Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1440p or 1080p display for Gaming?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Tom's Hardware
  • Graphics
  • Resolution
  • Monitors
  • Displays
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 24, 2013 6:30:02 AM

Dear respected community of Tom's Hardware,

I'm stuck between two monitors;
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-pb278q

Resolution: 2560x1440
Panel: IPS
Size: 27''
Response time: 5ms



and




http://gaming.benq.com/gaming-monitor/xl2720t

Resolution: 1920x1080
Panel: TN
Size: 27''
Response time: 1ms




So, I'd prefer the 1440p by Asus in a heartbeat, mainly due to the IPS and 1440p, as I love higher ppi, and I'm into Video Editing and Graphic Design as a hobby as well as gaming. The 3D of the BenQ, I'm not a big fan of, huge gimmick in my opinion. The only thing making me hold back my purchase of the Asus, is BenQ's 120Hz, and Asus' 5ms response time.
So my main field of gaming is twitch FPS where low response time is critical, although I must say I'm not an expert, the only true way to notice a difference is by trying both monitors out side by side with a game like that.
So, my question is, will the 5ms of the Asus make a noticeable difference with BenQ's ultra low 1ms and 120Hz? My brother has the BenQxl2420t, and I must say I can't really notice a difference between 60Hz and 120Hz.

Please hold back passionate opinions about response time, I mean I see different hate-filled discussions and opinions on different forums, everyone says something different wherever you look, but barely none base it on fact or personal experience. Hopefully Tom's Hardware is above that!

Anyway, thanks so much for taking your time to read this, I look forward to your response.

More about : 1440p 1080p display gaming

May 24, 2013 6:52:47 AM

I have an 120hz Samsung monitor and all I can only comment on that side.
I don't know why but after switching to 120hz monitor my eyes didn't hurt as much as they did after a week of 14 hours of looking at screen per day. It seems it's easier to look at 120hz because of it's double the refresh rate of most of the monitors. Even though it's not the real motion that you can see in the world, it's still comforting for your eyes, or you might say your brain because your brain works harder to complete the missing pictures between images to complete the motion.

But for graphic design and such you might love the 1440p resolution because I'm having hard time fitting more than 2 test documents, which requires a lot of scrolling down while I'm translating. Well only thing I can suggest is see what you are doing most and go for the monitor that fills your needs.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
May 24, 2013 7:03:57 AM

Wow. Tough call. I'd lean towards the BenQ cuz of price. But I'd love to see games at 2560x1440 assuming games can output as so.

You must be using a 7970 or at least a 680, right?
m
0
l
Related resources
May 24, 2013 7:15:30 AM

envy14tpe said:
Wow. Tough call. I'd lean towards the BenQ cuz of price. But I'd love to see games at 2560x1440 assuming games can output as so.

You must be using a 7970 or at least a 680, right?


Price is no issue, though (well, I say that, I'd prefer to stay under the $1k mark), and yes, the graphics are being powered by GTX 780.

My main thwart was concerning the response time, for twitch gaming, my initial thought was that 5ms might be too high and make a noticeable difference,

Any thoughts?

m
0
l
a c 240 4 Gaming
a c 85 C Monitor
May 24, 2013 7:17:48 AM

I have a IPS monitor and I love it ..... for photo editing, and other things where color accuracy is important. It's also a decent gaming monitor. However, I have an Asus 120 Hz monitor in the adjoining room and, when gaming, it blows the Dell IPS unit away in gaming, more contrast, brighter screen, no hint of ghosting / lag and also does 3D.

If in the US, I'd get the Asus VG248QE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If in Euro, I'd get the BenQ XL2411T

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
May 24, 2013 7:21:15 AM

I dream of the day when we can buy IPS monitors that have 2ms response time...

Like JackNaylorPE said, for gaming 2ms is better. I have a 8ms IPS and a 2ms TN. I won't go back to 8ms after experiencing the speed difference. However, if I wanted a monitor for editing (my IPS) and gaming then I would buy a 5ms IPS monitor.
m
0
l
May 24, 2013 7:22:24 AM

1440p offers great quality, but it takes a powerful GPU to maintain it in certain games.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
May 24, 2013 7:24:32 AM

If you are using a 780 then 1440p is probably a better pick, use more of what it has to give, or you could get both and import a 120Hz 1440p panel.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2013 7:28:50 AM

Double check the 780 benches on this site. For shooters, need both fast response from the monitor and consistent frames from the GPU. If you go 1440p, a single 780 barely clears 60fps in BF3 single player - multi will be less than that. So then the question becomes are you willing to turn down some eye candy to ensure you stay above 60? I have seen some feedback that you don't need as much AA and such with 1440 (compared to 1080).
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2013 7:29:53 AM

So... for human eye actually, it is impossible to realize the difference between 60hz and 120hz.

The difference only comes into play where you can only notice it is fast action scenery. It doesnt effect the quality of your view, but it effects how fast the next scene comes into your view. So, actually still you dont realize it with your eyes, but if your monitor is not fast enough it may not proceed the intended view on time.
As long as you are not viewing something extra fast (maybe something like, a bullet shot or a fast served tennis ball) scenery, you shouldnt notice any difference.

about resolution, you may want to cross-check your gpu compatibility with the resolutions you stated above. If your gpu is not powerful enough, there is no point investing a larger screen where you will lose performance significantly.

So as a conclusion, 120Hz screen is a safer bet for a longer term which also comes with a 1ms response time. I'd definitely go for that. Asus' only advantage is that its IPS nothing else. Which doesnt really improve the performance at all just better colors and view angles. It shouldnt be that noticeable unless you put both screens next to each other to compare.
here is the comparison from wiki...

"Advantages
IPS panels display consistent and accurate color from all viewing angles.
Unlike TN LCDs, IPS panels do not lighten or show tailing when touched. This is important for touchscreen devices, such as smartphones and tablets.
IPS panels can process high speed signals without data loss by using copper wiring with low resistance values.
IPS Panels offer clear images and stable response time.

Disadvantages
IPS panels have slower response times and are therefore more prone to the ghosting effect.
IPS panels require up to 15% more power consumption than TN displays."

Result, if you want performance monitor go for BenQ
if you want beatiful monitor from all angles go for Asus
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
May 24, 2013 8:28:14 AM

n1ghtr4v3n said:
So... for human eye actually, it is impossible to realize the difference between 60hz and 120hz.

Looks like someone hasn't used one...

If there were no advantage no one would buy them and they wouldn't be made. Theres a huge difference.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2013 10:25:16 PM

cookybiscuit said:
n1ghtr4v3n said:
So... for human eye actually, it is impossible to realize the difference between 60hz and 120hz.

Looks like someone hasn't used one...

If there were no advantage no one would buy them and they wouldn't be made. Theres a huge difference.


read the rest before making nonesense comments O_o
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 96 C Monitor
May 24, 2013 10:40:20 PM

I propose a 3rd setup, a 3x1080p setup. Having multiple screens helps a lot for productivity (I use triple monitors myself) and with something like a 780 you would be able to get good 5760x1080 gaming performance.

Of the two display setups you propose, would go for the 1440p IPS. For what your after, the higher resolution and better colours will be better than a faster refresh rate in things like video editing. Games will benefit, but they also do from a higher resolution.
The difference between 2 and 5ms response time is pretty small, unless your very sensitive to that kind of thing.
m
0
l
May 25, 2013 2:51:09 AM

I've decided I'm gonna go for the Asus 27'' IPS 1440p display, but I'd like to take some time to respond to most of your answers, as you guys took your time;

First up n1ghtr4v3n:
Quote:
So... for human eye actually, it is impossible to realize the difference between 60hz and 120hz.

The difference only comes into play where you can only notice it is fast action scenery. It doesnt effect the quality of your view, but it effects how fast the next scene comes into your view. So, actually still you dont realize it with your eyes, but if your monitor is not fast enough it may not proceed the intended view on time.
As long as you are not viewing something extra fast (maybe something like, a bullet shot or a fast served tennis ball) scenery, you shouldnt notice any difference.


No no no nononono....
First, the human eye can definitely tell the difference between 60 and 120Hz refresh rate, on something as normal as an FPS game such as Battlefield 3. I mentioned "I really can't tell the difference", I meant it doesn't woo me or count in as this amazing X factor for a display, but I can obviously very easily tell. My brother, who already has been playing on the BenQ for little over 6 months now, can even say "Yes it's 120Hz" or "It's 60 Hz", we did a fun test where we capped the FPS, to see if he could tell. So I call bullshit on this first paragraph of yours. Before my brother bought his BenQ, we read many toxic comments like these "Human eye can't tell difference". Just as bad as "Human eye is only at 60Hz" which is a laughable insult at common sense.

Quote:
about resolution, you may want to cross-check your gpu compatibility with the resolutions you stated above. If your gpu is not powerful enough, there is no point investing a larger screen where you will lose performance significantly.


I did mention I bought a Nvidia Geforce GTX 780, right? It came free as a review copy. In case you didn't know, it is the second fastest, single GPU video card on the consumer level market. And test benchmarks proved that, yes, even in these early beta stages, it can run demanding games at 1440p, easily at 60fps+

Quote:
Asus' only advantage is that its IPS nothing else.


Did you misread the title of this thread?
Pretty much the selling point of Asus' monitor is the 1440p...

Quote:
It shouldnt be that noticeable unless you put both screens next to each other to compare.


/facepalm


Next up, manofchalk:
Quote:
I propose a 3rd setup, a 3x1080p setup. Having multiple screens helps a lot for productivity (I use triple monitors myself) and with something like a 780 you would be able to get good 5760x1080 gaming performance.

I was surprised that one of you 5760p gamers didn't make a post earlier about this. But no, I am not interested, although a) It does look like an epic PC game-station b) From personal experience, it is amazing for University work, I still don't really dig it, mainly due to the bezels in between, but more importantly, I just have a preference for one, large, screen. In fact, my current monitor is 30'', but it's TN and 1080p, if I wanted higher resolution, I'd already be at the 15ms+ response time, which for gaming is a nono.

Of the two display setups you propose, would go for the 1440p IPS. For what your after, the higher resolution and better colours will be better than a faster refresh rate in things like video editing. Games will benefit, but they also do from a higher resolution.
The difference between 2 and 5ms response time is pretty small, unless your very sensitive to that kind of thing.


Not necessarily the most researched, or informative of answers, but this small round-up of text is my favourite of all Answers so far, so thank you. I really wish there was someone who posted exactly this, but who had personal experience or at least a bit of credible expertise on the matter. I may just consult LinusTechTips for more info. Anyway, I feel like you had the best answer here.

Next up, J_E_D_70:
Quote:
Double check the 780 benches on this site. For shooters, need both fast response from the monitor and consistent frames from the GPU. If you go 1440p, a single 780 barely clears 60fps in BF3 single player - multi will be less than that. So then the question becomes are you willing to turn down some eye candy to ensure you stay above 60? I have seen some feedback that you don't need as much AA and such with 1440 (compared to 1080).


The GTX 670, with current drivers, can play Battlefield 3 at highest settings possible, at 1440p, at an avg. of 55fps, just 4fps lower than the GTX Titan. As you mentioned, this is on singleplayer, but I don't know whether multiplayer demands more? I wouldn't be surprised, but then, I'd love for you to source your intel. on this, because usually the rule of thumb with multiplayer games is to lower the GFX for multiplayer, in order to reduce lag for the whole crowd, example; Call Of Duty series.

Anyway, 55fps (Average) is not my cup of tea, I'd prefer a smooth 90fps. Now you're thinking "How can a 60Hz monitor do 90fps". It can't, but my point is, I don't really want it ever to go below 60fps, so a stable 90fps avg. should do that just fine. So, in order to achieve a secure 90fps+, yes I'm willing to turn down a few minor settings. I heard that in Battlefield 3 there are things you can turn down which will turn off looks you can barely notice, meanwhile dramatically improving performance.

I would do this for every game (lower one or two settings to get a nice 75-90fps), until 3 or 4 years down the line, where I'll either replace my card, or buy a second GTX 780 for SLI.

Next up, cookybiscuit:
Quote:
If you are using a 780 then 1440p is probably a better pick, use more of what it has to give, or you could get both and import a 120Hz 1440p panel.


This.
I understand that a 780 on a 1080p TN Panel is a bit overkill, but my point was about the response time, does anybody have the experience to confirm whether or not there is a noticable, game-changing difference between 1ms and 5ms, on twitch FPS games?

Next up, JackNaylorPE:
Quote:
I have a IPS monitor and I love it ..... for photo editing, and other things where color accuracy is important. It's also a decent gaming monitor. However, I have an Asus 120 Hz monitor in the adjoining room and, when gaming, it blows the Dell IPS unit away in gaming, more contrast, brighter screen, no hint of ghosting / lag and also does 3D.


What IPS monitor do you have? I'm sure the response time must be very high on this one, right? Also, I'm not interested in 3D in the least...very gimmicky concept that I hope gets ousted from the gaming scene, pretty soon.

Quote:
If in the US, I'd get the Asus VG248QE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If in Euro, I'd get the BenQ XL2411T

I live in Euro, but I'm not interested in a 24'' screen, after owning a 30'' for little over a year, I can't go back to anything smaller than 27''. And on a 1440p where ppi is high, I just can't say no.



m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 96 C Monitor
May 25, 2013 3:23:48 AM

Hehe, check my sig.
That guide is currently sticked to the top of the Computer Peripherals forum, I would say I know a fair bit about monitors :p .

Also unfortunately I'm not one of those 5760x1080 gamers, one of my screens is 1680x1050, while the other two are 1080p. No Eyefinity for me, even if my graphics could keep up :( .
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 28, 2013 6:58:42 AM

A 670 at full ultra 1080p dips down the the 40s too often for my taste. By turning MSAA off, setting Antialiasing Post to High, and turning on adaptive vsync I stay locked right at 60, maybe occasional dip to 59.
m
0
l
May 28, 2013 9:37:01 AM

J_E_D_70 said:
A 670 at full ultra 1080p dips down the the 40s too often for my taste. By turning MSAA off, setting Antialiasing Post to High, and turning on adaptive vsync I stay locked right at 60, maybe occasional dip to 59.


You did not read my post correctly, I repeatedly mentioned my graphics card is:
Asus Geforce GTX 780

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 28, 2013 9:48:07 AM

You said "The GTX 670, with current drivers, can play Battlefield 3 at highest settings possible, at 1440p, at an avg. of 55fps, just 4fps lower than the GTX Titan. As you mentioned, this is on singleplayer, but I don't know whether multiplayer demands more? I wouldn't be surprised, but then, I'd love for you to source your intel."

I was confirming what you mentioned, that BF3 multi takes significantly more horsepower and that you'll need to turn some settings down to get 90-ish at 1440 even on the 780.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-780-per...
670 would get around 45fps at 1440 given the above chart.
m
0
l
May 28, 2013 10:17:30 AM

J_E_D_70 said:
You said "The GTX 670, with current drivers, can play Battlefield 3 at highest settings possible, at 1440p, at an avg. of 55fps, just 4fps lower than the GTX Titan. As you mentioned, this is on singleplayer, but I don't know whether multiplayer demands more? I wouldn't be surprised, but then, I'd love for you to source your intel."

I was confirming what you mentioned, that BF3 multi takes significantly more horsepower and that you'll need to turn some settings down to get 90-ish at 1440 even on the 780.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-780-per...
670 would get around 45fps at 1440 given the above chart.


Ye, alright, I accidentally wrote 670 one single time, but 780 is mentioned 15 times, how curious that you take my one single error as the truth haha

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
May 28, 2013 11:32:58 AM

Huh? Not sure what's going on here. Trying to support your conclusion, say you are on the right track, and mention a way to get more frames out of your GPU without a lot of quality loss. You respond by being rude. I'm out.
m
0
l
May 28, 2013 12:03:22 PM

J_E_D_70 said:
Huh? Not sure what's going on here. Trying to support your conclusion, say you are on the right track, and mention a way to get more frames out of your GPU without a lot of quality loss. You respond by being rude. I'm out.


I hear ya man. I was going to give my thoughts but after reading the OP's comments and how he wants to attack any comment in response to his original question, I realized he actually doesn't want any opinions.
m
0
l
!