Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by ZLoth, May 21, 2018.
Just curious as to what video resolutions the [H]ard members game at....
1080p and 2k are the same thing.
Well, that's a wasted opportunity of a poll. You haven't thought this trough have you?
This poll should have these options:
1366x768 - for older 15" laptops
1400x900 - for older 16:10 LCD Screens
1680x1050 - for older 16:10 LCD Screens
1920x1080 - FullHD or 1080p as it is commonly known
2560x1080 - 1080p ultrawide 21:9
1920x1200 - 16:10 some workstation monitors have this resolution
2560x1440 - QHD or Quad HD
3440x1440 - WQHD
2560x1600 - QXGA - again workstation monitors
3840x1600 - WQHD+
3840x2160 - 4K
More than 4K
other - There always has to be an other option in every poll.
And we still haven't mentioned multiple display setups then.
1440P own three of them two Dells 24" and one ASUS Swift 27"
I figured 4k would just tax the graphics card plus there isn't alot of them out anyway with smaller sizes.
This has been discussed ad nauseum but if 3840x2160 is "4K", 1920x1080 is "2K".
Either way, those made up terms are useless and don't accurately define anything.
My answer is 3440x1440.
With my poor GTX 970, most games are at 1080p, although I can run older games and a few newer ones at 4k (Stalker and Wasteland 2).
I run 5760 x 1200.
2560 * 1440 @ 144hz
1080P is HD
1440P is 2K
3840 is 4K
If I'm wrong I guess I need a education at FoxConn here in WI.
Well here we go again, I guess.
Why? Please define the logic.
You have one resolution using the horizontal resolution to determine the arbitrary "k" naming scheme (3840x2160) while another, you're using the vertical resolution? (2560x1440). What about resolutions that aren't 16x9?
This whole "k" naming scheme doesn't make any sense and does nothing but confuse people.
Just define the resolution you're using and there is no ambiguity or at LEAST using a shorthand that makes sense and follows a common convention.
Look, many companies decided to put out documents like that but it doesn't make any of it official. Hell, even the official Wiki for "2K" states that 1080p, based on the numbers, could very much so be considered 2K however DCI does not official recognize it as such.
3840, near 4000, considered 4K
1920, even nearer to 2000, not considered 2k
Do you see how silly this is?
Basically, there is no officially recognized standardization for these shorthand naming schemes so why bother trying to force them down people's throats? It works for laypeople but makes zero sense for those of us who know a thing or two about resolution.
Accepted progression of monitor height as developed.
2k is 2x 720p or 1440 more commonly referred to as QHD
4k is 2x 1080 or 2160 more commonly referred to as 4k
variation exist due to aspect ratio and delivery methods commonly adopted by media production
standard, interlaced, progressive (delivery methods) (in order of development)
4:3 16:9 16:10 21:9 etc etc (aspect ratios)
Understanding how each was developed cannot be ignored
2k was developed by doubling the 720p standard
4k was developed by doubling the 1080p standard
In any case my vote for 2k was for 1440p which I cealrly understood as asked.
720 ... on 43" Panasonic 16:10 plasma.
What are some good large desks?
The depth of my desk is 25 5/8" and my monitor is 24". I don't know if I want a 27" monitor or larger.
2560x1440 @ 144 Hz
You need sources to call something a fact.
2560x1440 is 4x the pixels of 1280x720, just as 3840x2160 is 4x the pixels of 1920x1080.
HD = 1280x720
Full HD (FHD) = 1920x1080 = 2.25 * HD
Quad HD (QHD) = 2560x1440 = 1.78 * FHD = 4 * HD
Ultra HD (UHD) = 3840x2160 = 2.25 * QHD = 4 * FHD
When UHD was just becoming a thing and 4K didn't become the official marketing term, UHD displays were advertised as "4K x 2K" as shorthand for the actual resolution that was further shortened to "4K." Originally the standalone terms "2K" and "4K" referred to the DCI definitions of 2048x1080 and 4096x2160, respectively. Both are now commonly used to refer to the standard 16:9 resolutions of 1920x1080 and 3840x2160.
Well with different sizes I suppose you can't nail it to one specific for any type of display device.
For me 2k will never be 1440p it makes no sense at all, there is no valid argument for it. Officially it is 2048 × 1080 but 1920 x 1080 is closest on pc monitor resolutions, see also below article.
Blame it on Samsung as that is where 2560x1440p became 2K when they started calling their mobile phones with 2560x1440p 2K.
Gaming PC is 3440x1440p @ 100Hz.
My TV is 4K and my PS4 Pro usually outputs at checkerboard 4K for most games.
I do all my gaming on a 4K television. Most modern games allow for resolution scaling. That allows me to play at your native resolution while rendering something closer to 1440p. Best of both worlds.
Otherwise, I have no issue going with normal 'ol 1080p if that isn't an option.
1080 or 1440
gaming= 1440p 144Hz
TV/streaming/Blu-ray= 4K HDR OLED
1440p @ 75hz
3440x1440 @ 60hz for me. Want to upgrade to 3840*1600 in the future. Love my 21:9 screen.
2560x1440 144hz G Sync on the pc monitor.
OP, you can edit the poll... just in case you didn't know.
5760x1080 on 3 beautiful Samsung curved 32" LCDs.
I'm still bitter that 16:9 beat out 16:10
3440x1440 @ 60Hz
After experiencing 21:9 at 2560x1080 in 2015, I'm never going back to 16:9/16:10 monitors.
Newly purchased 1080p @ 144Hz G-Sync curved VA. GTX 970 @ 1442MHz running the screen. Will keep the screen and only upgrade GPU. Will update display once ultrawides at higher resolutions and high refresh rates become reasonable, GPUs with higher than the currently restrictive DP 1.4 for the new 4K HDR 144Hz screens.
I run most games using DSR 3840x2160. As long as i can get around 40-45 FPS I’m good, I’d rather have sharp clean graphics over high FPS.
If someone knew to resolutions came into this thread read it from top to bottom they would walk away even more confused and would forget there is even a poll.. lol
It's tough. For productivity 16:10 is better, but for gaming and movies not so much. At this point in time I wish I had a 21:9, only the screen fitting my wants doesn't exist yet at the price I'm willing to pay for a monitor.
lol I knew what you meant but it is "new" and you meant bottom to top right? cause if they started at the top that is where the poll is.
Lol yes! Even if they started at the top and worked their way down it would be a fun ride!
I skipped a few posts and didn't realize the horror posts on clarification of shorthand names LOL really should just use full numbers instead of "WQHD+" so people don't go searching the resolution terms and come out just more confused. Why isn't Cinema 4K the standard?