Is there a noticeable difference in resolution?

That is a pretty difficult question to answer as it depends solely on the situation. I would say in general, yes, there is most definitely a difference. More desktop real estate and finer detail due to higher ppi are the most noticeable improvements. It is similar in many aspects of going from 720p to 1080p.
 
Well.. You also have to take into account refresh rate and input lag. For gaming 120hz displays are the way to go. They'll display up to 120 frames per second which is AMAZING for fps games. The downside is that they only have 1080p displays.. On the other hand at that resolution you can get more frames
 
DeathSmasher said:
Is there a noticeable difference between 1080 and 1440?
Click to expand...

On a 27", the difference is astronomical --- I wouldn't buy anything under 2560x1440. If you prefer to get a 120Hz display, real estate aside playing a game @ 1080p on a 24" would look about the same.
 
Ashok0 said:
On a 27", the difference is astronomical --- I wouldn't buy anything under 2560x1440. If you prefer to get a 120Hz display, real estate aside playing a game @ 1080p on a 24" would look about the same.
Click to expand...

Once you go 2560x1440 is awesome.
 
DeathSmasher said:
Is there a noticeable difference between 1080 and 1440?
Click to expand...

27 screens and up yes. Since you are sitting so close you should be able to tell. Test one out by going to a store that has a 30 monitor and change the res from 2560x1600 to 1920x1200 and you should notice a huge difference
 
Ashok0 said:
On a 27", the difference is astronomical --- I wouldn't buy anything under 2560x1440. If you prefer to get a 120Hz display, real estate aside playing a game @ 1080p on a 24" would look about the same.
Click to expand...

For some of us, 1080p on a 27" display is adequate. I'm in that crowd. I enjoy my 27" 1080p display.

Martha Stewart said:
27 screens and up yes. Since you are sitting so close you should be able to tell. Test one out by going to a store that has a 30 monitor and change the res from 2560x1600 to 1920x1200 and you should notice a huge difference
Click to expand...

Poor example. Anytime you change off of a monitor's native resolution you're going to degrade image quality. However, a game rendered at 2560x1440 will look sharper than the same game at 1920x1080. However, you have to make a sacrifice for this, either by lower other visual, accepting a reduced framerate, or by spending more money on a higher-end GPU to power it.

There is no "right" answer. Budget will always be one of the key determining factors. I don't want to deal with the budget needed to run games at that resolution at the quality that I desire, so 1080p is where it's at for me. I find that with either 16xCSAA, 4xMSAA, or just plain FXAA, 1080p on a 27" monitor still looks very good.
 
If you want to get rid of blur in games - theres no better way than the upgrade from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440(1600) moitor. That's 100% sure. Many AA techniques are useless at that resolution, since all they do is blur the image to a different degree. At 1080p you may not notice it, but at 1440p it becomes too apparent. So you would like to turn off completely things like transparency antialiasing, and even (in some cases) msaa. But this one you still would whant to leave on, most of the time. If you have enough of gpu power. (like double 680gtx, I guess)
When playing games you're constatly under effect of "Oh, so that's how it looks like, actually..." And that's the main thing about games and 1440vs1080.
 
Last edited:
I'll say this, gaming at 1080P on a 23" looks a lot better than 1080P on a 27".
 
So much back an forth i dont know what to take an what to leave. I currently have a single 680. I like smoothness an high fps with effects. Im looking at spending $800 tops. Im currently playing on a lcd tv an 1360x760. So im sure an upgrade is gonna have a huge wow factor to it but id like to do a wise upgrade. not buy 1080 an in a yr kick myself for not going 1400 or get 1400 an kick myself for not going 120hz. The bad part is i have no where to go an test a quality product so im doing a blind order from newegg.
 
What games do you play? I have an 27" ACD and love 1440p. MMO's, RPG's, action titles are all fantastic at this rez. If all you play are FPS' at a competitive level then 1080p 120hz is the way to go, probably 25" max though.

If you plan on reading alot, 1440p may be too much, text is tiny and many people scale up the text on the flip side all the extra realstate is gold for me as a dev.

A good 25" would be hp's 2511x but it's not 120hz.

Finally check out displays at Fry's or some other tech shop.
 
Last edited:
seamusmc said:
Yeah pixel pitch at that size isn't to my taste either but to each their own.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is my main problem with that type of display. I prefer 16:10 anyway, but that's too little resolution for a panel that size.
 
Dan_D said:
I just threw up a little....................
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a jerk. Some people wan't 27" and can't afford $1000 panels. I currently have an ACD but I used to have the 27" ASUS that was 1080p and it was fine. I would go so far as to say that for gaming there isn't much difference. It looks a little better but enough to justify cost? No. Where it really shines is in everything other than gaming. Photo editing, graphic design, web browsing, all that stuff. That's why I paid more, not gaming.
 
Dan_D said:
Yeah that is my main problem with that type of display. I prefer 16:10 anyway, but that's too little resolution for a panel that size.
Click to expand...

A 27" 120hz display is still going to produce a crisper image in motion than an IPS. Even with the lower resolution the faster tn is going to look better in a lot of games. The there is the fact that there its somewhat less demanding as far as hardware goes, so that can be nice. Then there are things like 3d support.

IDK I've yet to find a display without compromises.
 
The only thing holding me back from getting those korean monitors is Sacrificing FPS for all the modern games, even with my gtx 670 I dont think I can be stable at 60 fps all the time on max settings. I've seen 1440p upclose on those apple screens at work but I dont find them special for gaming at all, it is just nice for web browsing and misc things that most of us dont do.

If your a gamer, i'd stay away from 1440p for now until graphic cards have the horsepower to really make this resolution a standard, stick with 1080p for now and go for 120hz. 120hz will give you the instant "wow" factor compared to 1440p.
 
Dan_D said:
I just threw up a little....................
Click to expand...

I find this a little disappointing, but hear me out. Basically, I understand that [H]ardforum members are typically your more hardcore type. Many of you guys are going to want the absolute best and scoff at anything less. What you fail to realize is that, by displaying an elitist "I am better than thou" attitude, you're acting as a turn off for this website. There are a lot of novice or middle-ranged guys who come here seeking YOUR knowledge. When you scoff at us like this, it doesn't impress us. All it does is make us go elsewhere for the information that we seek.

There are many people who find 1080p, even on a 27" display, to be more than adequate. I'm actually fairly impressed by it. Between my 1080p TN and my ACD, I prefer to game on the TN. Aside from better black levels, overall contrast, and more fluid movement, I find 1080p + FXAA to be smoother and still hold a higher framerate than 2560x1440 with no AA. Does that mean that I should feel that 1080p is superior to 1440p? Not at all, it just works better for me and probably many others who budget for $150 or less on a GPU.

So basically, I'm impressed by your knowledge, but less than impressed with your attitude. Try to be more helpful and less condescending. You'll earn more respect from the "novices" like me :)
 
Well cost issues aside, I really haven't had any issues with gaming on my ACD27" @ 2560x1440. For games that absolutely require tons of GPU power, I can just run them at 1080p with 1:1 pixel scaling and they run very smoothly with black bars on the side (and to each his own but imho 1080p full screen looks terrible). The only real negative for me is that it's 60Hz versus 120Hz. So ya OP, if you are a hardcore gamer or e-sports player you might prefer a TN.
 
I have both an ACD and the Asus VG236HE. To answer the OPs question I think there is a big difference when the image is static. I remember loading up crysis 2 (don't hate me but i think the game looks good) on the ACD and thinking man, this looks AWESOME. I only have a gtx 580 so with all the settings turned up as high as the GPU could display it wasn't that great once i started playing cause of all of the frame rate drops. On the asus it runs great and looks good. I would pick the ACD though if i had enough graphics power to run everything at 60fps.
 
Last edited:
60+ fps otherwise its moot to play no matter how good an image looks. Best to wait another year or two until 1440p becomes a standard for gaming.
 
I'd go 120 Hz. And if you want 120Hz, there's no way you can push 1440p without multi top-end GPUs. So I'd recommend a 1920x1200, 120Hz, IPS display (which doesn't exist).
 
Personally, I'm perfectly content gaming on a 22 inch 1680x1050 IPS display... and I have the added benefit of getting higher settings out of an older GTX card since I'm driving fewer pixels. You might consider a monitor that favors color accuracy and viewing angle if you do things other than gaming on your machine.

As wabbitseason said, trying to drive 1440p might not be worth the hassle and cost. "Buy the best you can afford" is generally good advice on this subject.
 
DeathSmasher said:
Is there a noticeable difference between 1080 and 1440?
Click to expand...

Considering 1440P has almost twice the number of pixels as 1080P, ya I'd say it's quite noticeable. 1080P is garbage. :D Once you go 1440P at 100+ Hz you never go back (SLI limit of 102 Hz currently).
 
Vega said:
Considering 1440P has almost twice the number of pixels as 1080P, ya I'd say it's quite noticeable. 1080P is garbage. :D Once you go 1440P at 100+ Hz you never go back (SLI limit of 102 Hz currently).
Click to expand...

You can also run 4x SGSSAA with 1080p for whats probably a smaller performance hit than 1440p. With that much filtering is the difference really that large? Especially considering the the crisper image on the tn due to the faster response time. I would like to see a Catleap at 100hz but I can tell you that my Catleap blurs more at 60hz than my Planar SA2311w does at 60fps.

A 1440p S-IPS is nice but it has its compromises too. I'm debating selling mine and my Planar SA2311w and just picking up an Asus VG278H.
 
Um no. I have a Catleap running at 102 Hz in SLI next to a Samsung 1080P 23" 120 Hz TN and the Catleap blow's it out of the water.
 
Vega said:
Um no. I have a Catleap running at 102 Hz in SLI next to a Samsung 1080P 23" 120 Hz TN and the Catleap blow's it out of the water.
Click to expand...

In what way? In motion my Catleap at 60hz doesn't blow my 23" planar out of the water even with it set to 60hz.

You're telling me that overclocking an S-IPS display makes it suddenly not ghost?
 
DeathSmasher said:
what is catleap?
Click to expand...
It's a $300 2560x1440 27" glossy IPS monitor many of us have been snapping up recently, it only has DVI-D dual-link but most are fine with it at this price. I have one and it's one of the best monitor purchases i've ever made and i've been through at least a couple of dozen.

You can find them by searching ebay using the phrase 2560x1440 then sort by price. There are other good models besides the Catleap by the way, there's also the Achieva Shimian, 3View PCBank, & Crossover.

Links
- http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1675393
- http://www.overclock.net/t/1215866/...z-achieva-shimian-qh270-and-catleap-q270/0_50

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Microcenter now carries their own version, the Auria EQ276W. It also has a glossy IPS panel and a bunch of different video inputs but a tiny bit more input lag than the base models posted above. These multi input versions cost $50-$100 more on ebay so Microcenter's price is a bargain.

Links:
- http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1693679
- http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1694047
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
kissenger said:
I agree that 1440p is preferable to 1080p, but there's no need to be a dick about it. 1080p is still very good and no-one's impressed by your e-peen.
Click to expand...
You get used to it around here and learn to filter the extreme stuff out.

I look at it this way, if many of us can be happy with 1080P on a 32" or 37" display (let's not forget how popular the 37" Westinghouse was at $1000) then a 27" 1080P at 3ft away must be a whole lot sharper :p
 
When I use my 46" TV for movies I sit <5ft away and it looks fine. Can't see the pixels. I just had a 27" 1080p next to my 1440p displays, which were sharper, but I had to get within a foot/30cm to see the pixels on the 1080p display.
 
Last edited:
I just went from a 24 inch 1920x1200 to a 27 inch 2560x1440. And let me tell you games look so much more detailed and razor sharp. And you also really don't need any AA anymore. Also web browsing sites looks huge now so much real estate. Big difference. But with the added resolution comes the need for more power to run it. You better have the hardware to back up that 2560x1440 or your games will run like a slide show....
 
My 1600p display makes everything look clearer. You haven't gamed until you've tried Crysis on such a resolution, or run Milkdrop on a high mesh size. You are going to get compromises with any panel, the real ultimatum is 120hz vs a higher resolution, and I personally would go with a higher resolution.
 
All 30" displays use the grainest matte coating around, they offer the furthest thing from a clear experience.
 
NCX said:
All 30" displays use the grainest matte coating around, they offer the furthest thing from a clear experience.
Click to expand...
So I've heard. Going from a BenQ to a Dell though, some would argue I haven't exactly been spoiled for choice. I wouldn't game any other way though.
 
kissenger said:
I agree that 1440p is preferable to 1080p, but there's no need to be a dick about it. 1080p is still very good and no-one's impressed by your e-peen.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with 1920x1080 displays. What I have a problem with are huge displays that don't go beyond 1920x1080 because the pixel pitch is shit. I've got 2 20" displays on my test bench that are 1920x1080 TN panels. They are fine for what they are used for. They are quite clear and I don't even mind the lack of vertical space. I've even played games on them and that was fine. Again I just can't stand the bad dot pitch of a 24" or 27" 1920x1080 display. I don't even care if it's 120Hz, it still looks terrible. I'd rather have a smaller monitor and have a better dot pitch than suffer the alternative. I wouldn't be impressed with 37" monitors at 2560x1440 anymore than I'm impressed by 27" 1920x1080 monitors.

But to each their own. The OP asked if there was a difference in resolution. I say, "HELL YES THERE IS." But once you've experienced better, it's hard to go back. As I've told many other people when they ask me about monitors. I tell them not to ask me. Just go to the store and find what you like. Once you become spoiled by certain display types and sizes, looking at monitors becomes an excercise in frustration or futility because no displays is perfect. There are always trade offs and what is acceptable for some isn't acceptable for others. In some areas it feels like monitor companies have taken a step backward with them. It is human nature to become spoiled by things. And I've had my monitors for a long time. It's not about "epeen" as you put it. There are newer and better panels out there than mine. I'm well aware of that. If I were going to buy monitors today, I'd make a different choice. I'd probably go with three 27" IPS 2560x1440 based displays.

My comment, was supposed to answer the OP's question through it's simplicity. Not offend anyone who makes a different choice than I did for whatever reason. And just to be clear, I'm answering the OP's question. 1920x1080 may be all the rage to some, but in a display larger than 22" I think it sucks. Resolution makes all the difference. That's just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't worth getting upset over.
 
Last edited:
Sure, it's noticeable.
Worth it? Up to you.
I run a 120hz 27" 1080p with no regrets. I like large screens for watching anime(subbed) from bed.
It's expensive to run 1440p comfortably and most games which play a little better with greater than 60hz I can run well.

EDIT: Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking resolution is the be all and end all of picture quality.
 
JayJapanB said:
EDIT: Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking resolution is the be all and end all of picture quality.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Dot pitch and resolution are two of the larger factors for me. I don't care too much about the color reproduction, but viewing angles is another big one for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top