1080p 144hz or 2k 60hz

[Pastor Peanut]

So am considering to upgrade my monitor from a 60hz 1080p panel. So would it be better to have higher fps with a good display (no pixels) or a slightly lower fps with a very good display (no pixels). Also 2k 144hz would not really be an option as my pc is not powerful enough. Any suggestions or even budget friendly possible monitors would be helpful. Thanks

[Cherrycat]

I had an awful issue years ago with stuttering and frame skips in games, also found that sometimes games that were running at low frame rates 30-40 would look terrible and be almost unplayable.

When I got my 144mhz monitor all this went away, I could put witcher 3 on ultra and have it playing at 30-40 fps and looked fine.

I don't really know why this happens (maybe the higher refresh rate fools the eyes or something) but it made pc gaming enjoyable again for me, and not a chore of fixing things before I could play now as it used to be.

120-144mhz monitor is the best option imo, it's not so much about the higher fps possibility either as I said because it gives a better performance even at much lower fps.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

I would take more cycles over higher resolution.

[Pastor Peanut]

Originally posted by Cherrycat:

I had an awful issue years ago with stuttering and frame skips in games, also found that sometimes games that were running at low frame rates 30-40 would look terrible and be almost unplayable.

When I got my 144mhz monitor all this went away, I could put witcher 3 on ultra and have it playing at 30-40 fps and looked fine.

I don't really know why this happens (maybe the higher refresh rate fools the eyes or something) but it made pc gaming enjoyable again for me, and not a chore of fixing things before I could play now as it used to be.

120-144mhz monitor is the best option imo, it's not so much about the higher fps possibility either as I said because it gives a better performance even at much lower fps.

woah thats cool, so even with the same FPS as your old monitor it looked smoother?

[Sazzouu]

2K is the most efficient way to waste your money, since you cannot really see a difference between 1080p and 2K; at least in Videogames since they are way too fast paced in most of the cases and the frames you see are physically rendered just in time unlike movies.
On top of that gaming always has benifits when having higher refreshrates (as long as your hardware can handle it) so I would definately say go for 1080p@144Hz

[Ogami]

Originally posted by BeatZ:

2K is the most efficient way to waste your money, since you cannot really see a difference between 1080p and 2K

Yeah sorry but that is just not true.
I switched to a 2k monitor last year and its a difference between night & day to 1080p.
Everything is much crisper , you get less resolution jaggies, and it just looks better all around.

[Sazzouu]

Originally posted by Ogami:

Originally posted by BeatZ:

2K is the most efficient way to waste your money, since you cannot really see a difference between 1080p and 2K

Yeah sorry but that is just not true.
I switched to a 2k monitor last year and its a difference between night & day to 1080p.
Everything is much crisper , you get less resolution jaggies, and it just looks better all around.

Well, placebo-effect is real on your side then...
Here are some simple maths to give you a hint of what is wrong with that statement:

• 1080p -> 1920x1080 = 2.073.600
  
• 2K -> 2048x1080 = 2.211.840
  
• 4K -> 3840x2160 = 8.294.400

So basically you have an increase of around 10% from 1080p to 2K. I guess you made the common mistake to mix-up 2K with 1440p normaly known as QHD; spoken Quad-HD since it is exactly four times the resolution of HD-Ready (720p). Anyways even the difference between 1080p and 1440p is not worth the extra money since you would have like a 30% increase on the resolution with a 50% price-increase.

Sure you could also say it's all about personal impressions but how about this (ignore the title)...

YouTube™ Video: 4K Gaming is Dumb 

Views: 5,132,554

Go to http://www.privacy.com/linus to get $5 off your first purchase! Gaming companies keep pushing that "4K IS THE FUTURE!", and although it is, we think it's still a long ways off.

They made up some blind testing of three monitors with 1080p, 1440p and 4K and let random people with different gaming behaviours test them and try to figure out which display has what resolution and basically NO ONE could see a difference even between 1080p and 1440p even though 1440p is even higher than 2K.

You could also pick some random articles all around the internet saying the same things over and over....
https://www.digitalcitizen.life/what-screen-resolution-or-aspect-ratio-what-do-720p-1080i-1080p-mean

• 720p = 1280 x 720 - is usually known as HD or "HD Ready" resolution
  
• 1080p = 1920 x 1080 - is usually known as FHD or "Full HD" resolution
  
• 2K = 2048 x 1080 - this refers to displays that have a horizontal resolution of approximately 2000 pixels. Although it is close to 1080p, it is considered as a different resolution standard.
  
• 1440p = 2560 x 1440 - commonly known as QHD or Quad HD resolution, and typically seen on gaming monitors and on high-end smartphones. 1440p is four times the resolution of 720p HD or "HD ready."
  
• 4K or 2160p = 3840 x 2160 - commonly known as 4K, UHD or Ultra HD resolution. It is a huge display resolution, and it is found on premium TVs and computer monitors. 2160p is called 4K because the width is close to 4000 pixels. In other words, it offers four times the pixels of 1080p FHD or "Full HD."
  
• 8K or 4320p = 7680 x 4320 - is known as 8K and it offers 16 times more pixels than the regular 1080p FHD or "Full HD" resolution. For now, you see 8K only on expensive TVs from Samsung and LG. However, you can test whether your computer can render such a large amount of data using this 8K video sample:

Just one example

[PAX]

I feel the same way, that 60fps with 144hz is smoother than 60fps with 60hz, maybe even compared to 144fps with 60hz, haven't tested that though. But If you buy a 144hz monitor and not use that refresh rate, why buy one at all.
Anyways, i lean to higher refresh rate over resolution. I can never go back to 60hz.

[Talby]

Originally posted by Ogami:

Originally posted by BeatZ:

2K is the most efficient way to waste your money, since you cannot really see a difference between 1080p and 2K

Yeah sorry but that is just not true.
I switched to a 2k monitor last year and its a difference between night & day to 1080p.
Everything is much crisper , you get less resolution jaggies, and it just looks better all around.

Fully agree, I can absolutely see the difference between 1080 and 1440, given the proper size monitor (same applies to TVs):

15" 720p, 19" 900p, 24" 1080p, 27" 1440p, 35"+ you want 4k.

Also how far you are sitting is going to have a very large impact. Common sense lol...

Originally posted by BeatZ:

...They made up some blind testing of three monitors with 1080p, 1440p and 4K and let random people with different gaming behaviours test them and try to figure out which display has what resolution and basically NO ONE could see a difference even between 1080p and 1440p even though 1440p is even higher than 2K...

Let me guess - they used a 24" monitor right? At that resolution you will not see the additional details the higher resolutions can offer.

[FeilDOW]

Originally posted by BeatZ:

Originally posted by Ogami:

Yeah sorry but that is just not true.
I switched to a 2k monitor last year and its a difference between night & day to 1080p.
Everything is much crisper , you get less resolution jaggies, and it just looks better all around.

Well, placebo-effect is real on your side then...
Here are some simple maths to give you a hint of what is wrong with that statement:

• 1080p -> 1920x1080 = 2.073.600
  
• 2K -> 2048x1080 = 2.211.840
  
• 4K -> 3840x2160 = 8.294.400

So basically you have an increase of around 10% from 1080p to 2K. I guess you made the common mistake to mix-up 2K with 1440p normaly known as QHD; spoken Quad-HD since it is exactly four times the resolution of HD-Ready (720p). Anyways even the difference between 1080p and 1440p is not worth the extra money since you would have like a 30% increase on the resolution with a 50% price-increase.

Sure you could also say it's all about personal impressions but how about this (ignore the title)...

YouTube™ Video: 4K Gaming is Dumb 

Views: 5,132,554

Go to http://www.privacy.com/linus to get $5 off your first purchase! Gaming companies keep pushing that "4K IS THE FUTURE!", and although it is, we think it's still a long ways off.

They made up some blind testing of three monitors with 1080p, 1440p and 4K and let random people with different gaming behaviours test them and try to figure out which display has what resolution and basically NO ONE could see a difference even between 1080p and 1440p even though 1440p is even higher than 2K.

You could also pick some random articles all around the internet saying the same things over and over....
https://www.digitalcitizen.life/what-screen-resolution-or-aspect-ratio-what-do-720p-1080i-1080p-mean

• 720p = 1280 x 720 - is usually known as HD or "HD Ready" resolution
  
• 1080p = 1920 x 1080 - is usually known as FHD or "Full HD" resolution
  
• 2K = 2048 x 1080 - this refers to displays that have a horizontal resolution of approximately 2000 pixels. Although it is close to 1080p, it is considered as a different resolution standard.
  
• 1440p = 2560 x 1440 - commonly known as QHD or Quad HD resolution, and typically seen on gaming monitors and on high-end smartphones. 1440p is four times the resolution of 720p HD or "HD ready."
  
• 4K or 2160p = 3840 x 2160 - commonly known as 4K, UHD or Ultra HD resolution. It is a huge display resolution, and it is found on premium TVs and computer monitors. 2160p is called 4K because the width is close to 4000 pixels. In other words, it offers four times the pixels of 1080p FHD or "Full HD."
  
• 8K or 4320p = 7680 x 4320 - is known as 8K and it offers 16 times more pixels than the regular 1080p FHD or "Full HD" resolution. For now, you see 8K only on expensive TVs from Samsung and LG. However, you can test whether your computer can render such a large amount of data using this 8K video sample:

Just one example

When OP says 2k he means QHD 2560x1440, and there is a nice differance from FHD to QHD.

[Snow]

Originally posted by FeilDOW:

When OP says 2k he means QHD 2560x1440

Imagine you buying something with "$22" sticker on it, and the seller charging you $37 saying "Oh, when I wrote 22 I did mean 37". Mistakes like that should not happen, so I'm glad to see BeatZ spent few minutes to explain the difference.

[Ogami]

Originally posted by BeatZ:

Well, placebo-effect is real on your side then...
Here are some simple maths to give you a hint of what is wrong with that statement:

• 1080p -> 1920x1080 = 2.073.600
  
• 2K -> 2048x1080 = 2.211.840
  
• 4K -> 3840x2160 = 8.294.400
  
  
• 720p = 1280 x 720 - is usually known as HD or "HD Ready" resolution
  
• 1080p = 1920 x 1080 - is usually known as FHD or "Full HD" resolution
  
• 2K = 2048 x 1080 - this refers to displays that have a horizontal resolution of approximately

2k is not 2048x1080 in monitor sizes. A 2k monitor is 2560x1440.
There are no 2048x1080 monitors. The next step after 1920x1080 is 2560x1440.
Which are 3,686,400 pixels, nearly 70% more then 1080p.

When someone asks if he should get a 2k monitor he means 2560x1440.

[FeilDOW]

Originally posted by Snow:

Originally posted by FeilDOW:

When OP says 2k he means QHD 2560x1440

Imagine you buying something with "$22" sticker on it, and the seller charging you $37 saying "Oh, when I wrote 22 I did mean 37". Mistakes like that should not happen, so I'm glad to see BeatZ spent few minutes to explain the difference.

Please point me to a 2048x1080 monitor.

[Snow]

Originally posted by FeilDOW:

Originally posted by Snow:

Imagine you buying something with "$22" sticker on it, and the seller charging you $37 saying "Oh, when I wrote 22 I did mean 37". Mistakes like that should not happen, so I'm glad to see BeatZ spent few minutes to explain the difference.

Please point me to a 2048x1080 monitor.

Sure, this one[pro.jvc.com] features full 2048x1080 compatibility. It's a cinema standart mostly used in projectors and broadcast studio monitors. Asking for 2k monitor for home PC gaming is just technically wrong.

Originally posted by Ogami:

There are no 2048x1080 monitors.

There are barely any having LCD panel of that resolution, but a lot of expensive ones rated for 2048x1080.

[Ogami]

Originally posted by Snow:

There are barely any having LCD panel of that resolution, but a lot of expensive ones rated for 2048x1080.

That may well be but its totally indigenous to say 2048x1080 is 2k in pc gaming.
If someone who games on pc says "2k" he means 2560x1440.
If you search for 2k monitors in pc shops you get 2560x1440.

Its was perfectly clear that the OP meant 2k as in 2560x1440. Going on this whole spiel of " well placebo, pixel density, bla bla " was just completely useless info dump which had nothing to do with the topic question..
2560x1440 IS far superior to 1920x1080 in pixel count and how it looks and that was all i said.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ogami:

That may well be but its totally indigenous to say 2048x1080 is 2k in pc gaming.

Because there is NO 2K in PC gaming. At all.

Originally posted by Ogami:

If someone who games on pc says "2k" he means 2560x1440.

If someone who games on PC thinks 2560 is closer to 2000 than 1920 then he's just bad at math.

Originally posted by Ogami:

Going on this whole spiel of " well placebo, pixel density, bla bla " was just completely useless info dump which had nothing to do with the topic question..

The exact question was about 2K, and the answer given by BeatZ was so far the only one related to the question.