• 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.

Poll: What resolution do you game at?

What resolution do you game at?

  • 1920 x 1080 (HD)

    Votes: 197 34.8%

  • 2560 x 1080 (HD Super-wide)

    Votes: 19 3.4%

  • 2560 x 1440 (2K)

    Votes: 210 37.1%

  • 3440 x 1440 (2k Super-wide)

    Votes: 79 14.0%

  • 3840 × 2160 (4K)

    Votes: 48 8.5%

  • 5120 x 2880 (5k)

    Votes: 1 0.2%

  • NV Surround

    Votes: 4 0.7%

  • AMD Eyefinity

    Votes: 8 1.4%
  • Total voters
    566
1440p warrior here, but I would gladly go to 4k if I could afford the hardware to sustain it. I don't enjoy playing games at anything but highest settings.
 
OnionSpark said:
It's cheaper to manufacture 16:9 panels across the board, meaning cheaper screens for us, so even though it's an inferior aspect ratio, a lot of people settle for it because it's better value for them. ;)

16:9 is best for TV, though. So... if you're mostly watching lots of TV on your monitor instead of gaming or productivity etc, then it's cheaper AND better. :D

There are still a few 16:10 screens out there - plenty of 30" 1600P screens if you look around (albeit at 60Hz and without Freesync/G-Sync), and a friend just picked up a Dell U2415 last month. I'm surprised so many gamers are settling for 16:9 instead of demanding better - usually we're up in arms over the smallest things! I wonder if many people simply haven't tried 16:10 and so they don't know.
Click to expand...

Never underestimate the power of marketing, coupled with people who can't be bothered to do any research.

Marketing managed to convinced *a lot* of people, that a 1920x1200 screen is actually *worse* than 1920x1080 screen. By using -horiz on the 16:10 instead of +vert.

And sooooo many people lapped it up, telling us all how 1920x1200 screens were out of date and inferior to their pixel-challenged 16:9 counterparts.
 
Been at 1440p for a couple of years now (4 I think) and if I had to choose to upgrade I'd most likely pick another 1440p one but at 120hz+ to give high refresh rate monitors out
 
1920x1080, I see absolutely no reason to change, I'm not unhappy with anything my monitor displays, and it allows me to get a few extra fps over a higher res monitor.
 
Sgt_Pepper said:
1920x1080, I see absolutely no reason to change, I'm not unhappy with anything my monitor displays, and it allows me to get a few extra fps over a higher res monitor.
Click to expand...

I thought that until I tried an x34:eek::cool:

I used to 1080p in my studio...within weeks I upgraded to 2xDell u2715h
 
2560x1080
AND
2560x1440.

I mainly game on the 2560x1080 but on those pesky games that don't do 21:9 then its the 2560x1440 (i'm looking at you Overwatch).

I am however wanting to get a 3440x1440 at one point.
 
4K display if I can but generally I'm struggling and dialling back to 1440p. I'm hoping 1080 SLI will fix the pain.

Luckily some of my favourite games (Rocket League, Overwatch) run really well at 4K with no great issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom