Is it time to say goodbye to 1440p?

Conman

Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
624
So I was in the market for a new 1440p monitor. Had it narrowed down to the Asus VG27AQ, the LG27GL850b, or maybe even the budget Pixio PX329. It was going to be simple, easy even.Then Jensen dropped the hammer. $699 for double GTX 2080 performance? The landscape has changed. With DLSS 3.0 coming and future titles sure to use it, should I be shopping for 4k now? 10GB of memory for 4K does kind of worry me for the longer term. Any suggestions for our new 4k future?
 
Not really. For the 27" size 1440p is still a good resolution, you can just get it now with 144-240 Hz.

There are no good larger 4K high refresh rate monitors on the market at the moment. Everything is 27" size which IMO is too small for the resolution. The only larger 4K display worth buying is the LG CX 48" OLED which is too large for many and maybe not the best option if you want it to last 5-10 years. Saying this as an owner of that monitor.

I would say the goldilocks zone is the 38" 3840x1600 size ultrawide now. 3000 series GPUs will run it very well and it has more desktop space than 27" 1440p at the same sharpness. The choices in this size are few with LG being the only panel vendor.
 
Yeah, I tried 4K at 28" and ended up selling the screen. It was nice, but it was a waste at that size.

Rocking a 34" 3440x1440 and I think a 3080 (or 3090) would be just about perfect for getting high refresh.

I can already get around 90 - 120 fps (on my 160Hz display) so an extra 30 - 40% would push it closer to max refresh.
 
Yes it is time to say goodbye, I've been using my Dell U2713H for 7 years and have been trying to find a suitable replacement. Where are the 27" 5K displays? Why can I buy an iMac with one for $1799 but there are none for sale except the LG Ultrafine that's TB3 only and still $1299 when you can actually find it in stock. Double the 1440p resolution and sell me a display or get the 8K ones out at semi-reasonable prices.
 
I think if you have a decent display right now your best bet is to wait one more year. Hopefully by that time displays will be shipping with DP 2.0, which is much more desirable than HDMI 2.1. Right now there are no great 4k monitors out there that aren't multiple thousands of dollars and none of them even have HDMI 2.1. Most people keep their displays for 2+ GPU generations so I would hold off until the new connections are available for future proofing.
 
I think if you have a decent display right now your best bet is to wait one more year. Hopefully by that time displays will be shipping with DP 2.0, which is much more desirable than HDMI 2.1. Right now there are no great 4k monitors out there that aren't multiple thousands of dollars and none of them even have HDMI 2.1. Most people keep their displays for 2+ GPU generations so I would hold off until the new connections are available for future proofing.

Nvidia's new GPUs do not come with DP 2.0 and I expect neither will AMD's. That means there will be no DP 2.0 displays for at least a few years. Either manufacturers keep churning out the same old crap, they use DP 1.4 + DSC or start using HDMI 2.1. My bet is on "same old crap".
 
Nvidia's new GPUs do not come with DP 2.0 and I expect neither will AMD's. That means there will be no DP 2.0 displays for at least a few years. Either manufacturers keep churning out the same old crap, they use DP 1.4 + DSC or start using HDMI 2.1. My bet is on "same old crap".
I got a feeling HDMI is going to finally take over in the PC space. Honestly we don't need several different connectors and everything outside of PC uses HDMI.
 
DP 1.4 + DSC and HDMI 2.1 should hold us over for a while.

We are finally getting high refresh 4K with little compromises, let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
 
I have held off on 4k for years. My eyes prefer minimum framerates of somewhere around 100. With the 2080Ti, I was finally able to nail 1440p the way I like it. Where as 4k resolution, even with the beastly 2080Ti, has just seemed too "muddy" in motion for the detail and aliasing gains offered.

However, with a new LG OLED and the RTX 3090 on the horizon, this will likely change. I hope we can finally get AAA titles into that sweet VRR range of 90-120 FPS, with all the visual goodies, at 4k. The prospect of realistically leaving 1440p behind is certainly an exciting one for the hobby!
 
Currently gaming on a 60Hz 4k monitor and 60Hz LG OLED. I've been thinking about getting something with higher (and variable) refresh rates, but there aren't many appealing options outside of the new OLEDs. My LG C8 is only a couple years old so I'm not looking to replace it any time soon, I'd rather get a second PC monitor.

I'll probably end up waiting.
 
So I was in the market for a new 1440p monitor. Had it narrowed down to the Asus VG27AQ, the LG27GL850b, or maybe even the budget Pixio PX329. It was going to be simple, easy even.Then Jensen dropped the hammer. $699 for double GTX 2080 performance? The landscape has changed. With DLSS 3.0 coming and future titles sure to use it, should I be shopping for 4k now? 10GB of memory for 4K does kind of worry me for the longer term. Any suggestions for our new 4k future?
its supposed to be double in RT stuff, we dont know about normal rendering yet. i also dont think we're at the consistent 4k/60+ point yet, def not on ultra like everyone wants....
 
Currently gaming on a 60Hz 4k monitor and 60Hz LG OLED. I've been thinking about getting something with higher (and variable) refresh rates, but there aren't many appealing options outside of the new OLEDs. My LG C8 is only a couple years old so I'm not looking to replace it any time soon, I'd rather get a second PC monitor.

I'll probably end up waiting.


Same , been using the BenQ 3200U (and previous 3201 BenQ before that) on the 60hz 4k myself for years now. 32-maybe 38ish (40 at max) is the ideal size for me. And IPS 4k 120+hz right now 32" size would be my ideal. Tried the 48cx and just too big.

I keep eyeballing the higher hz ultrawide's but when I see the physical inch size difference in the vertical length it's just kept me from going that route so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Epos7
like this
Windows scaling still sucks for some legacy apps and old games.

If you tried to play unreal tournament on a 4K 27” monitor you wouldn’t be able to read the console unless your nose was to the screen.

Because of that I still like lower resolutions than 4K for smaller monitors.
 
I've been fine with 1080p for a while now. I don't think it's worth all the extra money you have to spend on hardware to keep up with requirements. If I try out 4k will I actually get hooked?
 
Stay with 1440p but get a high refresh rate.
I have been looking a 144hz 1440p for a bit but still waiting for funds to clear for it.
 
Same , been using the BenQ 3200U (and previous 3201 BenQ before that) on the 60hz 4k myself for years now. 32-maybe 38ish (40 at max) is the ideal size for me. And IPS 4k 120+hz right now 32" size would be my ideal. Tried the 48cx and just too big.

I keep eyeballing the higher hz ultrawide's but when I see the physical inch size difference in the vertical length it's just kept me from going that route so far.

The 38" 3840x1600 ultrawides are pretty close in size to a 32" 16:9 vertically. Of course the text is not going to be as sharp as 4K with scaling but since you don't need to use scaling you get more desktop space and avoid issues with apps.
 
So I was in the market for a new 1440p monitor. Had it narrowed down to the Asus VG27AQ, the LG27GL850b, or maybe even the budget Pixio PX329. It was going to be simple, easy even.Then Jensen dropped the hammer. $699 for double GTX 2080 performance? The landscape has changed. With DLSS 3.0 coming and future titles sure to use it, should I be shopping for 4k now? 10GB of memory for 4K does kind of worry me for the longer term. Any suggestions for our new 4k future?

I haven't even begun to say goodbye to 240 Hz 1080p yet.
 
Depends on your use case really. If you mostly work on the monitor and your work is text heavy it was time to say goodbye to 1440p for a while now. Heck I would prefer 5k at 27 and above. If you are mostly playing, than even 1080p might be fine. Would love to see 5k monitors that have higher hz when switching down to 1440p so you could have your cake and eat it too (with the new integer scaling support in GPUs no quality would be lost) but for some reason we don't see this at all. Personally I wouldn't buy anything below 4k anymore, but I program lots and play almost nothing so your mileage will vary...
 
its supposed to be double in RT stuff, we dont know about normal rendering yet. i also dont think we're at the consistent 4k/60+ point yet, def not on ultra like everyone wants....

There is a YT reviewer that shows a 2080 performance at 100%, and then the 3080 running the exact same settings with results from 62% on the low end to over 100% higher performance on the high end. the 62% was an outlier, and mostly 70%+ gained were attained.
 
The 38" 3840x1600 ultrawides are pretty close in size to a 32" 16:9 vertically. Of course the text is not going to be as sharp as 4K with scaling but since you don't need to use scaling you get more desktop space and avoid issues with apps.

I probably need to look into that size then , it was a 35” likely I was looking at the specs on and it was 7” shorter vertically than my 324k one which just seems small.

With no 32” 4K IPS’s on the horizon with a faster refresh rate maybe I would lime the 38” widescreen
 
1440p / 1600p at 27" to 32" 16:9 is just about the limit without scaling, and 4k in that range doesn't scale well to anything useful without something like DLSS or at least AMDs CAS.

Really, 4k should be pushed higher for use without scaling, and 5k would be about right in the 27" to 32" range. But it needs to happen with high refresh rates, VRR, and HDR too. LGs OLEDs hit all the marks, but start at 48" and add short-term persistence and long-term burn-in concerns with all the static elements used on desktops.
 
I got a feeling HDMI is going to finally take over in the PC space. Honestly we don't need several different connectors and everything outside of PC uses HDMI.

This is absolutely not going to happen. Not only is HDMI a garbage port for reliability, but DP2.0 is infinitely more appealling for PC applications. DP2.0 can be carried over USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 and likely will be carried over USB4 when that releases. The endgame for PC display connections is much more likely to be a USB 4 port than a shitty 20 year old connector that's been trash since it was released.

There's also the bandwidth issue. HDMI2.1 is already obsolete. You can't do 144 Hz with HDR on 4k with it and there's no DSC available over HDMI. As 240 Hz monitors and panels with 12 bit color and HDR support start coming out in 4k (and 5k and 8k panels start popping up) the HDMI2.1 port is going to be useless. DP2.0 is going to run out of room at some point as well, but it will certainly last a few more display generations and DSC will extend its life further still.
 
Last edited:
There's also the bandwidth issue. HDMI2.1 is already obsolete. You can't do 144 Hz with HDR on 4k with it and there's no DSC available over HDMI. As 240 Hz monitors and panels with 12 bit color and HDR support start coming out in 4k (and 5k and 8k panels start popping up) the HDMI2.1 port is going to be useless. DP2.0 is going to run out of room at some point as well, but it will certainly last a few more display generations and DSC will extend its life further still.

HDMI 2.1 is perfectly fine. It has enough bandwidth for 8K 60 Hz so 4K 144 Hz is perfectly doable. It also supports DSC but nothing implements it yet. It's just that there are no 144 Hz panels that use HDMI 2.1 on the market, I think the first ones coming are the Eve Spectrum displays later this year or early next year.

Nvidia's new GPUs do not have DP 2.0 and I expect that it is not on the next gen AMDs either so we are stuck with either DP 1.4 + DSC or HDMI 2.1 for the next two years at least. Expect display manufacturers to peddle the same old crap during that time.

hdmi-specs-jpg.jpg
 
Last edited:
3080 will make 144fps on 1440p monitor possible with every setting maxed out on the latest games and more. 4k with everything cranked maybe too I don't know. But right now this seems like the sweet spot.
 
My thought is yes, if you value picture quality more than very high frame rates. I would rather get say 60-70 FPS at 4K than 144 at 1440p.

I would like to replace my 1440p 144 Hz monitor with something 4K. I probably still want G-Sync. Other than that I don't know where to start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isp
like this
I've never liked the feel of the super $$$ high refresh 4k monitors my buddies have bought.

980ti thru now there's always been this marketing promise of that next gpu powering something.

The fact is that 1080ti made 1440p viable for me, bc I didn't notice sluggish peek or spin vs my 1080p panel using competitive graphics settings in game.

If I delve into single player games going forward, I will still value response #1. #2 will be a long time coming bc a quality 4k 144hz+ panel isn't going to be an easy spur of the moment but any time soon.

I can't use 4k for productivity without scaling text way up.
 
I really don't like gaming under 100fps so I'll probably stick with 1440p for now.
 
I can't go back to 60 hertz. Playing games at 144 fps is too good. I am going to buy a 3080 so that means I can play every single game maxed out and get my max fps. That is worth it to me. 144fps vs 60fps is really noticable. Thought about getting a 4k TV and using it at 60 hertz. But after playing 144hertz, I just can't go back.
 
I find it interesting that PC gamers with all of the power available in the new Nvidia cards don't want to move to 4K. The new consoles will likely have less graphical capability but are both squarely moving to 4K.
 
I find it interesting that PC gamers with all of the power available in the new Nvidia cards don't want to move to 4K. The new consoles will likely have less graphical capability but are both squarely moving to 4K.
Because for many >120 FPS 1440p is better than 30/60 FPS upscaled 4k.
 
why do you think that? they always have, why stop now.
The current generation does a mix of upscaled and native 4K. The next generation will have significantly more power and much of the marketing is focusing on 4K HDR graphics to pair with 4K HDR televisions. PC monitors need to rapidly improve to have the same picture quality as a good television.
 
The current generation does a mix of upscaled and native 4K. The next generation will have significantly more power and much of the marketing is focusing on 4K HDR graphics to pair with 4K HDR televisions. PC monitors need to rapidly improve to have the same picture quality as a good television.

TV quality has little bearing on what the consoles are doing. Game developers will keep pushing for ever more impressive graphics so there will still be plenty of games that use checkerboard rendering, dynamic resolution or upscaling from 1440p. Especially if they want to target 60 fps as well, which I really hope they do because 30 fps is just rubbish.
 
Back
Top