 4k 60Hz TV, that doubles as a 1080p 120Hz Tv. NEC has a 32" 4k display, that does 1080p 120Hz as well.

along this line of thinking, the future is not 4k, but 5k:D A monitor with all the bells and whistles of the XB270HU, but inside a 5120x2880 panel like the iMac Retina. The desktop real state of 5k for working, and the glorious of 1440p gaming at 144Hz with a strobing backlight. I wouldn't mind if such a display required a 22AWG Displayport cable:p
 
yeah I'm aware some 4k tv's can do 120hz input with clean pixel doubling so no non-native muddiness, so you could switch between 4k at desktop and 120hz 1080p for gaming. However you'd also have to investigate their overdrive implementation and the input lag.

4k monitors will get there on their own, just not ready yet. We are just getting 120hz-144hz 2560x1440 and soon 3440x1440 gaming monitors with low input lag and variable refresh rate (and a muted backlight strobing option). There aren't any gpu's that even output more than displayport 1.2, the new titans included. 4k will get there too, just not currently.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top