[SOLVED] Upgrade tradeoff from 24inch 1080p to 32inch 1440p?

[Shuvin]

Hi everyone,
I am currently using a 24 inch 1080p display (Samsung CRG50). And im keen on upgrading to 1440p, Im eyeing the Gigabyte G32QC which is 31.5 inch 1440p display.

I understand that a bump up to QHD would impact the FPS, but Im counting on my 2060 super to deliver 60fps on most games.

Where, Im facing a dilemma is the pixel density. Currently my monitor has 93.57 PPI, with the upgrade to 1440p @ 31.5 inch it will be 93.24 PPI.

So my question is -
1. Since the PPI is almost remaining same how much of a visual improvement it will be?
2. And is the reduced FPS tradeoff good enough for the visual improvement (if any)?

Here are some info for your reference -

1. I dont play fast paced first person shooters, more into offline games like, Assassins creed, Metro, RDR 2 etc.
2. My PC spec is - Ryzen 5 3600 (no OC), 2060 Super (no OC), 16 GB 3200mhz RAM
3. I sit roughly 2-4 feet away from the monitor
4. Current monitor spec - 24 inch (1800R curve VA), 144hz, 4 Ms GTG (Run it with freesync through DP)
5. Planned upgrade monitor spec - 31.5 inch (1500R curve VA), 165hz, 1 Ms MPRT (will support Gsync)

Thanks in advance

 

[boju]

Try dsr 2x factors and use the resolution it gives you in game and see, dsr and native is comparable. Compare with and without using anti aliasing because with 1440p you may not feel the need to use aa whichll give you some more fps.

 

[Shuvin]

Try dsr 2x factors and use the resolution it gives you in game and see, dsr and native is comparable. Compare with and without using anti aliasing because with 1440p you may not feel the need to use aa whichll give you some more fps.

Thanks so much for the tips. I tried DSR and applied 1440p to couple of the games (AC valhalla, RDR2, Forza horizon, beamng, deeprock)

Gotta say the FPS tax was not such a big deal for most of them, except for RDR2 (dropped from 70-80 to 60-45)

But, while the visual improvement was there (i could tell the sharpness even with AA off or low) but it wasnt worth the additional investment.
Now, the question is. Is the DSR 1440p visual same as actually using a 1440p monitor?

 

[boju]

It is the same graphics processing wise but visually will be more appealing on a larger screen. I play on 27" 1440p and id never go back to 24". Though 32" is heading toward 4k preferred size, anything smaller and txt will be too tiny. 1440p should still look great.

 

[Shuvin]

It is the same graphics processing wise but visually will be more appealing on a larger screen. I play on 27" 1440p and id never go back to 24". Though 32" is heading toward 4k preferred size, anything smaller and txt will be too tiny. 1440p should still look great.

Thanks for your feedback. I think i will go with the 1440p upgrade and still retain the 1080p monitor, just in case i need to drive tons of FPS for any game

 

[boju]

Can do that or try 1080p res and see what you think. It's not always terrible looking, especially in games.

 

[Karadjgne]

Visually they'll look the same, since the density is the same, meaning pixel size is the same.

The problem with moving larger is the pixel size itself, if the move was all 1080p from 24" to 32" then pixels get much larger and you'd have to sit further away or you'd see the difference and the picture would look grainy. But moving to 1440p means more pixels per Sq. In, so they are smaller.

Clarity will be the same. It'd just be a much larger screen. Whether input lag, color reproduction etc is similar or better is a model dependent thing, so it's always possible your opinion of the picture is that it's worse or better, but technically the picture will be the same on both monitors, just larger on one.

Normally 1080p at 24" is good, 1440p at 27" and 4k at 32" shows the best pictures, because there's a noticeable difference in pixel size and count per Sq.in which increases clarity at the same viewing distance.

 

[Shuvin]

Visually they'll look the same, since the density is the same, meaning pixel size is the same.

The problem with moving larger is the pixel size itself, if the move was all 1080p from 24" to 32" then pixels get much larger and you'd have to sit further away or you'd see the difference and the picture would look grainy. But moving to 1440p means more pixels per Sq. In, so they are smaller.

Clarity will be the same. It'd just be a much larger screen. Whether input lag, color reproduction etc is similar or better is a model dependent thing, so it's always possible your opinion of the picture is that it's worse or better, but technically the picture will be the same on both monitors, just larger on one.

Normally 1080p at 24" is good, 1440p at 27" and 4k at 32" shows the best pictures, because there's a noticeable difference in pixel size and count per Sq.in which increases clarity at the same viewing distance.

Thanks, I might take up on you advise and look for a 27 inch option, might find an IPS panel for the same price. Whats your take on IPS panels? Is the color accuracy of IPS worth it for the extra cost over VA? Or is there any additional benefit of IPS

 

[Karadjgne]

With IPS it's not just the colors. TN panels can look washed out in brighter lights, IPS is more vivid, and viewing angle is important. With TN, your head needs to be center x center or the picture gets wierd, IPS it doesn't matter if looking slightly up/down or side-side.

IPS is a better picture as a whole, the tradeoff being the response times on a TN are generally faster and many hard core gamers feel this is better for the super-fast paced first person shooters like CSGO or LoL etc.