should I upgrade to a 1440p monitor. Need advice from people with one

[Matthew12106]

So basically now that Christmas is coming up and maybe some nice deals will come I'm thinking if I should buy a 1440p monitor. But I have 3 concerns

1. I'm not sure and I need some advice. Basically downstairs we have a 27" mac (I didn't buy it I swear) and it's 1440p. I always noticed the screen Realestate was great but wasn't blown away really. So I fired up heaven 4.0 to do some testing. Now it was hard considering that I was getting like 4 fps with everything cranked up. But I managed to get some screenshots of 1080p vs 1440p and I can definitely see 1440p is more sharp. Here are the two screenshots I got
1440p

1080p

Now correct my If I'm wrong but won't the difference between 1080 and 1440 be even less because 1080p on a native 1440p screen looks worse than just 1080p native? Its more sharp but IDK if it's mind blowing enough not sure :/ do you think the image quality is worth it?

2. I have a Fx-8350 with a gtx 970. Now that's pretty powerful but I might have to turn some things down like AA? Do you still think it will be still worth it. Well tbh in Cod Avanced warfare I maxed out everything and still had power to spare to I turned super sampling to 2x I guess I could turn that off with 1440p and It would still look better right?

3. So basically I am looking really towards the budget side of 1440p monitors like £300-£350 and idk if they will be good cause they might have backlight bleed or other problems not sure. I'll show you some options that are in my price range and you can tell me what you think (From three uk online shops)

not the last two monitors in this picture

Thanks so much for any help

 

[JWoody]

With a GTX970 you should not have to turn much if any down except possibly AA (Anti-Aliasing gets more bandwith and capacity intensive as you go with higher resolutions) I would suggest 1440 IF the higher res is actually smooth enough to be valued (Thats very subjective) the only thing i can truly suggest is any other panel tech than TN+Film (Yuk), the larger the screen the worse TN+ viewing angles get. (I havent used a TN+film since sometime in early 2005). its really all up to you and your eyes. I personally notice the tighter dot pitch witch makes for a more realistic and less "screen-doory" image.

 

[werberman]

Well....
You're going to end up with several issues if you do decide to go with 1440p. Right off the bat, 1440p has 80% more pixels than 1080p - the upshot is, when run in native (NOT UPSCALLED), the image will be much crisper - the downside is, your graphics performance will immediately suffer by 44.4% if left at the same settings (a HUGE margin). Your graphics card will either need to be replaced or doubled and run in SLI just to get almost the same level of performance. (This isn't just my opinion, fyi 😛 - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/6)
Besides, at the prices you've quoted, you'd be much better off going with the Samsung LU28D590DS - it's a 4k monitor AND it sells at $CAD 599.99 (430 Euro)

 

[dane332]

I have a 1440p monitor and a gtx 970. older games i run at about 60+ to 40ish depending on the game.

new modern games like far cry 4 i run at about 30. Everything looks VERY nice. i feel i'm at good place with my set up.

HOWEVER i also feel i wasted alot of money as i see 4k screens coming down in prices . the post above me has a nice 4k screen which cost LESS than my ips 1440p monitor cost a few months ago. right now is NOT THE time to get a 1440p monitor .

Right now we are stuck in a transition stage between 1080p and 4k. 1440p is just going to be skipped. My advice is to wait. Next year is always better

 

[Matthew12106]

Well....
You're going to end up with several issues if you do decide to go with 1440p. Right off the bat, 1440p has 80% more pixels than 1080p - the upshot is, when run in native (NOT UPSCALLED), the image will be much crisper - the downside is, your graphics performance will immediately suffer by 44.4% if left at the same settings (a HUGE margin). Your graphics card will either need to be replaced or doubled and run in SLI just to get almost the same level of performance. (This isn't just my opinion, fyi 😛 - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/6)
Besides, at the prices you've quoted, you'd be much better off going with the Samsung LU28D590DS - it's a 4k monitor AND it sells at $CAD 599.99 (430 Euro)

Does my graphics card really need to be replaced or double? Cause it's actually too good for 1080p, I know this is from me playing call of duty advanced warefare where I actually have enough power just to set supersampling at 2x. Doesn't that mean it's running at twice 1080p So basically if I can play it with 2x supersampling fine can't I just play it at 1440p with supersampling and it will be all good?

And how is 4k the answer. if the 970 might stuggle with 1440p how is suggesting me 4k going to help? Thanks

 

[werberman]

I have a 1440p monitor and a gtx 970. older games i run at about 60+ to 40ish depending on the game.

new modern games like far cry 4 i run at about 30. Everything looks VERY nice. i feel i'm at good place with my set up.

HOWEVER i also feel i wasted alot of money as i see 4k screens coming down in prices . the post above me has a nice 4k screen which cost LESS than my ips 1440p monitor cost a few months ago. right now is NOT THE time to get a 1440p monitor .

Right now we are stuck in a transition stage between 1080p and 4k. 1440p is just going to be skipped. My advice is to wait. Next year is always better

Well....
You're going to end up with several issues if you do decide to go with 1440p. Right off the bat, 1440p has 80% more pixels than 1080p - the upshot is, when run in native (NOT UPSCALLED), the image will be much crisper - the downside is, your graphics performance will immediately suffer by 44.4% if left at the same settings (a HUGE margin). Your graphics card will either need to be replaced or doubled and run in SLI just to get almost the same level of performance. (This isn't just my opinion, fyi 😛 - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/6)
Besides, at the prices you've quoted, you'd be much better off going with the Samsung LU28D590DS - it's a 4k monitor AND it sells at $CAD 599.99 (430 Euro)

Does my graphics card really need to be replaced or double? Cause it's actually too good for 1080p, I know this is from me playing call of duty advanced warefare where I actually have enough power just to set supersampling at 2x. Doesn't that mean it's running at twice 1080p So basically if I can play it with 2x supersampling fine can't I just play it at 1440p with supersampling and it will be all good?

And how is 4k the answer. if the 970 might stuggle with 1440p how is suggesting me 4k going to help? Thanks

a 970 won't really struggle with 1440, it'll just take a large performance hit. As can be seen in the benchmarks, the FPS for modern games drops to around 25-40 in 1440p using a single 970; plenty good for now - it will just limit the 'ultra-settings' lifespan of the card.
The reason I would suggest the 4k monitor over a 1440p one is simple: your graphics card will have to be replaced 2 or 3 years regardless, and by then 4k will be the gaming standard - if you spend a bit more money now you won't have to buy a new monitor for a very long time. You'll be effectively future-proofing your monitor. Besides, there are plenty of games the 970 CAN play in 4k (like bioshock) and when you do replace the card, you'll be able to play everything in 4k without additional investment.
It's all about saving a ton of money in the long run.

 

[Matthew12106]

I have a 1440p monitor and a gtx 970. older games i run at about 60+ to 40ish depending on the game.

new modern games like far cry 4 i run at about 30. Everything looks VERY nice. i feel i'm at good place with my set up.

HOWEVER i also feel i wasted alot of money as i see 4k screens coming down in prices . the post above me has a nice 4k screen which cost LESS than my ips 1440p monitor cost a few months ago. right now is NOT THE time to get a 1440p monitor .

Right now we are stuck in a transition stage between 1080p and 4k. 1440p is just going to be skipped. My advice is to wait. Next year is always better

Well....
You're going to end up with several issues if you do decide to go with 1440p. Right off the bat, 1440p has 80% more pixels than 1080p - the upshot is, when run in native (NOT UPSCALLED), the image will be much crisper - the downside is, your graphics performance will immediately suffer by 44.4% if left at the same settings (a HUGE margin). Your graphics card will either need to be replaced or doubled and run in SLI just to get almost the same level of performance. (This isn't just my opinion, fyi 😛 - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/6)
Besides, at the prices you've quoted, you'd be much better off going with the Samsung LU28D590DS - it's a 4k monitor AND it sells at $CAD 599.99 (430 Euro)

Does my graphics card really need to be replaced or double? Cause it's actually too good for 1080p, I know this is from me playing call of duty advanced warefare where I actually have enough power just to set supersampling at 2x. Doesn't that mean it's running at twice 1080p So basically if I can play it with 2x supersampling fine can't I just play it at 1440p with supersampling and it will be all good?

And how is 4k the answer. if the 970 might stuggle with 1440p how is suggesting me 4k going to help? Thanks

a 970 won't really struggle with 1440, it'll just take a large performance hit. As can be seen in the benchmarks, the FPS for modern games drops to around 25-40 in 1440p using a single 970; plenty good for now - it will just limit the 'ultra-settings' lifespan of the card.
The reason I would suggest the 4k monitor over a 1440p one is simple: your graphics card will have to be replaced 2 or 3 years regardless, and by then 4k will be the gaming standard - if you spend a bit more money now you won't have to buy a new monitor for a very long time. You'll be effectively future-proofing your monitor. Besides, there are plenty of games the 970 CAN play in 4k (like bioshock) and when you do replace the card, you'll be able to play everything in 4k without additional investment.
It's all about saving a ton of money in the long run.

First of all I just bought this 970 there is literally no chance that I will buying any new GPU any time soon. Now in terms of what you said and 20-45fps for a 970 at 1440p? To be honest when comparing 1080p to 1440p on the IMAC the results did look sharper but that plus the fact that I will turn other things down, I know it will still probably look better but I don't think it's actually worth the money at this point

 

[werberman]

I have a 1440p monitor and a gtx 970. older games i run at about 60+ to 40ish depending on the game.

new modern games like far cry 4 i run at about 30. Everything looks VERY nice. i feel i'm at good place with my set up.

HOWEVER i also feel i wasted alot of money as i see 4k screens coming down in prices . the post above me has a nice 4k screen which cost LESS than my ips 1440p monitor cost a few months ago. right now is NOT THE time to get a 1440p monitor .

Right now we are stuck in a transition stage between 1080p and 4k. 1440p is just going to be skipped. My advice is to wait. Next year is always better

Well....
You're going to end up with several issues if you do decide to go with 1440p. Right off the bat, 1440p has 80% more pixels than 1080p - the upshot is, when run in native (NOT UPSCALLED), the image will be much crisper - the downside is, your graphics performance will immediately suffer by 44.4% if left at the same settings (a HUGE margin). Your graphics card will either need to be replaced or doubled and run in SLI just to get almost the same level of performance. (This isn't just my opinion, fyi 😛 - http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/6)
Besides, at the prices you've quoted, you'd be much better off going with the Samsung LU28D590DS - it's a 4k monitor AND it sells at $CAD 599.99 (430 Euro)

Does my graphics card really need to be replaced or double? Cause it's actually too good for 1080p, I know this is from me playing call of duty advanced warefare where I actually have enough power just to set supersampling at 2x. Doesn't that mean it's running at twice 1080p So basically if I can play it with 2x supersampling fine can't I just play it at 1440p with supersampling and it will be all good?

And how is 4k the answer. if the 970 might stuggle with 1440p how is suggesting me 4k going to help? Thanks

a 970 won't really struggle with 1440, it'll just take a large performance hit. As can be seen in the benchmarks, the FPS for modern games drops to around 25-40 in 1440p using a single 970; plenty good for now - it will just limit the 'ultra-settings' lifespan of the card.
The reason I would suggest the 4k monitor over a 1440p one is simple: your graphics card will have to be replaced 2 or 3 years regardless, and by then 4k will be the gaming standard - if you spend a bit more money now you won't have to buy a new monitor for a very long time. You'll be effectively future-proofing your monitor. Besides, there are plenty of games the 970 CAN play in 4k (like bioshock) and when you do replace the card, you'll be able to play everything in 4k without additional investment.
It's all about saving a ton of money in the long run.

First of all I just bought this 970 there is literally no chance that I will buying any new GPU any time soon. Now in terms of what you said and 20-45fps for a 970 at 1440p? To be honest when comparing 1080p to 1440p on the IMAC the results did look sharper but that plus the fact that I will turn other things down, I know it will still probably look better but I don't think it's actually worth the money at this point

That's a totally valid perspective - unfortunately big screens mean big graphics requirements - It takes a titan z to play crisis 3 in 4k-ultra. There's absolutely nothing wrong with 1080p

 

[dane332]

When i said wait for 4k i really do mean wait for it. 1440p is nice but honestly the best card (withing a resonable price range)that are out now play teh newer more damanding games at1440p around 30 give or take fps depending on the situation for modern games (again like i stated i have a 970 like you and a 1440p monitor) basically i look at it like this

option 1:Upgrade to 1440p and you get

barely passable frames with a nice resolution
Will need to upgrade gpu to play when more demanding games come out or tone down alot of graphics.

or upgrade to 4k in a year or so
best/widely accepted resolution
Will need to upgrade gpu or tone down graphics.

i mean older games still run at 60 frames or so at 1440p for me. world of tanks , ffx13, wolfienstien NO, borderlands 2.

but i also have games such at far cry 4 which gives me about 27 when i have everything on. Which also means i will have problems running the witcher 3 when that comes out at max as well. (i will have to tone down)

Are you will to tone down graphics settings? because that is what you will have to do at 1440p or beyond. I ahve a 1440p monitor and i regret it as 4k screens are the same price. i'm doing the exact same things i would be doing if i had a 4k monitor which is

toning down graphic settings
considering a sli setup.