1440p Is the New 1080p: Why Budget Gaming Monitors Are Better Than Ever

[Felusy]

Ah, finally you answered question. Partly. Since you say they sold terribly, tell me at least two models that actually sold terribly. 16:10 desktop display with at least 120 Hz refresh rate.

No-one cares about 16:10 and just 120 Hz. Outdated stuff. In my company, we sold 0 16:10 monitors in 2023 and we sold 1.8 million monitors. Do the math. Should be an easy one.

There is absolutely no demand for 16:10.

People that want workspace, goes 32" 4K/UHD or 38-49" Ultrawide or simply use multiple monitors.

16:10 is dead and gone for desktop monitors. All current 16:10 monitors has dated specs.

Now, a question for you. Mention one, JUST ONE, 16:10 monitor that sold well lately.
Good luck. The aspect ratio is dead outside of laptops.

 

[HardReset]

No-one cares about 16:10 and just 120 Hz. Outdated stuff. In my company, we sold 0 16:10 monitors in 2023 and we sold 1.8 million monitors. Do the math. Should be an easy one.

There is absolutely no demand for 16:10.

People that want workspace, goes 32" 4K/UHD or 38-49" Ultrawide or simply multi monitors.

So answering question seems to be too hard.

Then, something much easier question: tell me how many 16:10 monitor models your company offered to your customers?

 

[Felusy]

So answering question seems to be too hard.

Then, something much easier question: tell me how many 16:10 monitor models your company offered to your customers?

We don't offer anything, we deliver what they ask for, and no-one asks for 16:10.

Companies want 16:9 and Ultrawides 21:9 + 32:9

We can deliver 16:10 sure, but all the monitors are outdated and old since production pretty much stopped. Most have huge thick bezels, ugly design etc.

 

[HardReset]

We don't offer anything, we deliver what they ask for, and no-one asks for 16:10.

Companies want 16:9 and Ultrawides 21:9 + 32:9

We can deliver 16:10 sure, but all the monitors are outdated and old since production pretty much stopped. Most have huge thick bezels, ugly design etc.

Now you finally got the point. You have ZERO supply for 16:10 monitors. What is Expected demand if supply is zero? Exactly. ZERO!!!

I guarantee that demand will be Higher than zero if you offer modern 16:10 monitors.

 

[Felusy]

Now you finally got the point. You have ZERO supply for 16:10 monitors. What is Expected demand if supply is zero? Exactly. ZERO!!!

I guarantee that demand will be Higher than zero if you offer modern 16:10 monitors.

Can you read? I can order 16:10 just fine, just no demand for them.
All 16:10 monitors are dated.
Dead and gone.

Why do you keep insisting? You are simply plain wrong. 16:10 demand is lower than ever. Production is minimal as a result.

According to you, AMD is also market leader in the GPU market too and could easily destroy Nvidia in terms of RT performance and AI. They just don't want to. Makes sense. Delusional, is what you are. Denying reality don't make things true.

 

[HardReset]

Can you read? I can order 16:10 just fine, just no demand for them.
All 16:10 monitors are dated.
Dead and gone.

Why do you keep insisting? You are simply plain wrong. 16:10 demand is lower than ever. Production is minimal as a result.

According to you, AMD is also market leader in the GPU market too and could easily destroy Nvidia in terms of RT performance. They just don't want to. Makes sense. Delusional, is what you are.

So you admit that you cannot deliver MODERN 16:10 monitor. That's why demand is zero: you have Zero supply. Make supply and THEN say there is no demand. YOU CANNOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DEMAND UNLESS THERE IS SUPPLY!!!

How much was demand for ultrawide monitors in your company before they existed? I don't know but I predict: Zero. Tell if I was right.

 

[mailpup]

HardReset and Felusy, please discontinue your personal argument in this thread. If you need to continue, please do so using PM. Thanks.

 

[zx8086]

"1440p Is the New 1080p, but we will doggedly insist on using only 4090@1080p in our benchmarks, because muh science "

 

[mrSister]

I'm fine with my old 1080p, 144Hz. No reason to upgrade unless forced. All the pixels in the world won't make a bad/boring/broken/cashgrab game any better.

Also, lower resolution helps with graphic cards savings. I wouldn't like to be forced to buy a +600€ because of a screen xD

 

[llamapanda]

"1440p Is the New 1080p, but we will doggedly insist on using only 4090@1080p in our benchmarks, because muh science "

I assume you're joking here because nobody wants to put another quarter in Steve's explain-o-meter!

I think we'll keep seeing 1080p in benchmarks though because despite 1440p being affordable. There are still plenty of people using old TVs as gaming monitors or who simply can't afford the GPU horsepower to drive 1440p, not to mention 1080p being a standard that most devs aim at for compatibility and console requirements.

 

[Billybobjoey]

Not gaming related, but we just ordered some new office monitors at my work and I was shocked how cheap 1080p 100hz monitors are these days. We got some cheap Phillips 22" 1080p 100hz off of amazon for like $60 each. I remember maybe 3 or 4 years ago I got a 1080p 144hz "gaming" monitor as a second monitor for my mid range desktop and it was about ~$150ish. If I had more desk space at work, I'd totally take one of those Phillips monitors after setting it up.

 

[redgarl]

No, the new 1080p is 2160p.

We are at the moment that 2160p is the new standard in all medias.

1440p is exclusive to PC monitors, anecdotic and not democratic at all.

 

[STbob]

1440p is highly playable, and the benefits are easily justified. I do not agree with this statement at all.
But I come from the Q2 CTF pro era. I did know many people that would play at a higher resolution than 800x600 at 15 fps and swear the same thing (wow its clearer if I set 2" from the screen. They always wondered why they were terrible at FPS games.

This reviewer reminds of of people that tried to be on our teams but failed to grasp fps, lag, etc. They were it does not matter as long as the resolution is higher = trumps everything even common sense.

Sorry 1440p with a 3060 is not fun the lag and fps is not worth it. 1080p is the resolution to play at. But I am sure there are many people that will play at 4K with a 3060 and swear its better in all games because at 2" from the screen its clearer.

You have to factor in distance to the human eye not just screen size. A 4k wrist watch at 100 feet is no better than a 1080p at 100 feet to the naked eye.

The good that I do agree with is now 1080P high refresh monitor are cheaper than ever because people are buying the 1440p monitors thinking they must be better because the numbers are bigger. I love that, let the ignorant pave the way for lower prices for 1080 hi refresh. Who said ignorant people can't be useful? I don't agree

 

[m3tavision]

What is this, 2015?

There is literally tons of GPUs that will run 1440p today. Even cheap ones. Even last gen 6700XT and 3070 will do 1440p in most games at high settings, non RT with 60 fps avg.

Also there is upscaling and DLSS Quality looks very good at 1440p. FSR not so much.
1440p has never been easier to run unless your hardware is extremely dated.

With DLSS you can run a 4K monitor with like a 4070 and still get better much visuals than 1440p. Tried it, seen it, done it.

Most people talking crap about DLSS only have seen FSR and DLSS is far better. Tried both many times. DLSS has no ghosting issues, no smearing, no artifacts and built in anti aliasing and sharpening, meaning 3rd party AA like TAA is not needed and TAA sucks anyway.

Also DLSS has huge support in games. I can use it in pretty much all new games. I rarely play games without DLSS anymore, because the alternative is not better. No DLSS = Lower fps and worse IQ for the most part. Game simply looks and runs worse.

DLSS also gives option for DLAA which improves on native in every single way.

Yes, upscaling is great for Single-Player games, or Thematic games you can save. But in shooters you loose too much "far off" fidelity when upscaling/Ai is trying to render windows 200m away.. and the corner of someone's head on the 3rd floor... has to be there on the first look(snape peak).

Native frames is thee reason people buy high-end GPUs is to play with the least amount of latency & gimmicks.

I have no idea what's wrong with 1080. My monitor is 1080 and 32 inches and perfectly sharp and was only £150 15 months ago. What's the point of having a greater resolution? I'd have to squint in order to see the smaller text. And I'm not interested in playing any games with a greater resolution than 1080.

While you are busy seeing one quarter of the Game, the rest of the people are seeing the whole picture.

 

[Gezzer]

Now you finally got the point. You have ZERO supply for 16:10 monitors. What is Expected demand if supply is zero? Exactly. ZERO!!!

I guarantee that demand will be Higher than zero if you offer modern 16:10 monitors.

The problem isn't demand, it's the eventual retail price. 16:10 was the original WHD Vesa standard when LCD was beginning to replace CRT tech. We're talking CCFL backlighting. 16:9 for HDTV, 16:10 for WHD computer monitors. Overall costs for both formats were about the same.

But consumer demand was and still is higher for HDTVs than for monitors which drove down the costs of 16:9 panels compared to 16:10. At that point the computer monitor market started to split between both formats, with 16:9 being a both a cheaper option, and eventually more advanced as well.

The end result is there are way less 16:10 panels being developed than 16:9, making monitors using the panel format returning less bang for the buck, due to being way behind technology wise. I've used both and have 3 24" 16:10 (1920x1200) in a surround setup. They were high end expensive IPS panels 14 years ago and while long in the tooth still look pretty good. So I'm not discounting 16:10.

It's like I said, what you get for your money. 16:10 monitors are a niche' market with most being so out of date compared to 16:9 that the only people buying them are graphic artists looking for the extra screen area. 16:9 is the accepted standard now, and that's not going to change. Sorry.

 

[toooooot]

It would be nice, though, if OLED became the next LCD price wise, next.
It is 2024, and charging 1k dollars for 2k OLED monitors is far from
optimal for a lot of people. I feel like there is no intention
replacing lcd with OLED. Longevity is probably a reason too.

 

[Hom3r]

It would be nice, though, if OLED became the next LCD price wise, next.
It is 2024, and charging 1k dollars for 2k OLED monitors is far from
optimal for a lot of people. I feel like there is no intention
replacing lcd with OLED. Longevity is probably a reason too.

OLED monitors are not even that expensive and you get vastly better image quality and motion clarity.

OLED monitors pretty much already took over high-end gaming monitor market. LCD is far behind on performance and refresh rate.

OLED at like just 150-200 Hz is better than LCD at 360 Hz, way way smoother due to insanely low response times and next level motion clarity. Can't beat per pixel control.

LCD is a smearing mess compared to OLED really. LCD has poor contrast, bad viewing angles and big issues with backlighting like all LCD panels, which is especially bad in dim or dark room usage.

Mini LCD backlighting don't really fix the issues, as it needs processing to work well which increases input lag. This is why most / all LCD TVs with Mini LED backlighting disables most dimming zones when in game mode and then image quality drops bigtime.

I am never going back to LCD ever again that is for sure. Used OLED TVs since 2017 and recently got my first OLED 4K/240Hz monitor, absolutely amazing.

My phone has been using OLED for the past 10-15 models...

So, probably had like 20-25 OLED panels by now, and have yet to see any sort of burn-in, but sure, keep spreading nonsense while I enjoy next level image quality.

 

[Nobina]

I've never seen anyone complain about 1080p screen quality outside tech forums. 1080p screens are usually 24 inch and 1440p are 27 inch so it's around the same PPI.

 

[zx8086]

I assume you're joking here because nobody wants to put another quarter in Steve's explain-o-meter!

I think we'll keep seeing 1080p in benchmarks though because despite 1440p being affordable. There are still plenty of people using old TVs as gaming monitors or who simply can't afford the GPU horsepower to drive 1440p, not to mention 1080p being a standard that most devs aim at for compatibility and console requirements.

The official (rather tiresome) explanation is that that's the only way to show maximum differences between CPUs and not be bottlenecked by GPU. That might be true when you're writing a science paper or talking to people interested in theoretical scenarios, but has little bearing on real world ones.

It definitely hasn't got much to do with the fact that many people actually use 1080p screens (this demographic certainly doesn't use 4090s, by and large)

 

[HardReset]

The problem isn't demand, it's the eventual retail price. 16:10 was the original WHD Vesa standard when LCD was beginning to replace CRT tech. We're talking CCFL backlighting. 16:9 for HDTV, 16:10 for WHD computer monitors. Overall costs for both formats were about the same.

But consumer demand was and still is higher for HDTVs than for monitors which drove down the costs of 16:9 panels compared to 16:10. At that point the computer monitor market started to split between both formats, with 16:9 being a both a cheaper option, and eventually more advanced as well.

The end result is there are way less 16:10 panels being developed than 16:9, making monitors using the panel format returning less bang for the buck, due to being way behind technology wise. I've used both and have 3 24" 16:10 (1920x1200) in a surround setup. They were high end expensive IPS panels 14 years ago and while long in the tooth still look pretty good. So I'm not discounting 16:10.

It's like I said, what you get for your money. 16:10 monitors are a niche' market with most being so out of date compared to 16:9 that the only people buying them are graphic artists looking for the extra screen area. 16:9 is the accepted standard now, and that's not going to change. Sorry.

Partially agreed. I know quite well history. But that happened years ago and today it's much easier to make "custom" sized displays than it was before. Main question remains: is there market for modern 16:10 displays or not? Sadly, only way to find out is to release Modern 16:10 display. Like 2560*1600 pixels with at least 120 Hz or preferably 144 Hz refresh rate, or higher. Are even single model available with those specs? AFAIK there are zero 16:10 displays with over 120 Hz refresh rate and resolution at least 1980*1200.

Because nothing is available, then demand is also zero. Simple as that. Claiming there is no market for modern 16:10 displays is 100% BS unless it's proven that such things won't sale. And because no models are available, there sales are also zero.

In other words, at this case panel manufacturers just decided that desktop monitors must be 16:9 and there are no 16:10 available, except for some professional use.

Pretty much same situation as with QWERTY-phones. Some say there is no demand, still many totally unknown people have asked me where to get one when they saw I have one. Yeah, there IS demand but since literally no store sells them, demand is also very low. In other words, stores decided to offer only non-QWERTY phones and because there are no available, sales are also very low. If stores just put QWERTY phones next to non-QWERTY ones, we would KNOW if is there demand. Right now it's same situation that happens on 16:10 monitors: zero supply without even trying to see if there is demand = zero sales.

 

[m3tavision]

Geeesh..!
Back then on small monitors 16:10 was always more preferable... but when PC panels started falling in favor of the CHEAPER (lower quality) & larger TV panels... the whole 1440p craze started...!

(Again) My 11 year old 1440p Gaming panel (Overlord) was a crash purchase bcz my SONY CRTs were too old. So I made the jump to flat-panel. But back then, PC gamers didn't want 16:9, we wanted the TALLER displays... and it also benefitted work flow and website usage too.

But because of Capitalism TV panels and PC panels coalesced and become one, save a few niche Vendors serving High-End Gaming Panels. Everything else just turned into trash and why their prices are in the dumpster and so many off-brands everywhere.


Once you get beyond dorm room size 27" monitors, the aspect ratio and needs changes for each Gamers.

3 years ago I was so happy to move to 1600p Ultra widescreen (38" Dell 3840x1600 AW3821DW). It's size & aspect ratio (21:9) is near perfect for any type of gaming. But I also have a 42" OLED PG42UQ Gaming Monitor that I keep wishing was 21:9 instead of 16:9... it comes down to size and use.

 

[ZedRM]

1440p Is the New 1080p

No it isn't. It's a stop-gap resolution. 2160p will be the new 1080p once prices come down.

 

[ZedRM]

No-one cares about 16:10 and just 120 Hz.

Not true. There are many who care about 8:5, prefer 120hz and for a number of reasons. You not understanding those reasons is your own problem.

 

[LimyG]

If there were a similar market share for 16:10 vs 16:9 that would be great. I'd go 16:10.
But the selection of 16:9 is huge. Up to 27" it's great, and the choice/price is as of Oct 2024 the best ever.
It's not about what one prefers. The reality is that anyone can get a 16:10. But there choices will be massively limited. The price to performance/quality, not close.
It may be due to TV standards that 16:9 pretty much wiped out yee olde 16:10, a shame yes, a reality yes.
Excellent 1440p (as the article points out) is now perfect in terms of not just better pic quality, but price for the casual/and not so casual gamer.

Of course everyone would prefer an 8k (if GPU permits) over a 4k. A 4k over a 1440p - certainly at 24 inches. 16:10. The market just isn't there, so while I would prefer 16:10, it's never even something I would consider. That's the market. It's unlikely to change. I have been very happy with my First 1440p in 2015, and now my AOC 273QXP which was reasonably priced, the colours pop, and text is well suited. Niether of those options are available in 16:10.
That's just the market.
It's a great time, especially for someone not working or short on funds to get a 24" or 27" 1440p monitor which will perform well.
At 16:10, at that 2k resolution sweet spot - it doesn't exist.

 

[LimyG]

Now you finally got the point. You have ZERO supply for 16:10 monitors. What is Expected demand if supply is zero? Exactly. ZERO!!!

I guarantee that demand will be Higher than zero if you offer modern 16:10 monitors.

IF, yes IF. If one flew over the cuckoos nest the demand would be higher too. IF.
Better the focus on reatlity. Good luck.