Gaming: The new standard, 1440 or still the old workhorse, 1080?

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
I've been holding off on getting a higher refresh rate monitor because of price, and the fact my gaming rig has been down for a while--and I am waiting for my main MMO to come back online Mortal Online 2.

A couple of days ago I saw this monitor in Costco for 229.00, and I have 100.00 in Costco rewards, so I bought it.
32'' UltraGear FHD 165Hz HDR10 Monitor with G-SYNC Compatibility
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32gn50t-b-led-monitor

With rewards, I got that monitor for $129.00


I'm still wondering if I should take it back, get the rewards money back, and wait until 2021 when I get another 120.00 in rewards money--and wait again for Costco to get a 32" 1440, 144Hz+ monitor in so I can use the 200.00 rewards on that instead of this 32" 1080 165hz model. I can't afford 500.00 for a monitor.

I'm out of resolution, but I know I will never purchase another monitor for gaming at less than 144Hz refresh. The LG above is 165Hz.

One reason I got 1080, besides being able to use that 165Hz refresh vs FPS, is because I thought 1440 would be a little small on a 32: monitor for gaming. The other reason is because of hardware needed to get higher frame rates at 1440.

So, what do you all think about refresh, size, and rez?
 

tunatime

Well...OK
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
4,066
If you are happy with it keep it if not go with 1440-4k windows scaling and game UI scaling works very well nowadays
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
If you are happy with it keep it if not go with 1440-4k windows scaling and game UI scaling works very well nowadays

Can you elaborate on game scaling and how thta works? I'm familiar with Windows scaling. I also have to take into consideration price. I'm not seeing any 300.00 1440 32" 144Hz+ monitors out there--lol. I'll ahve 220 in Costco rewards, but can only spend 100 or so of my own money. I think now I would rather have the 1440 monitor, but again, price and vid card to run it. I only have a 580 card, the Ausus Rog Strix.
 

the_duder

n00b
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
8
I've been holding off on getting a higher refresh rate monitor because of price, and the fact my gaming rig has been down for a while--and I am waiting for my main MMO to come back online Mortal Online 2.

A couple of days ago I saw this monitor in Costco for 229.00, and I have 100.00 in Costco rewards, so I bought it.
32'' UltraGear FHD 165Hz HDR10 Monitor with G-SYNC Compatibility
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32gn50t-b-led-monitor

With rewards, I got that monitor for $129.00


I'm still wondering if I should take it back, get the rewards money back, and wait until 2021 when I get another 120.00 in rewards money--and wait again for Costco to get a 32" 1440, 144Hz+ monitor in so I can use the 200.00 rewards on that instead of this 32" 1080 165hz model. I can't afford 500.00 for a monitor.

I'm out of resolution, but I know I will never purchase another monitor for gaming at less than 144Hz refresh. The LG above is 165Hz.

One reason I got 1080, besides being able to use that 165Hz refresh vs FPS, is because I thought 1440 would be a little small on a 32: monitor for gaming. The other reason is because of hardware needed to get higher frame rates at 1440.

So, what do you all think about refresh, size, and rez?

Hey Bro!

I'm in the same boat as you. This is a NEW LG 32" monitor put out by one of the finest panel makers in the industry. Although it's a VA panel and only 1080p the tech has improved much compared to VA panels of 4-5 years ago. I play lots of shooters and the response time of this monitor is great! I was waiting to save for a $1000 LG 34" ultra-wide https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34gn850-b-gaming-monitor, but decided to get this LG 32" when I saw it in Costco last week. This panel hit all my buttons: large 32" screen, G-Sync, HDR, 165Hz!, and a fast response time. Overall this is a low cost monitor that my Nvidia 1080 can power no problem with super frame rates and look great as well. I'll probably update my PC eventually to a RTX 3060 or 3070 in a year or so, but until then 4k gaming is still overrated. Cyberpunk 2077 is going to look fantastic on this new monitor this year imo. Do what you want, but I think your in a sweet spot right now with your choice.

Dude
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
Hey Bro!

I'm in the same boat as you. This is a NEW LG 32" monitor put out by one of the finest panel makers in the industry. Although it's a VA panel and only 1080p the tech has improved much compared to VA panels of 4-5 years ago. I play lots of shooters and the response time of this monitor is great! I was waiting to save for a $1000 LG 34" ultra-wide https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34gn850-b-gaming-monitor, but decided to get this LG 32" when I saw it in Costco last week. This panel hit all my buttons: large 32" screen, G-Sync, HDR, 165Hz!, and a fast response time. Overall this is a low cost monitor that my Nvidia 1080 can power no problem with super frame rates and look great as well. I'll probably update my PC eventually to a RTX 3060 or 3070 in a year or so, but until then 4k gaming is still overrated. Cyberpunk 2077 is going to look fantastic on this new monitor this year imo. Do what you want, but I think your in a sweet spot right now with your choice.

Dude
Well, I kinda figured that too, but I like to buy once, keep for years--lol. I'm not looking for 4K gaming. 4K on a 32" is going to be way too small for hitting stuff. I was using a 25" at 1080, and I did wonder if 1440 on a 32" would be about the same, or if it would actually look smaller. I'd love to have the extra screen realestate for other than gaming stuff, too. It would be nice for gaming also, you know, to have that extra second or so of viewing angle when you get a contact vs the 1080 size.

But, this thing cost me 129.00 after rewards. I just don't think I'll find a monitor like this at 1440 for $300-350, and probably not from Costco.


If you have this same monitor, can I ask you if you can turn on your option in OSD to "Power LED" on? I can't find my Power LED. CS said it was on the front bezel, right next to the LG logo, but when I turn it on, I get nothing.

The only other thing I really didn't like too much was that I needed to turn up "sharpness" to 100% to get the screen sharp enough for normal computing. Otherwise it was a little muddy. I'd like to have a little headroom,instead of needing it at 100% sharpness.
 

the_duder

n00b
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
8
Yes, I found the light on the monitor. The LED is nothing more than a red light that illuminates the tiny inverted joystick under the LG logo on the bottom of the border. You can turn it on under the general settings on the panel menu. There isn't any other power LED that I can see searching with a flash light. I've tinkered with the settings on the panel itself and find them interesting. I set my display to FPS which I use my PC for most of the time. I agree, black text on a white back ground is somewhat blurry, but good enough for my purposes. Good luck!
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
Yes, I found the light on the monitor. The LED is nothing more than a red light that illuminates the tiny inverted joystick under the LG logo on the bottom of the border. You can turn it on under the general settings on the panel menu. There isn't any other power LED that I can see searching with a flash light. I've tinkered with the settings on the panel itself and find them interesting. I set my display to FPS which I use my PC for most of the time. I agree, black text on a white back ground is somewhat blurry, but good enough for my purposes. Good luck!
The LED is on the BOTTOM of the bezel on the joystick? You can turn the sharpness up and that clears up any blurry text. I actually just pulled mine down to 90% and it smooths out the text without making it blurry. Happy about that!
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,057
I hate 1920x1080. I skipped it back in 2007. I went straight to 2560x1600. Everytime I use a 1920x1080 monitor I marvel at how awful it usually looks. The dot pitches on any 1080P monitor of a decent size gives you that gaming through a screen door effect. No thanks. Sufficient hardware exists to get good frame rates on higher resolutions. Therefore, unless you are on an extreme budget, I'd recommend going with anything but 1920x1080.
 

the_duder

n00b
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
8
I hate 1920x1080. I skipped it back in 2007. I went straight to 2560x1600. Everytime I use a 1920x1080 monitor I marvel at how awful it usually looks. The dot pitches on any 1080P monitor of a decent size gives you that gaming through a screen door effect. No thanks. Sufficient hardware exists to get good frame rates on higher resolutions. Therefore, unless you are on an extreme budget, I'd recommend going with anything but 1920x1080.
Ordinarily I would agree. I find it hard to believe you "skipped" the whole Full HD era back in 2007. Also depends what your doing with your monitor. Personally my PC hardware or 4-5 years ago for FPS gaming I'm looking for faster response times than 4K can provide even using the best cpu/gpu combo last gen, 'not RTX 3080/3090' at an affordable price. Have fun spending $1000 on your ultrawide which by the way isn't even 4k, not even close.:ROFLMAO:
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
I hate 1920x1080. I skipped it back in 2007. I went straight to 2560x1600. Everytime I use a 1920x1080 monitor I marvel at how awful it usually looks. The dot pitches on any 1080P monitor of a decent size gives you that gaming through a screen door effect. No thanks. Sufficient hardware exists to get good frame rates on higher resolutions. Therefore, unless you are on an extreme budget, I'd recommend going with anything but 1920x1080.
Dan, link me a decent 1440 144Hz+ 32" monitor (or several) that are 300.00 or less.

As far as dot pitch is concerned, if you had a 1080 32" can't you just move it back a couple feet to get rid of the pixelation?
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
Ordinarily I would agree. I find it hard to believe you "skipped" the whole Full HD era back in 2007. Also depends what your doing with your monitor. Personally my PC hardware or 4-5 years ago for FPS gaming I'm looking for faster response times than 4K can provide even using the best cpu/gpu combo last gen, 'not RTX 3080/3090' at an affordable price. Have fun spending $1000 on your ultrawide which by the way isn't even 4k, not even close.:ROFLMAO:
Supposedly, 1440 is the inbetween sweet spot for resolution niceness and speed. It's still gonna cost you an arm and a leg to run 1440 and high setting and 140FPS.

If a 1440 res looked about the same as 1080 on my 25", then I'd want the 1440 for the extra screen realestate, for sure. I would not want it if in game things are too small to really interact with. I hate that, and it's a lot harder to hit shit too when aiming at something really small.

Then there is still the issue of power to run 1440 in higher FPS ranges.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,057
Dan, link me a decent 1440 144Hz+ 32" monitor (or several) that are 300.00 or less.

As far as dot pitch is concerned, if you had a 1080 32" can't you just move it back a couple feet to get rid of the pixelation?

I don't think there are any 2560x1440 32" monitors that aren't shit for $300.00 or less. I think you've got to spend nearly $400.00 for that. As far as dot pitch, sitting further back would defeat the purpose of getting a larger display. I don't know why people have a hard time with that concept. A larger display, at the same distance will fill up more of your peripheral vision and create a more immersive gaming experience.

Honestly, running 2560x1440 at higher FPS ranges isn't that difficult. It's somewhat costly, but you don't need an RTX 2080 Ti or a 3080 to do that. You may not be able to do it with a super cheap GPU, but one or two steps down from the RTX 2080 Ti can do that or should be able to do that just fine. I know the RTX 2080 and 2080 Super cards can do it. I believe GTX 1070's and RTX 2070's can do it in a lot of games, if not most of them as well.

Ordinarily I would agree. I find it hard to believe you "skipped" the whole Full HD era back in 2007. Also depends what your doing with your monitor. Personally my PC hardware or 4-5 years ago for FPS gaming I'm looking for faster response times than 4K can provide even using the best cpu/gpu combo last gen, 'not RTX 3080/3090' at an affordable price. Have fun spending $1000 on your ultrawide which by the way isn't even 4k, not even close.:ROFLMAO:

Yes, I skipped it. I went from a 1600x1200 monitor to a 30" Dell 3007WFP. I never owned a 1920x1080 monitor. I hate 16:9 as a general rule. Professionally, I saw a lot of 1920x1200 monitors which were again, 16:10. I knew lots of people getting 16:9 1920x1080 monitors, but I was never one of them.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,934
I'm not looking for 4K gaming. 4K on a 32" is going to be way too small for hitting stuff.

That's not how it works. Everything on a 4K display will be the same size as it is on a 1080p or 1440p display in every modern game, just a lot sharper with more visible fine detail. Old games might have UI scaling issues. Likewise on the desktop you apply DPI scaling to make everything the size that works for you comfortably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,057
That's not how it works. Everything on a 4K display will be the same size as it is on a 1080p or 1440p display in every modern game, just a lot sharper with more visible fine detail. Old games might have UI scaling issues. Likewise on the desktop you apply DPI scaling to make everything the size that works for you comfortably.

This. I can confirm. On my test bench I've got a cheap Samsung 4K 28" monitor. It works fine with some font scaling. In modern games, it's not a problem at all.
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
I don't think there are any 2560x1440 32" monitors that aren't shit for $300.00 or less. I think you've got to spend nearly $400.00 for that. As far as dot pitch, sitting further back would defeat the purpose of getting a larger display. I don't know why people have a hard time with that concept. A larger display, at the same distance will fill up more of your peripheral vision and create a more immersive gaming experience.

Honestly, running 2560x1440 at higher FPS ranges isn't that difficult. It's somewhat costly, but you don't need an RTX 2080 Ti or a 3080 to do that. You may not be able to do it with a super cheap GPU, but one or two steps down from the RTX 2080 Ti can do that or should be able to do that just fine. I know the RTX 2080 and 2080 Super cards can do it. I believe GTX 1070's and RTX 2070's can do it in a lot of games, if not most of them as well.



Yes, I skipped it. I went from a 1600x1200 monitor to a 30" Dell 3007WFP. I never owned a 1920x1080 monitor. I hate 16:9 as a general rule. Professionally, I saw a lot of 1920x1200 monitors which were again, 16:10. I knew lots of people getting 16:9 1920x1080 monitors, but I was never one of them.
Dan, I see your point on 1080 and I did the same thing back when I was doing professional photography. I opted for the 1920x1200 also. In fact, even my last monitor before this LG was an ASUS 25.5" 1920x1200. For work, the 1080 just didn't make sense. It still doesn't make sense because you get 11% more vertical space on your monitor. The only reason manufacturer of computer monitors went 1080 is cost. My first LCD was the Philips 24" 1920x1200 IPS panel way back in 2008. It played gamnes with no ghosting that I ever saw. It was big, heavy, and ran hot too So, I too completely skipped the 1080 aspect ratio until just now. The 1440 space would be nice, but like you said, 400.00 minimum.

This LG costs me 129.00 after Costco rewards. I guess I can live with it a couple of year. I ahve 90 days to return it to Costco. If Costco gets a 1440 144Hz+ monitor in before that time, and with Costco rewards I can get it for less than 200.00, I'll take this one back. Of course, they will get one in, it will be 91 days after I bought this one, and it will be a beautiful LG 1440 a 165Hz for 375.00 - my then 230 total rewards = 145.00. Cry.

Again, I have the AMD 580 top card and I do not have the money to replace it for a while. The 580 (circa 2018) card probably isn't going to push 1440.
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
That's not how it works. Everything on a 4K display will be the same size as it is on a 1080p or 1440p display in every modern game, just a lot sharper with more visible fine detail. Old games might have UI scaling issues. Likewise on the desktop you apply DPI scaling to make everything the size that works for you comfortably.
I was wondering about that. So even if your screen is smaller, you will see the same image the same size relative to the screen, 4K or 1080?
Wow, now I really want a 1440.

I guess that is really how it would need to work or you would get a huge advantage the higher the res you had. We use to turn or Cathode monitors down to 640x480 for FPS shooters way back in the day because everything (including heads) were SO easy to hit. Looked like shit, but you could make head shot after head shot, since the head took up 25% of the screen.

I should just take this LG back and wait a year.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,057
I was wondering about that. So even if your screen is smaller, you will see the same image the same size relative to the screen, 4K or 1080?
Wow, now I really want a 1440.

Yes. It just uses more pixels to create the same image. This leads to increased fidelity. It does mean that text would be smaller, but the OS and games can scale fonts/text and HUD elements to compensate for this.
 

Westwood

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,584
I'm going to buy a 3070 myself, and was planning on making the switch to 1440@144.
 

the_duder

n00b
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
8
I'm going to buy a 3070 myself, and was planning on making the switch to 1440@144.
I am thinking about selling my Xbox Series X when it arrives November 12 and getting a new 3000 series gpu. I was considering the RTX3070 that has the same power as a 2080ti, but for only around $200 more I could get a 3080 which is a huge leap in performance from the 2000 series anyway. Here is my current rig. 4-5 years old but still a great preformer with a gtx1080.
20160806_142432.jpg
 

Westwood

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,584
I am thinking about selling my Xbox Series X when it arrives November 12 and getting a new 3000 series gpu. I was considering the RTX3070 that has the same power as a 2080ti, but for only around $200 more I could get a 3080 which is a huge leap in performance from the 2000 series anyway. Here is my current rig. 4-5 years old but still a great preformer with a gtx1080.
Eh, $200 is $200. With Christmas not far away and having a toddler, I can put that $200 somewhere else. =]

I mean, 90% of the time I'm playing Path of Exile. I dabble with COD if I feel like it, but it just gets me pissed off.
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
13,107
Ordinarily I would agree. I find it hard to believe you "skipped" the whole Full HD era back in 2007. Also depends what your doing with your monitor. Personally my PC hardware or 4-5 years ago for FPS gaming I'm looking for faster response times than 4K can provide even using the best cpu/gpu combo last gen, 'not RTX 3080/3090' at an affordable price. Have fun spending $1000 on your ultrawide which by the way isn't even 4k, not even close.:ROFLMAO:

I did. 1680x1050 to a Dell 3007WFP.

I think gaming at 1920x1080 in nearly 2021 is crazy. It's such a low resolution!
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,746
Everything is going to come down to your personal preferences and what you want to do as well as your budget.

It's well known that competitive gamers play on "potato graphics" at lower resolutions in order to achieve absurdly high frame rates and to have possibly even the tiniest of advantages (CSGO, Overwatch, SC2 to name a few).
As someone that wants to enjoy the games he plays and loves visual fidelity, I'm at the other end of the spectrum, mostly accepting frame rates of 30-40fps with as much eye candy on in DCI-4k. Ideally of course I'd have all the eye candy and push 120fps, but I don't have a graphics card that can do that in every game I've played.
Anyway, the point is there is going to be a compromise somewhere and you have to figure out what is best for you and what you want everything to look like. If 2560x1440 is enough, then cool. If you prefer 3440x1440, great. You want 4k, that's up to you. If you're fine with 1080p, that's also your choice. There is numerous amounts of budgetary concerns as well as options for gear and reasons why you'd pick one over the other.
If all you have is $1000 to invest in a gaming machine and that must include everything (keyboard, mouse, display, case, and all the guts); 1080p might be the best option weighing out the pros and cons. If you have tons of money to invest and you're obsessed with PCMR, then there basically isn't a reason to not have 4k 120fps and a 3090.

tl;dr: No one can tell you what is best for you, which is why there are as many options in the market as there are. I, and no one on this forum, have any ability to dictate to you how much you should spend or what it is you're trying to achieve (potato graphics, maxed out, or somewhere in the middle). At some point you have to know what you want and also your budget - and that more or less gives you your answers on what you should buy.
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
13,107
🤣mates..your talking like its Ti-83plus

It feels that way. I went to 2560x1600 in or around 2008 and used that all the way through to my current 3440x1440.

Resolution is a huge deal, however I conceed that with an increase in resolution more money is needed for a GPU to drive it.

I had a nasty habit of spending more money on resolution than in GPU horsepower which wasn't fun but man, games at high resolutions are just so nice!
 

the_duder

n00b
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
8
Everything is going to come down to your personal preferences and what you want to do as well as your budget.

It's well known that competitive gamers play on "potato graphics" at lower resolutions in order to achieve absurdly high frame rates and to have possibly even the tiniest of advantages (CSGO, Overwatch, SC2 to name a few).
As someone that wants to enjoy the games he plays and loves visual fidelity, I'm at the other end of the spectrum, mostly accepting frame rates of 30-40fps with as much eye candy on in DCI-4k. Ideally of course I'd have all the eye candy and push 120fps, but I don't have a graphics card that can do that in every game I've played.
Anyway, the point is there is going to be a compromise somewhere and you have to figure out what is best for you and what you want everything to look like. If 2560x1440 is enough, then cool. If you prefer 3440x1440, great. You want 4k, that's up to you. If you're fine with 1080p, that's also your choice. There is numerous amounts of budgetary concerns as well as options for gear and reasons why you'd pick one over the other.
If all you have is $1000 to invest in a gaming machine and that must include everything (keyboard, mouse, display, case, and all the guts); 1080p might be the best option weighing out the pros and cons. If you have tons of money to invest and you're obsessed with PCMR, then there basically isn't a reason to not have 4k 120fps and a 3090.

tl;dr: No one can tell you what is best for you, which is why there are as many options in the market as there are. I, and no one on this forum, have any ability to dictate to you how much you should spend or what it is you're trying to achieve (potato graphics, maxed out, or somewhere in the middle). At some point you have to know what you want and also your budget - and that more or less gives you your answers on what you should buy.

Very well put.
~High five followed through by spirted low five...
 

Camberwell

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
741
I run 1440p 27" @ 144Hz and find it's the sweet spot, for my desk anyway, and my 1080 Ti runs most games on high, some even ultra. This is not too expensive, and works great for a twitch fps'er like me...
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
So a question. If you're looking for better graphics, can't you turn up more anti aliasing and things like in game on a 1080 monitor to get it to look better, rather than just using more pixels?

I have 90 days to take this thing back to Costco. I think I really want the 1440 now. More desktop space is ALWAYS better, and the only way you can get that is with more resolution.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,934
So a question. If you're looking for better graphics, can't you turn up more anti aliasing and things like in game on a 1080 monitor to get it to look better, rather than just using more pixels?

That's not going to help because the issue is largely that 1080p simply has less pixels than 1440p or 4K to resolve fine detail.
 

Camberwell

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
741
Pixio? WTF is that? lol.
Been very happy with my Pixio 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS screen, when I bought it it was way cheaper than well known brands but just as good. I'd buy another, especially now that they do such a small bezel...
 

ors

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
214
If you're looking for better graphics, can't you turn up more anti aliasing and things like in game on a 1080 monitor to get it to look better, rather than just using more pixels?
Not really, since you are hitting the pixel limitation sooner rather than later on low PPI panels. If you want more detail in textures and text there is no other way to achieve that, only more pixels will help. For text heavy workloads you want at least 4k on a 32" monitor. And even for entertainment only, 1440p is the bare minimum I would recommend in that size, unless you sit at 2+ meters from it constantly (normal monitor use would have you sit around 1 meter from it). The perfect monitor in my book would be a high PPI panel that also supports double refresh rate in half resolution (5k 32" 60hz panel for ex. that can push 120hz in 1440p) but manufacturers don't agree with me so...
 

DWD1961

Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
725
What were you expecting for your staggering 300 dollar budget? WTF LOL.
LOL.

Pixio, really? Think I'll save my staggering 400 dollars! :)

Damn those 1400s are still really expensive. Any idea when economies of scale will kick in and we'll start seeing them for lower cost?
 
Top