Any downside to playing at 1440p on a 4k monitor?

beany_bot · 12 May 2016 at 09:55

With 4k monitors coming down and down in price I was thinking about getting one. However, I won't be able to game at 4k so would want to game in 1440p. Is there a downside to having a 4k monitor running at 1440p over buying a 1440p monitor?

I just don't see the point buying a 1440p monitor when I can future proof myself by buying a 4k monitor and gaming at 1440p. Unless of course, there is a downside.

PCM2 · 12 May 2016 at 10:11

There is a downside to running non-native resolutions on any monitor. An interpolation process is used to display the non-native resolution which leads to a softer image than displaying that resolution natively. In this case, 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) is 'interpolated' (scaled) to fit the 3840 x 2160 pixels of the monitor. In my vast experience with '4K' UHD monitors, you can expect a fair degree of softening compared to a native WQHD display of similar size.

Also, the R9 390x, assuming you have that, is perfectly capable of gaming at UHD with some reduced settings. And I can assure you, you're better off toning down some settings at UHD than interpolating the 2560 x 1440 resolution. If it's really going to be a while before you upgrade your GPU and would prefer the 2560 x 1440 resolution then I'd suggest a native 2560 x 1440 monitor instead.

beany_bot · 12 May 2016 at 10:30

PCM2 said:
There is a downside to running non-native resolutions on any monitor. An interpolation process is used to display the non-native resolution which leads to a softer image than displaying that resolution natively. In this case, 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) is 'interpolated' (scaled) to fit the 3840 x 2160 pixels of the monitor. In my vast experience with '4K' UHD monitors, you can expect a fair degree of softening compared to a native WQHD display of similar size.

Also, the R9 390x, assuming you have that, is perfectly capable of gaming at UHD with some reduced settings. And I can assure you, you're better off toning down some settings at UHD than interpolating the 2560 x 1440 resolution. If it's really going to be a while before you upgrade your GPU and would prefer the 2560 x 1440 resolution then I'd suggest a native 2560 x 1440 monitor instead.

If it was puerly for gaming then I would probably agree with you but I want to watch 4K youtube, netflix, Amazon prime (new top gear is in 4K). And my gopro footage in 4K.

All these reasons make me want to jump straight to 4K.

As for upgrading my GPU. I will probably wait until something like the 1080Ti is down around £300/£400. Something that can really handle 4K. Probably 2017/2018 at some point.

GMac11 · 12 May 2016 at 10:56

I've hit this personal dilemma myself in the last day or so.

Just splashed out on a 4k monitor and while I can run most of my games, mainly racing games, at a healthy 60FPS with gsync at 4k I struggle with Just Cause 3.

What I have found that even lowering the graphics doesn't still quite get you there and I have resorted to playing it at 1440p.

I was achieving 30-40FPS at 4k and it looked amazing but not very fluid, changed to 1440p and the difference is night and day.

This is where I disagree slightly with PCM2, I naturally would usually agree that upping the Resolution will do far more for you than upping the Post Processing faffery but in the case of Just Cause 3 I find the 1440p actually better although it's a very subjective issue so each to their own.

bimbleuk · 12 May 2016 at 11:23

I got round the interpolation issue by just buying a dirty great big monitor and ran a 1:1 pixel ~32" fullscreen output on it. It worked great for Witcher 3 for example which I played many hours like that. The 60Hz cap didn't bother me too much as my setup was able to maintain a minimum 60 fps most of the time and I used V-Sync to keep it smooth.

As a result I eventually decided I liked 21:9 best and when the Acer 34" monitors were announced I wanted one of those for my main display.

I could make the monitor scale to the full screen width but it did loose a tiny bit of the crispess of the 1:1 pixel mode.

Scottland · 12 May 2016 at 11:25

I think modern high density pixel displays give a much better experience than previous years of 1080P displays running at 720P for instance.

I have a Dell U3415W and running at 2560*1080 isn't as bad as you'd think. However I'd guess once you have a 4K display, you'll want to run everything at 4k.

PCM2 · 12 May 2016 at 11:34

GMac11 said:
I've hit this personal dilemma myself in the last day or so.

Just splashed out on a 4k monitor and while I can run most of my games, mainly racing games, at a healthy 60FPS with gsync at 4k I struggle with Just Cause 3.

What I have found that even lowering the graphics doesn't still quite get you there and I have resorted to playing it at 1440p.

I was achieving 30-40FPS at 4k and it looked amazing but not very fluid, changed to 1440p and the difference is night and day.

This is where I disagree slightly with PCM2, I naturally would usually agree that upping the Resolution will do far more for you than upping the Post Processing faffery but in the case of Just Cause 3 I find the 1440p actually better although it's a very subjective issue so each to their own.

That's a fair point. It certainly does depend on the game and also which settings you're sacrificing. And beany_bot, if you're wanting to use the monitor for the array of things you are then it certainly seems that jumping straight into '4K' would makes sense.