# Your monitor resolution



## WhiteLotus (Nov 4, 2014)

So I am looking at getting a new monitor, but the thing is I don't know what the most common/most sought after resolution is...

So to aid me in this, if you could tick the resolution that you have your monitor at, and in the comments also put your screen size. If you have a really bad resolution/are getting a new monitor in the next month, please select the option that you want/are getting.

Thanks!

PS I know that there are other factors to consider when buying a new monitor, but for now I want to focus on resolution and screen size.


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 4, 2014)

WhiteLotus said:


> So I am looking at getting a new monitor, but the thing is I don't know what the most common/most sought after resolution is...
> 
> So to aid me in this, if you could tick the resolution that you have your monitor at, and in the comments also put your screen size. If you have a really bad resolution/are getting a new monitor in the next month, please select the option that you want/are getting.
> 
> ...



2560x1440p 27"

Text can be kind of small without scaling if you like to sit far away from your monitor.  Up close it isn't as bad.

I'm waiting for GPUs that can handle 4K to drop to my price range before I move up.  1440p properly pushes my 780 to its limits on demanding games.


----------



## DayKnight (Nov 4, 2014)

The option missing. 1600x900. 

Get 1080p 24".


----------



## Kursah (Nov 4, 2014)

I have 2-3 screens depending on the situation.. but my main ones are 1920x1080 (23" Dell, 32" Samsung TV, and 15.6" Dell laptop screen), then I have a secondary Dell 19" 1280x1024 screen as well. 

I just chose the 1080 option.


----------



## Luka KLLP (Nov 4, 2014)

Umm 1680x1050? I just ticked 1650x1050


----------



## bubbleawsome (Nov 4, 2014)

Go 1080p or 1440p. I'm on 1280x1024, so I voted that, but I don't have this screen by choice.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 4, 2014)

2048x1152p 23"

I would go for 1920x1080 in your situation as it's very common. Maybe 120/144 Hz version.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Nov 4, 2014)

I think the new minimum for PC games is or will be within a year: 2560x1440p. 
Skip 1080p.


----------



## R00kie (Nov 4, 2014)

1680x1050, getting a 21:9 with 2560x1080 res monitor next month. Looking forward to get rid of this horrendous TN panel.


----------



## D007 (Nov 4, 2014)

3840x2160 @ 50", 60 hz.
Samsung UHD.


----------



## DayKnight (Nov 4, 2014)

D007 said:


> 3840x2160 @ 50", 60 hz.
> Samsung UHD.



... and we have one here who has completely missed the point of this thread.


----------



## 95Viper (Nov 4, 2014)

1920x1200 on this HP ZR24w 24-inch S-IPS LCD I picked up for 75 bucks in an open box sale... cable cover and DVI cable was missing.
No bad pixels, and I can read with these old eyes, again.

Just my opinion... based on what I see.
I play a few games and they look great.
I do some home/family photography and the monitor is great for that.

I do enjoy this monitor a little more than the ASUS 1080p 21" I was using.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 4, 2014)

1080p 120hz lightboost at 24in screen size. Would of went 1440p/1600p if it was cheaper.


----------



## patrico (Nov 4, 2014)

24''   LG FLATRON W2452 TX 1920x1200

 Thats what im running, would have gone higher if my budget would let me


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2014)

I technically run 1920x1080 except when eyefinity is active in which case 5760x1080 would be true which is a rare occurrence. All 3 displays are always active though, even if I'm not using eyefinity.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2014)

My 1920x1080p is on a 23" gorgeous HP 2310m.


----------



## [Ion] (Nov 5, 2014)

2x24" 1080p (Asus + ViewSonic)


----------



## AhokZYashA (Nov 5, 2014)

19" LG 1366x768


----------



## AsRock (Nov 5, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> I think the new minimum for PC games is or will be within a year: 2560x1440p.
> Skip 1080p.



HA! not a chance in hell that's going happen, 1080 will stay for many years to come.


----------



## D007 (Nov 5, 2014)

DayKnight said:


> ... and we have one here who has completely missed the point of this thread.


I guess I'm not allowed to give opinions or try to help people on these forums anymore.
How about you let people make their own choices. 
Big screen gaming is something people might consider now that the resolutions can compete.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> I think the new minimum for PC games is or will be within a year: 2560x1440p.
> Skip 1080p.



Probably go look at the Steam hardware breakdown for it's user base.

33% on 1920 x1080p
26% on 1366 x 768
7.7% on 1600 x 900
6.2% still on 1280 x 1024
5.5% on 1680 x 1050

And it goes on...1200 and 1440 are in the 1% and under.  Don't forget, the majority of users are not on here on TPU, so you can't take the hardware seen on here as the standard.


----------



## Animalpak (Nov 5, 2014)

2560x1440 actually nothing is better for gaming ( personal opinion )


----------



## Maban (Nov 5, 2014)

These days 1920x1080 has more or less been relegated to the budget category (for monitors). With 1440 and 2160 becoming cheaper, there really isn't a reason to buy 1080 anymore in my opinion.


----------



## HossHuge (Nov 5, 2014)

Hey WhiteLotus, here are the results of the 2008 and 2011 resolution questions.  You can add them to the first post (If you want) so people can see the changes over time.

2008 - http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/what-resolution-do-you-game-at.63265/
2011 - http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/what-resolution-do-you-game-at-2011.141099/


----------



## Mussels (Nov 5, 2014)

1080p 46"


a quality panel matters as much or more, than the resolution. i'll never go back to TN film.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Nov 5, 2014)

If I had a desk setup I would get the highest resolution display I could afford, it really matters when sitting close. However, as I'm a lazy couch potato, the PC is hooked up to our 1080p TV. It's been a great experience. Movies, gaming and scaled internet browsing has all been flawless. As we are about 7-8 foot from the TV it looks great too. Sharp, fluid and colourful. Also thankful that I seem to have no issues with input latency from my Microsoft wireless mouse and keyboard.

In short, if your'e going to be up close and personal to the display, get the highest quality, highest resolution you can afford and also run well with your hardware.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 5, 2014)

...PACMAN... said:


> If I had a desk setup I would get the highest resolution display I could afford, it really matters when sitting close. However, as I'm a lazy couch potato, the PC is hooked up to our 1080p TV. It's been a great experience. Movies, gaming and scaled internet browsing has all been flawless. As we are about 7-8 foot from the TV it looks great too. Sharp, fluid and colourful. Also thankful that I seem to have no issues with input latency from my Microsoft wireless mouse and keyboard.
> 
> In short, if your'e going to be up close and personal to the display, get the highest quality, highest resolution you can afford and also run well with your hardware.




i'm only a foot away from my 46" and have no trouble at all with it - just had to adjust the sharpness setting ever so slightly. other TV's in the house look nowhere near as good up this close, despite being the same resolution and smaller.


----------



## AsRock (Nov 5, 2014)

Maban said:


> These days 1920x1080 has more or less been relegated to the budget category (for monitors). With 1440 and 2160 becoming cheaper, there really isn't a reason to buy 1080 anymore in my opinion.



there is one big reason not to go 2160 and that running your games without needing a real expensive video card.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 5, 2014)

AsRock said:


> there is one big reason not to go 2160 and that running your games without needing a real expensive video card.



Had similar just yesterday with my brother - he saw my i7 laptop and was all 'meh, 1366x768'

Thing is, that laptop in benchmarks at 768p comes out at higher FPS than my i5/550Ti secondary desktop with its native res of 1080p.
broken record but... screen quality matters more than resolution, size, or refresh rate!


I'm posting a lot in this thread so apologies if i feel like i'm replying to EVERYONE


----------



## manofthem (Nov 5, 2014)

HossHuge said:


> Hey WhiteLotus, here are the results of the 2008 and 2011 resolution questions.  You can add them to the first post (If you want) so people can see the changes over time.
> 
> 2008 - http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/what-resolution-do-you-game-at.63265/
> 2011 - http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/what-resolution-do-you-game-at-2011.141099/



That is a nice change. I wasn't around TPU in '08, and in '11 I voted for 1920x1080.  

Also glancing through the first few pages of that '08 thread, there are lots of unfamiliar names, guys that have since disappeared from TPU.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Nov 5, 2014)

Mussels said:


> i'm only a foot away from my 46" and have no trouble at all with it - just had to adjust the sharpness setting ever so slightly. other TV's in the house look nowhere near as good up this close, despite being the same resolution and smaller.



Yeh, fair point. When I'm relegated to the floor because the GF and dogs get priority (I'm such a little bitch lol) the screen still looks good and I'm 2 foot closer. Interesting to mention that DSR when done right can look incredible as well if you have the grunt to run the higher resolutions.


----------



## Devon68 (Nov 5, 2014)

Well I have a LG W2453SQ-PF 24'' 1920x1080 monitor and cant complain.


----------



## Maban (Nov 5, 2014)

AsRock said:


> there is one big reason not to go 2160 and that running your games without needing a real expensive video card.


The thing with that though is that you can just run it at a lower resolution for games that can't handle it. You're not going to lose out on the non-native resolution issue if it's exactly 4:1 pixels.


----------



## HammerON (Nov 5, 2014)

Well according to the poll, me and one other user utilize a monitor with a 2560x1600 resolution...
30" Dell and still loving it


----------



## RCoon (Nov 5, 2014)

I have a vested interest in this thread to see which are the most popular resolutions for my game benchmarks. Looks like so far I guessed right, missing the ball on 1200p it seems though. Do people on 1200p care about their resolution's inclusion in benchmark charts? Or do you just reference figures between 1440 and 1080?


----------



## XSI (Nov 5, 2014)

1680x1050 22" Samsung 2232BW / 1920x1080 LG 50" plasma.
TV looks much better than monitor, all games, movies, colours.
i would not mind 2560x1080 i like widescreen. 
op higher resolution needs better more expensive hardware to run. keep that in mind.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2014)

I think it's interesting that the number one monitor size (1080p) I cited in use by Steam users matches TPU's poll almost exactly, 33.3%! Obviously here the higher resolutions though have a much larger representation than the general public though.


----------



## Frick (Nov 5, 2014)

Mussels said:


> Had similar just yesterday with my brother - he saw my i7 laptop and was all 'meh, 1366x768'
> 
> Thing is, that laptop in benchmarks at 768p comes out at higher FPS than my i5/550Ti secondary desktop with its native res of 1080p.
> broken record but... screen quality matters more than resolution, size, or refresh rate!
> ...



Which is why after the latest patch I run WoW on my 1280x1024 monitor. Not that it matters much though, I had to overclock the GPU to get it to run even close to what it used to at 1680x1050... But I digress.

For 1080p I want around 24 inches. Those 21.5 inchers are to small imo.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Nov 5, 2014)

30" 2560*1600 HP ZR30w user here. No way I could be happy using any resolution with less pixel density than 1920*1200 on a 24" monitor after using the ZR30w. My monitor makes my 52" 1080p Sony TV's picture look like shit.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Nov 5, 2014)

1080P 24" Samsung PLS


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 5, 2014)

HossHuge said:


> Hey WhiteLotus, here are the results of the 2008 and 2011 resolution questions.  You can add them to the first post (If you want) so people can see the changes over time.
> 
> 2008 - http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/what-resolution-do-you-game-at.63265/
> 2011 - http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/what-resolution-do-you-game-at-2011.141099/


Thank you that does help, I'll be sure to edit the first post when I get home.


----------



## qubit (Nov 5, 2014)

1080 - 27". Awesome. Get one with a strobing backlight too, you won't regret it.

EDIT: 4K will leave this standing of course. NVIDIA's new DSR feature allows me to simulate what a 4K desktop would look like using my monitor and I can see that the improvement would be fantastic. Tiny icons and text and acres and acres of space.

For gaming, it actually looks worse than just using AA and really hits the framerate much more than AA.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Nov 5, 2014)

AsRock said:


> HA! not a chance in hell that's going happen, 1080 will stay for many years to come.



You seem proud/happy that 1080p will stay on, I don't know why. 

I'd rather recommend  people go forward with new purchases at larger/better resolutions and not stay in the past.

1440p is great to game on, and once I can afford 4k I bet it will be even better.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 5, 2014)

1920x1200 Dell 24" because it was cheap.


----------



## 64K (Nov 5, 2014)

I have a 27" 1440p PLS monitor and I am very happy with it. I sit about two feet away from it and I notice a big difference from the 27" 1080p monitor that I had before. I plan to upgrade to a 4K monitor when I can run most games on ultra w/o AA using one GPU. I certainly am not suffering with the monitor I have now even if it takes 3 or 4 years for such a card to come around.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 5, 2014)

BarbaricSoul said:


> 30" 2560*1600 HP ZR30w user here.



Same hardware here and love it.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> You seem proud/happy that 1080p will stay on, I don't know why.
> 
> I'd rather recommend  people go forward with new purchases at larger/better resolutions and not stay in the past.
> 
> 1440p is great to game on, and once I can afford 4k I bet it will be even better.


 
Nah, I don't think he's HAPPY or proud about it.  He's a REALIST.  He's just relaying that it is an impossibility for the shift to the majority standard not being 1920 x 1080 to happen quickly like that.  Take a look at the figures I posted from Steam on page 1.  The sheer percentages make that impossible.

Now, you might WANT that to happen, and in fact I think that's a good thing, and I would like to see it happen too, but I also just have to say, "It's not going to happen by a year from now."  Realistically? 5 years or more.


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 5, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> Nah, I don't think he's HAPPY or proud about it.  He's a REALIST.  He's just relaying that it is an impossibility for the shift to the majority standard not being 1920 x 1080 to happen quickly like that.  Take a look at the figures I posted from Steam on page 1.  The sheer percentages make that impossible.
> 
> Now, you might WANT that to happen, and in fact I think that's a good thing, and I would like to see it happen too, but I also just have to say, "It's not going to happen by a year from now."  Realistically? 5 years or more.




Who wants to ride a train that is almost at the end of the line, when there another one that is going further?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 5, 2014)

No one WANTS to.  Hilux said he predicts the majority change WILL happen in a year.  Not a chance.  A) Majority of consumers stay with what they have for long periods (reference Steam user hardware database) and always have, and B) the economy is still not that great, with good incomes more scarce on this side of the recovery than before the recession.  Therefore, people are more prudent with their funds.

And so far, what I'm seeing on this tech site, is a HIGHER percentage of people still using their 1920 x 1080p monitors (36.6%) than in the general public.  Could it be there is nothing actually WRONG with 1080p?


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 5, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Who wants to ride a train that is almost at the end of the line, when there another one that is going further?



The average consumer who is more concerned about best bang for the buck vs Maximum Pixel density, Monitor Frequency, and Panel type.


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 5, 2014)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> The average consumer who is more concerned about best bang for the buck vs Maximum Pixel density, Monitor Frequency, and Panel type.



I don't consider people who frequent a technology forum to be the average consumer.......


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 5, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> I don't consider people who frequent a technology forum to be the average consumer.......



The reason I stated that was because the discussion (please review the prior 10-12 posts) was on why 1920x1080 is a main stream resolution and why it is taking so long for adoption of  higher, more recent resolutions. Of course I wasn't talking about hardware enthusiasts on a hardware enthusiast website....


----------



## neatfeatguy (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm using 1080p - though I have 3 monitors. I find it awesome to run some games across all three (Borderlands 2, Batman games, Track Mania2 for example). For those that don't work well for whatever reason across 3 monitors I just run windowed so I can do things on the other monitors (watch Netflix and such).

I'd say make the jump to 2560x1440 - that's what I would do if I hadn't gone multi-monitors on 1080p.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 5, 2014)

The resolution is really up to you, OP... There isn't really a standard. Its what your eyes and desktop can support really. The most common is 1920x1080 though.



FX-GMC said:


> I don't consider people who frequent a technology forum to be the average consumer.......


LOL, you would be surprised... especially here and Tom's... tons of noobolishciousness here and there (and everwhere, but specifically here as you guys are huge so you have a lot of noobiles).


----------



## xorbe (Nov 5, 2014)

1920x1200 and 2560x1600, voted the former since I stare at that one the most


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 5, 2014)

Yeah there is just something better about that 16:10 aspect ratio it still is wide screen yet has more height. Never been a fan of 16:9 and I only used 4:3 when I was forced to because that was the best at the time.


----------



## twilyth (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm running this particular HTPC setup on a 50" Bravia and 23" Dell IPS monitor, both at 1080.  23" was the biggest I could get to fit my existing VESA monitor stand and anything bigger would have been in the way.  But for the other main rig, I've been thinking of getting something better than the 2 24" Samsungs that I currently have.


----------



## DayKnight (Nov 5, 2014)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Yeah there is just something better about that 16:10 aspect ratio it still is wide screen yet has more height. Never been a fan of 16:9 and I only used 4:3 when I was forced to because that was the best at the time.



So what now?.

Never been a fan of 16:10 and loved the way it died.

The only thing I am a fan of is 16:9 aspect ratio.


----------



## HossHuge (Nov 5, 2014)

manofthem said:


> Also glancing through the first few pages of that '08 thread, there are lots of unfamiliar names, guys that have since disappeared from TPU.



The Mailman has that affect on people!!


----------



## twilyth (Nov 6, 2014)

HossHuge said:


> The Mailman has that affect on people!!


True.  He's like kittens and sunshine.  It's not for everyone.


----------



## Naito (Nov 6, 2014)

manofthem said:


> Also glancing through the first few pages of that '08 thread, there are lots of unfamiliar names, guys that have since disappeared from TPU.



Yeah, gets a bit stale around here sometimes. I've noticed many familiar names disappear over the years (I was a lurker long before I was a member), which is a shame. In that thread alone there are many who have not made an appearance in a little over 2 years.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 6, 2014)

twilyth said:


> True.  He's like kittens and sunshine.  It's not for everyone.


I can think of many ways to describe TMM and that's definitely not one of them. 

Also 1080 is cost effective. Even if I use my tower every day without fail, I still won't likely spend more than 300 USD on a single display. That's what TVs are for IMHO, but that's me. Higher resolutions are dandy and all but in all seriousness it's at quite a cost, not just for the display but for the GPU(s) to drive it.


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 6, 2014)

All of my screens are 1920X1080 except for one 1980X1200 24" Hanspree screen.

Two are Veiwsonic (23.5" and 27")

One is Asus (27")

One is an older Samsung (21.5")

The Veiwsonics are the newest and look the best. They are IPS screens

I'd like to get a third 27" screen and use all three on one PC.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 6, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Who wants to ride a train that is almost at the end of the line, when there another one that is going further?




Me. because that train is well polished, runs smooth, and the seat has a groove from my ass being in it for so long.

I'm all for 4K screens and will upgrade eventually - but i feel no need to add in another GPU or two to get the same experience i do now, on a higher res screen. games *work* at 1080p, and work well. look at all the various threads we've had about being with issues on 4K, early adopters get it rough.


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 6, 2014)

Mussels said:


> Me. because that train is well polished, runs smooth, and the seat has a groove from my ass being in it for so long.
> 
> I'm all for 4K screens and will upgrade eventually - but i feel no need to add in another GPU or two to get the same experience i do now, on a higher res screen. games *work* at 1080p, and work well. look at all the various threads we've had about being with issues on 4K, early adopters get it rough.



I was pushing for 1440p or 1600p.  I agree on 4K. 

To be fair though l use dual 1680x1050 monitors at work and it's not that bad.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Nov 6, 2014)

I'm still at 1920x1080 on a 40" LED LCD and have no interest in going any higher any time soon.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Nov 6, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> Nah, I don't think he's HAPPY or proud about it.  He's a REALIST.  He's just relaying that it is an impossibility for the shift to the majority standard not being 1920 x 1080 to happen quickly like that.  Take a look at the figures I posted from Steam on page 1.  The sheer percentages make that impossible.
> 
> Now, you might WANT that to happen, and in fact I think that's a good thing, and I would like to see it happen too, but I also just have to say, "It's not going to happen by a year from now."  Realistically? 5 years or more.



You're reference to mainstream numbers from steam are fine and valid as the current common resolution.

BUT if steam included a survey asking what resolution will their next monitor purchase be, I think you would be agreeable at how few 1080p users would consider purchasing another 1080p monitor in place of another resolution.  The OP asked for most sought after resolution and that has to be right now 1440p/4K, aside from the 21:9 or 16:10 variants.

And take look up at the poll so far, 37 users of 1080p vs. 20 users of 1440p.  That's pretty telling which direction tech savvy computer users are going.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 6, 2014)

@Hilux SSRG : But that's just it.  Look at the numbers EVEN ON THIS TECH-Oriented site.  1080 is sitting there at 37%...and our members are supposedly more astute.  What that tells me is there is nothing wrong with 1080 amongst knowledgable people.  And I daresay, at least 75% of our 1080 members are not made of money, and will continue to use their 1080 for several years rather than buy something they don't actually NEED right now.  What my next purchase might be is inconsequential, for instance.  I got my 1080 last year to replace an old 1050.  Until there is a reason for me to get a 1440 (such as my current monitor breaking), I won't just go get one.  Most consumers are also the same way.  There's alot to be said for image quality (like @Mussels alludes to) without people having to break the bank on a top tier GPU in order to get a higher resolution monitor.

You surely can't think the general public will be eany more astute to resolutions than our TPU members do you?  1920 x 1080P will be the main resolution for 4 to 5 more years before something else becomes the majority.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Nov 6, 2014)

DayKnight said:


> So what now?.
> 
> Never been a fan of 16:10 and loved the way it died.
> 
> The only thing I am a fan of is 16:9 aspect ratio.



lol. never dies. you just assume it is. guess you'll change your mind if you use 2560x1600 


voted for more than 1600p as i have monitors  at eyefinity 1600p


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 6, 2014)

Mine's 2560x1440, but I say just get the best resolution your budget can afford.


----------



## Nordic (Nov 6, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> @Hilux SSRG : But that's just it.  Look at the numbers EVEN ON THIS TECH-Oriented site.  1080 is sitting there at 37%...and our members are supposedly more astute.  What that tells me is there is nothing wrong with 1080 amongst knowledgable people.  And I daresay, at least 75% of our 1080 members are not made of money, and will continue to use their 1080 for several years rather than buy something they don't actually NEED right now.  What my next purchase might be is inconsequential, for instance.  I got my 1080 last year to replace an old 1050.  Until there is a reason for me to get a 1440 (such as my current monitor breaking), I won't just go get one.  Most consumers are also the same way.  There's alot to be said for image quality (like @Mussels alludes to) without people having to break the bank on a top tier GPU
> 
> You surely can't think the general public will be eany more astute to resolutions than our TPU members do you?  1920 x 1080P will be the main resolution for 4 to 5 more years before something else becomes the majority.


I don't need 1080p. I was reletively happy with my previous resolution of 1400x900.


----------



## Frick (Nov 6, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> BUT if steam included a survey asking what resolution will their next monitor purchase be, I think you would be agreeable at how few 1080p users would consider purchasing another 1080p monitor in place of another resolution.  The OP asked for most sought after resolution and that has to be right now 1440p/4K, aside from the 21:9 or 16:10 variants.



I would agree if good 1080p monitors weren't so cheap. A decent IPS 23 inch 1080p is about €120, the cheapest 1440p is nearly €300. I think it's pretty hard to justify that difference, nevermind the power needed to provide the same experience. I also agree with whatever chap said in another thread: 1440p/1600p will be like 1200p (rare and expensive) and 4K will eventually be 1080p. That's several computer generations away in any case.



night.fox said:


> lol. never dies. you just assume it is. guess you'll change your mind if you use 2560x1600
> 
> 
> voted for more than 1600p as i have monitors  at eyefinity 1600p



Compared to 1080/1440 it's pretty dead. There are 13 1600p monitors avaliable in Sweden now, the cheapest is more than €800. There are 58 1440p monitors, the cheapest being under €300. 1200p is more common, but the cheapest one is still twice as expensive as the cheapest 1080p and €40 more than a decent IPS 1080p. If I were to buy a monitor I could not justify that to myself.


----------



## marmiteonpizza (Nov 6, 2014)

I've got a 23" 1080p LG monitor - don't see the point in getting a higher resolution until more games and films support 4k (ultra HD) resolution.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Nov 17, 2014)

Agreed. No need for anything more than 1080p until there are more sources for 4k. I could buy a 4k TV or PC monitor or both tomorrow if I wanted to. I just don't see the need at this time. 1080p looks great to me. I've no complaints. 

When 4k is the norm for movies and such then I will upgrade.

Hell if I needed to buy a new monitor tomorrow I would buy a good 1080p set and be done.


----------

