top of page

🧊Spiritual Ice 🧊

Public·23 members
Seraphim Yefimov
Seraphim Yefimov

1080p Vs 1440p Vs 1600p [PATCHED]



Upgrading to a 4K UHD display from 1080p or even 1440p may also take some time getting used to as even on a 32-inch screen, the 4K resolution provides you with a high pixel density making everything on your desktop tiny.




1080p Vs 1440p Vs 1600p



In October 2006, Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) announced a 47-inch 1440p LCD panel to be released in Q2 2007;[10] the panel was planned to finally debut at FPD International 2008 in a form of autostereoscopic 3D display.[11] As of the end of 2013, monitors with this resolution were becoming more common.


GeForce NOW RTX 3080 memberships deliver up to 1440p resolution at 120 frames per second on PC, 1600p and 120 FPS on Mac, and 4K HDR at 60 FPS on NVIDIA SHIELD TV, with ultra-low latency that rivals many local gaming experiences.


PC and Mac need at least 35mbps for streaming up to 1440p or 1600p at 120 FPS. SHIELD TV requires 40mbps for 4K HDR at 60 FPS. And Android requires 15mbps for 720p at 120 FPS, or 25mbps for 1080p at 120 FPS.


I was well-accustomed to my 16:10 monitors when the 16:9 aspect ratio took over the market, and while I initially thought that the 120 or 160 missing rows of pixels wouldn't be missed, I was unfortunately mistaken. Those seemingly insignificant pixels turned out to make a noticeable difference in terms of on-screen productivity real estate, and my 1080p and 1440p displays have always felt cramped as a result.


I was therefore sad to see that the relatively new ultrawide monitor market continued the trend of limited vertical resolutions. Most ultrawides feature a 21:9 aspect ratio with resolutions of 25601080 or 34401440. While this gives users extra resolution on the sides, it maintains the same limited height options of those ubiquitous 1080p and 1440p displays. The ultrawide form factor is fantastic for movies and games, but while some find them perfectly acceptable for productivity, I still felt cramped.


Thankfully, a new breed of ultrawide monitors is here to save the day. In the second half of 2017, display manufactures such as Dell, Acer, and LG launched 38-inch ultrawide monitors with a 38401600 resolution. Just like the how the early ultrawides "stretched" a 1080p or 1440p monitor, the 38-inch versions do the same for my beloved 25601600 displays.


The resolution is whatThe resolution is what matters, not the ratio. Looking at it another way, a 16:9 display is giving you extra horizontal lines vs. a 16:10 display. When I upgraded from my first 16:10 display with a resolution of 16801050 to a 1080p display, this gave me an extra 240 horizontal and 30 vertical lines.


The video test is more interesting. I ended up testing both phones at the two different display resolutions playing back 1440p and 1080p video content, for four tests on each phone. The results above are the average scores for the display resolution and both videos.


However, in a situation where 3D graphics are used regularly, reducing the resolution to 1080p results in an approximately 14.1 percent boost to battery life in our test. A further drop to 720p can save 27 percent over 1440p. By comparison, the hardware display resolution reduction to 1080p between Pixel 3 models sees a 15.4 percent power saving in this test.


On the other hand, regular video watchers and internet surfers might see less consistent battery savings by lowering their resolution in software, depending on their devices and how they use it. This is very different from moving from a 1440p to 1080p display, where improvements to battery life are highly consistent across all of the tests.


In the case of a monitor with an industry-standard Full HD 1080p resolution, this display has a resolution of 1920 x 1080. This means that the screen will have a width of 1,920 pixels while the height of the screen will be 1,080 pixels. This results in a grand total of 2,073,600 pixels on-screen.


About 4K Resolution: 4K resolution is so-named due to its horizontal pixel count, although for monitors, 4K resolution is equal to a pixel count of 3840 x 2160. 4K resolution also has 4 times more pixels than 1080p. Although the market share for 4K resolution has increased year-over-year since 2014, its adoption has thus far been limited to internet video streaming, video projection, and commercial televisions.


In total pixels, 1080p offers over twice that of 720p, therefore 1080p is sharper and clearer. Other factors aside, although both are considered to be a part of the HD standard, 1080p has been considered the industry standard for monitors for a while now. 720p resolution has already reached peak adoption and is declining in popularity.


With just over 3.6 million pixels, 1440p is just about 1.77 times smoother than 1080p. However, 1080p is the most popular monitor resolution currently on the market, while 1440p is just beginning to gain a foothold.


Although 1440p, or WQHD, has 4 times more pixels than 720p. 4K, or Ultra HD, offers 4 times that of 1080p. 4K is undergoing a much faster adoption rate than that of 1440p, with a 50%+ US market share expected by the end of the decade. Conversely, 1440p has remained within the smartphone industry for over a decade.


Therefore, if a video was recorded in 1080p but you have a 4K monitor, the highest resolution you could watch that video in would be 1080p. Conversely, if you had a 1080p monitor and your video content was shot in 4K, you would still be able to watch the video but the resolution of the video would be limited to 1080p.


Towards the end of September, it was announced that Google would shut down Stadia, its cloud gaming service. While Google was unsuccessful in its cloud gaming efforts, Nvidia has been doing pretty well, offering its GeForce Now service in some form since 2013. Nearly a decade after its initial launch, the service is advancing, offering game streaming up to 1600p at 120 frames per second (FPS) through Google Chrome. This is quite an update, considering that just a couple of months ago, the service announced the inclusion of 1440p streaming at 120 frames per second.


What makes this news even better is that Nvidia has been working with Google to provide the best experience possible on Chrome, even allowing those with the latest Chromebooks access to the best that GeForce Now has to offer. With the top-tier GeForce Now RTX 3080 membership, users will be able to stream over 1,000 games at up to 1600p at 120 FPS. Furthermore, these new Chromebooks offer a free three-month membership for the GeForce Now RTX 3080 plan.


If you're unsure about the GeForce Now service, you can always try it out. Nvidia offers a basic tier plan that costs nothing and gives you access to a basic line of service for an hour at a time. It also offers a more advanced plan for $9.99 per month that gives priority access to servers, a six-hour session length, and gaming at 1080p at up to 60 frames per second. The top-of-the-line tier, the GeForce Now RTX 3080 plan, gives subscribers the power of an RTX 3080 with an eight-hour session length, up to 1600p resolution, and gaming up to 120 frames per second.


Members on the highest subscription plan can now stream at up to 1600p and 120fps when playing games through Chrome. The same is true with several game-centric Chromebooks launched in the week - the Acer Chromebook 516 GE, Asus Chromebook Vibe CX55 Flip, and the Lenovo Ideapad Gaming Chromebook.


The first HDMI 144Hz generation was HDMI 1.3. Its data rate was more than capable of hitting high refresh rates for 1080p resolution, offering 144Hz over HDMI, as well as 240Hz if you're willing to use 4:2:0 chroma subsampling.


HDMI 2.0 144Hz options are compression-free, with full support at 1080p and 1440p with full 4:4:4 chroma subsampling. It can't quite handle 4K at 144Hz, but with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, 120Hz is just about possible. If you limit your resolution to 1080p, HDMI 2.0 also supports 240Hz refresh rates for even smoother gaming experiences and less input lag.


Running 1080p on a 4K display ends up being one fourth the native resolution. If your graphics card drivers support integer scaling, you can double the width and height and get a "sharper" picture. Intel and Nvidia (opens in new tab) now support integer scaling, though it requires an Ice Lake 10th Gen CPU for Intel (laptops), or a Turing GPU for Nvidia. Otherwise, you get the bicubic fuzziness that some people dislike.


It's perhaps better to show what this looks like while dealing with real resolutions, like 1080p scaled to 1440p and 4K, using Integer Scaling (nearest neighbor) vs. bicubic filtering. Integer scaling is a great feature for pixel art games, but it's often less important (and perhaps even undesirable) when dealing with other games and content.


Since these are Nvidia's flagship RTX gaming GPUs, I've focused primarily on how they perform playing games at 4K in this article, but I've also included some 1440p results with some added RTX 3070 figures so you can see exactly how much extra performance you're getting over Nvidia's second-tier of GPUs. I haven't included any 1080p results here because, let's be honest, you shouldn't be buying either of these cards for 1080p gaming. There are plenty of other, usually much cheaper graphics cards out there, such as the RTX 3060, that offer more than enough performance at 1080p, and I'd also recommend sticking with an RTX 3070 or AMD's Radeon RX 6700 XT for playing games at 1440p, too, as anything more is just plain old overkill. With all that in mind, then, let's take a look at some lovely bar charts.


As I said earlier, the RTX 3080 and RTX 3080 Ti aren't really intended for playing games at 2560x1440 - they're much too powerful for that - but I thought it would be interesting nonetheless to see how they stack up to Nvidia's next GPU down, the RTX 3070 (which is their big 1440p GPU).


However, the difference you're getting versus the RTX 3070 is much starker, in many cases boosting performance by around 20fps. As always, there are some games that are much closer, such as Final Fantasy XV and Assassin's Creed Valhalla, but on the whole you're getting substantially more performance at this resolution with one of the RTX 3080 cards. That might make the RTX 3080 more tempting for those with high refresh rate 1440p gaming monitors (of which there are now an increasing number of floating around these days), but if you're not so fussed about playing games on max settings, then the RTX 3070 will do you just fine.


About

Hi Icey Loves! This is our public group where we can discuss...

Members

bottom of page