1440p or 1600p?

[Verodoxys]

Obviously, 1600p would look better, but is it worth the extra cost?

Also, how big of a jump is it from 1080p to 1440p/1600p? Would it be worth upgrading to either of them, in comparison to just sticking with 1080p?

 

[Kekoh]

1600p would require significantly more gpu power to be able to game at that resolution. What GPU do you have?

You would pretty much need a GTX 780 Ti or a R9 290X to be able to play on Ultra with high fps @ 1600p. For 1440p you could get by with a GTX 780 or R9 290.

 

[cookybiscuit]

It won't necessarily look better, its just an aspect ratio change, not a higher pixel density.

 

[Verodoxys]

1600p would require significantly more gpu power to be able to game at that resolution. What GPU do you have?

You would pretty much need a GTX 780 Ti or a R9 290X to be able to play on Ultra with high fps @ 1600p. For 1440p you could get by with a GTX 780 or R9 290.

I do have a GTX 780 Ti. My CPU is an Intel i7-4770k and I have 16GB of 1600MHz of RAM. I won't be concerned with turning down the settings though.

 

[Kekoh]

It won't necessarily look better, its just an aspect ratio change, not a higher pixel density.

???

You realize 1080P, 1440P, 1600P, etc refer to the amount of vertical pixels... right (and therefore increased horizontal pixels)?

It is absolutely a higher pixel count. I don't know why you think it isn't.

 

[cookybiscuit]

It won't necessarily look better, its just an aspect ratio change, not a higher pixel density.

???

You realize 1080P, 1440P, 1600P, etc refer to the amount of vertical pixels... right (and therefore increased horizontal pixels)?

It is absolutely a higher pixel count. I don't know why you think it isn't.

16:10 is 16:9 with a bit stuck on the top, more pixels but more space, so the same pixel density, its not a difficult concept.

 

[Rationale]

It won't necessarily look better, its just an aspect ratio change, not a higher pixel density.

???

You realize 1080P, 1440P, 1600P, etc refer to the amount of vertical pixels... right (and therefore increased horizontal pixels)?

It is absolutely a higher pixel count. I don't know why you think it isn't.

He said "density" not "count". 2560x1600 screens tend to be 28", whereas 2560x1440 screens tend to be 27". The pixel density will be the same, but with a taller screen and therefore more pixels total.

 

[Kekoh]

It won't necessarily look better, its just an aspect ratio change, not a higher pixel density.

???

You realize 1080P, 1440P, 1600P, etc refer to the amount of vertical pixels... right (and therefore increased horizontal pixels)?

It is absolutely a higher pixel count. I don't know why you think it isn't.

16:10 is 16:9 with a bit stuck on the top, more pixels but more space, so the same pixel density, its not a difficult concept.

The GPU still has to render the additional pixels, which is significantly more taxing than 1080P.

 

[cookybiscuit]

It won't necessarily look better, its just an aspect ratio change, not a higher pixel density.

???

You realize 1080P, 1440P, 1600P, etc refer to the amount of vertical pixels... right (and therefore increased horizontal pixels)?

It is absolutely a higher pixel count. I don't know why you think it isn't.

16:10 is 16:9 with a bit stuck on the top, more pixels but more space, so the same pixel density, its not a difficult concept.

The GPU still has to render the additional pixels, which is significantly more taxing than 1080P.

OP didn't ask about if it was more difficult to run or not, just if it would look better, which really it wont.

 

[Kekoh]

It won't necessarily look better, its just an aspect ratio change, not a higher pixel density.

???

You realize 1080P, 1440P, 1600P, etc refer to the amount of vertical pixels... right (and therefore increased horizontal pixels)?

It is absolutely a higher pixel count. I don't know why you think it isn't.

16:10 is 16:9 with a bit stuck on the top, more pixels but more space, so the same pixel density, its not a difficult concept.

The GPU still has to render the additional pixels, which is significantly more taxing than 1080P.

OP didn't ask about if it was more difficult to run or not, just if it would look better, which really it wont.

I think we have some confusion.

It sounds like you were responding to his first question, which you didn't specify you were. I was answering his question about the jump from 1080p -> 1440p/1600p. He asked about the difference, which indeed, would include if it was more difficult to run.