• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Thinking of going 1440p how much extra strain on gpu?

chris-82

chris-82

chris-82

Associate
Joined
8 Jan 2012
Posts
2,296
Location
Cornwall
So I'm on a new monitor hunt and have been flitting between a good colour reproduction 1920x1080p monitor,120/144hz monitor or a 1440p monitor I just have a few questions regarding the gpu in most cases.being 1440p is the only monitor that would add strain to my gpu so anyone using or had 1440p I would love any feedback

I have a 7950 currently will this handle 1440p okay?
Does it make a large difference going for 1080 to 1440p? Is it worth it?
Is it worth it?
Does it put much more strain (lower fps) on the gpu? If so is it a large drop or?

Thanks for any feedback much appreciated
Chris
 
Your 7950 will be ok although you may have to reduce a few settings such as AA/AF.

I went from 1080p to 1440p and in gaming it dosent make much difference tbh but in windows the extra desktop space is pretty nice to have :)
 
Ahh well I only game on my pc tbh I don't really use it for much else maybe worth sticking to 1080p then if that's the case!

Do all games support 1440p?
 
Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 is almost 80% increase in pixel density so that demands some GPU power.
In Unigine Heaven at max settings & 8xAA I get 55,4FPS at 2560x1440, when running 1920x1080 I get 91,6 FPS. That's a 36,2 FPS difference.
 
thanks for the replys do people think its worth the jump to 1440p or is it better to just get a good 1080p monitor instead?

as this seems like upgrading of gpu's will be a lot more frequent using 1440p
 
chris-82 said:
thanks for the replys do people think its worth the jump to 1440p or is it better to just get a good 1080p monitor instead?

as this seems like upgrading of gpu's will be a lot more frequent using 1440p
Click to expand...

I had an Asus VW266H 26" 1920x1200 which I upgraded to Asus PB278Q 27" 2560x1440 3 weeks ago and I do not regret it at all. The difference in clearity and the better pixel density makes gaming so much more immersive - and going from a TN planel to an Super-PLS (or IPS for that matter) is definetely worth it. So much better viewing angles. I discover details in games I never even realized before.

Remember that eventhough you have a native resolution of 2560x1440 you can still play games at 1920x1080 if needed ! the interpolation downwards on this screen is outstanding.
 
I'm looking into getting a 2560x1440 monitor, but don't know which one to get?

I'm looking into a DGM 27" 1440p or the Hazro HZ27WB 27" 1440p? I do like the DGM 27", but it has so many issues and it's the same price this week as the Dell U2713HM 27". also the dell has it's only issues like cross hatching and Backlight Bleeds can be really bad on the dell. At least in reviews I've read.
 
RetrogamerX said:
I'm looking into getting a 2560x1440 monitor, but don't know which one to get?

I'm looking into a DGM 27" 1440p or the Hazro HZ27WB 27" 1440p? I do like the DGM 27", but it has so many issues and it's the same price this week as the Dell U2713HM 27". also the dell has it's only issues like cross hatching and Backlight Bleeds can be really bad on the dell. At least in reviews I've read.
Click to expand...

I was originally also going for the Dell U2713HM but I also found it to be a "gamble" to get one without severe backlight bleeding. So instead I went for the Asus PB278Q and I don't regret it at all. I may not be fancy looking, but I does what I need it to do :)
Wrote a bit about my impressions with it here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18520067&highlight=pb278q
 
Yes 1440p is way more demanding than 1080p,but.. The flipside is medium settings @ 1440p look a lot better than max setting @ 1080p. You don't need lot's of AA with 1440P either, in fact some games look better without AA @ 1440p so with that said 1440p is def a better option for gaming. If you want to put the settings up to max you will need a GTX 780 / Titan or dual card setup..

AMD's upcoming HD 9970 should do a great job @ 1440p like the 780...
 
Tonester0011 said:
Going from 1080p > 1440p requires around 35% more GPU grunt to push the same framerate using the same settings.
Click to expand...

Make that 80%
80% more pixels to fill does pretty much = 80% more GPU power required.

For example: 470 in BF3 @ 1080p performs the same as a 670 in BF3 @ 1440p. This is from personal experience.
 
I went 1440p briefly, It was nice, the extra desktop space isn't as valuable as people say imo. :p Games did look very pretty and detailed.

I'm on 1920x1200 now, I like 16:10. :)
 
no_1_dave said:
Make that 80%
80% more pixels to fill does pretty much = 80% more GPU power required.

For example: 470 in BF3 @ 1080p performs the same as a 670 in BF3 @ 1440p. This is from personal experience.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way. Increase in pixel count isn't a linear increase in load.

Going from 1080 > 1600 for instance is 97% more pixels whereas the average load increase is around 45%. Game dependent, some are more, some are less. I made a chart a while ago when this very same topic was argued, i've lost the source material (game benchmarks) but i'll upload my thingy when i find it.

Going from 1600 > 5760 on the other hand is 51% more pixels but the load increase is on average 47% more.
 
chris-82 said:
Does it put much more strain (lower fps) on the gpu? If so is it a large drop or?

Thanks for any feedback much appreciated
Chris
Click to expand...

This will give you an idea

Heaven 4 bench run @1080p and 1600p (my rig can not do 1440p) using a single card at stock. 1600p uses double the number of pixels that 1080p uses.

1080p
ypjm.jpg


1600p
ghd9.jpg
 
Tonester0011 said:
Doesn't work that way. Increase in pixel count isn't a linear increase in load.

Going from 1080 > 1600 for instance is 97% more pixels whereas the average load increase is around 45%. Game dependent, some are more, some are less. I made a chart a while ago when this very same topic was argued, i've lost the source material (game benchmarks) but i'll upload my thingy when i find it.

Going from 1600 > 5760 on the other hand is 51% more pixels but the load increase is on average 47% more.
Click to expand...

You have to be careful when testing @1080p as the CPU bottlenecks the cards in a powerful setup.

In my post above I ran the CPU @5.0ghz to avoid the bottleneck and also only used a single card for the same reason.
 
Kaapstad said:
You have to be careful when testing @1080p as the CPU bottlenecks the cards in a powerful setup.

In my post above I ran the CPU @5.0ghz to avoid the bottleneck and also only used a single card for the same reason.
Click to expand...

I used whatever was posted at the time by Gregster, so probably a techpowerup review. They run their test benches with pretty low clocked CPUs.

Heaven is also very GPU demanding at 1080, so i was surprised by only 75% more demanding instead of a more linear performance requirement.

I'll have to test 1080 vs 1440 tomorrow, pretty sure my monitor is still upstairs gathering dust :D I'll be able to run my CPU at a high clock to avoid as best possible any bottleneck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom