When will 1440p be mainstream and commonly used?

[GreiverBlade]

4K means 4x the number of pixels as in FHD. It's the same thing as camera megapixels. 20 MP is 10 MP x 2, and not the width and height of 10 MP x 2 (which would be 40 MP). 2x2=4.

Actually, yes and no, where I live 2560x1440 was always referenced as 2.5K 1920x1080 2K (even though it should be 2048x1080 to be 100% correct) 3840x2160 4K because of the horizontal resolution (+/- rounded)

Both are valid and logical imho (aherm 2xhorizontal 2k=4K )

Ok, I'll try to keep my OCD in check...

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Can we please leave 2(.5)k to die the death it deserves as a term? FHD and QHD are much less ambiguous and just as easy to type.

 

[Bomby569]

You could try actually saying something

he is just comparing still images, does anyone play games like that? 1fps portrait mode?

 

[GreiverBlade]

Can we please leave 2(.5)k to die the death it deserves as a term? FHD and QHD are much less ambiguous and just as easy to type.

ah, yeah, i prefer HD FHD QHD WQHD and UHD no worries (but what is 2880x1620 then? (joking))

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

QHD WQHD

Leave WQHD out, same as QHD.

but what is 2880x1620 then?

Not a standard, I reckon.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Leave WQHD out, same as QHD.

Not a standard, I reckon.

yep wide QHD should be the same resolution ...

oh well my non standard i will keep calling it "3K" then (tho it's the max native res of a PS5 )

alright i stop at that

 

[Mussels]

he is just comparing still images, does anyone play games like that? 1fps portrait mode?

You didn't read the post at all.

 

[Why_Me]

Hi,
Not enough real estate difference for people to change from 1080 to 1440
If they switch they'd go 4k so 1440 gets other=never.

I don't agree with that. FPS gamers want smoothness as in frames per second and not all of them can afford a 4090.

 

[Mussels]

I don't agree with that. FPS gamers want smoothness as in frames per second and not all of them can afford a 4090.

Dude if E-sports titles can run at 4K60 on a console based on 5 year old laptop hardware, you don't need a 4090 for it

The PS5 has extremely weak hardware by todays standards, 4K is only a struggle if you want to run ultra with RTX on - and competitive games simply don't do that, just the oddball ones like CP2077 that run like shite for everyone so they're in the news and competitive benchmarkers keep everyone talking about it

AMD 4700S Review: Defective PlayStation 5 Chips Resurrected | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)

even a ryzen 3300x can handle 4K120 gameplay, while on the GPU side we simple have lower settings and features like DLSS to make it viable on weaker hardware

Esports title:

Vs wants to be the next crysis

 

[Why_Me]

Dude if E-sports titles can run at 4K60 on a console based on 5 year old laptop hardware, you don't need a 4090 for it

The PS5 has extremely weak hardware by todays standards, 4K is only a struggle if you want to run ultra with RTX on - and competitive games simply don't do that, just the oddball ones like CP2077 that run like shite for everyone so they're in the news and competitive benchmarkers keep everyone talking about it

AMD 4700S Review: Defective PlayStation 5 Chips Resurrected | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)
View attachment 272577

even a ryzen 3300x can handle 4K120 gameplay, while on the GPU side we simple have lower settings and features like DLSS to make it viable on weaker hardware

Esports title:
View attachment 272578

Vs wants to be the next crysis
View attachment 272579

A 4080 with a 13600K will run Warzone 2 at near 200 FPS @ 1440 with everything cranked up on high. Pair that up with a 240hz monitor and you're in PC gaming heaven. When I think of console gamers I imagine someone sitting on their couch with a pair of earbuds and a bowl of popcorn on their lap while gaming on their TV.

 

[Mussels]

A 4080 with a 13600K will run Warzone 2 at near 200 FPS @ 1440 with everything cranked up on high. Pair that up with a 240hz monitor and you're in PC gaming heaven. When I think of console gamers I imagine someone sitting on their couch with a pair of earbuds and a bowl of popcorn on their lap while gaming on their TV.

My old 1070Ti needs an FPS limiter to keep it at 120FPS in the games I play (especially now I hacked DLSS to work on it) and that's at ultra settings
What i tend to not play is those crysis wannabes like CP2077 because they're always shittily optimised and feel extremely laggy even if you get high FPS


Other than a few odd dips at times that almost felt CPU limited (I'm assuming it's actually the 16GB of RAM doing that) it was absolutely playable and i'd probably not notice
Huh i want 2x16GB for that PC now...

 

[whereismymind]

this is the stupidest poll I have seen on the internet this week

what do you mean? there are lots of varying opinions, i personally believe it'll be mainstream on 2024. if you only want to be hateful, you should just go.

 

[outpt]

Went from 24” 1080p 60hz to 32” 1440p 165hz hdr and it blew my socks off.
Could not believe what I had been missing. I think this resolution will last me for some time. There would have to be something major in new monitors to get me move. Like 8k or something.
btw I voted 2026.

 

[Mussels]

Went from 24” 1080p 60hz to 32” 1440p 165hz hdr and it blew my socks off.
Could not believe what I had been missing. I think this resolution will last me for some time. There would have to be something major in new monitors to get me move. Like 8k or something.
btw I voted 2026.

I felt the same until I got a second 32" display

Having them side-by-side was interesting as text was definitely clearer, but with 150% scaling the same size - It wasn't until i noticed the visual differences in games (literally, more is visible further away) that i gave up on 1440p gaming except on my slower PC's that cant do 4K/DLSS

 

[sergioregraguy]

Now I know that 1440p is being used by current-gen 70/80 users quite frequently, but when will it be the resolution that your average gamer is using like 1080p?

Is it the majority? according to statistics evidently not, a part of it is because laptops still make a large market in statistics and those usually come at 1080p these days.

 

[lightning70]

Not before 2024 but realistic 2025.

 

[sergioregraguy]

Is it the majority? according to statistics evidently not, a part of it is because laptops still make a large market in statistics and those usually come at 1080p these days.

vps​

 

[Steevo]

Never, 4K is the next milestone I believe, it’s the resolution that all our new TVs and monitors are. When the digital revolution started and computers caught up to what film could do, and as the two merged we got 1080, now we have 4K

 

[dgianstefani]

It's a resolution that's an inherent compromise. It exists because 4k is too hard to push high fps and 1080p is too low resolution.

When 4k becomes mainstream in a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see 1440p die.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

It's a resolution that's an inherent compromise. It exists because 4k is too hard to push high fps and 1080p is too low resolution.

When 4k becomes mainstream in a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see 1440p die.

For those gaming on desktop, absolutely.

I kind of think that it is superior to 4K on any screen 17" and below (laptops).

 

[Panther_Seraphin]

1440 is a left over resolution. It was seen by the PC market as being the next best thing. Same as 1280x1024 back in the CRT days or the days of 16:10 1920x1200.

The only reason it has had traction in the current era is because 4k has been historically near unachievable with stock hardware at >60FPS as a blanket statement. Now that we will see other cards but "titan" class being able to do this you will see 4k 165hz monitors more and more often now. Now that its being adopted by media as the next stage as well as 8k 1440 will never see the numbers like 1080 monitors have.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

1440 is a left over resolution. It was seen by the PC market as being the next best thing. Same as 1280x1024 back in the CRT days or the days of 16:10 1920x1200.

I'm so sad 16:10 didn't get more traction cuz I like the extra vertical real estate. I've compensated by moving my taskbar to the side of the screen. It's not unheard of in laptops, but there's hardly any desktop monitors in that ratio. I ran 1152 x 864 or 1280 x 960 on CRTs. 1280 x 1024 is 5:4 rather than 4:3, so distorts aspect ratio a little bit.

 

[AusWolf]

I'm so sad 16:10 didn't get more traction cuz I like the extra vertical real estate. I've compensated by moving my taskbar to the side of the screen. It's not unheard of in laptops, but there's hardly any desktop monitors in that ratio. I ran 1152 x 864 or 1280 x 960 on CRTs. 1280 x 1024 is 5:4 rather than 4:3, so distorts aspect ratio a little bit.

Me too! 1920x1200 is the best resolution I've ever used. I'm still sad that I had to leave behind my Dell of that resolution when I moved 6 years ago.

 

[Mussels]

It's a resolution that's an inherent compromise. It exists because 4k is too hard to push high fps and 1080p is too low resolution.

When 4k becomes mainstream in a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see 1440p die.

Not quite


It mostly comes down to backlighting tech, as that's what controls a lot of how high the pixel density can go and why OLED jumped ahead of its time a little - because they're self-lit
"quantum dot" LCD's are in fact, a backlighting tech that lets them fit the same amount of pixels in a smaller space


LCD panels are printed in giant sheets, if there's dead pixels throughout its better to cut it up and use it in many smaller displays, or if you're using an older process and larger pixel sizes you can get the same res in a larger panel


I cant brain the diagonal math rn, but you could have four 1080p displays or one 4K display made from the same sheet of the LCD paneling, with the same size pixels, same size backlighting, etc

This is why ultrawides exist because they tried making 4K panels, had too many dead pixels and figured if they cut 1/3rd of it off they can convince gamers its better for them somehow
That 34" ultrawide is scrap leftovers meant to be a 42" 16:9 display (or whatever, not mathing it)

 

[mplayerMuPDF]

1440 is a left over resolution. It was seen by the PC market as being the next best thing. Same as 1280x1024 back in the CRT days or the days of 16:10 1920x1200.

The only reason it has had traction in the current era is because 4k has been historically near unachievable with stock hardware at >60FPS as a blanket statement. Now that we will see other cards but "titan" class being able to do this you will see 4k 165hz monitors more and more often now. Now that its being adopted by media as the next stage as well as 8k 1440 will never see the numbers like 1080 monitors have.

It's a resolution that's an inherent compromise. It exists because 4k is too hard to push high fps and 1080p is too low resolution.

When 4k becomes mainstream in a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see 1440p die.

Monitors are not just for gaming unless you are specifically talking about "gaming" branded monitors. There may be non-gaming related considerations that may lead to people choosing 1440p.