If you are referring to 1080p, the answer is still the vast majority.
In case I upgrade my hardware. But if as you say scaling is indeed an issue, then I'll stick to 1920x1080p.
I'd say upgrade the GPU first (whenever you think the right time is), and then select a matching monitor, not the other way around.
Wellll. For me, and I think for most people, monitors tend to stay for a lot longer than any graphics card. So I think a case can be made for getting a high res screen (I'd go straight to 4k even) and playing at reduced resolution until a stronger GPU is available at reasonable pricing.
I mean, you can get a high res monitor and just try whether the downscaled 1080p resolution is acceptable for you, and simply send it back if it's not for you.
I mean, you can get a high res monitor and just try whether the downscaled 1080p resolution is acceptable for you, and simply send it back if it's not for you.
That doesn't prevent you from getting a GPU first. I.e. you get the GPU, then a monitor it can handle. The monitor will stay around for a long time, and you likely will keep getting better GPUs, so the setup will continue working. But if you get a good monitor first your GPU might end up being underpowered - that's something that's better to avoid.
I've been using an eVGA GTX 980 ti 6 GB since the summer of 2015, and I've yet to see a game that doesn't stay between 50-60 FPS at max settings. I aim to play at 1920x1080 with Vsync on, so I can actually get performance significantly higher in most games with unlimited FPS. (I don't choose that, however, since I dislike the FPS fluctuation, find screen tearing very distracting, and prefer to keep the card running cool.) So, a 980 ti or higher should allow for smooth play at 1080p resolutions for a bit of time yet.
^ This is the major consideration if you're looking for a solid 60 FPS with most games.
As for getting into 2K / 4K resolutions -- there's nothing out there specifically built for that yet. I can play a bunch of older games at 4K resolutions on my 980 just fine, but something like TW3 or Mad Max tanks hard when trying to handle it. Whatever you buy now will still be in the "prototype" phase of handling games specifically created to be played at 2K / 4K (of which there are effectively none). True 4K gaming is going to be lovely, but the architectures of most cards and drivers are going to completely change to take advantage of it. We'll be able to deal with raw flops in the future (no need for FPS-killing anti-aliasing or tessellation techniques), but it will take some time for things to migrate. This is one of those considerations where spending a ton of money now for state-of-the-art stuff will give decent performance -- but in a few year's time, there will be drastically cheaper tech that gives excellent performance...not to mention games that truly take advantage of it.
If I was looking to buy now, I'd choose a 1080 ti, aiming for 60-120 FPS at 1080p.
_______________
As for monitors, it's largely preference. Although I recommend getting a true 16:9 aspect ratio. That allows for great forwards and backwards compatibility.
I prefer smaller screens with very rich colors, so I'm willing to sacrifice response time to get rich, full color temps. For gaming, Gsync monitors at 1080p are probably the best bang for the buck, and they've gotten much better with color overall. (My housemate just bought a Predator, and it's pitty sweeet.) The only things you need to worry about in terms of performance when considering a monitor are its refresh rate and response time:
For refresh rate, this will limit the maximum number of frames that can be drawn per second. A monitor can't display whole frames at a higher FPS than its refresh rate. Therefore, unlimited FPS with Vsync off will be needed to exceed the limit, and that means tearing. (Gsync is a way around this, but its more expensive.) Obviously, a monitor at 120 Hz will offer cleaner images and can use Vsync up to 120 FPS (a 144 Hz will cap at 144 FPS, etc.) along with less noticeable tearing using unlimited FPS. As resolution increases, overall performance goes down, but it's always possible to lower the resolution using scaling options on the GPU. Image quality may suffer doing this, however.
For response time, it's largely moot until you get into high FPS (over 60). The lower the response time, the better, with 1 ms being plenty dang fast for anything out there now. Higher response times may leave "ghost" images on the screen, since the pixels can't update quickly enough while running at very high FPS. If it happens, you're sure to notice, but it shouldn't occur on any modern monitor at 60-120 FPS.
So, the balancing act:
^ This is the major consideration if you're looking for a solid 60 FPS with most games.
As for getting into 2K / 4K resolutions -- there's nothing out there specifically built for that yet. I can play a bunch of older games at 4K resolutions on my 980 just fine, but something like TW3 or Mad Max tanks hard when trying to handle it. Whatever you buy now will still be in the "prototype" phase of handling games specifically created to be played at 2K / 4K (of which there are effectively none). True 4K gaming is going to be lovely, but the architectures of most cards and drivers are going to completely change to take advantage of it. We'll be able to deal with raw flops in the future (no need for FPS-killing anti-aliasing or tessellation techniques), but it will take some time for things to migrate. This is one of those considerations where spending a ton of money now for state-of-the-art stuff will give decent performance -- but in a few year's time, there will be drastically cheaper tech that gives excellent performance...not to mention games that truly take advantage of it.
If I was looking to buy now, I'd choose a 1080 ti, aiming for 60-120 FPS at 1080p.
_______________
As for monitors, it's largely preference. Although I recommend getting a true 16:9 aspect ratio. That allows for great forwards and backwards compatibility.
I prefer smaller screens with very rich colors, so I'm willing to sacrifice response time to get rich, full color temps. For gaming, Gsync monitors at 1080p are probably the best bang for the buck, and they've gotten much better with color overall. (My housemate just bought a Predator, and it's pitty sweeet.) The only things you need to worry about in terms of performance when considering a monitor are its refresh rate and response time:
For refresh rate, this will limit the maximum number of frames that can be drawn per second. A monitor can't display whole frames at a higher FPS than its refresh rate. Therefore, unlimited FPS with Vsync off will be needed to exceed the limit, and that means tearing. (Gsync is a way around this, but its more expensive.) Obviously, a monitor at 120 Hz will offer cleaner images and can use Vsync up to 120 FPS (a 144 Hz will cap at 144 FPS, etc.) along with less noticeable tearing using unlimited FPS. As resolution increases, overall performance goes down, but it's always possible to lower the resolution using scaling options on the GPU. Image quality may suffer doing this, however.
For response time, it's largely moot until you get into high FPS (over 60). The lower the response time, the better, with 1 ms being plenty dang fast for anything out there now. Higher response times may leave "ghost" images on the screen, since the pixels can't update quickly enough while running at very high FPS. If it happens, you're sure to notice, but it shouldn't occur on any modern monitor at 60-120 FPS.
So, the balancing act:
- As resolution increases, the demand on the GPU is increased, and performance drops.
- The higher the res, the lower the maximum refresh rate available and the slower the response time.
- To increase refresh rates and response time, many monitors sacrifice color range and intensity, leaving a faster, but more washed-out image.
- To get high res, high refresh rate, low response time, and intense colors, costs start spiking sharply up.
My advice, don't worry about it. The 2k, 4k, 300 billion k, whatever jargon is marketing. It doesn't matter what you call it. The only relevant aspect is whether the picture looks better. So compare pixel counts, density, refresh rate, aspect ratio, brightness, contrast ratio, color output and panel/backlighting technology.
The advice by Gilrond is solid too. Before looking at a new display consider how your existing hardware is going to play with it and it's intended application. A 4k monitor isn't helping much if your hardware cannot support the resolution and refresh rate for whatever you intend to use it with. It may not even be able to do the 4k content you want due to stupid shit like HDCP
. Likewise, HDR isn't all it's marketed as if your display can't achieve enough brightness to leverage it fully.Yeah, picking the right display is a huge pain
.
I think to be safe I'm gonna stick with 1080p, which means a 24 inch monitor. Everything I've read says if you go up to 27 inches, you need to ratchet up the pixels as well or it's all for naught. This has been a pain the ass. Thanks for all the feedback.
I often preach what i'm about to say, so excuse if you have read it before.
Recommend 1440p 32" 16:9 (as others have said here, 16:9 is more practical & compatible than 21:9).
I consider 24 & 27" too small. 32" is impressive as all heck in comparison (& its not too large). Everything is better on it.
It's proper.
32" 16:9 is also larger screen area than 21:9 34". It has 0 scaling issues - no need to up the font size scaling as it's exactly the same DPI as 24" 1080p. (which has been the defacto DPI software standard for a long time). Too many issues with 4K.
For only US $340 you can get the excellent samsung S32d850. (LG has recently released a 31.5" (scam 32", like other copout 24" at 23.something) that has gysnc but its not as good)
Long story short - a 24" to me is akin to using a tablet. The benefit you will reap in games, & all other content, is enormous.
Ive ran it starting from a 980. Turn off hairworks & a few hardly noticeable settings if you have to.
When you can, upgrade to a used 1080, but get that monitor NOW. You will immediately benefit and it will be an upgrade like no other.
(also , regarding response times, unless youre a crazy CS:GO freak, i think they are overstated. These days, any monitor will do the job fine. In 2014,15 or so, i got to 116th in average XP per game for world of tanks on SEA server, out of hundreds of thousands of users. Every game played had to be top notch. Did i use a fancy 1ms 'gaming' wank monitor? No. It was the last years of use of my business class Samsung 24" 1920x1200 16:10 that i had purchased in '07)
Last edited:
Also probably important to distinguish between response time and input lag. They're different things. Response time tends to be presented in monitor specs. Input lag, like HDCP support (and yes, not all hdmi 2.0 ports are compatible with the right HDCP revision, which is important in some cases), can be more involved to find.
I contend that its all good enough (we arent including TVs)
The old monitor used DVI, and nowadays youd use Displayport.
Unless youre a hardcore CS:GO player, its all fine. We don't need to worry about such stuff.
Apparently I'm the minority here, but I couldn't use any display with pixel density around 100 ppi or even below anymore.
I have upgraded to a 27" 4k display with adaptive sync 1,5 years ago, and I'm not going back to anything with fewer pixels. My ultimate aim is a monitor where I absolutely cannot see individual pixels from my normal sitting position, which is not the case (but close) even with my 180 ppi screen.
My PC is by no means an outrageously expensive beast (still running on an i5 2400 and a Radeon R9 Nano), but besides older classics I have played modern titles like Prey, Deus Ex MD, XCOM 2, and The Witcher 3 in 4k resolution with customized quality settings (a mix of medium -mostly shadows- to highest quality) and well playable framerates (40+ FPS, which together with Freesync is absolutely smooth enough for about anything but online multiplayer FPS games).
I'm just writing all of this to provide some perspective on the topic of playability at high resolution of modern titles with less than the ultimate hardware. Depends on your personal preferences whether you put high FPS or many pixels first, and according to this choice you should choose your next monitor.
I have upgraded to a 27" 4k display with adaptive sync 1,5 years ago, and I'm not going back to anything with fewer pixels. My ultimate aim is a monitor where I absolutely cannot see individual pixels from my normal sitting position, which is not the case (but close) even with my 180 ppi screen.
My PC is by no means an outrageously expensive beast (still running on an i5 2400 and a Radeon R9 Nano), but besides older classics I have played modern titles like Prey, Deus Ex MD, XCOM 2, and The Witcher 3 in 4k resolution with customized quality settings (a mix of medium -mostly shadows- to highest quality) and well playable framerates (40+ FPS, which together with Freesync is absolutely smooth enough for about anything but online multiplayer FPS games).
I'm just writing all of this to provide some perspective on the topic of playability at high resolution of modern titles with less than the ultimate hardware. Depends on your personal preferences whether you put high FPS or many pixels first, and according to this choice you should choose your next monitor.
Dont get me wrong. I think we'd all love a large monitor @ 1000 DPI @ 1000 FPS. Its all a compromise.
For me, the minimum FPS is 60 and the minimum DPI is 91. (what 24" 1080p is). Also minimum of 30"+
On a 1080ti - we get absolute flawless 60+ FPS @ 1440p. Or 120+ fPS on 1080p
The max size monitor without breaking the DPI barrier is 32" (thats approaching the max size youd want anyway).
For high FPS you have to stay at 24". (27" @ 1080p is way too pixelated).
After you went to 4k, you cant go back. Others go to high FPS cant go back. Ive gone 32" and i cant go back.
The next step for me is a 2080ti successor, by that time, hopefully, a good quality 32" 1440p 16:9 high 100+hz monitor will be released. I'll be ready to drop the high FPS back down to 60 if it means excellent raytracing and textures.
Prob with 4K monitor is that youre stuck on having to push an INSANE amount of pixels (and if you use non-native lower res its ugly as hell).
Last edited:
Somebody told me that with 3840x2160 4K you can easily play games in 1920x1080 without any blurring because the scale is exactly 2:1 in each dimension. So this way you can get away with a 4K monitor and 60+ FPS even if your GPU isn't particularly fast.
Ultimately the problem is trying to maximize resolution, graphics performance, size and I would add one more, panel type/quality (Gilrond mentioned this), while minimizing cost. If cost is not an issue I'm sure there are 32" 4K IPS (or better) panels out there, and supposedly the overpriced RTX 2080 should easily handle 60 FPS at 4K.
I personally don't want to go back to a TN panel so I'm waiting for a decent price on something like a 28 or 32 inch IPS panel with a good resolution.
Ultimately the problem is trying to maximize resolution, graphics performance, size and I would add one more, panel type/quality (Gilrond mentioned this), while minimizing cost. If cost is not an issue I'm sure there are 32" 4K IPS (or better) panels out there, and supposedly the overpriced RTX 2080 should easily handle 60 FPS at 4K.
I personally don't want to go back to a TN panel so I'm waiting for a decent price on something like a 28 or 32 inch IPS panel with a good resolution.
Yes that's right. Forgot about that. Would still be a bummer having to drop to such a low res though on your nice screen.
Regarding panel tech - It's VA or IPS.
VA has much better blacks and no IPS glow. IPS maintains contrast better over extreme viewing angles & has better colour accuracy & gamut.
However we sit in front of monitor, and at extreme angles the difference is nothing like the extreme change you'd see with a TN. Regarding colour accuracy, unless your a graphics professional, the difference is negligible (and prob imperceptible to a lot of people)
My preference is VA because of better blacks and no glow. (it also has better response time but as i've said earlier they all good enough). Regardless of what you pick - steer clear of TN.
OLED would be the holy grail in comparison but it's terrible burn-in kills it. Hopefully its something they can fix.
- not sure if it was a typo but did you mean a 2080ti? a 2080 does the same as 1080ti (no raytracing). 2080ti is the only card that can do 4k @ 60 fps fluidly. (high end games that is)
Last edited:
Yeah thats too big. Also i'd check that it isnt a 'TV' panel being sold as a monitor. Thats where input lag can be a pertinent factor. Not saying all TVs are bad but usually their input lag is hugely different to monitors. (though things have dramatically improved over the years)
I hope you have a nice GPU!
Unfortunately I don't think there is a monitor that actually uses this exact ratio instead of doing some interpolation algorithm which produces inferior results in this special case. That's why I recommended Garrison to try the quality of the downscaling for himself and then decide.
Well this is what I got: https://zowie.benq.com/en/product/monitor/xl/xl2536.html
BenQ seemed one of the few who provided 1080p with some nice bells and whistles. Thanks for the feedback. Fucking glad that's over with.
BenQ seemed one of the few who provided 1080p with some nice bells and whistles. Thanks for the feedback. Fucking glad that's over with.