1440p Is the New 1080p: Why Budget Gaming Monitors Are Better Than Ever

I haven't considered a 1080p screen in a long time, not even for laptops. I really hope more manufacturers embrace the 16:10 aspect ratio for monitors. at least I see more and more laptops using that aspect ratio which is a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: passwordistaco
Puiu said:
I haven't considered a 1080p screen in a long time, not even for laptops. I really hope more manufacturers embrace the 16:10 aspect ratio for monitors. at least I see more and more laptops using that aspect ratio which is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Apple used 16:10 on laptops for decades really.

16:10 is dead for monitors. No market for them. Ultrawide is the exact opposite and gains traction - wider not taller. 21:9 and 32:9

If you want a tall monitor, get a 32 inch 4K/UHD or put a 16:9 on the side, vertically.
 
I've run 1440p for years, it is the best resolution. 4k gets iffy on older titles that dont understand what a 4k is, but ive never seen the same issue on 1440p. it's just big enough that you can runt wo windows side by side.
Puiu said:
I haven't considered a 1080p screen in a long time, not even for laptops. I really hope more manufacturers embrace the 16:10 aspect ratio for monitors. at least I see more and more laptops using that aspect ratio which is a good thing.
Click to expand...
God I wish. I miss my 16:10 displays. My 1920x1200p pro art was gorgeous. I'd love a 2560x1600 replacement but they are arse-rippingly expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Phase1 and passwordistaco
1440p is still good but 4K/UHD is def a huge upgrade in terms of visuals.

The same can be achieved with DLDSR tho. 1080p monitor with 4K downsampled looks amazing compared to regular 1080p and performance hit with DLDSR is nothing like actual 4K. Closer to 1800p at most in reality.

Regular 1440p without sharpening looks pretty meh these days. I have 27" 1440p/360 Hz and 32" 4K/240Hz.

DLAA, CAS Sharpening or just Nvidia Filters is a must for me in regular 1440p.

I would personally not touch a 1080p monitor these days but many people still use 1080p and sharpening is a must here. DLAA - FSR Native - CAS Sharpening etc.

DLAA being superior at all times.

Even 4K does not look sharp on its own.

Proof: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/outriders-dlss-performance

Even DLSS improves 4K here. Why? Because of built in AA and sharpening.
Once you have seen 4K DLAA, regular 4K is not really that wow. Even 1440p DLAA comes close.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, In South Africa, We do not really have budget friendly 1440p monitors. Best you can find is 22inch 1080p freesync for between R2000-R3000. Gsync is out of most peoples league. I am happy with my triple 1080p monitors though. My upgrade to freesync later if the prices drops.
 
Who cares if a one in a decade purchase 1440p monitor gets a mere 100 bucks cheaper when you need to spent 200-300 bucks more every 2-3 years on GPUs offering adequate 1440p performance for the latest AAA games?
 
  • Like
Reactions: spigias, Chaikr and trgz
I'm too used to downsampling from 4k to a 1080p screen, been doing it since the early 2010s (just for old games of course, regular games I was forced to play at 1080p/1440p). But then DLSS performance mode came, and it allowed me to play current games at "4k". The motion clarity of 4k DLSS performance is just better than even DLAA 1440p, let alone 1440p DLSS Quality.

This leaves me thinking if it's worth it for me to go from a 1080p screen to a 1440p screen if I would rarely use it's native resolution. Perhaps the best route for me would be to go directly to 4k.
 
I've had my Overlord 1440p monitor for ovr 10 years and it's been collecting dust for the last 7 years.

Anyone building an actual Gaming rig ovr the last 5-6 years was doing so, so they can step into modern day gaming, not for watch 1080p videos. (Even cellphones have dbl that.)

Coincidentally, 1440p has 68% more pixels than 1080p... that is 68% more information..!

That also means, that if you game at 1440p that you need a modern GPU to push all those additional pixels. Today, to get a steady Gaming frame rates at 1440p, you will need to spend about $500+ (Radeon 7800XT/Etc).

SO about $1k for both Monitor and GPU and you can have one hell of a backbone for a gaming system.



If you are buying a quality monitor and plan on staying with it for a long time (like I do), then make sure you get OLED Gaming Monitor for their pixel speed. Which is waaaay more noticeable in gaming than actual raw frames.

 
highwind said:
Who cares if a one in a decade purchase 1440p monitor gets a mere 100 bucks cheaper when you need to spent 200-300 bucks more every 2-3 years on GPUs offering adequate 1440p performance for the latest AAA games?
Click to expand...

What is this, 2015?

There is literally tons of GPUs that will run 1440p today. Even cheap ones. Even last gen 6700XT and 3070 will do 1440p in most games at high settings, non RT with 60 fps avg.

Also there is upscaling and DLSS Quality looks very good at 1440p. FSR not so much.
1440p has never been easier to run unless your hardware is extremely dated.

With DLSS you can run a 4K monitor with like a 4070 and still get better much visuals than 1440p. Tried it, seen it, done it.

Most people talking crap about DLSS only have seen FSR and DLSS is far better. Tried both many times. DLSS has no ghosting issues, no smearing, no artifacts and built in anti aliasing and sharpening, meaning 3rd party AA like TAA is not needed and TAA sucks anyway.

Also DLSS has huge support in games. I can use it in pretty much all new games. I rarely play games without DLSS anymore, because the alternative is not better. No DLSS = Lower fps and worse IQ for the most part. Game simply looks and runs worse.

DLSS also gives option for DLAA which improves on native in every single way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1Phase1
I'm confused.
You said 8GB wasn't enough.

And now you're saying a 4060/7600 justifies a monitor upgrade from 1080p to 1440p?
 
  • Like
Reactions: trgz
I have no idea what's wrong with 1080. My monitor is 1080 and 32 inches and perfectly sharp and was only £150 15 months ago. What's the point of having a greater resolution? I'd have to squint in order to see the smaller text. And I'm not interested in playing any games with a greater resolution than 1080.
 
HardReset said:
No market for 16:10? BS as usual.

If you are so sure, tell how badly 16:10 monitors with at least 120Hz refresh rate have sold so far?
Click to expand...
There's little to no market for 16:10 monitors for desktop usage. If you don't know this, you don't know anything about the market. Focus is 16:9 and ultrawides.

16:10 gained only for laptops, where it makes more sense.

Reality as usual. What you think and dream for, is not reality.
 
Felusy said:
There's little to no market for 16:10 monitors for desktop usage. If you don't know this, you don't know anything about the market. Focus is 16:9 and ultrawides.

16:10 gained only for laptops, where it makes more sense.

Reality as usual. What you think and dream for, is not reality.
Click to expand...

How about answering my question? Again, if there is no market for 16:10 displays on desktop, then following question is very easy to answer:

If you are so sure, tell how badly 16:10 monitors with at least 120Hz refresh rate have sold so far?

Unless you can answer, then it's You who have absolutely no clue about market.
 
HardReset said:
How about answering my question? Again, if there is no market for 16:10 displays on desktop, then following question is very easy to answer:

If you are so sure, tell how badly 16:10 monitors with at least 120Hz refresh rate have sold so far?

Unless you can answer, then it's You who have absolutely no clue about market.
Click to expand...
16:10 is barely used anymore for desktop monitors. Panel production is low. Come again when you know whats popular in the hardware market.

10 years ago, 16:10 was more popular here.
You know absolute nothing about the subject, as usual.

Impressive you did not praise AMD in this thread tho. You are the biggest AMD fanboy I have ever seen in any forum. Both funny and sad.
However it is easy to spot that you have zero knowledge about the actual hardware market.

Also, you deny facts because you are delusional. Denying reality is not healthy.

Are you a flatearther too?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LimyG
Felusy said:
16:10 is barely used anymore for desktop monitors. Panel production is low. Come again when you know whats popular in the hardware market.

10 years ago, 16:10 was more popular here.
You know absolute nothing about the subject, as usual.

Impressive you did not praise AMD in this thread tho. You are the biggest AMD fanboy I have ever seen in any forum. Both funny and sad.
However it is easy to spot that you have zero knowledge about the actual hardware market.

Also, you deny facts because you are delusional. Denying reality is not healthy.

Are you a flatearther too?
Click to expand...

I asked simple question yet you cannot answer to that. Again, answer that simply question or stop pretending you know anything. Because you obviously don't.
 
HardReset said:
I asked simple question yet you cannot answer to that. Again, answer that simply question or stop pretending you know anything. Because you obviously don't.
Click to expand...
I sell milliions of laptops and monitors a year to companies... Sure hahaha. You don't know anything about what companies want obviously.

16:10 is dead for desktop monitors. Look at panel production if in doubt.

16:10 has like 2% marketshare on desktop. That is half of what 4K/UHD has.
Look up Steam HW Survey. 16:10 is dead and gone. Only people with old monitors uses it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LimyG
Felusy said:
I don't know anything, yet I sell milliions of laptops and monitors a year to companies... Sure hahaha. You don't know anything about what companies want obviously.

16:10 is dead for desktop monitors. Look at panel production if in doubt.
Click to expand...

Companies usually want something else that consumers want. See, companies rarely buy one unit at a time, neither ask for everybody what they want.

Since you have so much "knowledge", how about answering my question finally?
 
HardReset said:
Companies usually want something else that consumers want. See, companies rarely buy one unit at a time, neither ask for everybody what they want.

Since you have so much "knowledge", how about answering my question finally?
Click to expand...
Consumers don't want 16:10 for desktop either.

What is your question? I just proved that 16:10 is dead for consumers too:


Literally no-one uses 16:10
More use Ultrawide and 4K/UHD+

Which old-4ss monitor are you using? 16:10 has not been a focus for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LimyG
HardReset said:
Question is:

If you are so sure, tell how badly 16:10 monitors with at least 120Hz refresh rate have sold so far?

Steam survey is not about sales.
Click to expand...
They sold terrible. All 16:10 monitors do that, due to extremely low demand.

You act like 120 Hz is alot in late 2024. I run 360 Hz LCD at 1440p and 240 Hz OLED at 4K/UHD.

You know, stuff that is not dated.

Once again, 16:10 is completely dead for desktop monitors. Simply look at panel production, barely any demand, low production. Focus is on 16:9 and Ultrawides and this is what 99% of companies buy.

The only place 16:10 has rising demand, is on laptops. Apple did it for years here.

Its funny you think what companies want, yet have NO CLUE what companies actually buy.

No companies want 16:10, no consumers want 16:10 either. Steam HW Survey is proof enough. Even 4K has more marketshare than 16:10. Like 80% use 16:9. Ultrawide is far more popular than 16:10 - It is simply dead.

120 Hz LCD is dated stuff. Absolute minimum for LCD is 144 Hz these days. If you run 120 Hz, your monitor must be old as dirt, simply not really being made anymore, unless some newer IPS Black monitors maybe, which is focussed on graphical work not gaming or consumer usage due to slow response times.
 
Last edited:
Felusy said:
They sold terrible. All 16:10 monitors do that, due to extremely low demand.

You act like 120 Hz is alot in late 2024. I run 360 Hz LCD at 1440p and 240 Hz OLED at 4K/UHD.

You know, stuff that is not dated.

Once again, 16:10 is completely dead for desktop monitors. Simply look at panel production, barely any buyers. Focus is on 16:9 and Ultrawides and this is what 99% of companies buy.

Its funny you think what companies want, yet have NO CLUE about companies actually buy.

No companies want 16:10, no consumers want 16:10 either.

120 Hz LCD is dated stuff.
Click to expand...

Ah, finally you answered question. Partly. Since you say they sold terribly, tell me at least two models that actually sold terribly. 16:10 desktop display with at least 120 Hz refresh rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechSpot
God of War Ragnarök GPU Benchmark: 1080p, 1440p, and 4K Tested
Replies
22
Views
452
Hom3r
H
TechSpot
The Best 1440p Gaming Monitors: 1H 2024
Replies
1
Views
568
gpSEA
gpSEA
TechSpot
The Best Gaming Monitors... in $100 Increments
Replies
7
Views
67
kieranbunny
K

Latest posts

Back