Thread 106583384

Is "upgrading" to 1440p worth it?

I've always stuck to 24" 1080p because I enjoy high refresh and the 1080p native let's me use GPUs for longer. But always wondered if the grass is greener. I notice all the streaming sites and competitive gamers also use 1080p for better better latency and performance?

How is the 1440p experience /g/? Is 27" or 32" size better?

>>106583384 (OP)
>Is "upgrading" to 1440p worth it?
Not from <=24". Most people who amazed by 3k come from shit PPI (>=27"/1080p) screens.

Now, the jump to 4k is worthful, just due to integer scaling alone.

I've got a 27" 1440p. Anything over that resolution is just very marginal gains.

>>106583503
1440p is best on 32" and the difference to 27" in size alone (40% more screen) is huge.

>>106583384 (OP)
32" 1440p is like a cock in a sock

>>106583659
Yeah a lot of people swear by 27 inch but I feel like it would be too cramped (130ppi). Even 24 inch and 1080p looks small sometimes (90ppi)

>>106583384 (OP)
There is literally no content made for 1440p, it's a middle child meme resolution for poorfags who can't afford to run 4K.

>>106583384 (OP)
1440p monitor at 27 inch is only 250 euro. How fucking poor are you.

>>106583384 (OP)
No but 4K is. 3840x2160 scales to 1920x1080 perfectly so you can play nu games at 1080p with no blurry pixels and Mario 64 at a ludicrously sharp resolution.

>>106583857
Tell me the prices of GPUs that can run 1440p native ultra at 144+ hz

>>106583384 (OP)
in some games like rdr2 4k is a must if you want to enjoy it.

1080 is the superior standard
you don't really need more

>>106583935
4k and 1440p are both 16:9

no difference

>>106587368
Ok retard.

>>106584162
Depends on the game. Could still just play at 1080p or upscale. 1440p will be noticeably superior for work and watching videos. (And obviously older and 2D games where performance is not an issue)

>>106583384 (OP)
27" is too big to be comfortable at a desktop viewing distance, and 1440p on anything lower requires scaling, which just ruins bitmaps and doesn't even give you more screen real estate

I have 2x27inch 1440p and it's basically too much
if I had to redo it, I would just get an ultrawide 1440p and ditch the second monitor
my left monitor is primary and although I use 2nd monitor, i almost never use the right half of it because it's not really in my field of view

>>106584162
>144+ hz
Stupid meme, unless you're playing competitive FPS it makes no difference and then you'd be tuning down settings anyway for visual clarity.

>>106588140
60fps is laggy as fuck for any game. Horrible input latency.
Playing games locked to 60 is consoletoddler shit

>>106583384 (OP)
The answer is yes. Do what I did, buy a cheaper monitor, like one of those shitty budget IPS panels with high refresh rates. You will realize how bad your 1080p old panel was. NOTE: this does not apply if you have a really high quality 1080p panel

What size monitor for 4k?
Somewhere between 27-32?

>>106588155
My reaction time is still a magnitude higher and thanks for validating my point.

>>106588140
it's 2025 and at this point it's expected. I agree that it doesn't make a huge difference, and I think people like Gaymers Nexus are autistic for giving a shit about 100fps to 115fps like there's a fucking difference
but I wouldn't purchase a 60hz monitor, especially if I planned on playing games

>>106588234
>I wouldn't purchase a 60hz monitor, especially if I planned on playing games
Having a >60Hz monitor won't help me on Duckstation

>>106583384 (OP)
I tried playing a game on a 1080p monitor and I threw up
I don't know how you people can tolerate that

When will the gaymers finally abandon the 1440p coperes?

The actual pro-gamers all use 1080p low settings fast panels
The gamers that have sense use 1080p or 4K
Offices use 1080p or 4K
Creative uses 1080p or 4K
Business uses 1080p or 4K
Schools use 1080p or 4K
Universities use 1080p or 4K
Stores use 1080p or 4K
Even the fast food sloppa displays are using 1080p or 4K
Boomers and their TVs use 1080p or 4K or even 8K

The ONLY people buying 1440p and dealing with terrible scaling, nothing (besides video games) being the size it's supposed to be are meme PC gaymers who think it's a "sweet spot" when it's really a cope spot nothing at all is designed for. Some even cope by calling it "2K"

If you are on 1440p you got played. Should've just stuck with 1080p or bumped up to a real res with proper scaling, 4K.

>>106583384 (OP)
Not sure about 27" but 32" is good. You effectively still have a 1080p 24" right there if you play in a window, only issue is that you can't completely black out the rest of the screen without local dimming. The size is nice for screen real estate at 100% scaling, use something like FancyZones.
>>106588301
>buy 4k
>if the screen is too big, 1080p looks like shit unless you increase viewing distance
>forced to go all the way up to 4k if you want to render above 1080p
>end up coping with fake 4k and fake frames

>>106588301
/thread
only reason i'm not "upgrading" to 1440p is this, i only play vidya 5% of the time, i'm not watching blurry smeary videos, movies, tv shows and anime the other 95% of the time.
I'll jump straight to 4k in the future.

>>106588361
>if the screen is too big
...then don't get a screen too big?
there are plenty of 4k 27 inch monitors, 1080p is already stretching it on 27 inch but just as you said, increase viewing distance a little bit and it's perfectly fine. 32 inch is too big for a monitor anyways.
1440p will always look dogshit no matter the distance or the screen size when it comes to media consumption.
>end up coping with fake 4k and fake frames
with modern games that use shitty deferred rendering dlss/fsr4 at 4k in performance mode literally looks better than 1080p native while only performing 5-10% worse, if you think TAA works better than any "ai slop" upscaler you gotta get your eyes checked.

>>106588140
after getting used to it (10 fucking years ago) I hate 60hz even just browsing the web

1080 looks like ass

1440p is a scam
use the same money to get a higher end 1080p screen instead
if you're not poor just go straight to 4k

>>106588413
Are bitmaps integer scaled or bilinearly scaled when you have a 200% DPI scale?

I don't want absurdly high UI elements, or the extra power that 4k rendering mandates.

For me, 1440p 360Hz QD-OLED
>Non-perfect scaling for 1080p
I don't play at 1080p
>Just turn down the UI scale
No, 100% scale at 1080p on a 27" monitor is absolutely retarded big. I use 100% at 1440p on a 27" monitor
>You can even see what you're looking at
I don't need to read the text on my UI 90% of the time, keyboard + icons is enough
I want desktop real estate, I even use 125% on a 14" 2.8k

>>106588413
>...then don't get a screen too big?
If I didn't explicitly want a big screen I'd just stay at 1080.
>1080p is already stretching it on 27 inch
Exactly.
>increase viewing distance a little bit
Every time you want to play/watch something in 1080? Pain in the ass.
>32 inch is too big for a monitor
Not really.
>1440p will always look dogshit no matter the distance or the screen size when it comes to media consumption
Anime is already never distributed at master resolution unless you're only watching BDs, and with a decent upscaling algorithm it makes fuck all difference what your screen res is. For movies you may be right, but I don't really watch those much.
>fake frames cope
Right.
>TAA
You can force DLAA in anything that has DLSS.

>>106588497
>fake frames cope
>you can force DLAA in anything that has DLSS
...are you fucking serious?
DLSS = le bad! fake frames!
DLSS but at native res (DLAA) = good!!! use it!
pick a fucking lane retard

>>106583384 (OP)
>I enjoy high refresh and the 1080p native let's me use GPUs for longer.
Same. I had a 1440p monitor and onl noticed lower frame rates so I went back to 1080p. Life is simpler at 1080p

>>106588568
Might as well claim all post-processing is fake frames. I'm not letting GPU hallucinate pixels.
Also you don't really get a choice at all in games that don't have upscaling or implement it like shit.

>>106588301
This. I'm very pro-1440p but I'm mainly a gamer, where 1440p is the sweet spot for quality and frame rate.

And even then, with upscaling tech improved significantly past decade.

>>106588301
This, 1440p are for technologically illiterate people who are too poor for 4K but NEED to UPDOOT, as you can see by the amount of cope in this thread.
Actual smart people are either on 1080p or 4K.

>>106583384 (OP)
1440 at 27" is basically a little better than 1080 levels of sharpness. You should be going 4k at 27 or higher.

>>106583384 (OP)
I upgraded from two 1080p 23" to two 1440p 27"
I was dissapointed with the upgrade, but I've switched to using just one monitor unless I'm playing a game because 1440 has a lot of real estate.
I can't say that 1440 is really worth it over 1080, especially if you an get a better quality 1080 monitor for the same price

I play games on my 60hz laptop screen and it doesn't bother me at all because I'm not a pussy who sucks at video games

>>106583384 (OP)
Do you even have hardware to go higher? Also barely anyone is using 4k, chills dont like this fact but its truth. Before it will get popular you will have to buy another monitor, dont waste money on that shit right now.

>>106588608
>I'm not letting GPU hallucinate pixels.
...but that's literally what DLAA does, the acronym itself stands for "deep learning anti aliasing", it's the same as dlss just downscaling rather than upscaling.
and functionally, 1080p native dlaa is pretty much the same thing as 4k performance dlss, in both cases you are starting from a 1080p image and then adding fake pixels to it.

>>106589230
>downscaling rather than upscaling
There's no scaling where it matters, how AA is calculated is irrelevant. The main input is native.
>1080p native dlaa
We're talking about 1440p.

>>106588140
>boomer retard take

144hz is a huge difference. I can even feel the difference between 180hz. 60hz is for spreadsheets and word files

>>106589253
>The main input is native
...to which you are adding ai generated pixels just like dlss would, I cannot understand if you're seriously beyond retardation or just trolling at this point, how the fuck do you miss the point so badly?
>We're talking about 1440p.
ok, then read my previous post again but replace "1080p native dlaa" with "1440p native dlaa" and "4k performance" with "4k balanced", same fucking thing, in both cases you are starting off with a 1440p native image and then adding ai slop to it.

>>106588775
>sour grapes

>>106583706
Never listen to retards like this, they always turn out to be Indian, 12 and running 1366*768.

>>106589379
yeah because there's tons of content made for 1366*768
why would a 1366*768 user cope with a claim that applies to such resolution as well? you clearly didn't even understand what the fuck he's talking about

>>106589307
>I cannot understand
Yeah I see that. Not going to reiterate shit you've effectively ignored.

>>106589437
>yeah i'm actually beyond retardation
fine thanks for confirming have a nice day

1440p bros..

they're laughing at us..

>>106588162
>NOTE: this does not apply if you have a really high quality 1080p panel
...so you're literally admitting there's no difference? wut?

>>106583384 (OP)
24" 1080p in 2025 is insane lmao

>>106589346
Higher resolution > framerate

>>106589933
nah once you experience high refresh 60 hz looks stuttery and blurry

>>106589954
I experience not playing videogames 95% of the time and I'm not going to look at individual pixels on a tiny monitor

>>106589954
Not really. It's the kind of shit that's night and day on comparison, but after a while of actually playing at 120+ you realize it doesn't matter all that much except in mouselook shooters or otherwise really fast paced games.

>>106583384 (OP)
If you're fine with a 24" screen then 1080p is fine as well if all you do is play games. For work I find 1080p to be kinda shitty because you don't have a lot of space vertically and 1440p would be a major improvement.

If you want a bigger monitor (27" basically) then 1440p is mandatory as a minimum because 1080p on a 27" screen looks like absolute fucking ass, the resolution is too low for a screen that big and for typical desk viewing distance (about arm's length away). At 32" 1440p is going to be too low as well, it's not going to look horrendous but it won't be good. If your screen is that big you want the next step up in resolution, which is 4k / UHD 3840x2160 so the PPI isn't fucking tiny. I think 32" is too big for desk viewing distance though, the ideal monitor to use on a desk is 27" 4k, the physical size of the screen is just about perfect for the viewing distance and at the same time you're close enough to the screen to heavily benefit from the big image quality improvement you get from high PPI.

>the 1080p native let's me use GPUs for longer
Nowadays you can even get a 4k monitor and use DLSS Performance to get 1080p rendering but better image quality than what you get on a native 1080p panel of the same size (because the pixels on the 4k screen are much smaller).

>>106583384 (OP)
Yeah. 27" 1440p is the sweet spot where you have great visuals and good performance without requiring a housefire GPU. Don't listen to retards telling you to buy a 4K monitor, specially on a 27" one.

My 27" 1080p just werkz
I think it'll be better if I had a desk that wasn't fucking fat and heavy as fuck

>>106590158
I don't see how the desk is relevant here.

>>106590300
u r right i did not think before i post
i will kill myself now

>>106590312
I mean it could be relevant if you had a deep desk on which you could place the monitor farther back for better ppd.

I'm on 1440p now but I went with 27 inch 1080p for my last build and it was an enjoyable half decade of computing, I don't think the ppi is as big of a deal as people make it out to be. If you're not some photo editing art fag type it really works fine. you could always push the monitor back a few inches and completely negate the 'downside'

I think 32" 4k is perfect, it's a way better experience over 27" 1440p. If I only played competitve shooters id probably buy a 24" 1080p crazy high refresh rate. 27" is just an awkward inbetween

>>106590158
>27" 1080p
That was the golden standard before shills started pushing higher and higher resolution bullshit.
There is literally no need for 1440p until you hit 32-35 inches.
But who cares about reason nowadays, fucking 6 inch smartphone screens are over 1440p and everyone just accepts this as the norm because corporations need to sell stuff.
I remember when my dumb friend who always buys into latest hype first bought a smartphone with about 2000 x 1000 screen resolution and when asked if he sees any difference from 720p or so he replied with "Well, not really, but if I like press my eye against the screen then I see these dots and they are like smaller than the dots on my old phone, cool right?"

>>106589854
There is a massive difference between 1080p and 1440p, but I just can't be bothered to argue with idiots. Buy a good quality 1080p monitor and a 1440p monitor (stop being poor), and you will come to the obvious realization that 1440p is better. Insert cope response here:

Just go 4k, integer scale for 1080p when you want that, run 4k. If you can't run 4k, run 1440p and you'll barely be able to tell a difference between that and native.

1440p is a 2010 resolution that is still being forced 15 years later. It was seen as a next step but quickly became an "in between" resolution.
The only acceptable reason to own a 1440p screen is you really like integer scaling 480p for some reason.

I'm typing this on a DELL Latitude with 720p resolution. No, I don't need more

whats up with anti-1440p schizos
its such a random thing to fixate on

>>106592147
It's all bs, even on steam 4k is like what 5%? 1080p still dominates and next is 1440p and guarantee it will stay like that for next 10 years. World in general is poor as fuck. People buy shit and dont switch until it's broken. Fuck consumerism.

>>106588155
>He thinks consoles get 60fps

>>106583384 (OP)
I have a 27" 1440p monitor and it's great. Just having bigger screen without shit PPI is very much worth it if you can afford a decent monitor.

Granted, I don't play the kind of games where squeezing every last FPS out of them is a must, but you're never going to be a pro gamer anyway.

>>106592906
>World in general is poor as fuck. People buy shit and dont switch until it's broken.
Thank the lord every day I was born in a first world country. I've had a 4k desktop since 2016 and I get to see poors cope about it on this website every day for 9 years. Also, you're all faggots that see a PC primarily as a gaming console.

>>106588301
>The ONLY people buying 1440p and dealing with terrible scaling
All the tools adults with actual jobs use scale to 1440p just fine, kid.

honestly don't know how you people can live with yourselves

>>106583384 (OP)
1440p is shit, just go straight to 4k.

>>106589406
>yeah because there's tons of content made for 1366*768
There is no content made for 1366*768, all video is either 720p, 1080p, or 4k (unless it's ancient and made for 4:3 resolution).

>>106584162
The human eye can't discern framerates larger than 12 fps anyway.
t. /a/

I went from 27 to 32. It is very pleasant and massive.

This thread is another example of brain-dead consumerism.
>MOAR PIXELS
>MOAR HERTZ
That's all you retards know.
And yet the typical IPS monitor still looks like dog shit (pic related).

VA, OLED, they're all flawed. But manufacturers don't care because BIG NUMBER GOOD retards will just buy anything and then cope with their purchase (>at least it's 4K).

>>106593190
>you're all faggots that see a PC primarily as a gaming console
>as in, "fuck you for having an actual reason to use a 1440p"
No shit 4k is much easier to deal with when you're not trying to render unoptimized slop. Using the same 4k monitor for a decade without much need for actually good hardware is something a poorfag would afford easily. And someone with more money than they know what to do with would have replaced it with a cutting edge OLED by now.

>>106593366
I mean it's not like anyone is telling you buy 8k here, and 4k isn't new. Right now your best bet would be waiting for a good VA miniled or an IPS miniled with enough zones to make it actually work. MicroLED isn't happening, and yeah we're not getting anything else any time soon.

>>106593398
>IPS miniled
They're still mostly garbage with obvious blooming.
Most IPS monitors can't handle dark content unless you look at the monitor at a perfect 90 degree angle.

It is possible to at least make better IPS monitors with less obvious glow, but as I said the monitor companies don't care. They just get the cheapest garbage panels, overclock them to 260Hz for ultimate gayman and call it a day.

>>106588174
4k starts at 40 inches. You wouldn't buy a 13.5-16" 1080p screen, so why would you buy a tiny 4k one?

>>106583384 (OP)
24” 1080p is the 4channiest resolution. Let me guess, you need more? Giga Chad approves.

>>106583706
Woah, are you promoting the latest technology? Saar! Good morning saar!

>>106583384 (OP)
Well, do you need a bigger monitor? High dpi isn't worth it as it makes everything too small.

>>106593662
>High dpi isn't worth it as it makes everything too small.

Is this bait? I can't tell anymore.

for me, it's 240hz oled 27" 4k

>>106593630
>the latest technology
4K has a been a thing since 2006 retard

>>106593695
For me, it's a monitor that I don't have to replace every year because of burn-in.

>>106593674
are you really too retarded to notice?

higher resolution = tiny scaling

a 720p video looks like shit on a 4k monitor

>>106593712
what type of monitor isn't at risk for burn in

>>106593759
anything that isn't OLED you clown

>>106585524
See >>106593708 and get with the 2000s, grandpa.

>>106583384 (OP)
technically, but the problem is any nonshit resolution is some retarded size + GPUs can't handle that many pixels (which is why every major GPU has some shitty upscaler garbage).

>>106593398
>he thinks I've been on the same 4k display since 2016
>having an OLED 4k in 2025 is "having more money than you know what to do with"
holy shit what country are you from lmao

>>106594186
>GPUs can't handle that many pixels (which is why every major GPU has some shitty upscaler garbage).
The problem isn't GPUs, it's retarded game developers who don't give a fuck about optimization as long as 5090 can run their game at 1080p.

>>106588301
I have a 4K screen that I use 1440p content on. How does my interpolation look?

>>106593896
oled is notorious for burn in lmao

>>106589437
>If I take a specific part of your text out of context, it sounds like you're calling yourself stupid
Great job buddy. Maybe you can try for his lunch money next time.

>>106593214
>He took the television pill.

>>106593544
I'm not using a 40" screen for PC use get real

>>106594413
Then don't buy 4k, buy a tiny little 1440p instead. The whole point of 4k is being able to fit 4x as much shit on your screen at once, only macfags think the point is increasing DPI to make text look slightly smoother on a glorified 1080p setup.

>>106594490
>only macfags think the point is increasing DPI to make text look slightly smoother
No, everyone likes the look of higher pixel density.

That said, I think it's overrated. It looks nicer, but it's not THAT important.
The way the monitor displays colors and motion is more important. Only OLEDs are decent in this aspect, but they still have problems.
All LCDs are bad and no amount of extra pixels will help. It's lipstick on a pig.

>>106594724
>everyone likes the look of higher pixel density.
Sure, but it's not remotely worth the cost. I would much, much rather have a standard pixel density and 4x the space, over macfag pixel density and 25% of the space.

If you want to spend 3 grand on an 8k display and sit further away from it because they don't make 40" 8k displays yet, go for it. Otherwise, high DPI 4k is for retards who want a 10% improvement in text quality when they could instead be getting a 300% improvement in area.

>>106583384 (OP)
no because you'll never want to use 1080 again. same for 4k.
it's an nvidia trick
(do not go 1440p if you're not at least at 27")

>>106594787
>Sure, but it's not remotely worth the cost.
What cost? 4k 27" LCDs are less than $300 now.
(With shit colors and all, but that's just LCD being LCD.)

>>106594866
You are paying 300 bucks for a glorified 1080p monitor, when you could be paying 300 bucks for a true 4k monitor with 4x the usable pixel count. Why would you take 25% of the pixels for the sake of a 10% improvement in text sharpness?

>>106594903
I'm paying slightly more for things to look slightly nicer.
I don't want a fucking TV that I have to watch from 2m away, I want a monitor.

We never needed anything beyond 720p, and frankly we should be going back.

But if we can't go back, then 1440p is the next best thing, because the more enlightened among us can use it to natively run 720p.

>>106583384 (OP)
Main reason to go to 1440p is because niggers won't make a fucking 1080p OLED panel, 1440p is as small as you can get.

>>106595054
OLED looks bad at low PPI. Search for "OLED color fringing" if you're curious.

>>106594965
Then you're paying 300 bucks for a 1080p screen. 40" is the correct size for 4k, you sit 2 feet away from it like any other screen.

>>106595101
Then make it 24" rather than 27", the pixel density isn't that much higher with a typical 1440p 27" panel.

>>106583384 (OP)
I hate fake frames, I hate AI upscaling slop, and I hate compressed 4k slop.

Just stream in 4K and display in 1080p it’s the bitrate 1080p should be anyway.

1440p and 4k are gay consoomer resolutions designed for people who think 60fps is good enough.
4k’s only purpose is in a theater/home theater.

I can’t wait until we get 24” 1080p OLED’s.
It just fucking works.

>>106583384 (OP)
27" 1440p is cheap enough these days with very good feature sets, so it's attainable and it's starting to make more sense than 1080 in most cases but extreme budget builds. There's good 144hz and 180hz panels for not much money.

32" 1440p is better, yes, but you're gonna have to distance yourself from your screen properly. Of course by that line of thought a 100" 4k screen 9 feet away from you is the absolute best, but I take it you have budget constraints and other limiting factors like most people with a job that don't spend their day arguing on anime boards.

4k is expensive as shit for a respectable panel and requires you not only to splurge on a screen but a gpu as well, and even then you need a properly distanced setup to take advantage of it, along with content that supports it. If you're going to be spreading vaseline on your screen (FSR, DLSS, Whatever else) might as well save the cash.

Anyone crying about 1080p media scaling is severely autistic and has their monitor glued to their dumb face, you absolutely won't notice it.

>>106595249
>27 inch
>32 inch

how do you deal with fullscreen apps?

with 1080p you can have another monitor for double run at fullscreen

do 27/32 inch users unironically use windowed mode? doesn't that suck a lot? especially for games

>>106594190
OLEDs are e-waste. Good job missing the actual point of the post, but fair enough -- I did make that assumption despite the phrasing not necessarily implying it.

>>106595249
>4k is expensive as shit
It's 300 for 4k vs 200 for 1440p. Basic IPS panels that look mediocre.
If you want OLED then yea 4k is still expensive. But OLED at 1440p kinda sucks, it needs more pixels for text to look good.

>>106595291
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>106595350
let's say you want to play a game while having a browser open

do you just alt-tab every time like a peasant?

>>106583857
Not OP, but I can easily replace my 1080p monitors. However, they still work and I don't feel like selling them.

>>106595376
I don't have such extreme ADHD that I need to do that a lot. So yea, just alt-tab. It's fine.

>>106595376
If you don't want to alt-tab you get a second monitor. If you don't want a second monitor you get not a 27-32" but a 40"+ or an ultrawide, and there's software to make those function as multiple screens.

24-25" 1440p or 4K would be neat but wit high refresh rates.

>>106595619
>you get a second monitor
>with a 32/27 inch

yeah bro let me just swing my head 90 degrees on my second table that doesn't exist

>>106589890
I still use my HP ZR24w that I bought as my first flat screen when my CRT died. It's been serving me well all these years and as long as I don't upgrade, I won't know what I'm missing out on.

>>106583384 (OP)
1080 is enough, but I would recommend good response time and ~120hz.
Get bigger / better screen types if you watch movies on your PC screen.

>>106595675
Well that's your problem. I have a 32" and an extra 24" on each side of which one is in portrait. It's not that big.

>>106593245
...you could've like read the next line to realize it was meant as a joke

>>106583467
How does 1080p stuff look on a 4k monitor?

>>106595899
just like 1080p on a 1080p monitor of the same size.
that's the entire point of integer scaling, every pixel just becomes a square of 4 pixels, no fancy mathemathics involved.

>>106588301
>When will the gaymers finally abandon the 1440p coperes?
Videogames aren't videos...