1440p Performance loss with 1440p over 1080p?

[Adrian West 6]

Hi.

I am investigating an upgrade specifically for P3Dv4. The rigs I am looking at are designed for flight simmers. I would probably be looking at a system with an i7-7700k or i7-8700k running at around 4.6 GHz or higher, 16 GB DDR4 RAM and a GTX 1070 8 GB GPU. The big dilemma I have is what sort of monitor to go for. My existing monitor is an 8 year old 21 inch TFT running at 1680x1050. The colour reproduction isn't great, and my flight sim (currently FSX) looks rather washed out, and gauges can be difficult to read. My research has suggested that I should go for an IPS monitor rather than TN because of the much better colour reproduction. The question is whether to go for a 1920x1080 full HD, which won't be a huge resolution improvement over my existing monitor, or to pay more for a 2560x1440 QHD. Desk space is an issue for me, so I will not be able to go higher than 27 inch. Going for 1080p on a 27 inch will presumably degrade the look of the picture because of the larger pixels. On the other hand running 1440p on a 24 inch will make the text really small (and my eyesight isn't what it once was!). So I'm left with the choice of a 24 inch 1080p versus a 27 inch 1440p. What I would really like to know is what sort of performance hit 1440p will have on P3D, as the GPU will be processing 3.7 million pixels as opposed to 2.1 million on 1080p. I have seen some videos on YouTube comparing the fps on games (not flight sims), and the loss was around 25-33% when using QHD. Can I expect a similar hit on P3D? Is the visual benefit of QHD worth the performance hit on the sim? Or would I be better sticking with a 14 inch 1080p? Or with my projected system specs, do you think P3D will run just fine at 1440p, even with all of the usual add ons?

Thanks for your help.

Adrian

[vortex681 806]

44 minutes ago, Adrian West said:

do you think P3D will run just fine at 1440p, even with all of the usual add ons?

Your proposed system should run at QHD without problems. There is definitely a hit going from 1080 to 1440 but the extra performance from the new CPU should comfortably mask the drop. Remember that most of the work is still done by the CPU - I'd opt for the 8700k as it has a higher stock speed. That said, either processor should have no problems at 1440.

Monitors: IPS has better colour fidelity but TN has the fastest response times (but still has decent colour). A good compromise is AVMA which has great colour and good response. Definitely go for a 27" QHD monitor - you start to see the pixels at that screen size with 1080. I have a 32" QHD AVMA monitor and love it.

Edited March 27, 2018 by vortex681

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

Consider a 1920x1200 ips. Asus has a good 24 inch for around $300.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

I’m seriously considering a BenQ 27” 4K monitor model SW271 primarily for photographic work but also to give me more desk space on a WideFS PC on which I run P3D related software. I would replace a 11 year old Dell 24” 1920*1200 and LG 17” 4:3 monitor.

As graphics cards get more powerful we’ll probably end up running at 4K and the detail will be superb. You could consider one but run it at a lower resolution if your card can’t cope with 4K but in a year or two with a more powerful card you’d be setup for 4K.

[vortex681 806]

Although it's obviously a matter of personal choice, 4k on a 27" monitor is a not the best combination IMHO. Although you can scale the text on the desktop, some games have fixed sized fonts which look very small on that size of screen. You really want a screen around 40" to really get the benefit of 4k. Having compared 4k to QHD on that screen size, there's very little difference in quality for the extra cost and performance hit of going 4k. If you can, I would say try to compare the software/games you use on both a 27" IPS QHD monitor a 4k monitor before you commit yourself.

Edited March 28, 2018 by vortex681

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

@vortex681, fair point. I only mentioned it because he's limited to 27" for space reasons.

I'm looking to change my 11 year-old Dell 24" and need one accurate for photo work that will double-up for FS use.

I agree that for Adrian the 2560*1440 would be an ideal solution.

[vortex681 806]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I'm looking to change my 11 year-old Dell 24" and need one accurate for photo work that will double-up for FS use.

Would any IPS monitor not show accurate enough colours for photographic work? My previous comment was primarily about the value of 4K on a 27" monitor. The pixel size at QHD on that screen size is already too small to distinguish them individually at normal viewing distance. I'm curious to know what you'd gain by reducing the pixel size further.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

52 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Would any IPS monitor not show accurate enough colours for photographic work? My previous comment was primarily about the value of 4K on a 27" monitor. The pixel size at QHD on that screen size is already too small to distinguish them individually at normal viewing distance. I'm curious to know what you'd gain by reducing the pixel size further.

I have a Nikon D7100 DSLR that produces images 6000*4000. Whilst the resolution doesn’t impact on colour fidelity the monitor I’m considering is 10-bit and can produce 100% sRGB. There’s also the question of keeping as much of my existing desktop (using 2 monitors) as possible. A 4K one would allow slightly more pixels whereas a 2560*1440 would provide less.

I have a 55” 4K TV in my lounge and sit at 8ft. Just outside the optimum distance. If you use this calculator you’ll see sitting around 2.5ft from a 27” is ideal.

https://www.inchcalculator.com/tv-size-viewing-distance-calculator/

[MarkDH 234]

1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

The pixel size at QHD on that screen size is already too small to distinguish them individually at normal viewing distance.

I think this is an overstatement. It will look good but it's still less than 110dpi. Apple's 'Retina' displays are more than double this resolution.

[vortex681 806]

17 hours ago, MarkDH said:

I think this is an overstatement. It will look good but it's still less than 110dpi. Apple's 'Retina' displays are more than double this resolution.

There's no science involved here, just personal experience. You reach a point as you increase screen resolution where you can't see individual pixels (from a fixed viewing distance) and adding more doesn't visually add anything to the image. My comment was based on comparing a lot of monitors when I upgraded mine. The minimum size I'd decided on was 27" and I didnt notice any significant image improvement between QHD and 4k at that screen size. One person's visual acuity may be different from another's which is why I originally suggested to Ray to compare them before he buys.

Edited March 29, 2018 by vortex681

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

@vortex681, 2560*1440 is the mid-way point between FullHD and 4K. It's a decent improvement in resolution and the user will see a better panel and only slightly poorer fps.

If you compare the two monitors in the link below you'll see a 4K BenQ SW271 for around £1066 and an Eizo 2560*1440 for £950. I tend to think of Eizo as the Rolls-Royce of monitors but I also think there's a price premium that comes with the name,

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/buying-guides/best-monitors-for-photographers

I hadn't really considered BenQ as I didn't consider them a quality brand but after researching their better models I've changed my mind.

I intend to research the benefits / drawbacks of 4K over lower resolutions in Windows but to be able to buy a 4K monitor for a £100 premium is very tempting.

[vortex681 806]

17 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

If you use this calculator you’ll see sitting around 2.5ft from a 27” is ideal.

https://www.inchcalculator.com/tv-size-viewing-distance-calculator/

I'm not exactly sure what this calculator uses to produce the result but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with resolution. I sit about 30" from my monitor so I put that distance into the calculator. No matter which of the four resolution options you choose, it always gives 22" as the recommended screen size. That would be a good size for 1080p but ridiculous for 4k. When you read further down, it appears to be more about viewing angles than about image quality.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

@vortex681, the problem with these calculators is they're designed for TV viewing rather than monitor viewing. Have a look at this chart which comes from a reputable UK forum and which I used to gauge the size of TV I could buy.

A distance of 2-4ft for a 27" seems fine for 4K. For 2560*1440 a distance of around 3-5ft seems reasonable.

 

Edit: Of course 3840*2160 isn't actually 4K. It's UHD. 4K is 4096*2160 but try finding a display that can show that resolution. I think it's probably reserved for cinemas.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Ray Proudfoot
Additional info

[vortex681 806]

34 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I hadn't really considered BenQ as I didn't consider them a quality brand but after researching their better models I've changed my mind.

You can get a high performance/quality, award-winning 27" monitor for photo editing for much less than those you quoted. Take a look at https://www.photoworkout.com/best-monitors-photo-editing/#BenQSW2700PT. You can currently get it on sale at Scan in the UK for only £560 giving you lots of spare cash for camera or sim updates!

[Ray Proudfoot 8,931]

That is the alternative I'm chewing over. So difficult to come to a clear decision. Would I regret not moving to UHD? The reason for UHD is to dispense with a 18" TFT thus clearing up desk space.

I'll keep chewing things over and leave the credit card in a safe place.