Is 1440p "wow!" compared to 1080p in games?

[HenrikE1234]

In games like Skyrim, Subnautica, Far Cry 3, etc. I don't need 1440p for desktop use.

Choosing between the Dell S2716DG (1040p) and the Acer Predator XB271Hbmiprz (1080p). Both 144Hz, G-Sync, ULMB, 27". So, only the resolution differs. And the price, but not by much so it's no factor. If some game starts lagging I'll get a GTX 1080 later.

I have a 27" 1080p gaming monitor without G-Sync and without ULMB.

So apart from those features, I'm trying to find out if I want 1440p as well for any additional impression is has for the gaming experience.

So is it a nicer experience, or is it not that much difference?

[lexlazootin]

IMO 1440p and G-Sync are both worth it. But what i don't understand is that if price is no factor why not get the XB271HUAbmiprz? It's pretty much the best of all worlds.

£530 isn't 'that much' compared to the $1000> monitors that are available.

[Glide]

1440p is typically just a larger display than 1080p, keeping the same pixel density. 1080p at 27" isn't great.
Moving to 4K, 5K, 8K are "wow" moments. (assuming size is the same)

[Q83Ia7ta]

1440p is typically just a larger display than 1080p, keeping the same pixel density. 1080p at 27" isn't great.
Moving to 4K, 5K, 8K are "wow" moments. (assuming size is the same)

pixel density at 1440p @ 27" is 102 PPI
pixel density at 1080p @ 25" is 92 PPI
It's not the same for my eye.

[RealNC]

Yes. It's quite "wow" indeed, since 1440p is almost double the resolution of 1080. 77% higher to be precise. Or, in other words, 1080p is only 56% of 1440p.

Of course that also means that frame rates are going to suffer greatly too. A good 30% to 45% performance drop is common (if you get 80FPS in 1080p, you'll get about 45-55FPS in 1440p.)

Also, 1440p for the desktop on a 27" is actually important. Text will look much better. 1080p 27" looks a bit grainy, "fat" and fuzzy if you don't keep the monitor at a good distance. With 1440p, text looks nice and sharp. In fact, 27" 1440p is much sharper and clearer than 24" 1080p. To get the same sharpness, you'd need a 17" 1080p monitor.

[lexlazootin]

Of course that also means that frame rates are going to suffer greatly too. A good 30% to 45% performance drop is common (if you get 80FPS in 1080p, you'll get about 45-55FPS in 1440p.)

I think 45% is a little steep. You can find games that will drop past 30% difference on certain cards but most of the time it will be less then that.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2 ... hics-cards
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2 ... -1070-390x
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1 ... ark-4k-fps
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2 ... esolutions

On all of the top end cards they tested they get around a perfect 30% drop, but other cards are all less than 30%. And some games like Fallout 3 just don't care at all at dropping about 15%~

If you're going to be getting a high end card that will dip more you might as well run them at a higher resolution with that power.

[HenrikE1234]

IMO 1440p and G-Sync are both worth it. But what i don't understand is that if price is no factor why not get the XB271HUAbmiprz? It's pretty much the best of all worlds.

£530 isn't 'that much' compared to the $1000> monitors that are available.

It was considered. But here it's £642, another £92 on top.

I did consider the Acer Predator Z35, and I can actually afford it, but you have to draw the line somewhere. It seems excellent, though, and doesn't put quite the same load on the PC as 1440p. There's a £250 dearer 3660x1440 similar monitor as well I believe.

[sharknice]

Going from 1080 to 1440 was pretty wow for me. Not as much as the jump from 60 to 120hz, GSYNC or ULMB, but still pretty wow.

[HenrikE1234]

So the Dell S2716DG with all of that combined plus 144Hz is on the way to me.

Basically I think 27" is pretty much the perfect size vs. viewing distance, and 1080p is the ultimate gaming resolution. (Basically any where texture resolution is very close to native resolution at all times.)

So let's see if I like 1440p then.