1440p@144hz vs 1080p@144hz. Is the jump in price really worth it? Can you really spot a difference?
what size screen, how far away are you sitting, other metrics you failed to provide?
>>55005551
Either a 1080p 24" or a 1440p 27"
>>55005551
Approx. half a metre.
During most games you won't notice a difference, but if your game is like WoW for example you'll see a big difference, because the UI size will be smaller but you'll have way more "space"
Depends on what you play really, if it's an fps you'll notice nothing or maybe even harm yourself because models will seem a little smaller.
>>55005520
Outside of gaming, 1440p is really sweet. In games though I think 1080p might be a better choice if you want take advantage of the high refresh rate. Even with something like GTX 1080 you're unlikely go above 144fps with most modern games.
>>55005520
>Can you really spot a difference?
Considering you need four 980Tis to hold a steady 120 FPS at 1440p in most games, it's not worth it.
4 way 1080 SLI would be nice, if Nvidia allowed it. I hope the 1080Ti is either extremely powerful or allows more SLI. Shit, typing this out makes me think they're limiting it just to justify a Ti.
I want to believe in Vega but AMD's past performance is not inspiring.
>>55005566
Either a 1080p 22" or a 1440p 24"
fixed
>>55005520
Using WQHD since 2009, dual monitor since 2014. Now on a Eizo Foris FS2735.
In my opinion, the difference is gigantic. When I have to use a FHD display nowadays, everything feels so cramped. It's like you have no space at all on your display.
In games, it mostly leads to a much sharper image, providing more detail, depending on the game sometimes you're able to display more content. You can significantly reduce the AA setting.
>>55006561
>>55006783
You guys never used a 144Hz WQHD display, I guess?
Your GPU will in almost any case be bottlenecked by your CPU. I have an OCed 5820K and a 290X, and the latter got enough spare performance in most games to run SSAA, while the CPU is maxed out.
That largely depends on the game and stuff, obviously. Games that run well on low-mid range hardware will run a stable 144 FPS on my system, which plenty of spare power.
Then there are games that will never run 144 FPS, no matter what you try. Mostly those are DX9/10/11 games without multithreading, with only 60Hz displays in mind. Those make up the largest chunk, unfortunately.
Then there's a handful of newer games that max out my 290X way before my 5820K, when you crank the settings up to Ultra. But none of them will run stable 120+ FPS either, because when you turn down settings the bottleneck switches back to the CPU, and you're fucked.
And then there is a small set of games with proper multithreading, where the CPU doesn't bottleneck, and you have to adjust your settings to get 120+ FPS with 100% GPU load.
So, tl;dr:
144Hz at FHD or WQHD doesn't matter. CPU is the bottleneck, and resolution is largely irrelevant.
WQHD provides a large upgrade in image quality, even if you adjust settings so the GPU is under the same load and FPS are equal.
And the thing most people forget:
If you use Freesync, even getting 80-90 FPS on a 144Hz monitor is huge upgrade over a 60Hz monitor. You don't always have to max out the FPS.
>>55005520
Went from a BenQ XL2420TE(1080p, 144 Hz, TN) to Asus PG279Q(1440p, 165 Hz, IPS and G-Sync) and the difference is massive. 1440p is a huge leap over the 1080p and on top of the that viewing angles, color accuracy and G-Sync make it such a joy to use in games and desktop use alike.
>worth it
For me yes. Stupid question.
>>55005577
how many burgers is that?
