Is anyone perfectly content with their 1080p monitor still?

A

atom

Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
858
Just looking for some discussion, don't take this too serious, I am not trying to say that 1440p nor 4k isn't any better! I have considered upping my resolution several times, but I just don't feel that for me personally the improved experience would be worth it to upgrade the GPU as well. What about you guys, are some of you in the same boat?
 
1080p is not enough. At decent desktop size the PPI is just too low. I side stepped to another 1080p monitor since since my previous had crosshatching and PWM backlight. The thing is... You can get surprisingly good 1080p display for ~150 € like Samsung S24E390HL which I bought (PLS panel, does 75Hz). However... when you jump to 27" 1440p screens you have to pay a lot if you want to get anything decent. 4K screens are even pricier. Also now hardware is getting to a point where they are powerful enough to handle 1440p but not 4K. I think it will still take two GPU generations before 4K runs well.
 
atom said:
So that 980 is probably treating you pretty darn well at 1080p?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it like that, I am getting 48FPS in ARMA 3 online gaming. My fx6300 was coughing at 28fps, unplayable! I guess I am one of those people that look at a practical point of things. Why would I buy a Lamborghini with two seats, when I gotta haul 4 asses? Practically mindset here, I guess living on a budget you look at things differently. A person with money just doesn't care how much they spend, because it is not hard to make up the spent funds. Buying products are supposed to improve my life somewhat, not drain my wallet. Buying technology on the bleeding edge is a waste of money, unless your business requires it.
 
I was happy until I upgraded to a 1440P monitor. The extra desktop space is nice, and the image quality is excellent.

But this whole debate (for lack of a better term), largely depends on your usage and your budget (f any).
 
Lovin it still.
Lovin the much higher quality settings and framerates as well.
I dont ever think I need higher res on a 120" projector.

980ti owner.
 
I'm not even using 1080p yet, I use 1680x1050 22" 120Hz monitor but I'd want a good 24" / 1080p 144Hz(+), TN or IPS with GSYNC that is not bad like most of the monitors around today, doesn't matter what it costs, or well let's say less than $600 if it's IPS panel would be my limit. :) But unfortunately 24" / 1080p / 144Hz with IPS doesn't even exist so would be settling for a decent TN panel but all these gaming TN panels out there seems to be pretty crappy.

Got a GTX 970 right now, interested in GTX 1070 (once prices settles a bit still as I'm in not hurry) but would be overkill probably (well not for all games I play) but yea...

At work we have either 27" 1080p or 27" 1440p and my opinion is that 27" / 1440p felt a bit too small for the resolution but I'd also imagine say 30" 1440p and I'd start turning my heads a bit when gaming which I personally do not like (I also like to sit close to my monitor for better immersion). So for my personal taste 1080p 24" is fine for now for me for probably quite a few years (~4 years will be my guess).

My next hope seems to be Acer or ASUS 24.5" 1080p GSYNC with native 240Hz support, the 24"/1080p 144Hz (180Hz overclocking support) ASUS ROG disappointed me in several aspects so, otherwise was planning to go for that one.
 
Last edited:
Well I definitely like the performance levels achievable in newer games at 1080p compared to higher resolutions, but I find it rather limiting as a desktop resolution.
Image quality is not great at larger sizes either, and I prefer to have as big a display as possible for gaming.
I feel like the best compromise in the near future will be 4K 120Hz displays, so long as they also support 1080p with pixel doubling at 120Hz. Then you get the best of both, being able to drop the resolution if you need better performance.
 
Still waiting for my 1920x1200 to die. I'd love a 4k high-PPI display (something along the lines of 25-28"). On the plus side, GPUs to properly drive the lower-res display for gaming are much cheaper.
 
I still use a NEC 2490WUXi and am pretty happy with it. I would get a 27" 4K (or 5K ideally) monitor if scaling in Windows wasn't so hit and miss. I considered upgrading to one of the 27" 1440p 144Hz gaming monitors but the panel lottery scared me away.
 
stephen2002 said:
I still use a NEC 2490WUXi and am pretty happy with it. I would get a 27" 4K (or 5K ideally) monitor if scaling in Windows wasn't so hit and miss. I considered upgrading to one of the 27" 1440p 144Hz gaming monitors but the panel lottery scared me away.
Click to expand...
atom said:
Just looking for some discussion, don't take this too serious, I am not trying to say that 1440p nor 4k isn't any better! I have considered upping my resolution several times, but I just don't feel that for me personally the improved experience would be worth it to upgrade the GPU as well. What about you guys, are some of you in the same boat?
Click to expand...

atom said:
Just looking for some discussion, don't take this too serious, I am not trying to say that 1440p nor 4k isn't any better! I have considered upping my resolution several times, but I just don't feel that for me personally the improved experience would be worth it to upgrade the GPU as well. What about you guys, are some of you in the same boat?
Click to expand...

atom said:
So that 980 is probably treating you pretty darn well at 1080p?
Click to expand...
Tup3x said:
1080p is not enough. At decent desktop size the PPI is just too low. I side stepped to another 1080p monitor since since my previous had crosshatching and PWM backlight. The thing is... You can get surprisingly good 1080p display for ~150 € like Samsung S24E390HL which I bought (PLS panel, does 75Hz). However... when you jump to 27" 1440p screens you have to pay a lot if you want to get anything decent. 4K screens are even pricier. Also now hardware is getting to a point where they are powerful enough to handle 1440p but not 4K. I think it will still take two GPU generations before 4K runs well.
Click to expand...
Krispy Kritter said:
I was happy until I upgraded to a 1440P monitor. The extra desktop space is nice, and the image quality is excellent.

But this whole debate (for lack of a better term), largely depends on your usage and your budget (f any).
Click to expand...
RPGWiZaRD said:
I'm not even using 1080p yet, I use 1680x1050 22" 120Hz monitor but I'd want a good 24" / 1080p 144Hz(+), TN or IPS with GSYNC that is not bad like most of the monitors around today, doesn't matter what it costs, or well let's say less than $600 if it's IPS panel would be my limit. :) But unfortunately 24" / 1080p / 144Hz with IPS doesn't even exist so would be settling for a decent TN panel but all these gaming TN panels out there seems to be pretty crappy.

Got a GTX 970 right now, interested in GTX 1070 (once prices settles a bit still as I'm in not hurry) but would be overkill probably (well not for all games I play) but yea...

At work we have either 27" 1080p or 27" 1440p and my opinion is that 27" / 1440p felt a bit too small for the resolution but I'd also imagine say 30" 1440p and I'd start turning my heads a bit when gaming which I personally do not like (I also like to sit close to my monitor for better immersion). So for my personal taste 1080p 24" is fine for now for me for probably quite a few years (~4 years will be my guess).

My next hope seems to be Acer or ASUS 24.5" 1080p GSYNC with native 240Hz support, the 24"/1080p 144Hz (180Hz overclocking support) ASUS ROG disappointed me in several aspects so, otherwise was planning to go for that one.
Click to expand...
zone74 said:
Well I definitely like the performance levels achievable in newer games at 1080p compared to higher resolutions, but I find it rather limiting as a desktop resolution.
Image quality is not great at larger sizes either, and I prefer to have as big a display as possible for gaming.
I feel like the best compromise in the near future will be 4K 120Hz displays, so long as they also support 1080p with pixel doubling at 120Hz. Then you get the best of both, being able to drop the resolution if you need better performance.
Click to expand...

Have several 1080p screens, a couple sub 1080p screens and one 1440p. There really aren't huge PPI gains unless you're doubling resolution while staying the same or going up slightly size wise. Then there's the distance you're sitting from the screen.

For my 1440p monitor the biggest thing that made a difference was 145/165hz OC and GSYNC. The lack of screen tearing is a godsend.

I think that for the most part the difference that people "experience" is all in their head. There are several factors that generally add up to moot differences in what people actually experience.

Bigger is better after all. Unless it doesn't fit.
 
whats 1080p look like again?

been @ 2k for 9 months now & my partner is @ 4k for 2 months now. Were not looking back @ all.

only thing i dislike? the scaling of apps and images (mostly mac).. so though the image quality improves, by default it does NOT look like your getting more desktop space.
 
I'm happy with my Samsung S27A950D, a 27" 120hz 1080P panel. I'm not a big fan of 4K so far, and I don't plan to use a <120hz monitor ever again. I'll probably go with 1440p or ultrawide when I eventually upgrade, but I'm really in no hurry.

Another factor is my 3x GTX680 in SLI. I get great performance in every game that I play and care about, especially games with good SLI support that can really bring all 3 GPUs into play. With only 2GB VRam however, I'm already close to running out of VRam in many situations. It's not to the point of being a problem at 1080P, but it would be if I switched to a higher resolution monitor.
 
I'm using a 34" 2560x1080 monitor for gaming currently. My LG 34UM95 died and I'm using 1080 as a temp replacement until some newer 3440x1440 21:9 monitors release soon. I miss my 1440 21:9 monitor but I must say I really like the 2560x1080 over my older 28" 1920x1200 gaming monitor. For me though 3440x1440 is where its at. Some day I might jump to 4K but they need to first, make a 4K that does at least 120Hz and two, make GPUs that can drive games at ultra on a 4K monitor. So its going to be a while as far as 4K goes. For me anyway. 1080p is okay if its big like the one I currently have but I prefer 1440p now.
 
I'm on an XB240H that i plasti dipped matte black because the glossy bezels and stand weren't doing it for me, also removed the AR coating so now its a sweet glossy 144hz gsync monitor. The color accuracy is very good too, not sure what Acer did to tune it this well but its a gem. Am i content with it? Yes and no... I've had the itch to upgrade to a large 4k monitor for awhile now after trying a friend 32" 4k. I need a 40" 4k 120hz+ monitor that is preferably a VA panel of sorts or better yet OLED. I will not settle for TN anymore nor do i want IPS for its low contrast and glow. Until a monitor specced as such is released i think i will be staying with what i have. 144hz is too good to give up.
 
I have a 24" 1080p 60Hz IPS monitor. The resolution is literally the last thing I would want to upgrade. I would like to have more refresh rate, better black uniformity, better contrast and semi-glossy screen. I would also like to get a bigger monitor but that isn't my top priority. I would be totally fine upgrading to a 27" 1080p monitor but for 32" I'll probably want 1440p. Although if you give me all the things I want in a 32" 1080p screen I'll still take that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atom
like this
At 24" or less it's great. Above that I need more. My mom has an HP 25" 1080P that would look worlds better at 1440P. I my current daily driver is 27" 1440P, works fantastic for me.
 
I have owned and been through almost every kind of display imaginable.....and have to say my FG2421 is one of the best gaming displays ever made. Friggin thing is burrrifulllll and its blur reduction motion clarity is awesome!
 
I feel 1080p 24" is optimal for games. 1440p at that size is probably fine too but I am not about spending tons of money on video cards so 1080p is good enough.

Also, I have a 4k monitor and 1080p scales exact so I play games at 1080p on it.
 
Still happy on my 1920x1200 lcd's before 1080p became "the thing". All these years i've been watching the 1080p craze with disappointment as buying a new monitor would actually be a downgrade.

Got a 1440p 27" 144hz freesync recently to see what all the fuss was about. Read so many people raving about each 1440p, freesync and high hz (120+ etc) that I wanted to try them all together

During the week I game on the 27" 1440p, in the weekend I go to my parents and game on my old 24" 1200p 16:10

Honestly don't see a difference (apart from size). Feel a bit silly paying so much for the 27" (MG279Q)

Additionally I found the 27" 1440p too small DPI with text. Easily correctable through font-size I guess though. I feel like 28" 1440p would suit me better though

I know you were just asking about size/resolution but I thought I'd give my impressions of the other "latest and greatest" lcd tech as well.
 
Funny enough, I find 1440p scale BETTER on my 4k monitor than 1080p, even when I set the scaling to be performed on the GPU (probably due to screen size).

1080p is still quite acceptable at 24" or smaller, 27" is pushing it (you can see the lines between each individual pixels).

1440p is fine up to 32" (same PPI as 1080p @ 24").

Anything above 32" you are better off with 4k in general, 50" is about the biggest I'd go with a TV monitor.

I use 1440p, 1920x1200 and 4k between my work and home, and I have no complaints on any of them, resolution wise. (PG278Q, U2412M and BL3201PT respectively)

My only gripes are: U2412M has smaller desktop real estate than I am used to on 1440p or 4k, and both 1440p and especially 4k requires some heavy GPU power (at least for me, I am currently in the market for a GPU that can do TW3 at 1440p maxed with 60fps minimum, though it's actually more for FO4 modding than for TW3, just using TW3 as a standard).

If I were to take everything good about those 3 monitors and put together, my current Ideal monitor main monitor would be a 144hz/1440p 32" IPS of similar caliber as my U2412M with a 24" 1080p on the side, unfortunately the former does not exist.

I chose 1440p 144hz because that is the only 144hz monitor that doesn't come with TN exclusively (all 1080p 120hz+ monitors are TN), and as much as I don't hold a grudge against TN (I own a TN 1440p monitor and so far it has not made me regret my purchase) nor consider IPS as the saviour of Monitor tech, only U2412M has IPS panel of sufficient quality that I'd use IPS exclusively, though BL3201PT is also very good, barring the odd frame corruptions.
 
Last edited:
I've been at 1440p since.. 2011? I think it was. Dell 2711H now a BenQ 1440p. After my Dell died I looked at 1080p monitors to tie me over but I didn't really think I'd be able to manage it. And am happy I went for this res/size again. It's only 'annoying' I then, in turn, require more horsepower to run the res, i.e. more cost XD. If I could/had the room I'd be looking into a 34" 3440x1440 monitor next for sure :p. OR a 1440p 144/165hz IPS G Sync monitor.. Either or.
 
Obviously pc gaming tech are all luxury items, but currently anything higher than 1080p is too luxurious for me. I recently bought a 1080p 144hz monitor though and I feel I will be satisfied with it for a few years.

The issue is that the cost of going higher than 1080p is a bit absurd (for my income bracket.) You're talking $350 to $500 for a 1440p 27 inch monitor, plus $400 for a faster GPU to drive that monitor, and we're talking a $750 to $900 upgrade, a hefty sum indeed.

I'll be waiting for a few more years before making that jump.
 
Desktop real-estate is different from what you'd get with games which is in almost all cases greater pixel density of the exact same 16:9 scene elements and virtual object sizes were the monitors the same size. For this reason I used a 2560 x 1440 60hz ips for most of my desktop/app usage and had a 120hz samsung 27" 1080p next to it for gaming for a few years. When I upgraded to a 27" 2560 x 1440 10bit TN rog swift, it was nice for getting more desktop usage, dragging windows between monitors would be the same size for example. The gpu demands of the resolution along with some demanding games released at the time (like shadow of mordor) meant I had to turn settings down to high or very high to get 75 - 80fps average on my single gpu. That's probably a fps graph that's 50 to 110 fps, meaning it was probably sub 100fps 2/3 of the time dynamically. This meant I wasn't getting much out of my high hz monitor's ability to show more motion definition, path articulation, and it's ability to provide appreciable blur reduction/motion clarity increases. About a month or so later I scoured the forums and picked up a 2nd 780ti sc used off of someone to do sli so I could get 100fps average or more at very high or very high+ / custom (ultra minus if you prefer). Even so my frame rate graph is sub 100fps-hz 1/3 of the time. A better scenario would be 130 ave so it would go from 100 - 130 - 160 but I wanted very high+ settings so that was a trade off on the most demanding games.
100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40/50/60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less smearing blur)
5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations .
Click to expand...

A pair of frame rates graphs as an example. The gpus and games may change but this is still a pretty fair example of what some averages really look like in actual play.

I agree that for most modest or mid range gpu budgets (and even a single beefy gpu for some games if you're a stickler for ultra), 1080p on a high hz g-sync monitor would be a lot better for gaming and would see the most improvement on motion clarity and motion definition. Even now with a gtx 1080 you aren't going to get 100fps-hz (average, 70 - 130ish actual) without turning things down quite a bit on the most demanding games. "Getting" 70fps on other cards is 70fps average which is probably something like a 40- 100 graph. Upcoming games eventually will be even more demanding.

Testing GTX 1080 SLI Performance with Dual Palit GeForce Cards
Witcher 3 with hairworks off:
BEazcmt.png


My own quote from a different forum
People always seem to mention hz without the accompanying frame rates. You really need at least 100fps average with g-sync imo to get some of the improvements of modern high hz monitors outside of avoidance of screen aberrations provided by g-sync. Luckily you can do that with high end dual card sli on a 2560 x 1440 and still only have to dial down to very high or very high + settings. At 1080p you have a lot less gpu demand obviously.

I feel like you will never get gpu's powerful enough to outpace graphics settings because the graphics ceiling is really arbitrary to begin with. The challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit real time, not the other way around. They could easily bump up the ultra setting 3x, 4x, 10x etc what it is now. You can also downsample from 8k or more and use mods to go way over ultra even now. Meshes and textures are downsized by devs using authoring software. View distances are limited, and animated objects viewable in distances, and view distance layout tricks are utilized. Shadows are limited too. There really is no ultra, at least not like the one you think you know on the slider, if you look at it that way, only what you are capped at artificially. The more powerful gpus get, the more graphics image and fx quality "limits" that devs artificially set as the ceiling (ultra) will go up.
Personally I run a balance between still shot quality and motion excellence. At around 100fps-hz or 110fps-hz average you ride a frame rate graph that typically goes from 75-90 <----> 100 - 110ave <---> 130's or more dynamically and smoothly with g-sync.

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40/50/60% blur reduction (a "soften" blur rather than 60fps-hz and less smearing blur)
5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation (often unmentioned, huge difference)
g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations .

Regardless of the monitor's hz, lower frame rates will be blurrier (outside of using strobe mode). That is why I list my rates at fps-hz not fps and not hz alone. Without the frame rates, the hz is practically meaningless.

People are infatuated with graphics detail in still shots, but you don't play screen shots. If you are using variable hz at 1440p to run low (sub 75fps-hz to 90fps-hz mode/most of the time in game, really should be like 100 at least imo), you are essentially running a low hz, low motion definition and motion articulation, smearing blur monitor and missing out on most of the gaming advancements modern gaming monitors provide outside of the judder/tearing/stops avoidance.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The AU Optronics panel roulette is probably the biggest reason a lot of us are sitting on the fence. As happy as I am with my 2490 I've seen and used higher refresh rates and I used G sync and all of that was on a 6 bit TN. The only thing I could stand was the quality drop off going from a nice IPS to down to a 6 bit TN but even at that I *could* see the benefits and differences on the higher refresh rates and G-sync and it haunts me. I'm sold on it. I want it. I just need to figure out the best sweet spot to land on.
 
Still wonder why people bash 1080p.

Try pushing 1080p @ 144hz. Not quite the same as pushing 1080p @ 60hz. And anyone who claims 144hz does not matter must have eye problems. I am blind in one eye and can see the difference.

That said, I would like to move from 24" 1080p @ 144hz to a 30" @ 1440p 144hz but it seems there is no market apparently so all they make is 27" @ those settings. Not sure why as a 30" @ 1440p will give you 13% more PPI than 24" @ 1080P. Not a huge fan of 1440p @ 27" personally although I dont absolutely hate it.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
I'm not even using 1080p yet, I use 1680x1050 22" 120Hz monitor but I'd want a good 24" / 1080p 144Hz(+), TN or IPS with GSYNC that is not bad like most of the monitors around today, doesn't matter what it costs, or well let's say less than $600 if it's IPS panel would be my limit. :) But unfortunately 24" / 1080p / 144Hz with IPS doesn't even exist so would be settling for a decent TN panel but all these gaming TN panels out there seems to be pretty crappy.

Got a GTX 970 right now, interested in GTX 1070 (once prices settles a bit still as I'm in not hurry) but would be overkill probably (well not for all games I play) but yea...

At work we have either 27" 1080p or 27" 1440p and my opinion is that 27" / 1440p felt a bit too small for the resolution but I'd also imagine say 30" 1440p and I'd start turning my heads a bit when gaming which I personally do not like (I also like to sit close to my monitor for better immersion). So for my personal taste 1080p 24" is fine for now for me for probably quite a few years (~4 years will be my guess).

My next hope seems to be Acer or ASUS 24.5" 1080p GSYNC with native 240Hz support, the 24"/1080p 144Hz (180Hz overclocking support) ASUS ROG disappointed me in several aspects so, otherwise was planning to go for that one.
Click to expand...
This might interest you.

Samsung C24FG70 144 Hz VA Full HD FreeSync VA panel but close enough yeah?
 
My work PC has two 1080p monitors. I'm content with that. For gaming I will never go back to 1080p 60hz though.
 
I have been on a 1080p 37 inch 4:4:4 LG TV since 2009. I am happy as a pig in shit. Desktop looks fine, text is sharp and crisp and my TV is an IPS panel. Thing hauls ass and has really good color. I am upgrading to 4k only when this thing dies. Right now I have no need. I have a 1080GTX running 1080p on this thing and every game maxed is 100fps+ so far. Thanks 4k but no thanks. Maybe in another 2 to 3 years but right now there is nothing worth it to me.
 
stephen2002 said:
I still use a NEC 2490WUXi and am pretty happy with it. I would get a 27" 4K (or 5K ideally) monitor if scaling in Windows wasn't so hit and miss. I considered upgrading to one of the 27" 1440p 144Hz gaming monitors but the panel lottery scared me away.
Click to expand...

same monitor I'm using...I'm perfectly happy with 1920 x 1200...I'm more interested in upgrading my main TV to a 4K OLED then my computer monitor...although down the road when a single GPU can handle close to 60fps at 4K I'll upgrade
 
I am. My XL2720Z is the only monitor series (with XL2411Z, XL2420Z, XL2430T) that can do 60hz blur reduction and strobe single frame at all refresh rates.
I wish I had freesync or gsync PLUS the ability to have single strobe blur reduction at all refresh rates, however. I don't like being limited to 85/100/120hz like ULMB is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top