Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

1080p 144Hz vs 1440p 60Hz

Tags:
  • Intel i5
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
October 27, 2013 10:26:43 PM

I am planning on building a pc soon with an i5 3570k and two AMD 290Xs in crossfire. I plan on playing mostly Arma III but also other modern games like BF4. I know that at 1440p one 290x can handle Arma III at average 45fps (Quite a bit less online though). Two would give me a stable 60fps online I assume. But at 1080p I'm guessing that I would get an average of 80-100 fps. What are the disadvantages and advantages of both setups. Does 20-40 more frames per second make a noticeable improvement in visual enjoyment? Or is 1440p vastly superior to 1080p?

More about : 1080p 144hz 1440p 60hz

Best solution

October 27, 2013 11:41:59 PM

290X Crossfire at 1080p is a waste of time, isn't giving the cards enough work, so Crossfire doesn't scale because of CPU bottlenecks.

1440p VS 1080p isn't the huge leap people sometimes make it out to be, but its certainly al lot better for big displays. You still need AA, but the image is alot clearer, and you don't get thin objects popping in and out existence like you do with 1080p.

120/144Hz isn't really for the extra framerate, 60FPS 120Hz is a billion times better than 60FPS 60Hz (both without Vsync) because theres pretty much no tearing and alot less input lag.

You can have your cake and eat it if you go with an Xstar or Qnix though. $300, 1440p, Samsung PLS panel, 96Hz, no scaler so no input lag.
Share
October 28, 2013 12:53:14 AM

depends weather super fast response times of the monitor is important to you (normally for competitive gamers), or image quality. I would prefer the 1440p image quality. a single 290x would be fine for most games at 1440p, and certainly enough for 1080p.
m
0
l
October 28, 2013 1:49:21 AM

cookybiscuit said:
290X Crossfire at 1080p is a waste of time, isn't giving the cards enough work, so Crossfire doesn't scale because of CPU bottlenecks.

1440p VS 1080p isn't the huge leap people sometimes make it out to be, but its certainly al lot better for big displays. You still need AA, but the image is alot clearer, and you don't get thin objects popping in and out existence like you do with 1080p.

I've heard that since there's more headroom for higher framerates, playing a game (such as an FPS) on a 144Hz monitor with no vsync on will make it more difficult to aim because drops in FPS can throw off your aim. Say for example if I were to be playing BF4, running at about 80-90 FPS. Then the framerate goes down to 50 because of an explosion, that would throw off your aim for a bit. On a 60Hz monitor, gameplay would remain smooth as long as I keep getting frames over 60fps. I'm not sure if I'm right or not, I have never owned either types of monitors.

120/144Hz isn't really for the extra framerate, 60FPS 120Hz is a billion times better than 60FPS 60Hz (both without Vsync) because theres pretty much no tearing and alot less input lag.

You can have your cake and eat it if you go with an Xstar or Qnix though. $300, 1440p, Samsung PLS panel, 96Hz, no scaler so no input lag.


m
0
l